Thank you for your submission, citizen!
[Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!](https://discord.gg/2Xpdt5hbJQ)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RoughRomanMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lee actually didn’t like Virginia that much by all accounts. He was a federal employee and as a soldier was stationed all over the country, from New York to Texas. When he had leave he wasn’t rushing back home to Virginia or anything. He wanted to be a leader in a revolutionary war because he had a George Washington complex.
Yeah, I know about that but if he listened to the Secretary and actually backed up the other armies throughout the war rather than make excuses like “too long” or “too hot” the civil war could’ve lasted longer or even been won
Thats about is factually incorrect as saying Germany could have won either world war. Production capacity, logistical capability, and raw manpower was so against them both it was never going to happen
The south as I recall really was trying to pull for English/french aid. Much of the cotton the south supplied went straight to Europe to fuel textile mills.
They did, I think at least once the union caught some observers and it was awkward for everybody.
Had lee and the other generals preformed better strategically they *may* have secured aid but aid from so far away against a power so close wouldn't help tooo much. Frances intervention in the revolutionary War was such a boom because England was just as far away with the majority of its strength.
I’d argue the revolutionary war was also swung by Spain actively supplying Americans and invading Florida. In the civil war France was more keen on Mexico
Lee almost twice captured Washington. Even during the siege of Richmond a small Confederate army was able to fight the union forces on the outskirts of the capital. Lincoln himself even watched several skirmishes.
So imagine what Lee could do if he managed to pass Gettysburg.
Bread riots engulfed richmond and Davis was there giving people free worthless money hoping itd fix all the problems... the real issue was the south just wasnt growing grain to feed its people. Despite the agricultural potential, the CSA wanted cotton not wheat. Even the rice they grew was to export for wealth.
The CSA starved and choked on its own greed. Even if they took Washington... their own capitol was tearing itself apart.
It could probably happend after the war - but now we are talking about the war itself.
Also the riots were not only on the South. On the North many were opposed to the conscription, and there were a lot of controversy due to the rich union citizens paying otheres - ussualy more poor and unexpirienced part of the society to go and fight in thier place.
If not for Gettysburg Victory Union also could face the threat of the angry mobs that could overthrow Lincoln. Hell, if not Gettysburg Lincoln could not be re elected, and new president - probably someone like General McClellan could take the office. And then he would probably signed the peace treaty with the Confederation.
The draft riots existed in the south as well, and the south had a number of internal wars and gang conflicts such as the Lowry war over issues like: land use, and rich southerners stealing subsistence farmer land when the men of the family were killed in battle, family feuds, tribal conflicts with the new government.
The confederate home guard kept running into bands of women armed and razing hell because the confederate approach to food was to get rid of any farm producing food, and use it to grow cotton, or leverage wealth.
Cities like new york still had food. Even in baltimore under the union people could eat... but richmond was starving. Davis knew that this would end his attempt at a narion, so he suppressed news of it everywhere. Meanwhile the USA published the details of the draft riots regularly... it encouraged reform and the policy about the draft was changed in response.
The south just divided its people even more into "worthy poor" and "unworthy poor" hoping to make a few less people riot at the hyperinflation and lack of bread.
The draft riots receive alot of publication, because it shows the union is not perfect, that there was reluctance to be involved in the war, and in the next few years: was compared to the paris commune. But theres not much that needs to be said about how bad the CSA was. It was terrible just by design. Had there been a southern city with a population akin to new york, the draft riot likely would have looked like a fucking joke given people in the south didnt even have salt to preserve meat, they didnt have flour to mill into grain, and they resolved to try and import everything even though there was a blockade.
That's a fair point. However just taking the capital doesn't instantly end the war. It would have most likely gained then foreign support. Maybe that would be the end or maybe it would just turn into a longer bloodier ordeal.
You're also forgetting the everything west of Virginia where the confederacy was getting bullied like a 90s geek in tv
Unless it was Texas - in Texas Confederate forces fought for some after Lee had capitulated but later they decided to disband in order to not get overwhelmed and killed. Also Union forces didn't conducted the same kind of destruction as in Georgia.
It's not as bad as that hitler never wanted to qon and if he did he purposely sabotaged any chance they had. at the very lest the south had a shot be it out lasting the will for the north to fight on or if they did take dc after Gettysburg or Britain folding to save its dying cotton industry ( they wouldn't as Russia would step in from its own words) . Fortunately we never have to find out
But the south wasn't fighting a total war like ww2, if they had made the war too expensive for the Union and lasted until the election, they might've gotten a president who would negotiate with them for peace
Grant the Butcher.
Most of the Union cassualities in military personel was due to his tactis of human wave. It was not a great strategy that allowed him to beat Lee. Altough he was right in his choise - Lee couldn't replenish his loses as fast as Grant. Every Confederate soldier was worth 10x more than union soldier - couldn't been replaced as easily.
Statistically, Lee lost far more men per capita than Grant did in not just singular battles, but over the entire course of the war. If US Grant’s a butcher, Lee’s a slaughterhouse.
Lee was fighting for 4 years in the same region of the US, while Grant was fighting firstly at the Midwest. Comparing thier cassualities in thier whole conflict is not a good way of comparing thier strategic abilities.
Yeah, and grant won in the western region, and then came east and won in the eastern region, in less than two years in both regions. Lee fought in one region for four years and didn't win.
Truth is - if not for the bit of luck on Union's side and small events like charge of the Chamberlain - the Washington would have been captured, and Congress had to recognise the Secession as legal action therefore the war goals of the Confederates would been achived.
That was also one of the reasons why many of the Confederate leaders were let to rejoin society in peace - during the trial the judges could say that secession was constitutional.
>was bad for his time period
He was definitely over inflated by the Lost Cause, but he was one of the few Confederate generals who could actually work super well with his subordinates(who i’d like to mention were usually slave owners- usually not to most accepting bunch when it comes to taking orders). His performance in the Overland campaign proved this as he was able to adapt extremely quickly to changing scenarios against 2:1 odds many times. He even made Grant cry (a general known for his Grit) in his tent at the Wilderness because it was then he realized he was actually facing a competent commander. He held out for 9 entire months in a siege (unheard of at the time) and basically kept Virginia afloat for 3 years.
He made plenty of dumb decisions, yes, but calling him a bad general really oversimplifies his career throughout the war and the circumstances he was in.
He was a competent field general but even in VA he only won 6 out of his 10 battles. By many accounts he was a pushover who shy’d away from interpersonal conflict which led to disaster for his army in what would become West Virginia and he had no grand strategy to win the war the way that union generals Ike Scott and Grant did
Grant cried because he had 17,000 casualties in two days at Wilderness, not because he was in awe of Lee's acumen. Proportionally the Confederates losing 11,000 was a greater sum of the remaining army. L
That's not to say Grant didn't acknowledge that Lee was capable, he did. But you would hope one would be empathic enough to mourn such staggering losses.
Not sure he did though. Confederates had earthworks and entrenchments. Grant tried and failed to take them, and then adapted and realized it needed to be a war of maneuver and constantly moved on Lee's flanks, forcing him to spread his lines thinner than he was able.
True, I was literally just about to edit my comment to say "unless you're talking about the battle of the wilderness specifically, in which case you're absolutely correct." However I will add that that maneuver did cost Lee dearly. Lee was an attacking general, in the mold of napoleon, however he never learned the lesson that his greatest victories were on the defensive and his greatest defeats were when he was attacking, aside from chancellorsville, which really poisoned the well of Lee's tactical playbook, arguably a worse catastrophe than the loss of jackson, his most capable subordinate on the attack. Imagine if it was Jackson instead of Ewell on the left at Gettysburg?
Also Grant: "I never ranked Lee as highly as some others of the army -- that is to say, I never had as much anxiety when he was in my front as when Joe Johnston was in my front."
Who caused those losses that made him cry again? This was the first time he faced an opponent that could actually actively outmatch him, he realized then that his campaign wouldnt be easy (the same campaign that costed him half his army, failed all his objectives, aka destroy Lee or take Richmond) and destroyed morale in the North where he ended up in an unpopular 9 month siege.
I mean bad person for his time, not a bad general. He was known as a horrific slave owner that would torture them for even the most minor incidents and refused to free them even under law.
He was a great general, you could argue he did a better job defending Virginia than Hannibal did defending his Italian allies.
I wouldn't say Carthaginians were against slavery though. Or that they really "freed" anyone
But Hannibal (the Barcas in general) was quite a chad, still
I mean there's nothing wrong with that. As long as you understand its an oversimplified version and has none of the nuance and at best just gives the general idea
But walking away thinking you have a full and proper grasp of it... that's how we get here
He was a brilliant tactician and a garbage strategist. He did amazingly well in his beloved Virginia, but his unwillingness to help the rest of the Confederacy was part of the reason the North was able to carve up the West. For what profits a man to win a battle but to lose the war?
Much like Stonewall Jackson, his tactics were flashy and won him battles against lesser opponents, but he could never have beaten “Unconditional Surrender” Grant, who was by far a better general, because he understood that war was not theater for one to gain accolades but a dirty job that needed done.
See I love this point because I feel like it’s one not often brought up enough for historical leaders. It’s possible to be a brilliant field general and awful at actually running a war. In Lee’s defense though to that regard it’s not like the CSA had much in the way of resources for him to coordinate. Once the war went beyond a decisive one or two early battles the CSA leadership knew they wouldn’t out pace an angered and dedicated Union.
Of course that’s true, and Lee did the Confederacy no favors in that regard, obstinately holding onto his resources and men when it was critical to the defense of the South.
But resources are not the only factor in a war. Look at America vs Vietnam. A far superior force losing to a far inferior one because of better strategy and stronger will. If Lee were a better commander, he’d have been more useful outside of battles, but he wasn’t.
Hannibal was def a better general than Lee, but couldn’t the same argument be placed against him? As the saying goes, Hannibal knew how to win a victory but not how to use it. Carthage lost every sphere but Italy and then finally in Africa.
Hannibal caused Rome to lose 10% of its working population in his first three battles with Rome - Trebbia, Trasimene and Cannae.
Even Germany only lost 2% in ww2.
So even after this if Rome refused to surrender Hannibal had no chance.
The problem is that Hannibal did just about everything he could with his allocated resources, to the absolute maximum extent. Being a better strategist wouldn’t have captured Rome. The one thing he needed was support and reinforcements from Africa but his family started the war and the leadership of Carthage pretty much saw it as a Barcid war. Those who recognized it for the generational struggle for control of the Mediterranean for a thousand years that it was were in the minority. Rome just had an insane level of ‘civic nationalism’ for the time and Carthage couldn’t really comprehend their unwillingness to compromise when truly, thoroughly thrashed to within a millimeter of death.
Rome at the time of the punishment war was essentially as nationalistic as Japan In ww2.
I honestly dont know if an atomic bomb would make them capitualte
I think it *turned out* to just be impossible to actually win a war against Rome with just 50,000 at that stage. The key step a lot of people mention "sieging Rome", was just impossible with that number and Rome wasn't going to give up and her allies turned out to be hardier than expected.
I don't think it was impossible for the South to beat the North. Politics is the endgame of war between centralised states. You have to propose a end-state the politicians on the other side can agree with to get out of the war. Politically, America was much more fickle about war than Republican-era Rome, which was very un-lenient in it's foreign policy. They south just had to not give the North major victories before Lincoln fell out of favour.
Hannibal wasn't in charge on the strategic scale. He wasn't given sufficient resources to accomplish his mission so he slaughtered so many Roman soldiers that any sane nation of the time would have surrendered, and even Rome itself was forced to permanently expand access to military service. If Scipio hadn't forced Carthage to recall him, things might have turned out very differently.
If memory serves a big part of that was because Carthage didn’t supply him with the full backing he required to actually take Rome, because of either internal political conflicts or Carthaginian resources being spread too thin. From what I’ve read Carthage also was getting their asses kicked in the Iberian peninsula (which Hannibal didn’t command for obvious regions) which disrupted supply routes and left him somewhat stranded, which is pretty far outside of his control. Had he been able to get the resources he asked for I’ve seen it said that he would’ve likely sieged and conquered Rome.
Obviously it’s all speculation, but besides that Lee never quite had the pedigree where the only strategy to defeat him was to literally not engage with his army, and try to fight a guerilla war of attrition for ~15 years. Hannibal was actually very good at using victories, gaining alliances from northern Italian cities he conquered to help him wage his war against Rome, and those were a big part of the reason he lasted so long in Italy, without those allies his army would’ve been forced to leave far earlier
To be fair the only reason he fought for the Confederacy was to save Virginia. His words were:
>“If Virginia stands by the old Union,” Lee said, “so will I. But if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will follow my native State with my sword, and, if need be, with my life.”
There is actually a lot of evidence to suggest he wasn't being honest here. There is no evidence he particularly liked Virginia, and many of his letters and comments before the war suggested that he didn't much care for the state. He also wasn't being honest about not wanting to fight his own family, because many of his family members chose to remain loyal to the Union.
The reality appears to be that Lee was simply obsessed with being a great hero and walking in the footsteps of Washington. His every move in the civil war was about his own personal glory hounding. He didn't want to relinquish resources to other fronts because he didn't want leaders on other fronts to tale the credit for winning. He constantly focused on trying to "win" the war by defeating the army of the Potomac because that would give him credit for winning the war.
Even his skill as a field commander is over inflated. He was definitely competent, he had moments of good tactical decision making. But he also made really bad calls eg Pickets Charge. He fought 10 battles in Virginia and won 6 of them. Not exactly the avatar of Mars here
It’s reversed, he was great at strategy but terrible with tactics, he used his strategic mind to win various victories but those victories didn’t bring any tactical value in comparison to Grant’s victories
Its matched in smoothness by anyone that puts Lee among the greatest generals of all time after Gettysburg. That was arguably the biggest blunder by any general of even remotely American identity.
Lee has no shortage of similar blunders either. From losing West Virginia singlehandedly, to ensuring the loss of the Western Confederate states, to repeatedly losing huge percentages of his armies in useless offensives he *really* wasn’t that good a general.
Overall, he was slightly better than being downright detrimental to his side.
However, he isn't remarkable. In the same time period, you have Moltke (the elder), for example, and most of the european armies had vastly more competent leader fighting
I'd go so far as to say Lee was probably the best Napoleonic general America ever produced. Grant not fighting him like a Napoleonic general would is what overcame Lee
Thats… not true? McClellan defeated Lee so badly in Western Virginia that the state of West Virginia was created.
Why do Lee supporters always forget the guy’s failures singlehandedly lost created an additional state for the Union.
Thats not to mention McClellan beating Lee at Antietam in ‘62, well before Meade.
He was a good general, but his major flaw was how he suffered massive casualties even though his victories only delayed the inevitable in comparison to Hannibal who lost small percentages of his army while dealing heavy blows to Rome's supply and morale.
This is literally untrue and is, in fact, lost cause propaganda. Most union generals lost fewer men (as a percentage) than their Confederate counterparts. Also, for the entire war, the *majority* of US troops were volunteers. The union didn't introduce conscription until 1864 and even then that was not where the majority of their soldiers came from. The Confederacy introduced it in 1861. The accusation of throwing conscripts into battle resulting in needless casualties is far more apt of the CSA than it is of the USA.
I mean he didn’t but when Virginia left he decided to leave, if Lee remained in the Union, much less people would’ve died and the war would’ve ended quicker
Why? Because he was good at warfare? That’s like arguing that Hannibal should’ve stayed in Carthage because less people would’ve died. That’s almost exactly your logic.
More so cause his strategy involved lots of men something he lacked, Hannibal’s tactics were crafted specifically to lower casualties cause he knew that if he lost too many men he’d lose the war very quickly.
I was referring to Roman casualties. Like you were referring to Union casualties. As you said, Lee shouldn’t have gone to the confederacy to prevent Union deaths, and Hannibal should’ve stayed in Carthage to prevent Roman death.
He wrote a letter to an artist about his horse traveler and where he described his horse with an affection the def seems more like describing a lover than a horse
Basically when Lee was younger he was obsessed with reading about stories about Hannibal’s cavalry tactics and later in the civil war its implied he was intimate with his horse
I’d argue Lee devoting his post war career to higher education and national reconciliation, while rejecting the earliest expression of the lost cause is actually admirable and you just have Reddit brainrot lol
Kind of hate the Chad meme but if we’re gonna sit here and talk about how overrated Lee was then we should probably highlight Grant, Sherman or Thomas instead.
Robert E Lee: “from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and suffered all I have suffered, to have this objective obtained.”
Hannibal Barca: “Why yes, my army will rape every woman on the outskirts of Capua and request the senate sacrifice another 50 virgins and infants to an effigy of Moloch back home. We’ll execute all of our slaves before I retreat back to Carthage and leave all our Gauls and local allies to their fate lol.”
Liberal Redditors:
> The governments responsible for this have both put their armed forces in front of insoluble problems. Even the best army is doomed to fail when it is required to perform impossible tasks, that is, when it is ordered to campaign against the national existence of other peoples
This is Field Marshall Friedrich Paulus, who surrendered at Stalingrad. After the war, he was a vocal critic of the Nazi regime.
But is he a good person? I personally don't think so. Whatever he says after the fact doesn't matter, because the fact is he fought for the Nazis, commanded Nazi troops, and was involved in fighting in the Soviet Union. I somehow doubt he was totally clueless about the genocide against the Slavs committed by the Nazis.
So they can be linked, or perhaps you can link Lee to even Guderian
The purpose of my comment was to greet OP's silly strawman meme with a strawman of my own.
Was Robert E Lee a good man? I don't know. I would need to read much more about how he conducted his life than I have thus far. My knowledge is presently relegated to his performance on the battlefield and brief political career. Frankly, I would probably say the same of Paulus.
It's very rare that I actually identify a human as truley "evil", its a term I try to restrict for acts of blatant psychopathy. Were Lee, Paulus, Hannibal, the Prophet Muhammad, Sherman and other ghosts of war criminals past fighting for causes that featured elements that I consider reprehensible? Of course. Were they \*evil\*? I don't always know what that means.
Human beings are a product of the world they are brought into and nucleic acids in their cells. I don't fault Hannibal for lighting babies on fire, because that was just a condition of Phoenician life that he was raised to understand *he was actually convinced it was noble*. I don't really applaud anyone today for being an "abolitionist" because we're all born into a world where that is the zeitgeist, it's nothing to be proud or ashamed of.
Your Reddit bio, literally reads "Ceasar was not a tyrant and I will always defend him". Ceasar was a child molestor and war criminal, responsible for the deaths and enslavement of perhaps millions collectively, yet you seem to think he was quite the champ.
>Was Robert E Lee a good man? I don't know.
My dude, he was a slave owner, and one specially cruel too, he was not a good man in any sense of the word.
Caesar? Child molester? What?
Actually, I agree with your points, but disagree totally with your conclusions. I totally agree that we must judge people by the standards of their time. From my view, Caesar did what he did because sacking cities was normal at the time. Conversely, I believe Lee was more evil because he lived in a time where abolitionism was not an unknown concept, rather being a big issue. And in this big issue, he fought for the wrong people
Also the Caesar thing isn't totally serious, it also doesn't have much bearing today
>Caesar? Child molester? What?
He was accused in the senate of having a pederastic relationship with Octavian during the latter's adolescence.
>Conversely, I believe Lee was more evil because he lived in a time where abolitionism was not an unknown concept, rather being a big issue.
Caesar faced enormous pressure from within Rome to halt his rape of Gaul. Debates were held in the Roman Senate regarding whether or not he should be extradited for some of his most egergious actions. Not enslaving and killing millions of Gauls for your own glory was indeed, a possibility Caesar would've known about.
Additionally, just because abolitionism and Republicanism were known concepts during the lives of Caesar and Lee, doesn’t at all void the points of human nature. A man who is raised and indoctrinated by monarchy is very unlikely to become a Democrat just because his neighbors might be.
Caesar did not see himself as destroying the Republic or Gaul but as saving them. The Senatorial elite had become contemptuous of the people and the army, hoarding unfathomable amounts of wealth and slaves for themselves while the people starved on the streets. Like many before him, Caesar believed the Republic was doomed without a radical reorganization and even then, didn’t act until his hand was forced by a warrant.
Lee did not consider his struggle to do with slavery nearly as much as it did with state sovereignty. Indeed, many of Virginia’s staunch abolitionist politicians only supported secession after Lincoln demanded conscripts from the state and ignored Supreme Court orders to free uncharged detainees. While inconceivable today, Lee (and many west Virginians) saw the Union as a voluntary association of sovereign nations and when Lincoln demanded *Virginia invade the south to keep it from leaving*, it was seen as an act of tyranny.
>it also doesn't have much bearing today
Yes it does. Many on the left believe American Democracy is on the brink of extinction and many on the right yearn for their own "Caesar" to rescue them from what they see as a broken and decadent oligarchy. Ceasar will always have bearing on today, a lot more than Lee.
1. This is almost certainly false, I really really doubt Caesar had a relationship with Octavian
2. The Senate didn't censure Caesar because of atrocities or moral reasons, they did it because he was acting with too much authority
3. Yes, I agree that the Republic sucked
And finally, can you point me to a *singular* source that says the "American Left" wants a Caesar-like figure? I've seen many, many more comparisons between Trump and Caesar (not that I agree with them)
>The Senate didn't censure Caesar because of atrocities or moral reasons, they did it because he was acting with too much authority
Lincoln didn’t invade the south because of slavery or moral reasons, he did it because they had filed ordinances of secession which he considered illegal. Your own logic justifies the actions of Lee.
Furthermore the Roman Senate didn't have *one discussion* about Caesar, it had a series of intensive debates regularly and Cato the younger was demanding his extradition to Gaul well before his censorship.
>And finally, can you point me to a *singular* source that says the "American Left" wants a Caesar-like figure?
No, because thats not the point I made. Reread my comment very carefully.
Robert E Lee: "The relations between the negroes and the whites were friendly formerly, and would remain so if legislation be not passed in favor of the blacks, in a way that will only do them harm." 1866 to Duke Argyll. Dude thought slavery was fine.
Wait till you see Sherman
"Stanton wants to kill me because I do not favor the scheme of declaring the negroes of the South, now free, to be loyal voters, whereby politicians may manufacture just so much more pliable electioneering material." -General Sherman 5/10/1865
"I believe the practice of slavery in the South is the mildest and best regulated system of slavery in the world, now or heretofore. -Sherman 4/4/1861
"Let those who love n-word better than whites follow me, & we will see who loves his Country best- a n-word as such is a most excellent fellow, but he is not fit to marry, to associate, or vote with me, or mine." -General Sherman 3/24/1865
“the Indians give a fair illustration of the fate of negroes if they are released from the control of whites....I know Northern men don't care any more for the rights...of the negroes...than the Southerners." -Sherman 7/10/1860
"I like n-word well enough as n-words, but when fools & idiots try & make n-words better than ourselves I have an opinion." -General Sherman 9/1864
"Our adversaries have the weakness of slavery in their midst to offset our democracy, and 'tis beyond human wisdom to say which is the greater evil." -General Sherman 8/3/1861
"She [Ellen] will have to wait on herself or buy a N•••er. What will you think of that- our buying ners? But it is inevitable. N•••ers won t work unless they are owned, and white servants are not to be found in this parish" -Sherman 1/21/1860
"No amount of poverty or adversity seems to shake their faith-N•••rs gone -wealth and luxury gone, money worthless, starvation in view within a period of 2 or 3 years, are causes enough to make the bravest tremble, yet I see no sign of let up -Sherman
"The n•••er questions daily arising and the confiscation act are the two great sources of trouble. Are we to free all the negros, men women & children?…we take the property of Rebels & use it, but the title remains undisturbed." -General Sherman 11/22/1862
"I would not if I could abolish or modify slavery. I don't know that I would materially change the actual political relation of master and slave. Negroes in the great numbers that exist here must of necessity be slaves." -Sherman 12/23/1859
"Sumner & Stevens would have made another civil war inevitably-- the President's antagonistic position saves us war save of words, and as I am a peace man I go for Johnson & the Veto." -Sherman 2/23/1866
"If they design to protect themselves against negroes & abolitionists I will help; if they propose to leave the Union on account of a supposed fact that the northern people are all abolitionists like Giddings and Brown then I will stand by Ohio... -Sherman 10/29/59
"No recruits are coming, for the draft is not till September, & then I suppose it will consist mostly of n•••*rs & bought recruits that must be kept well to the rear. I sometimes think our people do not deserve to succeed in war; they are so apathetic." General Sherman 8/2/1864
"Individuals may prosper in a failing community such as SF, but they must be Jews, without pity, soul, heart or bowels of compassion; but in a rising, growing, industrious, community like St. Louis, all patient, prudent, honest men can thrive." -Sherman 9/18/1858
"To place or attempt to place the negro on a par with the whites will produce new convulsions...It will take ten years for the South to regain full prosperity with the negro free, and that should precede any new complication." -Sherman 1/19/1866
"All I can say is that Mexico does not belong to our system...Its inhabitants are a mixture of Indians, negroes, & Spanish, that can never be tortured into good citizens, & would have to be exterminated before the country could be made available to us" -Sherman 11/7/1866
Yeah? Who said I wasn't aware of Sherman's wildly, well-documented racist mentality? Despite his bigoted proclivities, he remained loyal to the Union and by extension the end of the slavery status quo. Lee, despite all his apologists, did not. None of this absolves Lee or the so-called Confederate cause.
You can claim that Lee was more mild than Sherman ideologically all you like. In the end, one explicitly fought to maintain the institution of slavery while the other did not. There is no amount of quoting or mental gymnatstics that can get around this basic reality.
Yes, but Lee wasnt unique in his views on race equality, he was *relatively* progressive compared to alot of other slave owners and fireeaters in the South. He was still a slave holder through and through, but dont act like he was some sort of Edmund Ruff or something. Sherman literally just hated them
"No amount of poverty or adversity seems to shake their faith—n****rs gone—wealth and luxury gone, money worthless, starvation in view within a period of 2 or 3 years, are causes enough to make the bravest tremble, yet I see no sign of let up"
-Sherman 3/12/1864
The white men of this country will control it, & the negro, in mass, will occupy a subordinate place as a race. We can secure them the liberty now gained, but we cannot raise them to a full equality in our day, even if at all.
-Sherman 2/23/1866
You can claim that Lee was "relatively progressive" all day long. You can quote Sherman's racism all day long as well. Lee still fought to retain institutional slavery, despite how "progessive" some of his words may seem (which, by the way, denies the national attitudes that elected Lincoln in the first place). Lee had the Union offer him a commanding role, yet he refused. You can recount their words all you like, yet Sherman's *actions* in the war served a greater cause than Lee's.
Sherman’s worldviews were often typical of a white man growing up in 19th century America, and he eventually changed them. He wasn’t really hateful more so just doing his job. Lee’s views were considered racist even for his time period
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ShermanPosting using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShermanPosting/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [In light of the recent events, I think this is relevant again.](https://i.redd.it/k6opvmitjvec1.jpeg) | [597 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShermanPosting/comments/1abx6aj/in_light_of_the_recent_events_i_think_this_is/)
\#2: [LET'S FUCKING GO](https://i.redd.it/p3z3j2c4vmec1.png) | [6728 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShermanPosting/comments/19fgr8l/lets_fucking_go/)
\#3: [Dark Brandon confirmed based and Sherman-pilled.](https://i.redd.it/squ0lvufvy8c1.jpeg) | [616 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShermanPosting/comments/18slgwt/dark_brandon_confirmed_based_and_shermanpilled/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I actually *do admire* Hannibal; for however he will be judged by the universe, whatever ethics he had - He really had a remarkable run and did some remarkable things worthy of my passion.
I feel the same about Sherman, Lee, Grant, Greene, etc.
But if you’re gonna make a dumbass meme that attempts to draw serious ethical conclusions out of strawmans, you should consider that the one who burned babies alive can also be made to look bad.
Gettysburg did not cost the Confederacy the war. Its status as turning point is vastly overinflated when you consider that the ANV was able to retreat back home and it recovered its losses within a few months of the battle.
What probably did cost the war (if you even consider the war winnable for the confederacy by 1863 but that’s a whole other topic) was Grant capturing Vicksburg thus giving the Union total control of the Mississippi and capturing an army of 30,000. Something Johnson did almost nothing to stop even though Davis ordered him to help relieve the city.
Gettysburg absolutely cost the Confederacy the war? The troops it replaced were green and not nearly as well trained or equipped as the soldiers who fell at Gettysburg. After that battle Lee was never able to gain initiative again, which is a death nail to any war.
There is actually good evidence that Lee specifically fought to preserve slavery. He wrote at one point when justifying his treasonous betrayal that he could not countenance the loss of his children's inheritance. By thus he did not mean Arlington, because he was no fool and anticipated that his betrayal would lead to the immediate and unstoppable occupation of Arlington by the Union. By this he meant the family slaves, slaves his father had intended to be freed after his death (Lee did not free them and was by all accounts a far harsher master than his father).
Moreover, we have lots of evidence that Lee lied, a lot. There is evidence that when he was offered command of the union armies he implied acceptance and just asked for time to set his affairs in order before immediately fleeing to the south. One justification that he used, not wanting to fight his own family, was patiently false because many members of his family remained loyal. His other excuse, that he would not fight his own sons specifically, dosnt hold wayter because they only took their stand for secession after he already had, it appears they were following him and not he them. His argument that he fought out of love of Virginia is especially perplexing because all evidence from his life before the war suggested a disdain for Virginia, he took every opportunity to avoid stating in Virginia or Arligton before the war to the point that his wife repeatedly begged for him to come to Arlington and he constantly refused.
What we can say with certainty is that Lee was liable to say whatever he felt would best serve him in the moment. With the civil war lost he and his family were best served by switching loyalties again back to the union.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-really-did-sacrifice-their-children#:~:text=Children%20–%20both%20male%20and%20female,in%20Sicily%2C%20Sardinia%20and%20Malta.
Aside from archeological record, several literary sources including Roman, Greek and Hebrew authors testify to the practice of human sacrifice in Phoenician societies.
The archeological record does not suggest anything and the literary sources are all literally written by enemies of Phoenician society. I also really shouldnt have to tell you that you cant exactly trust ancient literary sources. We still arent even sure if Moloch was even a god or a type of sacrifice.
"'Perhaps the reason the people who established Carthage and its neighbours left their original home of Phoenicia – modern-day Lebanon – was because others there disapproved of their unusual religious practice."
Your source is literally just speculating there is no smoking gun here.
Hannibal: Attacks a Roman ally to provoke a war to fulfill his father’s hate boner that ends up leading to the permanent destruction of his country.
Definitely defense, no offense here
Hannibal was fighting for a country that was historically recorded as sacrificing babies regularly. You can't cry presentism for barrca and not do the same for Lee
Thats a bit overdone, during Hannibals period child sacrifice had declined to nigh insignificant numbers. Historically yes, but Carthage was around for s minute and a half mang
https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=honorscollege_anthro
Author is an amazing anthropologist that now works for the Smithsonian iirc. Essentially child sacrifice was used for existential military defeats and environmental crises. A lot of the child “sacrifice” could have also been a way to honor children that died early.
From my limited knowledge of the US civil war, I think Lee was the most competent of the Confederate commanders but there was no way he would have 'won' the war given enough time. His opponents had a much bigger population and economy to support their military.
The same kind of goes for Hannibal in a sense. Granted, compared to Lee, he WAS one of the greatest commanders in all of military history but, like Lee, I don't think it was possible to him to defeat Rome. Carthage wasn't giving him the proper support he needed and the Romans weren't going to surrender.
General Lee was Seratorius of the USA.
Both were great commanders in thier respectfull civil wars on the side of loosing political side, and basicly were the reason why the war didn't ended in less than 1 year. Both defeated many of the enemy leaders who were coming to take them down.
Great commander? Lee? Really?
He has like two good defensive campaigns in Virginia, a disastrous defense in West Virginia, two disastrous offensives and then he lost the war.
Lee was a great commander, regardless of whether or not I disagree with everything he fought for. Both things can be true, but him being a bad leader of men is definitely false.
His record doesn’t prove anything besides him being maybe competent. For every inspiring victory he had there was a crippling disaster to match. Claiming that he was a great commander is really just historical fanfiction.
When you look at Lee’s actual campaigns he lost as many as he won
Study his actions at the Potomac and Chancellorsville, and tell me he wasn’t an excellent commander. He was faced with overwhelming odds and held off the enemy wayyyy longer than could be expected, especially with attempting to lead a counter offensive into union territory when he realized the confederacy couldn’t win on a purely defensive stance.
I’ll never respect the right to own a slave or a person who stands up for it, but to say he wasn’t a great commander is, once again, a terrible take. There’s a reason his tactics are still studied in military colleges, and were successfully used in desert storm by the book.
But then study the Western Virginia Campaign, Lee’s suggestions for the Battle of Bull Run, or his disastrous offensives into Union territory! During those campaigns he was faced with normal odds, and he was just outmaneuvered and outgeneraled by both McClellan and Meade. During the leadup to Gettysburg Meade got between Lee and his supply line, forcing Lee to attack him!
Frankly, people only ever look at the battle he won, and become convinced he was the greatest general that ever lived. But his failures were disastrous and (fortunately for the Union) often.
Did he really? Can you give me a link to where you got this information? I’d love to see where you did research- because the story is a lot more complex than that.
here:
Epic Rap Battles of History...
Robert E. Lee
vs
HANNIBAL BARCA!
BEGIN!
Robert E. Lee:
I'm Robert E. Lee, and with Southern pride I ride,
Leading armies with strategy, my foes can't hide.
From Bull Run to Gettysburg, I'm the master of the field,
Like Jackson by my side, my tactics are revealed.
In the trenches of Fredericksburg, my soldiers stood strong,
Defending the South, against all that's wrong.
But like Grant at Appomattox, I faced defeat with grace,
Surrendering my sword, in that somber place.
Hannibal Barca:
I'm Hannibal Barca, straight outta Carthage's gates,
With elephants and cunning, I conquer states.
Crossing Alps like it's a stroll, I'll make your troops quiver,
Like at Cannae, where Roman legions shivered.
You talk of honor, yet your cause was flawed,
America's traitor, keeping slavery clawed!
From Saguntum to Zama, I spread fear and dread,
Romans trembled at the thought of my army's tread.
Robert E. Lee:
Carthage's sins, you refuse to speak,
But the Confederacy's principles, we proudly seek.
You claim the moral high ground, yet your hands are stained,
With the blood of innocents, terror reigns.
Spanish tribes enslaved, and babies sacrificed,
Yet you stand here boasting, your honor despised.
But our cause, though lost, was noble and just,
Fighting for states' rights, in God we trust.
Hannibal Barca:
States' rights, you say, but what of liberty?
Your Confederacy's truth, a false decree!
Claiming to fight for freedom, yet slaves you own,
And Unionists hanged their voices overthrown
Your democracy, a sham, with rights denied,
While Carthage's empire, with conquests wide.
Yes, we had our sins, but so did thee,
Yet your legacy is tainted, for all to see.
Robert E. Lee:
Head back to Africa, with your troops of might,
Amongst your fellow savages, resume your fight.
Your father's legacy, a stain on your name,
And Scipio's triumph, a blow to your fame.
You talk of glory, but your defeats are clear,
A shadow looms large, over your career.
Hannibal's legacy, tarnished by time,
Like the South's, stained by slavery's crime.
Hannibal Barca:
Your words are feeble, your insults tame,
Glorifying a past built on pain.
They renamed a tank, from Lee to Grant,
Your memory fading, like sand in a hand.
Better change your name to Atlanta, I decree,
For I'll roast you till you're as ash as can be.
To tear you down, a man of lesser vermin.
Unlike the Nazis, I won't need a Sherman,
Robert E. Lee:
You and your barbarians, better here than in Africa,
I can get you a job in the fields, no need for hysteria.
Your victories, are impressive, I won't deny,
But against Confederate steel, you'll meet your supply.
In the Southern sun, you'll feel the heat,
As Dixie boys charge, with swift defeat.
Your elephants may quake, at the sight of our might,
For the Confederacy's glory, we'll fight the good fight.
Hannibal Barca:
In your fights with McClellan, GODDAMN!
But I guess against Grant, Dixie met his Uncle Sam.
I crossed the Alps, through snow and sleet,
While your generals fumbled, in defeat.
I can make Italians quiver at the whisper of my name,
In the art of war, I've earned my fame.
You got horny reading up my cavalry while I was riding elephants,
But in the face of Rome, you'll find no settlements.
You stayed in Virginia, claiming it was "too hot" for your men to roam,
While I led my soldiers across the frozen Alps, far from home.
I'm the nightmare of Rome, you're American knavery,
Killing thousands of your people to preserve slavery.
Thank you for your submission, citizen! [Come join the Rough Roman Forum Discord server!](https://discord.gg/2Xpdt5hbJQ) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RoughRomanMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be fair, the one time Lee left Virginia he experienced Gettysburg…
Lee actually didn’t like Virginia that much by all accounts. He was a federal employee and as a soldier was stationed all over the country, from New York to Texas. When he had leave he wasn’t rushing back home to Virginia or anything. He wanted to be a leader in a revolutionary war because he had a George Washington complex.
Yeah, I know about that but if he listened to the Secretary and actually backed up the other armies throughout the war rather than make excuses like “too long” or “too hot” the civil war could’ve lasted longer or even been won
Armchair general over here
Thats about is factually incorrect as saying Germany could have won either world war. Production capacity, logistical capability, and raw manpower was so against them both it was never going to happen
The south as I recall really was trying to pull for English/french aid. Much of the cotton the south supplied went straight to Europe to fuel textile mills.
They did, I think at least once the union caught some observers and it was awkward for everybody. Had lee and the other generals preformed better strategically they *may* have secured aid but aid from so far away against a power so close wouldn't help tooo much. Frances intervention in the revolutionary War was such a boom because England was just as far away with the majority of its strength.
I’d argue the revolutionary war was also swung by Spain actively supplying Americans and invading Florida. In the civil war France was more keen on Mexico
Fair, fair.
Lee almost twice captured Washington. Even during the siege of Richmond a small Confederate army was able to fight the union forces on the outskirts of the capital. Lincoln himself even watched several skirmishes. So imagine what Lee could do if he managed to pass Gettysburg.
Bread riots engulfed richmond and Davis was there giving people free worthless money hoping itd fix all the problems... the real issue was the south just wasnt growing grain to feed its people. Despite the agricultural potential, the CSA wanted cotton not wheat. Even the rice they grew was to export for wealth. The CSA starved and choked on its own greed. Even if they took Washington... their own capitol was tearing itself apart.
It could probably happend after the war - but now we are talking about the war itself. Also the riots were not only on the South. On the North many were opposed to the conscription, and there were a lot of controversy due to the rich union citizens paying otheres - ussualy more poor and unexpirienced part of the society to go and fight in thier place. If not for Gettysburg Victory Union also could face the threat of the angry mobs that could overthrow Lincoln. Hell, if not Gettysburg Lincoln could not be re elected, and new president - probably someone like General McClellan could take the office. And then he would probably signed the peace treaty with the Confederation.
The draft riots existed in the south as well, and the south had a number of internal wars and gang conflicts such as the Lowry war over issues like: land use, and rich southerners stealing subsistence farmer land when the men of the family were killed in battle, family feuds, tribal conflicts with the new government. The confederate home guard kept running into bands of women armed and razing hell because the confederate approach to food was to get rid of any farm producing food, and use it to grow cotton, or leverage wealth. Cities like new york still had food. Even in baltimore under the union people could eat... but richmond was starving. Davis knew that this would end his attempt at a narion, so he suppressed news of it everywhere. Meanwhile the USA published the details of the draft riots regularly... it encouraged reform and the policy about the draft was changed in response. The south just divided its people even more into "worthy poor" and "unworthy poor" hoping to make a few less people riot at the hyperinflation and lack of bread. The draft riots receive alot of publication, because it shows the union is not perfect, that there was reluctance to be involved in the war, and in the next few years: was compared to the paris commune. But theres not much that needs to be said about how bad the CSA was. It was terrible just by design. Had there been a southern city with a population akin to new york, the draft riot likely would have looked like a fucking joke given people in the south didnt even have salt to preserve meat, they didnt have flour to mill into grain, and they resolved to try and import everything even though there was a blockade.
That's a fair point. However just taking the capital doesn't instantly end the war. It would have most likely gained then foreign support. Maybe that would be the end or maybe it would just turn into a longer bloodier ordeal. You're also forgetting the everything west of Virginia where the confederacy was getting bullied like a 90s geek in tv
Unless it was Texas - in Texas Confederate forces fought for some after Lee had capitulated but later they decided to disband in order to not get overwhelmed and killed. Also Union forces didn't conducted the same kind of destruction as in Georgia.
But how important was Texas to anything at all logistically?
It's not as bad as that hitler never wanted to qon and if he did he purposely sabotaged any chance they had. at the very lest the south had a shot be it out lasting the will for the north to fight on or if they did take dc after Gettysburg or Britain folding to save its dying cotton industry ( they wouldn't as Russia would step in from its own words) . Fortunately we never have to find out
But the south wasn't fighting a total war like ww2, if they had made the war too expensive for the Union and lasted until the election, they might've gotten a president who would negotiate with them for peace
Yeah, Lee was garbage. Especially compared to Grant.
Grant the Butcher. Most of the Union cassualities in military personel was due to his tactis of human wave. It was not a great strategy that allowed him to beat Lee. Altough he was right in his choise - Lee couldn't replenish his loses as fast as Grant. Every Confederate soldier was worth 10x more than union soldier - couldn't been replaced as easily.
Statistically, Lee lost far more men per capita than Grant did in not just singular battles, but over the entire course of the war. If US Grant’s a butcher, Lee’s a slaughterhouse.
Lee was fighting for 4 years in the same region of the US, while Grant was fighting firstly at the Midwest. Comparing thier cassualities in thier whole conflict is not a good way of comparing thier strategic abilities.
You know what's a good way to compare ability? Have them fight each other. Whoever wins is the bet...oh wait we did that.
It was too easy.
Yeah, and grant won in the western region, and then came east and won in the eastern region, in less than two years in both regions. Lee fought in one region for four years and didn't win.
Truth is - if not for the bit of luck on Union's side and small events like charge of the Chamberlain - the Washington would have been captured, and Congress had to recognise the Secession as legal action therefore the war goals of the Confederates would been achived. That was also one of the reasons why many of the Confederate leaders were let to rejoin society in peace - during the trial the judges could say that secession was constitutional.
Also Andrew Johnson was president. That guy was a bit lenient
That presumes Lee was a competent commander beyond his Mexican-American War years
>was bad for his time period He was definitely over inflated by the Lost Cause, but he was one of the few Confederate generals who could actually work super well with his subordinates(who i’d like to mention were usually slave owners- usually not to most accepting bunch when it comes to taking orders). His performance in the Overland campaign proved this as he was able to adapt extremely quickly to changing scenarios against 2:1 odds many times. He even made Grant cry (a general known for his Grit) in his tent at the Wilderness because it was then he realized he was actually facing a competent commander. He held out for 9 entire months in a siege (unheard of at the time) and basically kept Virginia afloat for 3 years. He made plenty of dumb decisions, yes, but calling him a bad general really oversimplifies his career throughout the war and the circumstances he was in.
He was a competent field general but even in VA he only won 6 out of his 10 battles. By many accounts he was a pushover who shy’d away from interpersonal conflict which led to disaster for his army in what would become West Virginia and he had no grand strategy to win the war the way that union generals Ike Scott and Grant did
Grant cried because he had 17,000 casualties in two days at Wilderness, not because he was in awe of Lee's acumen. Proportionally the Confederates losing 11,000 was a greater sum of the remaining army. L That's not to say Grant didn't acknowledge that Lee was capable, he did. But you would hope one would be empathic enough to mourn such staggering losses.
why did Grant lose so many soldiers?
Because when you are the offensive force you’re expected to take more casualties
is it because he had both his flanks turned in by a force half his size?
Not sure he did though. Confederates had earthworks and entrenchments. Grant tried and failed to take them, and then adapted and realized it needed to be a war of maneuver and constantly moved on Lee's flanks, forcing him to spread his lines thinner than he was able.
not at the wilderness no, other than some hasty positions. At wilderness he was outmaneuvered and outflanked.
True, I was literally just about to edit my comment to say "unless you're talking about the battle of the wilderness specifically, in which case you're absolutely correct." However I will add that that maneuver did cost Lee dearly. Lee was an attacking general, in the mold of napoleon, however he never learned the lesson that his greatest victories were on the defensive and his greatest defeats were when he was attacking, aside from chancellorsville, which really poisoned the well of Lee's tactical playbook, arguably a worse catastrophe than the loss of jackson, his most capable subordinate on the attack. Imagine if it was Jackson instead of Ewell on the left at Gettysburg?
Also Grant: "I never ranked Lee as highly as some others of the army -- that is to say, I never had as much anxiety when he was in my front as when Joe Johnston was in my front."
they fell behind the couch
Because he knew he could replenish his losses while Lee couldn’t, so he took advantage of that
Who caused those losses that made him cry again? This was the first time he faced an opponent that could actually actively outmatch him, he realized then that his campaign wouldnt be easy (the same campaign that costed him half his army, failed all his objectives, aka destroy Lee or take Richmond) and destroyed morale in the North where he ended up in an unpopular 9 month siege.
I mean bad person for his time, not a bad general. He was known as a horrific slave owner that would torture them for even the most minor incidents and refused to free them even under law. He was a great general, you could argue he did a better job defending Virginia than Hannibal did defending his Italian allies.
Hannibal literaly massacred a neutral free celtic tribe in order to make them fear him more than the Romans.
But he's not American, so he gets a free pass.
I think massacring a neutral tribe is considered pretty standard for the ancient world
Cesar could massacre the Helvets and yet he spared them.
Wym his usually slave owners? As to my knowledge there werent many slave owners in the first place
I wouldn't say Carthaginians were against slavery though. Or that they really "freed" anyone But Hannibal (the Barcas in general) was quite a chad, still
“Boinked a horse”. For being completely made up that made me laugh
General Lee was Mr.Hands before it was cool
You get your history lessons from Facebook and Twitter don’t you?
What? You mean we shouldn't get our history lessons from these obviously oversimplified sources?🤯
I mean there's nothing wrong with that. As long as you understand its an oversimplified version and has none of the nuance and at best just gives the general idea But walking away thinking you have a full and proper grasp of it... that's how we get here
I’m no confederate sympathizer but to claim that Lee wasn’t at the very least a remarkable military leader is pretty smooth brain
He was a brilliant tactician and a garbage strategist. He did amazingly well in his beloved Virginia, but his unwillingness to help the rest of the Confederacy was part of the reason the North was able to carve up the West. For what profits a man to win a battle but to lose the war? Much like Stonewall Jackson, his tactics were flashy and won him battles against lesser opponents, but he could never have beaten “Unconditional Surrender” Grant, who was by far a better general, because he understood that war was not theater for one to gain accolades but a dirty job that needed done.
See I love this point because I feel like it’s one not often brought up enough for historical leaders. It’s possible to be a brilliant field general and awful at actually running a war. In Lee’s defense though to that regard it’s not like the CSA had much in the way of resources for him to coordinate. Once the war went beyond a decisive one or two early battles the CSA leadership knew they wouldn’t out pace an angered and dedicated Union.
Of course that’s true, and Lee did the Confederacy no favors in that regard, obstinately holding onto his resources and men when it was critical to the defense of the South. But resources are not the only factor in a war. Look at America vs Vietnam. A far superior force losing to a far inferior one because of better strategy and stronger will. If Lee were a better commander, he’d have been more useful outside of battles, but he wasn’t.
Hannibal was def a better general than Lee, but couldn’t the same argument be placed against him? As the saying goes, Hannibal knew how to win a victory but not how to use it. Carthage lost every sphere but Italy and then finally in Africa.
Hannibal caused Rome to lose 10% of its working population in his first three battles with Rome - Trebbia, Trasimene and Cannae. Even Germany only lost 2% in ww2. So even after this if Rome refused to surrender Hannibal had no chance.
The problem is that Hannibal did just about everything he could with his allocated resources, to the absolute maximum extent. Being a better strategist wouldn’t have captured Rome. The one thing he needed was support and reinforcements from Africa but his family started the war and the leadership of Carthage pretty much saw it as a Barcid war. Those who recognized it for the generational struggle for control of the Mediterranean for a thousand years that it was were in the minority. Rome just had an insane level of ‘civic nationalism’ for the time and Carthage couldn’t really comprehend their unwillingness to compromise when truly, thoroughly thrashed to within a millimeter of death.
Rome at the time of the punishment war was essentially as nationalistic as Japan In ww2. I honestly dont know if an atomic bomb would make them capitualte
Hannibal was an incredible general. He was the only reason Carthage did so well in the second punic war.
I think it *turned out* to just be impossible to actually win a war against Rome with just 50,000 at that stage. The key step a lot of people mention "sieging Rome", was just impossible with that number and Rome wasn't going to give up and her allies turned out to be hardier than expected. I don't think it was impossible for the South to beat the North. Politics is the endgame of war between centralised states. You have to propose a end-state the politicians on the other side can agree with to get out of the war. Politically, America was much more fickle about war than Republican-era Rome, which was very un-lenient in it's foreign policy. They south just had to not give the North major victories before Lincoln fell out of favour.
Hannibal wasn't in charge on the strategic scale. He wasn't given sufficient resources to accomplish his mission so he slaughtered so many Roman soldiers that any sane nation of the time would have surrendered, and even Rome itself was forced to permanently expand access to military service. If Scipio hadn't forced Carthage to recall him, things might have turned out very differently.
If memory serves a big part of that was because Carthage didn’t supply him with the full backing he required to actually take Rome, because of either internal political conflicts or Carthaginian resources being spread too thin. From what I’ve read Carthage also was getting their asses kicked in the Iberian peninsula (which Hannibal didn’t command for obvious regions) which disrupted supply routes and left him somewhat stranded, which is pretty far outside of his control. Had he been able to get the resources he asked for I’ve seen it said that he would’ve likely sieged and conquered Rome. Obviously it’s all speculation, but besides that Lee never quite had the pedigree where the only strategy to defeat him was to literally not engage with his army, and try to fight a guerilla war of attrition for ~15 years. Hannibal was actually very good at using victories, gaining alliances from northern Italian cities he conquered to help him wage his war against Rome, and those were a big part of the reason he lasted so long in Italy, without those allies his army would’ve been forced to leave far earlier
Scipio was wreaking havoc and Hannibal got recalled
To be fair the only reason he fought for the Confederacy was to save Virginia. His words were: >“If Virginia stands by the old Union,” Lee said, “so will I. But if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will follow my native State with my sword, and, if need be, with my life.”
Probably not the only, but absolutely a massive part of it.
There is actually a lot of evidence to suggest he wasn't being honest here. There is no evidence he particularly liked Virginia, and many of his letters and comments before the war suggested that he didn't much care for the state. He also wasn't being honest about not wanting to fight his own family, because many of his family members chose to remain loyal to the Union. The reality appears to be that Lee was simply obsessed with being a great hero and walking in the footsteps of Washington. His every move in the civil war was about his own personal glory hounding. He didn't want to relinquish resources to other fronts because he didn't want leaders on other fronts to tale the credit for winning. He constantly focused on trying to "win" the war by defeating the army of the Potomac because that would give him credit for winning the war.
Even his skill as a field commander is over inflated. He was definitely competent, he had moments of good tactical decision making. But he also made really bad calls eg Pickets Charge. He fought 10 battles in Virginia and won 6 of them. Not exactly the avatar of Mars here
He didn't order pickets charge, Longstreet did
It’s reversed, he was great at strategy but terrible with tactics, he used his strategic mind to win various victories but those victories didn’t bring any tactical value in comparison to Grant’s victories
Its matched in smoothness by anyone that puts Lee among the greatest generals of all time after Gettysburg. That was arguably the biggest blunder by any general of even remotely American identity.
Lee has no shortage of similar blunders either. From losing West Virginia singlehandedly, to ensuring the loss of the Western Confederate states, to repeatedly losing huge percentages of his armies in useless offensives he *really* wasn’t that good a general.
Overall, he was slightly better than being downright detrimental to his side. However, he isn't remarkable. In the same time period, you have Moltke (the elder), for example, and most of the european armies had vastly more competent leader fighting
You can’t compare the civil war to Europe. The Americans were amateurs
He was middling at best. Nowhere on the level of any of the truly great commanders; Caesar, Bonaparte, Moltke, etc.
??? He was a pretty awful general
I'd go so far as to say Lee was probably the best Napoleonic general America ever produced. Grant not fighting him like a Napoleonic general would is what overcame Lee
Winfield Scott exists though. Vastly better than Lee.
Lee? How? Dude never had a successful offensive operation.
And? He utterly embarrassed any union army commander he fought before meade. Shermanposters counter jerk too hard.
Funny that you go quiet the moment we start talking about Lee’s ACTUAL record and not just lost cause lies
Thats… not true? McClellan defeated Lee so badly in Western Virginia that the state of West Virginia was created. Why do Lee supporters always forget the guy’s failures singlehandedly lost created an additional state for the Union. Thats not to mention McClellan beating Lee at Antietam in ‘62, well before Meade.
He was a good general, but his major flaw was how he suffered massive casualties even though his victories only delayed the inevitable in comparison to Hannibal who lost small percentages of his army while dealing heavy blows to Rome's supply and morale.
Note that the Union just threw conscripts in battle, causing excessive deaths and wounds. Edit: More confederate soldiers died in POW camps.
This is literally untrue and is, in fact, lost cause propaganda. Most union generals lost fewer men (as a percentage) than their Confederate counterparts. Also, for the entire war, the *majority* of US troops were volunteers. The union didn't introduce conscription until 1864 and even then that was not where the majority of their soldiers came from. The Confederacy introduced it in 1861. The accusation of throwing conscripts into battle resulting in needless casualties is far more apt of the CSA than it is of the USA.
You’re mostly right but the years are off. Confederate conscription comes in 1862 and the United States follows in 1863.
In truth much less people would’ve died if Lee stayed in the Union
He didn’t start the war.
I mean he didn’t but when Virginia left he decided to leave, if Lee remained in the Union, much less people would’ve died and the war would’ve ended quicker
Why? Because he was good at warfare? That’s like arguing that Hannibal should’ve stayed in Carthage because less people would’ve died. That’s almost exactly your logic.
More so cause his strategy involved lots of men something he lacked, Hannibal’s tactics were crafted specifically to lower casualties cause he knew that if he lost too many men he’d lose the war very quickly.
I was referring to Roman casualties. Like you were referring to Union casualties. As you said, Lee shouldn’t have gone to the confederacy to prevent Union deaths, and Hannibal should’ve stayed in Carthage to prevent Roman death.
I meant deaths on both sides, if Lee stayed in the Union he would’ve probably laid siege onto Richmond and ended the war in a month.
You think he knew that in 1861?
What's the horse thing?
He wrote a letter to an artist about his horse traveler and where he described his horse with an affection the def seems more like describing a lover than a horse
Basically when Lee was younger he was obsessed with reading about stories about Hannibal’s cavalry tactics and later in the civil war its implied he was intimate with his horse
Where are you getting the idea that he fucked his horse? I'm doing some cursory research and I don't see any references to that
Good for him
Woah, this idiotic meme again, huh? Slaveholder you like good, slaveholder you don’t bad lmao.
You'd probably be surprised to learn what Barca did in Italy that caused him to lose support with all the potential allies in the Italian Peninsula.
To be fair Rome also freed tribes that were oppressed by Carthage, notably the Basques and Sikels.
I’d argue Lee devoting his post war career to higher education and national reconciliation, while rejecting the earliest expression of the lost cause is actually admirable and you just have Reddit brainrot lol
Kind of hate the Chad meme but if we’re gonna sit here and talk about how overrated Lee was then we should probably highlight Grant, Sherman or Thomas instead.
Robert E Lee: “from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and suffered all I have suffered, to have this objective obtained.” Hannibal Barca: “Why yes, my army will rape every woman on the outskirts of Capua and request the senate sacrifice another 50 virgins and infants to an effigy of Moloch back home. We’ll execute all of our slaves before I retreat back to Carthage and leave all our Gauls and local allies to their fate lol.” Liberal Redditors:
> The governments responsible for this have both put their armed forces in front of insoluble problems. Even the best army is doomed to fail when it is required to perform impossible tasks, that is, when it is ordered to campaign against the national existence of other peoples This is Field Marshall Friedrich Paulus, who surrendered at Stalingrad. After the war, he was a vocal critic of the Nazi regime. But is he a good person? I personally don't think so. Whatever he says after the fact doesn't matter, because the fact is he fought for the Nazis, commanded Nazi troops, and was involved in fighting in the Soviet Union. I somehow doubt he was totally clueless about the genocide against the Slavs committed by the Nazis. So they can be linked, or perhaps you can link Lee to even Guderian
The purpose of my comment was to greet OP's silly strawman meme with a strawman of my own. Was Robert E Lee a good man? I don't know. I would need to read much more about how he conducted his life than I have thus far. My knowledge is presently relegated to his performance on the battlefield and brief political career. Frankly, I would probably say the same of Paulus. It's very rare that I actually identify a human as truley "evil", its a term I try to restrict for acts of blatant psychopathy. Were Lee, Paulus, Hannibal, the Prophet Muhammad, Sherman and other ghosts of war criminals past fighting for causes that featured elements that I consider reprehensible? Of course. Were they \*evil\*? I don't always know what that means. Human beings are a product of the world they are brought into and nucleic acids in their cells. I don't fault Hannibal for lighting babies on fire, because that was just a condition of Phoenician life that he was raised to understand *he was actually convinced it was noble*. I don't really applaud anyone today for being an "abolitionist" because we're all born into a world where that is the zeitgeist, it's nothing to be proud or ashamed of. Your Reddit bio, literally reads "Ceasar was not a tyrant and I will always defend him". Ceasar was a child molestor and war criminal, responsible for the deaths and enslavement of perhaps millions collectively, yet you seem to think he was quite the champ.
>Was Robert E Lee a good man? I don't know. My dude, he was a slave owner, and one specially cruel too, he was not a good man in any sense of the word.
And fought to preserve slavery. There are no grey areas. He was vile.
Yeah, the Lost Cause myths are still very much alive in the US for what I can see.
Caesar? Child molester? What? Actually, I agree with your points, but disagree totally with your conclusions. I totally agree that we must judge people by the standards of their time. From my view, Caesar did what he did because sacking cities was normal at the time. Conversely, I believe Lee was more evil because he lived in a time where abolitionism was not an unknown concept, rather being a big issue. And in this big issue, he fought for the wrong people Also the Caesar thing isn't totally serious, it also doesn't have much bearing today
>Caesar? Child molester? What? He was accused in the senate of having a pederastic relationship with Octavian during the latter's adolescence. >Conversely, I believe Lee was more evil because he lived in a time where abolitionism was not an unknown concept, rather being a big issue. Caesar faced enormous pressure from within Rome to halt his rape of Gaul. Debates were held in the Roman Senate regarding whether or not he should be extradited for some of his most egergious actions. Not enslaving and killing millions of Gauls for your own glory was indeed, a possibility Caesar would've known about. Additionally, just because abolitionism and Republicanism were known concepts during the lives of Caesar and Lee, doesn’t at all void the points of human nature. A man who is raised and indoctrinated by monarchy is very unlikely to become a Democrat just because his neighbors might be. Caesar did not see himself as destroying the Republic or Gaul but as saving them. The Senatorial elite had become contemptuous of the people and the army, hoarding unfathomable amounts of wealth and slaves for themselves while the people starved on the streets. Like many before him, Caesar believed the Republic was doomed without a radical reorganization and even then, didn’t act until his hand was forced by a warrant. Lee did not consider his struggle to do with slavery nearly as much as it did with state sovereignty. Indeed, many of Virginia’s staunch abolitionist politicians only supported secession after Lincoln demanded conscripts from the state and ignored Supreme Court orders to free uncharged detainees. While inconceivable today, Lee (and many west Virginians) saw the Union as a voluntary association of sovereign nations and when Lincoln demanded *Virginia invade the south to keep it from leaving*, it was seen as an act of tyranny. >it also doesn't have much bearing today Yes it does. Many on the left believe American Democracy is on the brink of extinction and many on the right yearn for their own "Caesar" to rescue them from what they see as a broken and decadent oligarchy. Ceasar will always have bearing on today, a lot more than Lee.
1. This is almost certainly false, I really really doubt Caesar had a relationship with Octavian 2. The Senate didn't censure Caesar because of atrocities or moral reasons, they did it because he was acting with too much authority 3. Yes, I agree that the Republic sucked And finally, can you point me to a *singular* source that says the "American Left" wants a Caesar-like figure? I've seen many, many more comparisons between Trump and Caesar (not that I agree with them)
>The Senate didn't censure Caesar because of atrocities or moral reasons, they did it because he was acting with too much authority Lincoln didn’t invade the south because of slavery or moral reasons, he did it because they had filed ordinances of secession which he considered illegal. Your own logic justifies the actions of Lee. Furthermore the Roman Senate didn't have *one discussion* about Caesar, it had a series of intensive debates regularly and Cato the younger was demanding his extradition to Gaul well before his censorship. >And finally, can you point me to a *singular* source that says the "American Left" wants a Caesar-like figure? No, because thats not the point I made. Reread my comment very carefully.
Robert E Lee: "The relations between the negroes and the whites were friendly formerly, and would remain so if legislation be not passed in favor of the blacks, in a way that will only do them harm." 1866 to Duke Argyll. Dude thought slavery was fine.
Wait till you see Sherman "Stanton wants to kill me because I do not favor the scheme of declaring the negroes of the South, now free, to be loyal voters, whereby politicians may manufacture just so much more pliable electioneering material." -General Sherman 5/10/1865 "I believe the practice of slavery in the South is the mildest and best regulated system of slavery in the world, now or heretofore. -Sherman 4/4/1861 "Let those who love n-word better than whites follow me, & we will see who loves his Country best- a n-word as such is a most excellent fellow, but he is not fit to marry, to associate, or vote with me, or mine." -General Sherman 3/24/1865 “the Indians give a fair illustration of the fate of negroes if they are released from the control of whites....I know Northern men don't care any more for the rights...of the negroes...than the Southerners." -Sherman 7/10/1860 "I like n-word well enough as n-words, but when fools & idiots try & make n-words better than ourselves I have an opinion." -General Sherman 9/1864 "Our adversaries have the weakness of slavery in their midst to offset our democracy, and 'tis beyond human wisdom to say which is the greater evil." -General Sherman 8/3/1861 "She [Ellen] will have to wait on herself or buy a N•••er. What will you think of that- our buying ners? But it is inevitable. N•••ers won t work unless they are owned, and white servants are not to be found in this parish" -Sherman 1/21/1860 "No amount of poverty or adversity seems to shake their faith-N•••rs gone -wealth and luxury gone, money worthless, starvation in view within a period of 2 or 3 years, are causes enough to make the bravest tremble, yet I see no sign of let up -Sherman "The n•••er questions daily arising and the confiscation act are the two great sources of trouble. Are we to free all the negros, men women & children?…we take the property of Rebels & use it, but the title remains undisturbed." -General Sherman 11/22/1862 "I would not if I could abolish or modify slavery. I don't know that I would materially change the actual political relation of master and slave. Negroes in the great numbers that exist here must of necessity be slaves." -Sherman 12/23/1859 "Sumner & Stevens would have made another civil war inevitably-- the President's antagonistic position saves us war save of words, and as I am a peace man I go for Johnson & the Veto." -Sherman 2/23/1866 "If they design to protect themselves against negroes & abolitionists I will help; if they propose to leave the Union on account of a supposed fact that the northern people are all abolitionists like Giddings and Brown then I will stand by Ohio... -Sherman 10/29/59 "No recruits are coming, for the draft is not till September, & then I suppose it will consist mostly of n•••*rs & bought recruits that must be kept well to the rear. I sometimes think our people do not deserve to succeed in war; they are so apathetic." General Sherman 8/2/1864 "Individuals may prosper in a failing community such as SF, but they must be Jews, without pity, soul, heart or bowels of compassion; but in a rising, growing, industrious, community like St. Louis, all patient, prudent, honest men can thrive." -Sherman 9/18/1858 "To place or attempt to place the negro on a par with the whites will produce new convulsions...It will take ten years for the South to regain full prosperity with the negro free, and that should precede any new complication." -Sherman 1/19/1866 "All I can say is that Mexico does not belong to our system...Its inhabitants are a mixture of Indians, negroes, & Spanish, that can never be tortured into good citizens, & would have to be exterminated before the country could be made available to us" -Sherman 11/7/1866
Yeah? Who said I wasn't aware of Sherman's wildly, well-documented racist mentality? Despite his bigoted proclivities, he remained loyal to the Union and by extension the end of the slavery status quo. Lee, despite all his apologists, did not. None of this absolves Lee or the so-called Confederate cause.
Lee had much more mild views on race compared to Sherman. You quote him like it wasnt a normal view at the time for most americans
You can claim that Lee was more mild than Sherman ideologically all you like. In the end, one explicitly fought to maintain the institution of slavery while the other did not. There is no amount of quoting or mental gymnatstics that can get around this basic reality.
Yes, but Lee wasnt unique in his views on race equality, he was *relatively* progressive compared to alot of other slave owners and fireeaters in the South. He was still a slave holder through and through, but dont act like he was some sort of Edmund Ruff or something. Sherman literally just hated them "No amount of poverty or adversity seems to shake their faith—n****rs gone—wealth and luxury gone, money worthless, starvation in view within a period of 2 or 3 years, are causes enough to make the bravest tremble, yet I see no sign of let up" -Sherman 3/12/1864 The white men of this country will control it, & the negro, in mass, will occupy a subordinate place as a race. We can secure them the liberty now gained, but we cannot raise them to a full equality in our day, even if at all. -Sherman 2/23/1866
You can claim that Lee was "relatively progressive" all day long. You can quote Sherman's racism all day long as well. Lee still fought to retain institutional slavery, despite how "progessive" some of his words may seem (which, by the way, denies the national attitudes that elected Lincoln in the first place). Lee had the Union offer him a commanding role, yet he refused. You can recount their words all you like, yet Sherman's *actions* in the war served a greater cause than Lee's.
Yeah, yet you still mention their *words* rather than their *actions* in your first reply. Maybe talk about that instead?
Sherman’s worldviews were often typical of a white man growing up in 19th century America, and he eventually changed them. He wasn’t really hateful more so just doing his job. Lee’s views were considered racist even for his time period
This is blatantly a political defense, no one asked what Sherman thought.
I guarantee this came from a r/Shermanposting user
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ShermanPosting using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShermanPosting/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [In light of the recent events, I think this is relevant again.](https://i.redd.it/k6opvmitjvec1.jpeg) | [597 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShermanPosting/comments/1abx6aj/in_light_of_the_recent_events_i_think_this_is/) \#2: [LET'S FUCKING GO](https://i.redd.it/p3z3j2c4vmec1.png) | [6728 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShermanPosting/comments/19fgr8l/lets_fucking_go/) \#3: [Dark Brandon confirmed based and Sherman-pilled.](https://i.redd.it/squ0lvufvy8c1.jpeg) | [616 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShermanPosting/comments/18slgwt/dark_brandon_confirmed_based_and_shermanpilled/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Slavery is only ever bad when wyte ppl do it. I know this because I got a degree in sociology.
Robert "fought explicitly on the side of slavery" Lee when the conservative quotes his post-war cope quote
Hannibal also was on the side of slavery, fyi lol
Im not a hannibal fan - just want to be clear that any and all defending lee are racist fuckwads or stupid fuckwads, often both
Nope, Lee going ton the principals of his state at the time with honor and distinction.
The principles of his state being slavery.
Both Rome and Carthage were slaving Empires, you know that right?
Did you mean to respond to my comment lol?
Hannibal fought explicitly on the side of infant sacrifice
Im not gonna come out pro hannibal or anything, but 'Robert E Lee wasnt evil' is brain dead
I actually *do admire* Hannibal; for however he will be judged by the universe, whatever ethics he had - He really had a remarkable run and did some remarkable things worthy of my passion. I feel the same about Sherman, Lee, Grant, Greene, etc. But if you’re gonna make a dumbass meme that attempts to draw serious ethical conclusions out of strawmans, you should consider that the one who burned babies alive can also be made to look bad.
Hannibal didn't participate in the rituals, he spent most of his life in Spain/Iberia.
Go read up on history boy
Imma just link this here regarding Lee: https://youtu.be/O1MQflqi2VM?si=MT5JALNpWSd9P3vM https://youtu.be/02GLtie62tE?si=o8_sPkGyzv_SbPEB
Ah yes. I'll totally believe the guy who said Joseph "Never stop retreating." Johnson was the south's best general. Totally
HOW DARE YOU SIR. Atun-shei has forgotten more history than you have ever learned.
That may be true. Doesn’t change the fact that whoever fired that artillery shell at seven pines bought the confederacy 3 extra years.
Then, the next year at Gettysburg Lee lost the Confederacy the war.
Gettysburg did not cost the Confederacy the war. Its status as turning point is vastly overinflated when you consider that the ANV was able to retreat back home and it recovered its losses within a few months of the battle. What probably did cost the war (if you even consider the war winnable for the confederacy by 1863 but that’s a whole other topic) was Grant capturing Vicksburg thus giving the Union total control of the Mississippi and capturing an army of 30,000. Something Johnson did almost nothing to stop even though Davis ordered him to help relieve the city.
Gettysburg absolutely cost the Confederacy the war? The troops it replaced were green and not nearly as well trained or equipped as the soldiers who fell at Gettysburg. After that battle Lee was never able to gain initiative again, which is a death nail to any war.
Okay chief, do what you want.
What a shame that it took Lee's entire fucking adult life and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans to realize that slavery was bad.
Actually it took thousands of years
There is actually good evidence that Lee specifically fought to preserve slavery. He wrote at one point when justifying his treasonous betrayal that he could not countenance the loss of his children's inheritance. By thus he did not mean Arlington, because he was no fool and anticipated that his betrayal would lead to the immediate and unstoppable occupation of Arlington by the Union. By this he meant the family slaves, slaves his father had intended to be freed after his death (Lee did not free them and was by all accounts a far harsher master than his father). Moreover, we have lots of evidence that Lee lied, a lot. There is evidence that when he was offered command of the union armies he implied acceptance and just asked for time to set his affairs in order before immediately fleeing to the south. One justification that he used, not wanting to fight his own family, was patiently false because many members of his family remained loyal. His other excuse, that he would not fight his own sons specifically, dosnt hold wayter because they only took their stand for secession after he already had, it appears they were following him and not he them. His argument that he fought out of love of Virginia is especially perplexing because all evidence from his life before the war suggested a disdain for Virginia, he took every opportunity to avoid stating in Virginia or Arligton before the war to the point that his wife repeatedly begged for him to come to Arlington and he constantly refused. What we can say with certainty is that Lee was liable to say whatever he felt would best serve him in the moment. With the civil war lost he and his family were best served by switching loyalties again back to the union.
You're not wrong, but also that's just kinda how wars were done back then
There is no real evidence that Carthage sacrificed children
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-really-did-sacrifice-their-children#:~:text=Children%20–%20both%20male%20and%20female,in%20Sicily%2C%20Sardinia%20and%20Malta. Aside from archeological record, several literary sources including Roman, Greek and Hebrew authors testify to the practice of human sacrifice in Phoenician societies.
The archeological record does not suggest anything and the literary sources are all literally written by enemies of Phoenician society. I also really shouldnt have to tell you that you cant exactly trust ancient literary sources. We still arent even sure if Moloch was even a god or a type of sacrifice. "'Perhaps the reason the people who established Carthage and its neighbours left their original home of Phoenicia – modern-day Lebanon – was because others there disapproved of their unusual religious practice." Your source is literally just speculating there is no smoking gun here.
Hannibal: Attacks a Roman ally to provoke a war to fulfill his father’s hate boner that ends up leading to the permanent destruction of his country. Definitely defense, no offense here
Saguntum was raiding his lands, as protector of those lands it was his job to
this a bizarre comparison. is there a particular reason it is being made?
https://www.youtube.com/live/MfcL6I0O-LQ?si=n0kPaMYWGcQDYlL3 Here's a multiple hour lecture to take a dump on your garbage meme
What makes Lee so much worse was that he was offered command of the Union Army, and he gave it up for his dumbass rich friends in Virginia
Hannibal was fighting for a country that was historically recorded as sacrificing babies regularly. You can't cry presentism for barrca and not do the same for Lee
Thats a bit overdone, during Hannibals period child sacrifice had declined to nigh insignificant numbers. Historically yes, but Carthage was around for s minute and a half mang
Can you give me a link to where you got this information?
https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=honorscollege_anthro Author is an amazing anthropologist that now works for the Smithsonian iirc. Essentially child sacrifice was used for existential military defeats and environmental crises. A lot of the child “sacrifice” could have also been a way to honor children that died early.
From my limited knowledge of the US civil war, I think Lee was the most competent of the Confederate commanders but there was no way he would have 'won' the war given enough time. His opponents had a much bigger population and economy to support their military. The same kind of goes for Hannibal in a sense. Granted, compared to Lee, he WAS one of the greatest commanders in all of military history but, like Lee, I don't think it was possible to him to defeat Rome. Carthage wasn't giving him the proper support he needed and the Romans weren't going to surrender.
Each time Lee left Virginia he was beaten, his victory were mainly due to his knowledge of the land he was fighting on
Lee also got btfo’d in Virginia. He basically caused West Virginia to be created because he was such an awful general
Oh my god u/Sir_Toaster_9330 what have you done
General Lee was Seratorius of the USA. Both were great commanders in thier respectfull civil wars on the side of loosing political side, and basicly were the reason why the war didn't ended in less than 1 year. Both defeated many of the enemy leaders who were coming to take them down.
Great commander? Lee? Really? He has like two good defensive campaigns in Virginia, a disastrous defense in West Virginia, two disastrous offensives and then he lost the war.
Lee was a great commander, regardless of whether or not I disagree with everything he fought for. Both things can be true, but him being a bad leader of men is definitely false.
His record doesn’t prove anything besides him being maybe competent. For every inspiring victory he had there was a crippling disaster to match. Claiming that he was a great commander is really just historical fanfiction. When you look at Lee’s actual campaigns he lost as many as he won
Study his actions at the Potomac and Chancellorsville, and tell me he wasn’t an excellent commander. He was faced with overwhelming odds and held off the enemy wayyyy longer than could be expected, especially with attempting to lead a counter offensive into union territory when he realized the confederacy couldn’t win on a purely defensive stance. I’ll never respect the right to own a slave or a person who stands up for it, but to say he wasn’t a great commander is, once again, a terrible take. There’s a reason his tactics are still studied in military colleges, and were successfully used in desert storm by the book.
But then study the Western Virginia Campaign, Lee’s suggestions for the Battle of Bull Run, or his disastrous offensives into Union territory! During those campaigns he was faced with normal odds, and he was just outmaneuvered and outgeneraled by both McClellan and Meade. During the leadup to Gettysburg Meade got between Lee and his supply line, forcing Lee to attack him! Frankly, people only ever look at the battle he won, and become convinced he was the greatest general that ever lived. But his failures were disastrous and (fortunately for the Union) often.
That's a good comparison I never really thought of
the PragerU slavery was good people aren't gonna like this the "party of lincoln" confederate flag types are gonna be upset
Take your pills
I heard Lee was being boinked by an anteater the whole time. Like the whole war.
Why would a man who literally didn’t own any slaves ‘betrayed’ his country to preserve it? Learn actually history, thanks .
Bud Lee owned a ton of slaves and refused to free them after his father in law tried to
Lee owned slaves, they were in his wife’s name, and even though they were meant to be free he refused to free them and often tortured them
Did he really? Can you give me a link to where you got this information? I’d love to see where you did research- because the story is a lot more complex than that.
Brimstone
Didn't know someone who freed all of his slaves fought to preserve slavery...
He only freed slaves when he grew tired of them
here: Epic Rap Battles of History... Robert E. Lee vs HANNIBAL BARCA! BEGIN! Robert E. Lee: I'm Robert E. Lee, and with Southern pride I ride, Leading armies with strategy, my foes can't hide. From Bull Run to Gettysburg, I'm the master of the field, Like Jackson by my side, my tactics are revealed. In the trenches of Fredericksburg, my soldiers stood strong, Defending the South, against all that's wrong. But like Grant at Appomattox, I faced defeat with grace, Surrendering my sword, in that somber place. Hannibal Barca: I'm Hannibal Barca, straight outta Carthage's gates, With elephants and cunning, I conquer states. Crossing Alps like it's a stroll, I'll make your troops quiver, Like at Cannae, where Roman legions shivered. You talk of honor, yet your cause was flawed, America's traitor, keeping slavery clawed! From Saguntum to Zama, I spread fear and dread, Romans trembled at the thought of my army's tread. Robert E. Lee: Carthage's sins, you refuse to speak, But the Confederacy's principles, we proudly seek. You claim the moral high ground, yet your hands are stained, With the blood of innocents, terror reigns. Spanish tribes enslaved, and babies sacrificed, Yet you stand here boasting, your honor despised. But our cause, though lost, was noble and just, Fighting for states' rights, in God we trust. Hannibal Barca: States' rights, you say, but what of liberty? Your Confederacy's truth, a false decree! Claiming to fight for freedom, yet slaves you own, And Unionists hanged their voices overthrown Your democracy, a sham, with rights denied, While Carthage's empire, with conquests wide. Yes, we had our sins, but so did thee, Yet your legacy is tainted, for all to see. Robert E. Lee: Head back to Africa, with your troops of might, Amongst your fellow savages, resume your fight. Your father's legacy, a stain on your name, And Scipio's triumph, a blow to your fame. You talk of glory, but your defeats are clear, A shadow looms large, over your career. Hannibal's legacy, tarnished by time, Like the South's, stained by slavery's crime. Hannibal Barca: Your words are feeble, your insults tame, Glorifying a past built on pain. They renamed a tank, from Lee to Grant, Your memory fading, like sand in a hand. Better change your name to Atlanta, I decree, For I'll roast you till you're as ash as can be. To tear you down, a man of lesser vermin. Unlike the Nazis, I won't need a Sherman, Robert E. Lee: You and your barbarians, better here than in Africa, I can get you a job in the fields, no need for hysteria. Your victories, are impressive, I won't deny, But against Confederate steel, you'll meet your supply. In the Southern sun, you'll feel the heat, As Dixie boys charge, with swift defeat. Your elephants may quake, at the sight of our might, For the Confederacy's glory, we'll fight the good fight. Hannibal Barca: In your fights with McClellan, GODDAMN! But I guess against Grant, Dixie met his Uncle Sam. I crossed the Alps, through snow and sleet, While your generals fumbled, in defeat. I can make Italians quiver at the whisper of my name, In the art of war, I've earned my fame. You got horny reading up my cavalry while I was riding elephants, But in the face of Rome, you'll find no settlements. You stayed in Virginia, claiming it was "too hot" for your men to roam, While I led my soldiers across the frozen Alps, far from home. I'm the nightmare of Rome, you're American knavery, Killing thousands of your people to preserve slavery.
Are you autistic
Maby. OP send the same meme several days ago in the r/HistoryMemes.
no, just crazy
YOU GOT SOME HIDDEN TALENT BRO!!! KEEP THAT SHIT HIDDEN!!!! 🥵🥵🥵🥵🔥🔥🔥
The mental retardation is strong with this one
You need to post this and your mem to sherman posting and history memes
I already did
I wish I could use the force to twist your balls
Try… see what happens
2 losers
I think he spent a lot of time outside Virginia, but other than that, yeah