Let's say that some famous analyst (debruk?) is able to quantify the
"power levels" of famous generals.  For example:

Napoleon's leadership has a power level of 4 million

Wellington's leadership has a power level of 1 million

Robert E Lee has a power level of 800,000

Wellington plus Blucher (power up) has a power level of 3 million (but
wins because is on defensive and has more troops)

What do you think Casear's  power level was?

On Jul 9, 11:18 am, TXZZ <superoutl...@aol.com> wrote:

Let's make that 2.5 million, shall we?

How about 2 million, plus the occasional power up from Stonewall
Jackson?

2.5 million.

Next question, please.  8{D>

On Jul 9, 11:18 am, TXZZ <superoutl...@aol.com> wrote:

On one of his better days,

no Northern general was a match for him.  as others have said  more
like 2 mill

more troops, defensive, and better intel,

Intelligence is important.

Caesar was way overrated.  Read Fuller's book on him.  He was in many
ways amateurish, and impulsive and very damn lucky, till it ran out.

Had he lived and tried that BS with Parthia, he would have met the
same fate as Crassus.

Romans of that era did not understand the proper use of cavalry, which
time after time the Parthians and others deomonstrated.

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:18:57 -0700 (PDT), TXZZ <superoutl...@aol.com>
wrote:

   'Bout 2 Million, though that's been covered.

   Nice way to bring a.f.db back to life!

--

                     - ReFlex76

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 22:29:45 -0700 (PDT), Alfred Montestruc

   That would come as news to Ulysses S. Grant.

   As good as he was, he'd only get 1.2 million, to the 2 million of
his right-hand man, William Tecumseh Sherman!  His troops would have
followed "Uncle Billy" to Hell, and in a way they did; the march to
the ocean in 1864 was incredibly daring in that it was so risky.
Disconnected from supply and communication lines, deep in enemy
territory, his troops were still able to conduct a very successful
camapaign all the way to Savannah.  Beyond the tactical gains, an
incredible morale blow to the Confederacy as a whole.  

   This would be one of reasons I give Alexander the Great 5 million.
The man used his mastery of heavy cavalry to literally conquer the
known world.   Partly for his mastery of *light* cavalry, Genghis Khan
gets 4 million.

    Hannibal:  1.2 million for nearly bringing Rome to her knees; his
inability to finish the job keeps that one from being higher.  Still,
any general who can convince his army to march across a moutain range
(the Alps here) deserves huge credit.

   George S. Patton: 1.5 million.  Great potential wasted by a temper
that severely cost him with his higher-ups.  Still, when he managed to
actually fight, he showed almost ridiculous success; didn't hurt that
he knew how to whip an army into shape, and get them to do just about
anything.

   Sun Tzu: 10 million.  I hope I don't have to explain that one.

--

                     - ReFlex76

On Jul 10, 7:02 pm, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:

No, Grant as much as admitted himself that Lee was a better general.
But Grant had the North to supply weapons and manpower which was on
the order of 3/1.

Quote Grant
"I had known General Lee in the old army, and had served with him in
the Mexican War; but did not suppose, owing to the difference in our
age and rank, that he would remember me, while I would more naturally
remember him distinctly, because he was the chief of staff of General
Scott in the Mexican War.
When I had left camp that morning I had not expected so soon the
result that was then taking place, and consequently was in rough garb.
I was without a sword, as I usually was when on horseback on the
field, and wore a soldier's blouse for a coat, with the shoulder
straps of my rank to indicate to the army who I was. When I went into
the house I found General Lee. We greeted each other, and after
shaking hands took our seats. I had my staff with me, a good portion
of whom were in the room during the whole of the interview.
What General Lee's feelings were I do not know. As he was a man of
much dignity, with an impassible face, it was impossible to say
whether he felt inwardly glad that the end had finally come, or felt
sad over the result, and was too manly to show it. Whatever his
feelings, they were entirely concealed from my observation; but my own
feelings, which had been quite jubilant on the receipt of his letter,
were sad and depressed. I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at
the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had
suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of
the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was
the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the
great mass of those who were opposed to us. "

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant

Oh please!!

Any officer who could not massacre old men and children the way he did
when he have numerical and material advantages like he did would be
stunningly incompetent.

On Jul 10, 9:58 pm, Alfred Montestruc <montest...@gmail.com> wrote:

He(and the Bummers) didn't leave a trail of bodies in their wake.

Remarkably clean, in that regard, unlike real scum, like Quantrill
and other Grey-wearing bushwhackers.

Had S acted like Q. Georgia would have really howled.

Now for best 19thC General, thats Winfield Scott, and that
was the Iron Duke's opinion, the guy who whipped Napoleon,
and a major role with ending Tipoo Sultan's reign in India,
both top notch opponents.

**
mike
**

On Jul 11, 7:40 am, mike <marat...@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_March_to_the_Sea

65,000 Union to ~ 13,000 Confederate

As to not leaving a trail of bodies in their wake, what Army on the
march in enemy territory does not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Griswoldville

 51 confederate dead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Buck_Head_Creek

~600 confederate dead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Honey_Hill

8 confederate dead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waynesboro_(Georgia)

250 confederate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_McAllister_II

71 confederate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Altamaha_Bridge

unknown confederate

That is just listed battles, and do not be obtuse and claim the
bummers killed no one, that would be absurd to think that no poor
starving farmers ever shot at any of them and were not killed in
retern fire.

Look I was not saying anything about Sherman killing civilians being
especially horrific, I was saying as a General given the odds in his
favor, what he did was no great shakes.

On Jul 12, 12:45 am, Alfred Montestruc <montest...@gmail.com> wrote:

Pint takenö but what was his OVERALL POWER LEVEL, and based on what
factors

I need this thread for mz "Dragon Ball Z guide to history" book I am
writing

DBZ guide to history? really?

On Jul 14, 9:54 am, TXZZ <superoutl...@aol.com> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._T._Sherman#Strategies

"General Sherman's record as a tactician was mixed, and his military
legacy rests primarily on his command of logistics and on his
brilliance as a strategist. The influential 20th century British
military historian and theorist Basil Liddell Hart ranked Sherman as
one of the most important strategists in the annals of war, along with
Scipio Africanus, Belisarius, Napoleon Bonaparte, T. E. Lawrence, and
Erwin Rommel. Liddell Hart credited Sherman with mastery of maneuver
warfare (also known as the "indirect approach"), as demonstrated by
his series of turning movements against Johnston during the Atlanta
Campaign. Liddell Hart also stated that study of Sherman's campaigns
had contributed significantly to his own "theory of strategy and
tactics in mechanized warfare", which had in turn influenced Heinz
Guderian's doctrine of Blitzkrieg and Rommel's use of tanks during the
Second World War.[88] Another WWII-era student of Liddell Hart's
writings about Sherman was George S. Patton, who "'spent a long
vacation studying Sherman's campaigns on the ground in Georgia and the
Carolinas, with the aid of [LH's] book,'" and later "'carried out his
[bold] plans, in super-Sherman style.'"[89]

Sherman's greatest contribution to the war, the strategy of total
warfare—endorsed by General Grant and President Lincoln—has been the
subject of much controversy. Sherman himself downplayed his role in
conducting total war, often saying that he was simply carrying out
orders as best he could in order to fulfill his part of Grant's master
plan for ending the war."

If he has a good army with numbers supply, and combat power much in
excess of his opponent, he knows how to use it effectively.

I think however on the defensive with inferior numbers and were
tactics are critical he would not be so good.

I think your "OVERALL POWER LEVEL" idea need a lot of work.

I would break it up into a lot more categories for example;

Charisma -  The ability to inspire confidence in troops especially on
the battlefield when things are dicey--
Examples of generals with very high Charisma   Robert E. Lee, Caesar,
Napoleon,Washington

Tactical Ability -  The understanding of how to employ troops in an
immediate battle to good effect, with minimal losses of your own
forces at least with troops and weapons they understand.

Examples of generals with very high abilities in this category would
be;  Robert E. Lee, Caesar, Erwin Rommel, Heinz Guderian, George
Patton

Grand Strategy -  The ability to understand the long term ways by
which the objectives of your side can be achieved with the men and
material at your disposal most especially involving strategic maneuver
of large armies not engaged in combat in such a way that when combat
is joined, the results tend to be to your sides advantage.

Sherman would be an example of  a General with high ratings on this
category.

Logistics --  How to supply your army and keep it fed, watered, well
armed, and in petrol, and how to hinder enemy logistics, and the
effects of this on strategy and tactics.

Sherman would be an example of a General with very high ratings on
this category, Caesar was an example of a general not terribly good on
this subject, he was constantly having supply problems that were his
own fault.

I do not think that Sherman was all that charismatic, and his tactical
ability was so-so, but he was good at strategy and excellent in his
understanding and knowledge of logistics, and the importance of this
to strategy.

Were I overall commander he would be a staff officer in charge of
logistics and an adviser on strategy,  not a field commander.

In article <nakf55l0s8ikc80srabjdpp5i6kebao...@4ax.com>,
Antonio E. Gonzalez  <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:

The inevitable McPherson (inevitable at least whenever I discuss the
Civil War) points out that Sherman marching from Atlanta to Savannah
was comparatively easy.  It was with the flow of rivers, in not
unreasonable weather, heading through a productive area towards a
source of supply (a port).  The subsequent campaign involved a longer
winter campaign, crossing river after river after river, driving a
road through horrible swamps of lower South Carolina.

--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: t...@panix.com