View Poll Results: Who would Patton consider at the best for small wars or battles?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hannibal

    3 12.00%
  • Robert E Lee

    1 4.00%
  • US Grant

    2 8.00%
  • Erwin Rommel

    2 8.00%
  • Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson

    2 8.00%
  • Sun Tzu

    2 8.00%
  • Richard Lionheart I

    0 0%
  • Alexander the Great

    2 8.00%
  • Napoleon I

    0 0%
  • John Singleton Mosby

    11 44.00%
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: With Patton in mind...

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Good question...

    Cav Guy said:

    "I have wondered if the cruelty and indifference they were accused of inflicting on their soldiers was actually compassion, in the sense that they bore heavier demands and losses so the overall campaign would be shorter and thus less overall casualties for the nation?

    I can't argue the results they produced or their tactical acumen, but I have always been disturbed by their leadership methods."
    Compassion possibly, I think -- there's also perhaps the better possibility that they were minor sociopaths (my phrase for a mental condition that I believe allows better soldiers than non-sociopathic personalities or full sociopaths. It is not IMO an insult, in fact, it's a compliment) and understood that it's a harsh business and that shorter and harder campaigns actually save more lives (military and civilian plus infrastructure damage) than prolonged efforts which drag out the killing and dying.

    Something we all too often forget...

    You cannot -- or, morally, should not -- try to wage war on the cheap and couch that as a humanitarian approach to war (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one). Even in minor actions, to try to take an 'easy' approach is almost invariably sure to cause more casualties.

    I agree both were somewhat harsh in the leadership arena -- but it's hard to fault their performance in the command arena. Some times the two come into conflict. It's far harder to be a commander than it is to be a leader...

    Re: Forrest; agree he was one of the greatest if not the greatest tactical commanders, trending into the operational realm as well as did his relative peer, Daniel Morgan.

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Forrest was disliked by the southern gentlemen, and never was really given opportunity for higher commands until near the end.
    Re: Forrest; agree he was one of the greatest if not the greatest tactical commanders, trending into the operational realm as well as did his relative peer, Daniel Morgan.
    Funny: I'd bet both were probably a little rough around the edges and lacking in accepted social graces early on.

    You know, there they'd be, in a circle of gentlemen and belles - knights and their ladies fair, so to speak - standing there with a mouth full of tobacco and looking for a place to spit, or something like that.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •