Who are the great generals?

[Fuchs]

Open battle order:

There was a vivid discussion during the 1900's about open battle order tactics for a reason. It was not yet standard for line troops in battle (just as it wasn't standard at Gettysburg to advance with several metres spacing between every soldier).
The Boer Wars inspired the discussion as much as did the new technologies despite the smokeless powder innovation that made closed order + quick firing rifles at least practical in regard to visibility.
An open battle order existed for skirmishers since warfare began and was institutionalized in Velites, Peltasts and other forms of warriors thousands of years ago.
I wrote "(the version of that period)" for a reason.


Strategy and throwing resources at a problem:

Throwing resources at a problem may lead to some kind of victory, but it's not high art.
Strategy is among others about efficiency: How to do the best with given resources (maximization of effect up to the given goal).
To excel with (relatively) few resources is a high art while to come to a painful conclusion after struggling for years is not.

I can build you a home with a billion dollar, but that doesn't make me a great construction project manager and certainly doesn't help me to become a top 100 construction manager of all time. Keep in mind I might take years for what really good construction managers would achieve in months.

To answer a question: What's wrong with spending much resources for victory?
Wrong is that really great generals would have won in months, barely after the federal budget office would have noticed the war. Moltke the Elder would have advanced for a few hundred miles, encircled and annihilated an enemy field army and would have pursued/hunted for the enemy till its surrender in 1862. He would have done so by coordinating several corps from a line setup an encirclement by offering the corps enough freedom of action while coordinating on the operational level instead of failing to copy Napoleon as did Lee, Grant and others.

In other words (taking high cost for granted and pointing at the ability to stay afloat with relatively few resources):
Does anyone believe that grant would have survived the Seven Years War as Prussian leader as did Frederick the Great?

[Bob's World]

Open battle order:

There was a vivid discussion during the 1900's about open battle order tactics for a reason. It was not yet standard for line troops in battle (just as it wasn't standard at Gettysburg to advance with several metres spacing between every soldier).
The Boer Wars inspired the discussion as much as did the new technologies despite the smokeless powder innovation that made closed order + quick firing rifles at least practical in regard to visibility.
An open battle order existed for skirmishers since warfare began and was institutionalized in Velites, Peltasts and other forms of warriors thousands of years ago.
I wrote "(the version of that period)" for a reason.


Strategy and throwing resources at a problem:

Throwing resources at a problem may lead to some kind of victory, but it's not high art.
Strategy is among others about efficiency: How to do the best with given resources (maximization of effect up to the given goal).
To excel with (relatively) few resources is a high art while to come to a painful conclusion after struggling for years is not.

I can build you a home with a billion dollar, but that doesn't make me a great construction project manager and certainly doesn't help me to become a top 100 construction manager of all time. Keep in mind I might take years for what really good construction managers would achieve in months.

To answer a question: What's wrong with spending much resources for victory?
Wrong is that really great generals would have won in months, barely after the federal budget office would have noticed the war. Moltke the Elder would have advanced for a few hundred miles, encircled and annihilated an enemy field army and would have pursued/hunted for the enemy till its surrender in 1862. He would have done so by coordinating several corps from a line setup an encirclement by offering the corps enough freedom of action while coordinating on the operational level instead of failing to copy Napoleon as did Lee, Grant and others.

In other words (taking high cost for granted and pointing at the ability to stay afloat with relatively few resources):
Does anyone believe that grant would have survived the Seven Years War as Prussian leader as did Frederick the Great?

George Washington wanted nothing more (other than perhaps to be a regular in the King's Army) than to be like Frederick. His pursuit of building and fighting a regular army ala Frederick against the British nearly cost us the Revolution. We simply lacked the training, experience and resources to fight that type of warfare.

By Grant's era, strategies that drove Frederick's operations were obsolete. I suspect he may well of recgnized that had he been in Grant's shoes, but probably not. He probably would have stuck to the old strategem's like everyone else. Could Grant have gone back in time and applied the lessons he was taught at West Point on how to fight like Frederick? I see nothing to indicate why not. Any good cook can follow the directions in a recipe book. It takes a genius to create something bold and new.

[Fuchs]

You misunderstood me.
I didn't mean tactics; I meant the odds. Frederick fought against overwhelming odds and prevailed for seven years without much ground to trade.

Grant succeeded with overwhelming odds on his side and I think he didn't show anything that could convince me that he had the quality to stand a test at odds as experienced by Frederick.

[Shek]

You misunderstood me.
I didn't mean tactics; I meant the odds. Frederick fought against overwhelming odds and prevailed for seven years without much ground to trade.

Grant succeeded with overwhelming odds on his side and I think he didn't show anything that could convince me that he had the quality to stand a test at odds as experienced by Frederick.

Your comparison is a bit fallacious IMO. Grant had to fight an offensive war completely on enemy territory (and then leave forces behind to administer the occupation) to succeed, and had to do so against a Washington clock. Frederick didn't have to fight on enemy territory and didn't have conduct operations in the context of a domestic political election (which constrained potential options). Also, the scale of the fighting meant that you didn't see the near continuous fighting during the Seven Years' War vice the ACW, which also made strategic approaches different. Given two very different situations, I find it hard to make a valid comparison.

However, I've only done a cursory read on the Seven Years War, and so I'd ask you to go in the opposite direction to help me out, since maybe the two situations are more similar than I believe. Can you argue why Frederick would have been successful in Grant's shoes in the river campaigns in 1862, at Vicksburg in 1863, and finally during the Overland and Petersburg campaigns of 1864-5? Thanks.