The Confederacy was About Slavery

That's a pretty good thumbnail. There's an excellent brief account of his Civil War career in The Warrior Generals: Combat Leadership in the Civil War, Thomas Buell, Crown Publishers, New York, 1997.

I had to run over to the Library of Congress to look it up, but, the best biography of Thomas which i've read is Rock of Chickamauga, the life of General George H. Thomas, Freeman Cleaves, the University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, 1948.

I'll have to remember to get that book - after I've read the three books I'm into now. LOL

I would bet one of those books title is never take the high ground.

Hell you would not be fit to clean up after Lee horse Traveller along with most of the northern generals

No, actually, I'm reading Panasonic, Under the Tuscan Sun, and The Life of Abraham Lincoln.

BTW, you still haven't provided the war strategy on high ground from any of the war colleges. How long do I need to wait?

Forever as that is such an axion for the last 10 thousands years or so of warfare it would be your job not mine to show that it had change.

Good luck on doing so by the way...........

10,000 years? What I said was that war strategies have changed over those years. You still don't understand how changes in military strategy must change with the instruments of war.

If you study "top of the hill strategies" even during WWII, you'll find that they were not always successful. There's a reason for that; it's based on actual events. You need to study some of those events to learn that top of the hill is not always the best position to win battles.

Try "The Lost Battalion." It'll be a good start.

Lord being cut off and surrounded somehow change the fact that it is far better to be on high ground then on low ground?

You can not be cut off and surrounded on low ground?

In any case let see the miliatry manuals/books stating that high ground is not to be perfer to low ground when ever possible.

No, you're now making universal claims that doesn't exist. I gave several examples of why high ground is not always the best military strategy.

It is an axion that high ground is to be perfer to low ground and once more show me a statement by any repeat any military expert that state otherwise.

You don't know how to read, do you? Wars do not operate by axioms.

If you are in control of Masada today, you'd be an easy target for all manners of military "strategy" and tools of war. In any war today, you can have Masada.

How does your axiom work here?

Following axions is indeed not the be all of warfare but any leader who break such axions without a damn good reason is going to have his head on a enemy pole in short order.

Hate to break into your pissing contest, but I'm going to have to go ahead and agree with Bill: holding high ground is pretty much always an advantage. I can only think of a few situations in which it could be disadvantageous, and they mostly don't apply to two armies facing one another.

Cycloptichorn

You can have Masada too!

Masada?????

You mean where a very very small numbers of Jews held off a legion for months on end that Masada?

A Jewish force that would not had last ten minutes facing the Romans on level open ground that Masada?

So your point is that it is better to die in minutes on level ground then to tie up an army for months and then die?

It's obvious that you have nothing to write worth reading--so i won't bother any longer.

I can only hope that I did not hurt your feelings by expressing my honest opinion that you are not worthy of cleaning up after Lee horse.

You continue to put Lee on a pedestal, but he lost the war. If that's your idea of great generals, I'd hate to think that all great generals have lost wars.

Lee's problem isn't that he didn't win battles, but that his winning battles gave him overconfidence without taking into considerations other factors.

He blamed himself, so I guess you know better than Lee why he lost.

When you had thrown one god awful general after another at him it is hard not to get overconfidence.

Now as far as him not being able to win when he is faced by a good general who could and did loss more men then Lee had in his whole remaining force in some of the end battles and keep pressing that does not in any way reflect badly on him.