4 ms·

Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors. Namely, him. Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but invading Part

Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors. Namely, him. Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but invading Parthia would be a rather different story than invading Gaul.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors. Namely, him. Well, sure, but when the question is "who's good at winning?", it's not obviously wrong to see what the victors think. Hannibal was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors, even though the victors despised him.
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  Hannibal gets more credit as a result. Note, I'm not necessarily saying Caesar was bad. He did win, as you say. But he had significant materiel and troop advantages against the Gauls and against Pompey. Maybe we should credit him more as a politician and less as a general.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  Another example is Robert E. Lee, and Ulysses S. Grant. Even though Grant was the winner, often Lee is perceived as the better general. Though I think if you ask historians now who was the better general, I think many will say Grant as he had a deeper understanding of overall strategy (including logistics, manpower, etc) which is more important than whatever tactical brilliance Lee may have had.
  - johnzim 7y ago
    I read a very interesting account of how poorly Lee in particular and the Confederacy in general prosecuted the Civil War. They misunderstood their political goals absolutely and instead of simply fighting a war of defense - holding out long enough to appear a legitimate nation in their own right, (essentially running down the clock), they fought to take and hold territory that they didn't need. Tactical brilliance is nothing without sound strategy. Montgomery vs Rommel is a good example of that too!
  - yourbandsucks 7y ago
    Politics again. Grant was a lousy president afterwards, and the south needed a hero. Thus their storylines diverge. In fact, given the political needs in ensuing decades, there's really no need for the "story" to reflect the record at all.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors. Namely, him. Well, sure, but when the question is "who's good at winning?", it's not obviously wrong to see what the victors think. Hannibal was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by the victors, even though the victors despised him.

yourbandsucks 7y ago
Hannibal gets more credit as a result. Note, I'm not necessarily saying Caesar was bad. He did win, as you say. But he had significant materiel and troop advantages against the Gauls and against Pompey. Maybe we should credit him more as a politician and less as a general.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
Another example is Robert E. Lee, and Ulysses S. Grant. Even though Grant was the winner, often Lee is perceived as the better general. Though I think if you ask historians now who was the better general, I think many will say Grant as he had a deeper understanding of overall strategy (including logistics, manpower, etc) which is more important than whatever tactical brilliance Lee may have had.
- johnzim 7y ago
  I read a very interesting account of how poorly Lee in particular and the Confederacy in general prosecuted the Civil War. They misunderstood their political goals absolutely and instead of simply fighting a war of defense - holding out long enough to appear a legitimate nation in their own right, (essentially running down the clock), they fought to take and hold territory that they didn't need. Tactical brilliance is nothing without sound strategy. Montgomery vs Rommel is a good example of that too!
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  Politics again. Grant was a lousy president afterwards, and the south needed a hero. Thus their storylines diverge. In fact, given the political needs in ensuing decades, there's really no need for the "story" to reflect the record at all.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]