Belichick does what the great Generals do

[Galeb]

It irritates me every time I see Grant being characterized as a "butcher" and a poor "tactician." The characterization of Grant as being a "butcher" was coined first by the media of the day, and then propagated by the "lost cause" school of disgruntled historians from the South engaging in revisionist history which literally continues to this day.

Grant was the first Northern general to commit fully to a battle (Shiloh) and throw everything he had into it, without backing down. Up to this point, the civil war had for the most part been mere skirmishing and light battles, and only after Shiloh did many realize how terrible the war was going to be. Easy to blame Grant rather than face the stark reality of how much the country was going to suffer.

Grant's Vicksburg campaign of the war is considered by military historians to be the best tactical campaign of the entire war in that Grant cut off from his own supply line, paralyzed two divisions (Pemberton and Johnston) with his feints and deceptions, and laying seige to Vicksburg, deep in enemy territory. His backdoor moves kept Johnston from joining up with Pemberton, and actually put strain on Lee's attempt to start the Gettysburg campaign (Davis had asked Lee to lend a few brigades or regiments to the Western theater; Lee refused).

Grant lost in two months of combat, the same amount of men that Lee lost in just 4 days at Chancellorsville.



Grant, as a military commander would not have answered to the government. Only when he was given command of the entire army, in 1864, did he then have to answer to the president.

BB's situation with Kraft bears zero resemblance to Grant's relationship with his superior who was in this case, Gen. Halleck, a vain man full of venom and resentment. Halleck resented Grant's skyrocketing popularity and literally was an active saboteur, shelving Grant post-Shiloh, and undermining Grant to the point where Grant had literally planned his own resignation and very fortunately for history, was talked out of it by his best friend, General Sherman.

If there is any sort of comparison between Grant and BB, it's that both of them were quite brilliant in their respective fields but their victories were characterized by anything but their brilliance (Grant only won because he was a "butcher" and Belichick only won because he had "cameras," a.k.a. "Belicheat").

I referred to a butcher's bill being paid by Grant's predecessors, and never called Grant a butcher. The number of troops involved in Shiloh wasn't even close the the numbers involved at Chancellorsville. Your putting words in my mouth and making questionable comparisons is a clear indicator that you have a lot invested into your perspective on the Civil War being right. My perspective is different and changes when I receive new information that is both pertinent and reliable.

Grant was a great strategist, not a great tactician. The two are very different things.

You should make a stronger effort to understand an analogy before attacking it. Before BB, Kraft didn't give his football people enough authority and his undermining of them caused damage. Before Grant, the Union government constantly undermined their commanding generals causing all kinds of problems. Both the Krafts and Union government learned from their mistakes which gave BB and Grant the freedom to succeed. I do like your comparison of BB and Grant's success being explained away. I hadn't considered that when I made the analogy.

 

[Off The Grid]

I'm partial to Sun Tzu's The Art of War quote that coach Belichick has often used - "Every battle is won before it's ever fought."

01 ~ Only a raging Moron would ever say something that stupid. Planning is only an Element of Battle.

02 ~ I own a Copy of The Art of War.

03 ~ That stupid-@$$ term does not appear within.

04 ~ Some Idiot ~ Michael Douglas ~ claiming that Sun Tzu said it doesn't mean you have to swallow it.

05 ~ I know that most people don't realize that Douglas & Oliver Stone were spreading Stupidity & Lies.

06 ~ But I've corrected your Error before, and you continue to spew that Sewage as if it's True.

 

[Off The Grid]

Robert E. Lee was a great General, but his style differs dramatically from what you suggest. He understood that Napoleonic tactics were made obsolete because of the increased accuracy of both artillery and firearms. He won so many battles because his men took cover and fired accurately while Union soldiers were torn apart by artillery as they marched towards the entrenched Confederates.

Bingo.

 

[Off The Grid]

Lee was a great tactician, but a terrible general.

Just what I'd expect from you!!

Lee was overrated, to be sure...But terrible???

 

[Off The Grid]

Lee was a great tactician, but a terrible general. Rather than fight a war of attrition which would have broken the spirit of the North...

You mean the War of Attrition that he did fight and lost??? Brilliant!!

 

[Off The Grid]

I have always viewed BB as our "12th man", for the many game winning strategies that he has used in key games..

His preparation for the next opponent is legendary, many times we have been made aware that after a late night game after returning to Gillette he descends into the bowels and begins reviewing film and making game plans for the next opponent..

Always thought the "Art of War" parallels a lot of his game philosophy..

Thank you for actually quoting what was actually written.

To Ozy's Credit, he has changed his Signature to words Sun Tzu actually wrote.

But I'm baffled as to why he then continues to spread the manure.

 

[Off The Grid]

Had Lee stuck to a war of attrition (sustained strategic attacks and constant harassment) instead of putting all his eggs in one basket as he did at Gettysburg, the war would have gone in a completely different direction. As it was, the Union victories at Gettysburg and then Vicksburg represented the turning point of the war and gave Lincoln a late popularity surge that won him the election of 1864.

If not for those victories, Lincoln's opponent on the ballet, McClellan (his former CinC) would have won the election for the presidency, sued for peace, and we would be looking at two countries on opposite sides of the Mason-Dixon line today.

Contrary to popular notions, the Confederates had shorter and better supply lines, and they often lived off the land, as the famous Stonewall brigade did because it moved so fast.

It's also another myth that the defense of Little Round Top (Chamberlain) was decisive as far as the battle itself. Pickett's fatal charge (of which the order was given by none other than Lee, and he himself accepted the blame, saying afterwards: "It's all my fault") was the beginning of the end, as Pickett's division and Stuart's cavalry were the last uncommitted forces of the Confederates at Gettysburg. But Meade is also to blame for not counterattacking with V and VI corp from their respective positions as that would have been a very decisive counterstroke.

I actually lost count of how many things you got backwards or just plain wrong on this brilliant Post.

I suggest you do some research, next time, before spreading your Sewage.

 

[Off The Grid]

It irritates me every time I see Grant being characterized as a "butcher" and a poor "tactician."

Galeb was quite clearly and obviously not making any reference to Grant at all.

But, hey: Thanks so much for your brilliant contribution.

 

[Off The Grid]

Belichick only won because he had "cameras," a.k.a. "Belicheat".

Yeah, that is a quote, my friends.

Patriots Psycho (Deux), Ladies & Gentlemen.

 

[Off The Grid]

Although going on the offensive ultimately proved a failure, the reason that Lee wanted to go on the offensive was precisely because he knew he'd lose a war of attrition, which he eventually did.

Beautifully put, Brother Galeb.

I liken General Lee's approach to that of Nippon's early Pacific Offense during World War II: It's easy to criticize the Tactics, but they were up against it ~ because they were lunatic enough to pick a fight with us in the first place!! ~ and it was reasonable enough to suppose that their best Chance, albeit a Long Shot, was to strike early. I certainly would've. But not with that HalfAss **** that Dixie and thence Nippon hit us with.

 

[Off The Grid]

Lee disagreed with the idea that the North's will for the war would have ended if he had stayed put. Historians are pretty divided on that idea. If the Union government kept forcing the Union generals to attack, it very well may have ended the way you, and some historians, suggest. That said, the Union government learned an expensive lesson at Chancellorsville (Terry Glen) and then adopted a policy of letting the Generals make command decisions.

Your idea about supply lines is very incomplete. Although a single Brigade on the move may be able to "live off the land", but hundreds of thousands of men in a small area simply can't, especially for months or years on end. Sure, the North's supply lines were longer and they had to change the rail widths on the tracks of all the land they coquered, but they had the manpower and resources to do it. The South lacked a standard rail width, had very limited manufacturing capability and the Union was pillaging tons of food from Southern farms.

I realize that there is a group of historians that downplay the importance of Little Round Top, but their perspective relies on two very poor assumptions; that the Confederate artillery would be ineffective because of the terrain on Little Round Top, and mistakenly thinking that that the Union army was aware, coordinated and nimble enough to retreat back to a "superior" position further back fast enough. By the time Picket's Charge happened (which would not have if the Confederates took Little Round Top), the battle was already lost.

We disagree along similar lines that historians do, and I doubt either one of us will change the others' mind.

Concur.

Seems to me that much of Conventional Wisdom buckles under Honest Scrutiny, but some Moments are actually even Greater than they're generally conceived to be: The Battle of Little Round, I believe, was a 100% raw and genuine Historical Inflection Point. It all but decided the Battle of GettysBurg.

And I agree with your other Premise. As I see it, Defeat was well nigh inevitable from the start for Dixie.

Even had they won that Battle...what then?

The further they advanced with The Army of Northern Virginia, the closer to Cataclysmic Disaster they would've trodden...Much as Nippon would've only met with Catastrophe, had they actually won the Battle of Midway, taken Hawaii, and had the Misfortune of landing Troops in California!!

They've Got Us Surrounded AGAIN...The Poor Bastards.

 

[Galeb]

Beautifully put, Brother Galeb.

I liken General Lee's approach to that of Nippon's early Pacific Offense during World War II: It's easy to criticize the Tactics, but they were up against it ~ because they were lunatic enough to pick a fight with us in the first place!! ~ and it was reasonable enough to suppose that their best Chance, albeit a Long Shot, was to strike early. I certainly would've. But not with that HalfAss **** that Dixie and thence Nippon hit us with.

I always sort of thought the North threw down the gauntlet to the South, but I totally agree with the sentiment that if you're gonna go "all in", you gotta go "ALL IN".

Most people with such a tremendous combination of passion, intellect and creativity tend to be flighty and inconsistent. Your unshakable understanding of what is important, the ability to hyperfocus at will and a profound willingness and ability at perspective taking really sets you apart. I've never seen such a combination in a person before. It is people like you that should be making the big decisions.

 

[Off The Grid]

I always sort of thought the North threw down the gauntlet to the South, but I totally agree with the sentiment that if you're gonna go "all in", you gotta go "ALL IN".

Most people with such a tremendous combination of passion, intellect and creativity tend to be flighty and inconsistent. Your unshakable understanding of what is important, the ability to hyperfocus at will and a profound willingness and ability at perspective taking really sets you apart. I've never seen such a combination in a person before. It is people like you that should be making the big decisions.

Wow. Not to get all Helen Hunt in As Good As It Gets on ya, but that's maybe the best Compliment I've ever received!! A Thousand times more so, coming from you, Brother Galeb.

A Thousand Thanks, Sir!!

 

[glm]

In case it wasn't posted yet, I've read belichick would often quote the art of war

 

[PP2]

Lee disagreed with the idea that the North's will for the war would have ended if he had stayed put. Historians are pretty divided on that idea. If the Union government kept forcing the Union generals to attack, it very well may have ended the way you, and some historians, suggest. That said, the Union government learned an expensive lesson at Chancellorsville (Terry Glen) and then adopted a policy of letting the Generals make command decisions.

Lee did not care about the larger strategic vision of the war. He only cared about the defense of his native state, Virginia, and his actions are very suggestive of this. He was notorious for refusing to lend out brigades or for attention towards other theaters.

I don't understand where you get the impression that the Union generals were attacking on behest of their government. Both of Grant's predecessors, McClellan and Halleck, as commanders of the army, were sacked for their reluctance to take the war to the enemy.

Your idea about supply lines is very incomplete. Although a single Brigade on the move may be able to "live off the land", but hundreds of thousands of men in a small area simply can't, especially for months or years on end. Sure, the North's supply lines were longer and they had to change the rail widths on the tracks of all the land they coquered, but they had the manpower and resources to do it. The South lacked a standard rail width, had very limited manufacturing capability and the Union was pillaging tons of food from Southern farms.

Lee did not have "hundreds of thousands of men." His army, the Army of North Virginia had a rough figure of around 70,000 men, give or take a few thousand. It's also been documented many times over that his men were pretty good at living off the land.

The North did not bother converting the rail system of the South, they spend their time tearing it up (Sherman, et al).

I realize that there is a group of historians that downplay the importance of Little Round Top, but their perspective relies on two very poor assumptions; that the Confederate artillery would be ineffective because of the terrain on Little Round Top, and mistakenly thinking that that the Union army was aware, coordinated and nimble enough to retreat back to a "superior" position further back fast enough. By the time Picket's Charge happened (which would not have if the Confederates took Little Round Top), the battle was already lost.

The only importance that LRT contributed to the battle of Gettysburg was the Union being able to hold off the South there. It would have ended in a stalemate if Lee hadn't forced his hand by throwing Pickett's division at them.

 

[Off The Grid]

In case it wasn't posted yet, I've read belichick would often quote the art of war

Wise men often quote Wise men, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if he does...

In which case he hopefully never quoted that idiotic Statement that does not appear therein.

Way past my BedTime. Thank you all for an highly engaging Exchange, far richer than most Conversation.

 

[unoriginal]

I disagree with the idea that "the Union government constantly undermined their commanding generals." On the operational or strategic level I have rarely come across anything the Union government did that would have undermined the success of their commanders in the field. If anything I think the Union generals were blessed with more provisions, resources, and support than their Confederate counterparts. I would instead argue that Lincoln in particular had a clearer grasp of the strategic and operational picture than many of his appointed commanders, which to me speaks more to a talent evaluation issue than meddling.

Furthermore I would say that any example of Union government meddling could be compared to a similar instance of Confederate government meddling. Both Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln effectively appointed and relieved theater commanders and made strategic "suggestions," and both were saddled with the necessity of deploying "political" generals as a quid pro quo.

Davis was fortunate in that he stumbled on his ace theater commander (Lee) due to fortuitous injury to his predecessor (Joe Johnson, making this more of a Brady/Bledsoe thing) in the most visible theater of the war (Eastern). Lincoln was fortunate in that he later stumbled on his ace theater commander (Grant) in the more crucial theater of the war (Western).

I think this viewpoint implies that Lee and Grant had the success they did because at the time they took command, their respective governments quit trying to govern them. I would instead say that in their cases their governments quit apparently "undermining" them because Lee and Grant actually did what their governments wanted effectively. Davis wanted Johnson to attack and maneuver more instead of retreating and entrenching, and that's what Lee did well. Lincoln wanted a commander that could fight an occupational campaign without needing to disrupt operational tempo to regroup, and that's what he finally got in Grant.

 

[PP2]

I referred to a butcher's bill being paid by Grant's predecessors, and never called Grant a butcher. The number of troops involved in Shiloh wasn't even close the the numbers involved at Chancellorsville. Your putting words in my mouth and making questionable comparisons is a clear indicator that you have a lot invested into your perspective on the Civil War being right. My perspective is different and changes when I receive new information that is both pertinent and reliable.

Maybe I didn't understand what you said, but who exactly is the butcher referred to, in the below statement?

I wonder if Grant would have had the political clout to do that had his predecessors not paid the butcher so handsomely.

Grant was a great strategist, not a great tactician. The two are very different things.

Again, a popular myth.

If you believe you are right, please provide me with specific examples.

Grant was in fact, a very hands on general.

His decision to storm and retake the union right at Ft. Donelson was based on his observation of what was in the knapsack of a dead Confederate, which he saw was full of food, supplies, etc. This told him that the Confederates were planning to break out and not entrench themselves (otherwise they wouldn't have packed all their belongings). Consequently he decided to storm them before they could consolidate. That is an example of great tactics.

You should make a stronger effort to understand an analogy before attacking it. Before BB, Kraft didn't give his football people enough authority and his undermining of them caused damage. Before Grant, the Union government constantly undermined their commanding generals causing all kinds of problems. Both the Krafts and Union government learned from their mistakes which gave BB and Grant the freedom to succeed. I do like your comparison of BB and Grant's success being explained away. I hadn't considered that when I made the analogy.

Lincoln's problem (and clashing) with McClellan and to a lesser extent Halleck, was their reluctance to seize initiative and take the war to the enemy instead of being dictated by Lee's movements. McClellan was forever calling for more reinforcements. Lincoln did make strategic suggestions but did not overrule.

Lincoln was hands off with Grant only because of his track record, and his big victories at Vicksburg and Chattanooga.

Kraft's decision to hand near-complete control to BB was at the time, a big gamble, because BB's track record up to that point as a HC, was 36-44.

 

[DarrylS]

It is interesting in Lee Circle in NOLA, there is a statue of Robert facing north, as in some sort of defiance of the "War of Yankee Agression"....

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

^ on the topic of New Orleans, that onside kick to open the second half was brilliant deception and key in the Saints beating the Colts in the Super Bowl.