cards of great historical figures

[G1911]

I think you're using the milgraphs version of WAR while I'm using the Military-reference.com version. My favorite Ike card is probably his Red Menace, but I haven't finished that set and don't have his.

Here's the Presidents whose primary career before the Oval Office was the Military. Roosevelt was greatly boosted in his political career by the Rough Riders and their exploits in the Spanish War, and some others served as general officers, but it was not their primary careers nor were they really professional soldiers.

I love this set in all 3 of it's forms, these are from the 1956's in which I only need FDR to finish. I keep hoping Topps will give us cards in this style of Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Trump and Biden in one of their Heritage style releases to update the set.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Washington had weaknesses that keep down his WAR.

https://www.washingtoncrossingpark.o...hs-weaknesses/

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Washington had weaknesses that keep down his WAR.

https://www.washingtoncrossingpark.o...hs-weaknesses/

Interesting piece. I don't disagree, though I think using Trenton as the example is a bad idea as that was an astounding domination victory for Washington. He lost 2 men to exposure and had like 5 casualties while taking out an entire regiment. It is the same core weakness that Lee had, who I know historians love to attack now, but successfully beat the odds time and time again against a much better armed and numerically superior force for two entire years in one of the best fought series of campaigns in history, until his best subordinates were dead. He continued to use more complex tactical movements that his new commanders could not or would not really execute and it cost him Gettysburg and the northern invasion. His gentility and distaste for confrontation kept too many of his weaker replacement commanders in place for too long.

All have strengths and weaknesses, I give Washington points for having the odds heavily stacked against him. Eisenhower would win inevitably almost no matter how he actually performed. He saved many coalition lives by not messing it up and making mostly the right calls at mostly the right times, but with US industrial power and the Soviets doing most of the actual fighting and draining Hitler's resources, it would have been almost impossible to actually lose it. Pershing is in a similar boat but seems to be mostly forgotten now. Grant's reputation as a General is being rehabilitated to suit our contemporary narratives, though he was never really considered bad, just a user of brute force instead of careful tactics to save his mens lives. Winfield Scott probably deserves more consideration than he gets.

But anyways, here's some of the WWII command in one of my favorite cheap common sets, the Look N See's that the 1952 baseball issue lifted the design from. I like low grade, but even I need to upgrade the Truman...

[Peter_Spaeth]

From my reading Lee's strategic decision to invade the North in the first place, and tactics at Gettysburg, do not hold up well to scrutiny. Longstreet knew better, but Lee valued Longstreet much less than he had Stonewall Jackson.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From my reading Lee's strategic decision to invade the North in the first place, and tactics at Gettysburg, do not hold up well to scrutiny. Longstreet knew better, but Lee valued Longstreet much less than he had Stonewall Jackson.

It was the same gamble Washington made; he can't hold them off forever, the other side has almost unlimited resources. His only path to victory was taking Washington, or getting Europe to back them and provide resources.

The narrative of Gettysburg today is largely writ by Longstreet's memoirs, who Lee never criticized for his almost outright insubordination and screwing up the timing of what was supposed to be, in Lee's plan, a multi-pronged action with a lot more than Pickett's division going up alone in a scene of astounding courage and little chance of survival. Longstreet is one of the great generals in American history himself outside of this, there can be a long debate about whether Lee's battle plan was a good idea or not, but Longstreet's disbelief in it (at best, there's a reasoned argument that he straight up ruined it by delaying for hours for seemingly no actual reason) ensured the failure. My personal opinion is that his army of 1862 may well have triumphed over Meade, but his reconstituted 1863 army with a lot of new leaders that were above their talent level as senior staff kept going, was not capable of the precision they had demonstrated before. Lee's 1862 campaigns are some of the best fought in military history, after that it's the impressive northern invasion ending in a wrong decision that lost the only chance the South really had. If he had not done rolled those dice, the South wasn't likely to ever have a better chance at DC or foreign backing than they did then. After Gettysburg it's the long and slow inevitable failure. Lee's generalship is hard to get an honest assessment of these days; the competing traditions of his near-hagiographic reputation after the war and the modern absolute hatred of him as a devil of history because he does not fit our politics of the present.

Washington and Lee both had to really roll the dice. Washington won. Lee lost. Both are among the most interesting of Americans, and hard to penetrate the surviving numerous records they left behind to really 'know'. They had a lot more in common than their familial relations and similar military positions.

I really need a good Longstreet CDV; and some of Washington's excellent commanders don't have very many card options, like Nathaniel Greene. Historic Autographs put out a really cool set entirely dedicated to Washington recently I picked up and really had fun with.

[G1911]

The Civil War News cards are rather sensationalist and not entirely accurate history telling, but some of them look really nice. Here's the two adversaries. I really like Grant's scene here.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I can't remember where I read it, but there's a probably fictionalized exchange between Lee and Longstreet on the evening before the final day of Gettysburg. Lee says to Longstreet, if Meade is still there (meaning his position on the high ground) in the morning, I shall attack him. Longstreet replies, if Meade is still there in the morning, it's because he wants to be. Then Longstreet tries to persuade Lee to withdraw and retreat, but Lee refuses -- perhaps believing Jackson, had he lived, would have urged an attack.

I never did read Douglas Southall Freeman, it just seemed too long.

At least one account I have read suggests Lee did not fully appreciate what was happening in the battle, when Pickett was driven back Lee allegedly said to him, General, rally your diviision, to which Pickett replied, General, I have no division.