Conservative Political Forum

General Category => War Forum => Topic started by: mdgiles on July 05, 2012, 12:26:29 PM

Title: Grant or Lee
Post by: mdgiles on July 05, 2012, 12:26:29 PM
Who was the better general?  And before you say Cold Harbor, think Pickett's Charge and Malverne Hill. 
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: elmerfudd on July 05, 2012, 05:30:59 PM
Lee was probably the better general.  But Grant was plenty good enough to get the job done. 
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: Solar on July 05, 2012, 06:36:11 PM
I agree with Fudd, Lee had nowhere the resources Grant did.
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: mdgiles on July 06, 2012, 07:27:04 AM
Grant is usually downgraded because of the summer campaign of 1864. Buy Grant was not the direct commander of the Army of the Potomac, Meade was. The same Meade who had allowed Lee - with a third of his army casualties - to escape after Gettysburg. the same Meade who forgot to fully man Little Round Top at Gettysburg, the Union Army only being saved by the bravery of Joshua Chamberlain and his Maine troops. The same Meade that was so afraid of what Lee might do, that he proceeded too cautiously, allowing Lee twice to have enough time to reinforce troops about break at the Wilderness and Spotsylvania. Grant himself complained about his subordinates inordinate fear of what Lee might do:
Quote"Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what are we going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do."--An uncharacteristic burst of temper from Grant when being reminded repeatedly of the powers of Robert E. Lee.
http://faculty.css.edu/mkelsey/usgrant/bygrant.html (http://faculty.css.edu/mkelsey/usgrant/bygrant.html)

We often forget that Grant twice - three times if you count Appomattox - captured entire Confederate armies. At Fort Donelson and at Vicksburgh. Besides defeating the Confederate Army of Tennessee and opening the way into the heartland of the Confederacy.

Lee was made so seem great by a succession of timid and incompetent Union commanders. McClellan right at the gates of Richmond - and retreating after one set back. McClellan having Lee's operational orders in hand at Antietam, knowing Lees forces were split, and instead of defeating his army in detail, fought the battle in such a way as to allow them to recombine. Burnside going across and open field and attacking up a hill, against troops in a fortified position at Fredericksburg. Hooker panicking at Chancellorsville  against a force half his size.
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: BILLY Defiant on July 13, 2012, 07:06:35 PM
Grant. He simply used the brutal realities of warfare...I have more men, more material and the South doesn't.

Lee was good but largely because of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson if you notice, there was a big change in the South's victories after his death. It is doubtful Stonewall would have allowed the invasion of the North (Gettysburg) which was the Confederates downfall.


Billy
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: mdgiles on July 14, 2012, 06:44:56 AM
Quote from: Bad water BILLY on July 13, 2012, 07:06:35 PM
Grant. He simply used the brutal realities of warfare...I have more men, more material and the South doesn't.

Lee was good but largely because of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson if you notice, there was a big change in the South's victories after his death. It is doubtful Stonewall would have allowed the invasion of the North (Gettysburg) which was the Confederates downfall.


Billy
But Gettysburg was the second time the South invaded the North, and McClelland caught Lee at Antietam, because he had Lee's operational orders in hand (and even then blew it). I think without the luck chance of having the order fall into his hand, Lee would have simply continued into Pennsylvania. And Stonewall would have favored the Gettysburg campaign if for no other reason than it allowed Southern Armies to live off the North for a change. The question is would Stonewall have talked Lee out of attacking at Gettysburg, or into breaking off the attacks after their first lack of success?
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: facilitiesmgr on July 19, 2012, 12:07:58 PM
Lee was a better leader, hands down.

Grant had more resources of men, guns, supplies and logistical support but it was Gen. Lee who had a greater capacity to lead men into battle, even when greatly outnumbered.  His men were more than willing to follow Gen. Lee, even when they seemily didn't have the resources to win. 

Even after the surrender of the Army of the South at the Appomattox Courthouse when Lee's men had hardly any food, weapons, etc., they still wanted to continue the fight.

A great book on Gen. Lee is Robert E. Lee on Leadership[/u] by H.W. Crocker III.
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: mdgiles on July 19, 2012, 03:37:59 PM
Do you think Lee would have survived at Antietam, if Lee's orders had fallen into the hands of Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Schofield or Sheridan. The South won one major battle in the West, Chickamauga. The lost or at best tied, every other one. Grant missed his Western subordinates when he went East, as much as Lee missed Jackson.
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: bluelieu on July 24, 2012, 01:24:02 PM
Quote from: mdgiles on July 14, 2012, 06:44:56 AM
But Gettysburg was the second time the South invaded the North, and McClelland caught Lee at Antietam, because he had Lee's operational orders in hand (and even then blew it). I think without the luck chance of having the order fall into his hand, Lee would have simply continued into Pennsylvania. And Stonewall would have favored the Gettysburg campaign if for no other reason than it allowed Southern Armies to live off the North for a change. The question is would Stonewall have talked Lee out of attacking at Gettysburg, or into breaking off the attacks after their first lack of success?

We can play "what if" to death, but if Jackson had been at Gettysburg Culp's Hill would most likely have been captured the first night...so long to the fish hook.

 
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: mdgiles on July 24, 2012, 06:05:00 PM
Quote from: bluelieu on July 24, 2012, 01:24:02 PM
We can play "what if" to death, but if Jackson had been at Gettysburg Culp's Hill would most likely have been captured the first night...so long to the fish hook.
Lee was a Napoleonic general. The problem was that the weaponry no longer allowed for Napoleonic tactics. In Napoleons day, muskets took so long to reload, and were so inaccurate; an infantry charge could break the enemy's line. By the civil war, rifled muskets and cannons made that impossible. You were taken under fire at too long a range to ever get the momentum necessary. When Lee ordered Ewell to attack Culp's hill Ewell had already lost a quarter of his troops driving the Federals from north and west of Gettysburg. And he had driven them into a better position. High ground, with cannon parked wheel to wheel and reinforcements steadily coming up. In addition, I believe at that time Rock Creek was dammed, in order to use the water for some industrial purpose, which meant there was a deep pond to his left which prevented flanking the federal position. In any case, Lee had won battles due to federal incompetence or his federal opposite number panicking. Meade wasn't brilliant, but he was cautious. He knew he was in perfect defensive position (even if he forgot to man Little Round Top, neither side had noticed it yet). And of course, without Stuarts calvalry, Lee was effectively blind in enemy territory. I must note that Ewell only had half the troops Jackson would have brought to the fight, as Lee had divided Jackson old Corp into two corps, under Ewell and AP Hill.
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: skuttlebutt on July 31, 2012, 07:30:16 AM
Lee had far better Commanders at his disposal. Grant was handed a stacked deck and made the most of it. In today's battlefield, Grant would be hands down a better General.
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: mdgiles on July 31, 2012, 10:19:50 AM
Quote from: skuttlebutt on July 31, 2012, 07:30:16 AM
Lee had far better Commanders at his disposal. Grant was handed a stacked deck and made the most of it. In today's battlefield, Grant would be hands down a better General.
The unions best generals, were usually in the West. It's interesting, in describing Grant; Sherman said he had: "two o'clock in the morning courage. You could wake him up at two in the morning, and tell him his flank was being turned, and he would be just as calm and unperturbed, as if it were a just another minor setback". How many of Lee's victories depended on his opponent panicking and doing something stupid. Like Hooker at Chancellorsville or McClelland during The Seven Days.
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: Annoying Armed Conservative on July 31, 2012, 11:17:40 AM
In mention of Picket's Charge, it was rumored that Lee had a mild stroke at the time, so he definitely wasn't at the top of his game.

On a completely different tangent, in a game of Victoria 2 as the USA the Confederacy placed Lee in the west and completely abandoned Virginia!  Lee wouldn't be happy about that...  In fact he wasn't, because in late 1861(the war lasted from Oct. 1860- May 1862) Lee turned his 33k army east towards Virginia where I had the majority of my Army  :lol:!   The last stand of the Confederacy took place in Alabama by the way...  Sorry about going off-topic but that was the most epic game I ever played.
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: mdgiles on August 01, 2012, 11:08:27 AM
Quote from: Annoying Armed Conservative on July 31, 2012, 11:17:40 AM
In mention of Picket's Charge, it was rumored that Lee had a mild stroke at the time, so he definitely wasn't at the top of his game.

On a completely different tangent, in a game of Victoria 2 as the USA the Confederacy placed Lee in the west and completely abandoned Virginia!  Lee wouldn't be happy about that...  In fact he wasn't, because in late 1861(the war lasted from Oct. 1860- May 1862) Lee turned his 33k army east towards Virginia where I had the majority of my Army  :lol:!   The last stand of the Confederacy took place in Alabama by the way...  Sorry about going off-topic but that was the most epic game I ever played.
If the Confederacy was going to abandon Virginia, why was he fighting on the side of the Confederacy. Only once did he allow, a major portion of his army - Longstreet's Corps - to go west and help the confederacies beleaguered troops. That resulted in the Confederate victory at Chickamauga, and the siege - and near destruction - of Rosacran's army in Chattanooga.  Besides abandoning Virginia would have opened the way int North Carolina, who hadn't really wanted to secede, and East Tennessee which was pro unionist, as was much of the Appalachian region. And of course without Lee, Whats to prevent the Union from simply marching down the eastern seaboard?
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: a777pilot on November 10, 2012, 07:38:51 PM
Grant.
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: Murph on November 10, 2012, 10:09:00 PM
In tactics and strategy, Grant. Lee had an uncanny ability to boost the morale of his troops;and had several exceptional generals, for example Thomas Jackson and JEB Stuart, where the Union had political appointments like Sykes in corps command, of course nearing the end of the war the best Union leadership emerged, like Phil Sheridan.
However, had Grant had a smaller army at his command the outcome of the war would be likely be very different if he used the same tactics he did at battles such as Cold Harbor and the Overland Campaign.
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: For Liberty on November 11, 2012, 02:29:31 AM
Lee was a better Tactician while Grant understood strategy better
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: doublejm1 on April 02, 2013, 08:23:31 PM
I think Grant edges out Lee, but not by much.
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: Mountainshield on April 03, 2013, 05:30:08 AM
Because I'm european I have always been more of Thirty Years war history fanboy and have several books on it. When studying who was the better general of i.e Wallenstein, Pappenheim or Adolphus I always find going over tactic displayed over battlemap very usefull and reading about progression of battle and the generals ability to adaptg to changes and use events useful. For example the most hailed soviet general of all time is Zhukov and he was a terrible general, the only strategy he ever seem to use was the pincer movement in conjunction with massive artillery barrages, and the battle for berlin really showcases how incompetent the general really was. So in judging who was the better general I think focus on tactics and overall strategy should be the primary variables.

Anyone got any good links to battlemaps where Lee or Grant fought?
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: mdgiles on April 10, 2013, 04:38:05 PM
The Eastern Union commanders were so bad that when Grant wanted anything important done in the east he relied on Sheridan - a western general he had brought east with him. Indeed the Union won at Gettysburg because the Confederates forced the union Army back into the perfect defensive position and then attacked that perfect defensive position for three days. Even then the Union got lucky (Chamberlain on Little Round Top, Custer charging Stuart's calvary). 
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: Partisan62 on July 29, 2013, 10:12:11 AM
Lee, hands down.  When confronted with situations where he did not have numerical superiority or faced a strong defensive position, Grant failed miserably (Shiloh first day, Cold Harbor, Petersburg). Grant's only talent was that he was relentless, regardless of the human cost.  Grant was a blunt object, a sledgehammer, and little more.  If Grant had faced a larger ANV in the spring of 1864, Lee would have caught Grant in one of his leftward movements and crushed him.  Even a temporary retreat by Grant in 1864 (and if Johnston had been allowed to continue to delay Sherman in Georgia) might have put McClellan in the White House in November 1864 instead of the tyrant Lincoln.
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: mdgiles on August 01, 2013, 06:09:27 AM
Quote from: Partisan62 on July 29, 2013, 10:12:11 AM
Lee, hands down.  When confronted with situations where he did not have numerical superiority or faced a strong defensive position, Grant failed miserably (Shiloh first day, Cold Harbor, Petersburg). Grant's only talent was that he was relentless, regardless of the human cost.  Grant was a blunt object, a sledgehammer, and little more.  If Grant had faced a larger ANV in the spring of 1864, Lee would have caught Grant in one of his leftward movements and crushed him.  Even a temporary retreat by Grant in 1864 (and if Johnston had been allowed to continue to delay Sherman in Georgia) might have put McClellan in the White House in November 1864 instead of the tyrant Lincoln.
Grant indeed was surprised at Shiloh, by a larger confederate force - but he still won. At Cold Harbor he miscalculated the Confederate strength. In any case, he soon redeemed himself by forcing Lee into the one thing he had feared since the Seven Days, a siege of Richmond. The problem was, the public was expecting great victories on the battlefield. They didn't recognize that war had changed. Prior to the Civil War, victory had meant the destruction of whole armies; but armies had become too large, too well armed, and too well run, to be destroyed in that same manner.

I read an interesting article on the Civil War the other day. It made the point that Lee never defeated the Army of the Potomac, but he often defeated the General in charge of that army. Too many times the general facing Lee lost his nerve and retreated - even when that general still had superior forces. Grant was the first union general in the east to force Lee to conform to his movements.
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: Partisan62 on August 01, 2013, 08:43:25 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on August 01, 2013, 06:09:27 AM
Grant indeed was surprised at Shiloh, by a larger confederate force - but he still won. At Cold Harbor he miscalculated the Confederate strength. In any case, he soon redeemed himself by forcing Lee into the one thing he had feared since the Seven Days, a siege of Richmond. The problem was, the public was expecting great victories on the battlefield. They didn't recognize that war had changed. Prior to the Civil War, victory had meant the destruction of whole armies; but armies had become too large, too well armed, and too well run, to be destroyed in that same manner.

I read an interesting article on the Civil War the other day. It made the point that Lee never defeated the Army of the Potomac, but he often defeated the General in charge of that army. Too many times the general facing Lee lost his nerve and retreated - even when that general still had superior forces. Grant was the first union general in the east to force Lee to conform to his movements.

It's important to note that Grant won at Shiloh only when Buell's arrival suddenly made Grant's army much larger.  Had Buell not arrived that evening and Grant had been left without reinforcement, Beauregard would have pushed Grant's inferior forces into the Tennessee River early on the next day. 

I agree that the war changed the nature of warfare, transitioning from Napoleonic tactics in 1861 to almost WW1 trench warfare in 1864-1865.

You reinforce my point of Lee's superiority by noting that he won victories in spite of the Union's superior numbers;  yes, he defeated the Union generals despite having fewer men and supplies.  Grant on the other hand, wanted for nothing, but still couldn't finish the job until Sherman's terrorism broke the South's weak infrastructure.  Yes, Grant pushed Lee to move to meet him in the 1864 campaign mainly because the weakened ANV could only act defensively.  A pre-Gettysburg Confederate Army would have been a different matter, however; I believe a stronger ANV would have caught Grant in one of his piecemeal movements and crushed a significant part of the Army of the Potomac (and how I wish that that had occurred).

Like him or not, Bobby Lee accomplished much with very little...which cannot be said of Grant.
Title: Re: Grant or Lee
Post by: mdgiles on August 03, 2013, 08:45:19 AM
Quote from: Partisan62 on August 01, 2013, 08:43:25 AM
It's important to note that Grant won at Shiloh only when Buell's arrival suddenly made Grant's army much larger.  Had Buell not arrived that evening and Grant had been left without reinforcement, Beauregard would have pushed Grant's inferior forces into the Tennessee River early on the next day.
Actually no. The Confederates lost their chance when they didn't defeat Grant on the first day. Wallace's and Prentiss's division in the Hornets nest accomplished that. And the Confederate plan was to push Grant back into the surrounding swamps, but they ended up pushing him back toward the river. There, with the Union gunboats providing covering fire, he stabilized the line and joined up with the other parts of his army which had been detached. Shiloh bears a great deal of resemblance to Antietam where Lee was caught with his army in pieces. At Shiloh the Confederates, couldn't bring their entire army to bear because there was a large ravine in front of the Union lines which they hadn't known about. At Antietam the union commanders were simply incompetent.
QuoteI agree that the war changed the nature of warfare, transitioning from Napoleonic tactics in 1861 to almost WW1 trench warfare in 1864-1865.
It would have done the commanders in WW1 a great deal of good to study some of the battles of the Civil War, as it would have taught them the futility of attempting to cross open ground against rifled fire.
QuoteYou reinforce my point of Lee's superiority by noting that he won victories in spite of the Union's superior numbers;  yes, he defeated the Union generals despite having fewer men and supplies.  Grant on the other hand, wanted for nothing, but still couldn't finish the job until Sherman's terrorism broke the South's weak infrastructure.  Yes, Grant pushed Lee to move to meet him in the 1864 campaign mainly because the weakened ANV could only act defensively.  A pre-Gettysburg Confederate Army would have been a different matter, however; I believe a stronger ANV would have caught Grant in one of his piecemeal movements and crushed a significant part of the Army of the Potomac (and how I wish that that had occurred).
He only won because the commanders were so incompetent. What many people forget is that the Confederacy was constantly losing in the West. The "Lee fixation" of the Army of the Potomac, was often it's undoing. Why in the hell did Burnside attack at Fredericksburg, when he could have crossed further down the river and forced Lee out of his position. Once Lee ran into a general who was willing to maneuver and who understood logistics, he was dead meat. Speaking of Lee's earlier army. Do you think Grant, Sherman or Sheridan would have turned back at the Seven Days. Forcing Johnson and then Lee into a siege of Richmond, would have ended the war earlier. How about attacking Lee piecemeal at Antietam. Think any of those three would have turned and retreated at Chancellorsville. This was after all where Grant fought in the Wilderness, when the battle was a bloody draw he continued South. And why the hell did Lee attack at Gettysburg - across open fields, up hill, against a perfect defensive position. 
QuoteLike him or not, Bobby Lee accomplished much with very little...which cannot be said of Grant.
It isn't a question of like or dislike. Lee was simply facing incompetents. When he started facing reasonably competent generalship - Meade at Gettysburg - he lost, and lost badly.