4 ms·

Probably ASD, and military was great, but only in training and deployment to an actual war zone. Garrison was hell, all politics. Tried stripping too. War and s

by jl2718 8y ago

Probably ASD, and military was great, but only in training and deployment to an actual war zone. Garrison was hell, all politics. Tried stripping too. War and stripping are similar: de-personalizing, over-stimulating, immediate flow state rush. Normal social anxieties go away, the rules no longer apply.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
I have seen studies that suggest the best war time soldiers are probably ASD or ADHD. Unsurprisingly, great war time soldiers often suck during peace time. If you read a little history, this has long been true. I read a history piece that suggested that we only had one Civil War in the US because the General that accepted Lee's surrender at Appomattox was a chronic alcoholic and ne'er-do-well who learned compassion because of it. He was an excellent wartime soldier. He was chronically in trouble the rest of the time. He also was a callous bastard that was sending so many bodies back from the front that Lincoln was being harangued to remove him from command. He was considered to be a monster.
- fergbrain 8y ago
  Do you have links for the studies? They sound like an interesting read.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Sorry, no. It was some years ago. My recollection is that they concluded that the hypervigilance and paranoia common to such people was an asset in battle. My father spent 26.5 years in the army and fought in WW2 and Vietnam. I spent most of my life hearing "He's paranoid because he survived two wars." My mother said that a lot because, for example, she couldn't step outside the house to turn on the sprinkler without keys in her pocket because he would lock her out. After raising two special needs sons and learning a lot about such issues, one day I told my mother "You have that backwards. He isn't paranoid because he survived two wars. He survived two wars because he's paranoid."
    - sundvor 8y ago
      That's a great story, and attention to detail + safety obsession are indeed traits for someone on the spectrum.
    - wufufufu 8y ago
      He's your father, but I guess it's probably both. War makes you hyper-vigilant (PTSD) , and being more vigilant probably increases your survival chances.
- baron_x 8y ago
  It was Ulysses S Grant, also the 18th President of United States. Fun fact, they both went to West Point and Lee graduated 2nd in his class whereas Grant was an average student at best, but during the civil war, Grant was the better tactician by most accounts and was willing to take heavy losses. Grant was an alcoholic and his presidency was riddled with corruption and his reputation was damaged by the Lost Cause revisionists after his death, but compared to the other historical figures we regularly call 'great' he is a better person that most of them and I wouldn't think of him as a monster, he was an interesting and complicated chartacter. Source: https://www.amazon.com/Grant-Ron-Chernow/dp/159420487X https://www.amazon.com/Grant-Ron-Chernow/dp/159420487X
  - megaman22 8y ago
    Grant was probably a better strategist (or at least he understood his advantages and how to make use of them), but I've never seen it seriously suggested that he was a brilliant tactician. Relentless might be the best description of Grant. There's very little brilliance in the Overland Campaign of 1864; the primary thing that set Grant apart was that he continued pressing on after being bloodied, rather than scurrying back to Washington, feeding men into the meat grinder knowing that he could trade bodies for far longer than Lee could.
    - baron_x 8y ago
      I agree with the north's advantage being in numbers and resources, but I think it's more complicated than him trying to batter down Lee with it. This image of Grant throwing lives away needlessly comes from the Overland campaign in the war, and it was a complex situation with both of them probing for advantage and Grant eventually pushing him into a siege. Lee lost initiative and wasn't able to recover from that. Sherman, another Union General was able to go into the deep south after that and destroy the south's ability to fight leading to a surrender. I think strategically, he was able to out-perform Lee which no other Union general was able to do in the civil war, which was pretty different from how wars were fought up until that point. Comments on this post lays it out in much more detail. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1uabom/grant_is_often_contrasted_against_lee_as_being/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1uabom/grant...
- wufufufu 8y ago
  I'm sick of people romanticizing ASD. It's like people watched The Accountant and were like "wow this disorder makes you a super soldier". No, it doesn't.
- Amezarak 8y ago
  In his last years, Grant worked with Mark Twain to write his autobiography. It is pretty clear that Grant was anything but a "callous bastard" or a "monster", particularly relative to others in that time period. Indeed, many of his political and personal problems stemmed from being too willing to trust people, many of whom were unsavory characters. (Grant ended up being bankrupted after being defrauded of his savings and had to sell all his war memorabilia, and part of the reason he wrote his autobiography was to raise money for his family before he died.) It's a really interesting read for anyone. There's also little evidence that Grant was a drunk during the Civil War; many historians believe that was propaganda spread by the Confederates and by political rivals in the north, which was based on his problems after the Mexican-American war. The accounts of people who were actually with Grant during the Civil War don't support it.
  - ryderpro 8y ago
    I second this. Grant by Rob Chernow is an excellent audiobook. His entire life was fascinating. You’ll come away from this book with great leadership principles and a deeper understanding of US History.

by jl2718 8y ago

DoreenMichele 8y ago

I have seen studies that suggest the best war time soldiers are probably ASD or ADHD. Unsurprisingly, great war time soldiers often suck during peace time. If you read a little history, this has long been true. I read a history piece that suggested that we only had one Civil War in the US because the General that accepted Lee's surrender at Appomattox was a chronic alcoholic and ne'er-do-well who learned compassion because of it. He was an excellent wartime soldier. He was chronically in trouble the rest of the time. He also was a callous bastard that was sending so many bodies back from the front that Lincoln was being harangued to remove him from command. He was considered to be a monster.

fergbrain 8y ago
Do you have links for the studies? They sound like an interesting read.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  Sorry, no. It was some years ago. My recollection is that they concluded that the hypervigilance and paranoia common to such people was an asset in battle. My father spent 26.5 years in the army and fought in WW2 and Vietnam. I spent most of my life hearing "He's paranoid because he survived two wars." My mother said that a lot because, for example, she couldn't step outside the house to turn on the sprinkler without keys in her pocket because he would lock her out. After raising two special needs sons and learning a lot about such issues, one day I told my mother "You have that backwards. He isn't paranoid because he survived two wars. He survived two wars because he's paranoid."
  - sundvor 8y ago
    That's a great story, and attention to detail + safety obsession are indeed traits for someone on the spectrum.
  - wufufufu 8y ago
    He's your father, but I guess it's probably both. War makes you hyper-vigilant (PTSD) , and being more vigilant probably increases your survival chances.
baron_x 8y ago
It was Ulysses S Grant, also the 18th President of United States. Fun fact, they both went to West Point and Lee graduated 2nd in his class whereas Grant was an average student at best, but during the civil war, Grant was the better tactician by most accounts and was willing to take heavy losses. Grant was an alcoholic and his presidency was riddled with corruption and his reputation was damaged by the Lost Cause revisionists after his death, but compared to the other historical figures we regularly call 'great' he is a better person that most of them and I wouldn't think of him as a monster, he was an interesting and complicated chartacter. Source: https://www.amazon.com/Grant-Ron-Chernow/dp/159420487X https://www.amazon.com/Grant-Ron-Chernow/dp/159420487X
- megaman22 8y ago
  Grant was probably a better strategist (or at least he understood his advantages and how to make use of them), but I've never seen it seriously suggested that he was a brilliant tactician. Relentless might be the best description of Grant. There's very little brilliance in the Overland Campaign of 1864; the primary thing that set Grant apart was that he continued pressing on after being bloodied, rather than scurrying back to Washington, feeding men into the meat grinder knowing that he could trade bodies for far longer than Lee could.
  - baron_x 8y ago
    I agree with the north's advantage being in numbers and resources, but I think it's more complicated than him trying to batter down Lee with it. This image of Grant throwing lives away needlessly comes from the Overland campaign in the war, and it was a complex situation with both of them probing for advantage and Grant eventually pushing him into a siege. Lee lost initiative and wasn't able to recover from that. Sherman, another Union General was able to go into the deep south after that and destroy the south's ability to fight leading to a surrender. I think strategically, he was able to out-perform Lee which no other Union general was able to do in the civil war, which was pretty different from how wars were fought up until that point. Comments on this post lays it out in much more detail. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1uabom/grant_is_often_contrasted_against_lee_as_being/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1uabom/grant...
wufufufu 8y ago
I'm sick of people romanticizing ASD. It's like people watched The Accountant and were like "wow this disorder makes you a super soldier". No, it doesn't.
Amezarak 8y ago
In his last years, Grant worked with Mark Twain to write his autobiography. It is pretty clear that Grant was anything but a "callous bastard" or a "monster", particularly relative to others in that time period. Indeed, many of his political and personal problems stemmed from being too willing to trust people, many of whom were unsavory characters. (Grant ended up being bankrupted after being defrauded of his savings and had to sell all his war memorabilia, and part of the reason he wrote his autobiography was to raise money for his family before he died.) It's a really interesting read for anyone. There's also little evidence that Grant was a drunk during the Civil War; many historians believe that was propaganda spread by the Confederates and by political rivals in the north, which was based on his problems after the Mexican-American war. The accounts of people who were actually with Grant during the Civil War don't support it.
- ryderpro 8y ago
  I second this. Grant by Rob Chernow is an excellent audiobook. His entire life was fascinating. You’ll come away from this book with great leadership principles and a deeper understanding of US History.