IIIHorn said:

---

Whatabout Napoleon Dynamite?

---

Gosh!

Grant is playing A ball and napoleon is mlb

Pfffffftttt. Even this guy was smarter than Nappy.

Ragoo said:

---

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

Grant. I like generals who don't get captured and exiled, OK?

---

or lose

---

And yet, the Northern Newspapers labeled him as a butcher as Union casualties soared.

Grant is on the $100 bill. France doesn't even have it's own money anymore.

Aggie97 said:

---

Napoleon was a better strategist. Grant won because he had more men. Grant knew the Confederates did not have the resources to replace troops so he just overwhelmed them and took huge losses knowing he could replace his troops and Lee could not

---

That idea about Grant is roughly 60 years out of date. Grant was an outstanding strategist. The Vicksburg Campaign was a masterpiece where he was outnumbered until late in the siege and kept two enemy armies from coordinating. He ran the entire war effort in 1864 and spearheaded the capture of Atlanta, gave Sherman leave for the March to the Sea, had Thomas hold Tennessee, and then pushed Lee around until he was trapped. Had Butler and Burnside captured Petersburg as directed when it was wide open, the war would have ended months earlier.

APHIS AG said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

Grant. I like generals who don't get captured and exiled, OK?

---

or lose

---

And yet, the Northern Newspapers labeled him as a butcher as Union casualties soared.

---

He killed fewer than Napoleon and he won.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Aggie97 said:

---

Napoleon was a better strategist. Grant won because he had more men. Grant knew the Confederates did not have the resources to replace troops so he just overwhelmed them and took huge losses knowing he could replace his troops and Lee could not

---

That idea about Grant is roughly 60 years out of date. Grant was an outstanding strategist. The Vicksburg Campaign was a masterpiece where he was outnumbered until late in the siege and kept two enemy armies from coordinating. He ran the entire war effort in 1864 and spearheaded the capture of Atlanta, gave Sherman leave for the March to the Sea, had Thomas hold Tennessee, and then pushed Lee around until he was trapped. Had Butler and Burnside captured Petersburg as directed when it was wide open, the war would have ended months earlier.

---

The idea that the further we get away from events the better understanding we have is insane. In reality, as time passes new narratives, driven by modern political expediency, are inserted and disseminated through institutions.

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Aggie97 said:

---

Napoleon was a better strategist. Grant won because he had more men. Grant knew the Confederates did not have the resources to replace troops so he just overwhelmed them and took huge losses knowing he could replace his troops and Lee could not

---

That idea about Grant is roughly 60 years out of date. Grant was an outstanding strategist. The Vicksburg Campaign was a masterpiece where he was outnumbered until late in the siege and kept two enemy armies from coordinating. He ran the entire war effort in 1864 and spearheaded the capture of Atlanta, gave Sherman leave for the March to the Sea, had Thomas hold Tennessee, and then pushed Lee around until he was trapped. Had Butler and Burnside captured Petersburg as directed when it was wide open, the war would have ended months earlier.

---

The idea that the further we get away from events the better understanding we have is insane. In reality, as time passes new narratives, driven by modern political expediency, are inserted and disseminated through institutions.

---

That's an amazing statement to make given what we know about the deliberate alteration of history that happened in the Lost Cause mythology.

Anybody coulda done what Grant done except like every other officer senior to him in the whole army most of whom even got to try.

Does Grant have an entire Era of human history named after him because he is considered to be so universally respected and influential to the civilized world? Did he have entire nations fear him so much they declared war on him? Not his nation. On HIM?

Didn't think so. Checkmate atheists.

MGS said:

---

Grant is on the $100 bill. France doesn't even have it's own money anymore.

---

Uhhhh

maroon barchetta said:

---

MGS said:

---

Grant is on the $100 bill. France doesn't even have it's own money anymore.

---

Uhhhh

---

He hasn't been making it rain benjis in some time I guess..











Me either

Grant was certainly no Napoleon Bonaparte.

Green2Maroon said:

---

Grant was certainly no Napoleon Bonaparte.

---

Yeah, well, Napoleon is not on the $100 bill

Grant was still a hell of a general and had a very remarkable career all the way to becoming President. History has recorded very few people as incredible as Napoleon though.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Aggie97 said:

---

Napoleon was a better strategist. Grant won because he had more men. Grant knew the Confederates did not have the resources to replace troops so he just overwhelmed them and took huge losses knowing he could replace his troops and Lee could not

---

That idea about Grant is roughly 60 years out of date. Grant was an outstanding strategist. The Vicksburg Campaign was a masterpiece where he was outnumbered until late in the siege and kept two enemy armies from coordinating. He ran the entire war effort in 1864 and spearheaded the capture of Atlanta, gave Sherman leave for the March to the Sea, had Thomas hold Tennessee, and then pushed Lee around until he was trapped. Had Butler and Burnside captured Petersburg as directed when it was wide open, the war would have ended months earlier.

---

Vicksburg was masterful. Though he was fighting a dunce too. The rest of the Overland was standard attritional warfare. Grant's forte was not being afraid to use that strategy. IOW, be brutal. In all honesty, I think we should expect any decent general officer, whose sole aim is to win the war, to do the same and have the same results.

Napoleon would have dunked on Grant after crossing him up and breaking his ankles. Game: Blouses

JJxvi said:

---

Anybody coulda done what Grant done except like every other officer senior to him in the whole army most of whom even got to try.

---

So his Wars Above Replacement aren't very impressive?

That would have been one nasty battle. Even 80,000 Frenchmen under Napoleon against 120,000 Americans under Grant. I don't know if we could have won that.