Started By
Message
re: Rommel Vs Patton
Posted on 11/13/14 at 9:42 am to scrooster
Posted on 11/13/14 at 9:42 am to scrooster
quote:
Grant Vs Lee
Who was the better General?
Now you get into something that is far more telling.
Grant knew his advantages over Lee and used them properly to achieve victory. He could suffer losses and replace them, Lee could not. He was not afraid to take casualties if it was a means to an end. He was what the Union needed to bring an end to the conflict. From the standpoint of a battlefield tactician, however, he was very much outclassed by Lee. Earlier in the war Lee also had very capable corps commander in A.P. Hill, Longstreet, and Jackson which were a great benefit to him, too. His major blunder was Gettysburg, a tactical blunder of epic proportions, but it was an outlier to a very good military record.
3
Posted on 11/13/14 at 2:23 pm to crispyUGA
quote:
Grant knew his advantages over Lee and used them properly to achieve victory. He could suffer losses and replace them, Lee could not. He was not afraid to take casualties if it was a means to an end. He was what the Union needed to bring an end to the conflict. From the standpoint of a battlefield tactician, however, he was very much outclassed by Lee. Earlier in the war Lee also had very capable corps commander in A.P. Hill, Longstreet, and Jackson which were a great benefit to him, too. His major blunder was Gettysburg, a tactical blunder of epic proportions, but it was an outlier to a very good military record.
Pretty much have to agree with you completely.
Posted on 11/13/14 at 2:26 pm to crispyUGA
I often wonder had Lee listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg and outflanked the Federals instead of throwing away men in attacks that could not possibly succeed what might have been.
Pickett's Charge had NO chance. Day 2 to me was the high water mark of the Confederacy when General Barksdale's Mississippians overran Dan Sickles and nearly split the Union Army in two. But even this attack was poorly coordinated and not enough men were thrown in to begin with. Had Pickett's division been present things might have been different.
Pickett's Charge had NO chance. Day 2 to me was the high water mark of the Confederacy when General Barksdale's Mississippians overran Dan Sickles and nearly split the Union Army in two. But even this attack was poorly coordinated and not enough men were thrown in to begin with. Had Pickett's division been present things might have been different.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 1:31 pm to crispyUGA
Grant knew his advantages over Lee and used them properly to achieve victory. He could suffer losses and replace them, Lee could not. He was not afraid to take casualties if it was a means to an end. He was what the Union needed to bring an end to the conflict. From the standpoint of a battlefield tactician, however, he was very much outclassed by Lee. Earlier in the war Lee also had very capable corps commander in A.P. Hill, Longstreet, and Jackson which were a great benefit to him, too. His major blunder was Gettysburg, a tactical blunder of epic proportions, but it was an outlier to a very good military record.
It surprises me that the "Grant the Butcher" reputation still exists. Grant was a master of maneuver and achieved many victories with minimal expenditure of personnel. See his Vicksburg campaign as a classic example of whipping an opponent by maneuver and position.
He was stained with the reputation as being callous to his own men after Cold Harbor (which was a terrible mistake) by political opponents of Lincoln and the war. Even his Virginia campaign of '64 & '65 wasn't frontal assault after frontal assault against fixed position.
It's ironic that Lee* gets a pass in this regard when he could be as wasteful of his own men as Grant ever thought of (The Seven Days - Malvern Hill in particular, and Gettysburg - Pickett's Charge).
*Lee is my favorite historical figure (see my sig quote), but Grant gets a bad rap. He was every bit the tactical and strategic commander that Lee was.
It surprises me that the "Grant the Butcher" reputation still exists. Grant was a master of maneuver and achieved many victories with minimal expenditure of personnel. See his Vicksburg campaign as a classic example of whipping an opponent by maneuver and position.
He was stained with the reputation as being callous to his own men after Cold Harbor (which was a terrible mistake) by political opponents of Lincoln and the war. Even his Virginia campaign of '64 & '65 wasn't frontal assault after frontal assault against fixed position.
It's ironic that Lee* gets a pass in this regard when he could be as wasteful of his own men as Grant ever thought of (The Seven Days - Malvern Hill in particular, and Gettysburg - Pickett's Charge).
*Lee is my favorite historical figure (see my sig quote), but Grant gets a bad rap. He was every bit the tactical and strategic commander that Lee was.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News