 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Grant was relentless and decisive. I just don't see a lot of evidence of particular skill or brilliance. His campaign against Vicksburg entailed many poorly conceived actions prior to success.
Mr. Fun is also relentless with his trolls here but I for one am not going to play the trout. Like Grant, he is awkward and fumble-some and lacking finesse.
The Wehrmacht, yes Germany produced more than a couple of world class military leaders and they should be respected for their professional abilities separate from other issues.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Defense also had the advantage at the time. You can certainly argue that Grant's tactics resulted in too many casualties, but given the alternative (McClellan, who just wouldn't engage), whaddya gonna do?
Besides, didn't Lee get his ass handed to him on the few occasions he attempted offensive operations? The man was clearly excellent on defense, but like I said defense had the advantage, so Lee's greatness may be magnified by that. He gets points for having all manner of supply problems and for being consistently outnumbered, though. |
Indeed. Lee had with him a genius in defensive military strategy in General Longstreet. Longstreet was all for hunkering down in a defensive posture and forgoing attacking. It was Lee's insistance on attacking in 1863 which got him in big trouble. Gettysburg was the most famous example of Lee trying to go on the offensive and failing. Of course, some would argue that if Lee had Jackson, it may have worked. True, but doesn't that say that Jackson was the great general and not Lee?
Grant and Sherman had figured out how to win the war on the offensive. They had to forces to use and would send massive amounts of them in order to beat back the defensive superiority of the Confederates. The final campaign of the Army of the Potomic was a masterstroke. Grant, even after losing battles, pushed onwards, forcing Lee back and back until they were contained at Appomatox.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Vicksburg was pretty smart, you've gotta give Grant that.
Defense also had the advantage at the time. You can certainly argue that Grant's tactics resulted in too many casualties, but given the alternative (McClellan, who just wouldn't engage), whaddya gonna do?
Besides, didn't Lee get his ass handed to him on the few occasions he attempted offensive operations? The man was clearly excellent on defense, but like I said defense had the advantage, so Lee's greatness may be magnified by that. He gets points for having all manner of supply problems and for being consistently outnumbered, though.
-Arrian |
Actually, no, you are not correct in this assessment. Lee practiced the offensive defensive during the early parts of the war. Later, when he could no longer muster sufficient forces relative to the Yanks did he resort to purely defensive operations.
The Battle of Chancellorsville is a good example. Jackson of course is often credited with these excellant offensive operations but Lee was always a general in control of his army and should be credited with the strategic success without taking away Jackson's unequaled performance.
Lee's abilities far eclipse that of Grant. One should not dismiss the fact that Lee was offered the Yankee command by Scott. The old general knew best and if you want to cast a cloud on Lee, don't do it by attacking his reputation as the best general of the war, do it on the grounds that if he had taken control of the Northern forces it would have saved at least 50% of the eventual casualties as any reasonable projection would have him defeating Southern forces in much less time...possibly within 8-9 months of the commencement of real hostilities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Defense also had the advantage at the time. You can certainly argue that Grant's tactics resulted in too many casualties, but given the alternative (McClellan, who just wouldn't engage), whaddya gonna do?
Besides, didn't Lee get his ass handed to him on the few occasions he attempted offensive operations? The man was clearly excellent on defense, but like I said defense had the advantage, so Lee's greatness may be magnified by that. He gets points for having all manner of supply problems and for being consistently outnumbered, though. |
Indeed. Lee had with him a genius in defensive military strategy in General Longstreet. Longstreet was all for hunkering down in a defensive posture and forgoing attacking. It was Lee's insistance on attacking in 1863 which got him in big trouble. Gettysburg was the most famous example of Lee trying to go on the offensive and failing. Of course, some would argue that if Lee had Jackson, it may have worked. True, but doesn't that say that Jackson was the great general and not Lee?
Grant and Sherman had figured out how to win the war on the offensive. They had to forces to use and would send massive amounts of them in order to beat back the defensive superiority of the Confederates. The final campaign of the Army of the Potomic was a masterstroke. Grant, even after losing battles, pushed onwards, forcing Lee back and back until they were contained at Appomatox. |
Well, I think you are wrong on almost all points but it would be senseless to debate. The victors write the history and of course Yankee generals will come off far better in that light than they actually were.
I will make some comments. Lee's campaign in 1863 was based on the hope that a victory in the north might bring about peace. The backdrop was this, Lee had trounced the Yanks time and time again in the fighting in Virginia. There was a sizeable segment in the North that clammered for peace. At a war council Lee argued that the chances for victory would be greater by invading the north than by shifting resources to defend Vicksburg. Lee felt strongly that the South did not have the resources to win out over the long haul and even if Grant had been forstalled in Miss he (or another General) would have only come back the next year.
In opting to take the long shot Lee probaby made the right decision. And, at Gettysburg, he took other long shots on the second and third day because he believed it would take a longshot to win the war.
I can't equate Grant's methodical meatgrinder with any sort of mastery, but I agree that it was effective and irresistable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Arrian
quote:
Vicksburg was pretty smart, you've gotta give Grant that. |
What che said.
quote:
Defense also had the advantage at the time. You can certainly argue that Grant's tactics resulted in too many casualties, but given the alternative (McClellan, who just wouldn't engage), whaddya gonna do? |
You have a good point. Grant was better than McClellan. However, running across a field of hot lava is better than being torn apart and eaten by a hungry crowd of sharks.
Capt Dizzle
quote:
Lee's abilities far eclipse that of Grant. One should not dismiss the fact that Lee was offered the Yankee command by Scott. The old general knew best and if you want to cast a cloud on Lee, don't do it by attacking his reputation as the best general of the war, do it on the grounds that if he had taken control of the Northern forces it would have saved at least 50% of the eventual casualties as any reasonable projection would have him defeating Southern forces in much less time...possibly within 8-9 months of the commencement of real hostilities. |
I don't wish to drag us into an "alternate history" threadjack, but the consequences of the war would have been dramatically different if the Confederate states had fallen within a few months, and probably for the worse, in the long run.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Capt Dizle
Actually, no, you are not correct in this assessment. Lee practiced the offensive defensive during the early parts of the war. Later, when he could no longer muster sufficient forces relative to the Yanks did he resort to purely defensive operations.
The Battle of Chancellorsville is a good example. Jackson of course is often credited with these excellant offensive operations but Lee was always a general in control of his army and should be credited with the strategic success without taking away Jackson's unequaled performance.
Lee's abilities far eclipse that of Grant. One should not dismiss the fact that Lee was offered the Yankee command by Scott. The old general knew best and if you want to cast a cloud on Lee, don't do it by attacking his reputation as the best general of the war, do it on the grounds that if he had taken control of the Northern forces it would have saved at least 50% of the eventual casualties as any reasonable projection would have him defeating Southern forces in much less time...possibly within 8-9 months of the commencement of real hostilities. |
I'm not arguing that Grant was in the same league as Lee. No way. I do not think Grant was a genius. He simply understood he had the numbers to win if he refused to let up. Nothing brilliant there, but it was effective.
I'm aware that Lee was great at using tactical offense to help win strategically defensive battles. But when he launched strategic offensives, they failed, did they not? I don't recall the specifics, but I thought he lost some minor battles trying to retake West Virginia early in the war, too.
That doesn't mean he wasn't a great general. It might mean he wasn't quite all he's been made out to be.
And as for the winners writing the history... well, the American Civil War might be the exception to that particular rule. It seems to me that Confederate apologists have had their say and then some.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
And yeah Imran -- Lee has been overrated ad nauseam.
He had tunnel vision when it came to envisioning war strategy beyond the borders of his state, Virginia. He also disregarded advice of lower ranking officers such as during the battle of Gettysburg. He was a human being -- not a deity or a god. |
Well, he can certainly be questioned on that point. But it was not Lee's job to envision overall war strategy until late in the war when it was too late to do anything but hold on. We can only speculate what plan Lee would have followed had he been able to control all Confederate forces from the begining of the war.
As good as Lee was, there is no evidence that he could have come up with a successful way to twart northern intentions. I believe, with the benefit of hindsight, that a purely defensive strategy the South could have prevailed but that is just speculation. I think it fair to state that few, if any understood the true impact that improvements in rifles and artillery would have. Perhaps this is the great key of the war. At the end Lee had grasped this and managed to work miracles of trench warfare. If perhaps the South had understood this at the begining of the war it would have been different. Of course, defensive warfare was counter to Southern culture so you might point to that as a contributing factor in the outcome as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, my understanding of Lee's role in West Virginia appears to have been wrong. He didn't do anything particularly distinguished, but neither was he soundly beaten:
-Arrian |
Well, Lee's performance was always linked to the performance of his sub-commanders. He tended to give more responsibility in carrying out operations to subordinates than other field commanders did.
You can argue the pros and cons of that all day. Lee does get credit for recognizing the weaknesses of his officers and for addressing it. Organizing the ANV into wings under Longstreet and Jackson was probably a masterstroke. At its height the ANV was a well coordinated and lethal war machine. The loss of Jackson ended that.
If you rate the generals on their ability to led an attack on the battlefield who would compare to Jackson?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I can't argue the point about Longstreet. He was on a par with Lee, Jackson, and Stuart. They had different roles to play and they were outstanding as individuals as well as a group, but as Mr. Fun says, they were men not gods.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-05-2004 22:11
. Grant was a GOOD general, but the Confederates want to make him out as some hack that wouldn't have done jack if he was in the ANV. It isn't true, he was a good general. Perhaps he wasn't as good as Longstreet, Lee, or Jackson, but it doesn't diminish things.
|