|
|
Post by Stonewall Jackson on Sept 15, 2016 20:59:49 GMT
Overall who do you think is a better general in terms of strategy and leadership?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Sept 16, 2016 10:20:26 GMT
Grant. He was the first pioneer of the 'Total War' strategy. While Sherman would make better use of it, Grant knew that he had a surplus of resources and men and that he could use them. He didn't NEED tactics, all he needed was attrition, wearing down the Confederates until they just had to break. Of course, Grant did make use of good tactics at many battles, including the decisive Siege of Vicksburg. Instead of launching a full frontal assault on the city, he surrounded it and cut off its supply route, as well as pounding it with artillery. Eventually, the 'Impenetrable' fortress of Vicksburg had to surrender to Grant in July, 1863. If Lee did have all those numbers and resources, I'm not entirely sure he would have been able to use them as effectively as he did. Grant became known as the Butcher, but its for a good reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Sept 16, 2016 11:23:27 GMT
In terms of convential warfare, Lee was the better one.
However, Grant better fit his role. Lee (IMO) did lots of useless offensives with the little resources the Confederates had (essentially, he tried to be Napoleon without the military system that supported him). Tbh, a defensive general would be a lot better, and a general who could keep the Confederate cavalry in check.
Grant however knew the huge resources at the Union disposal and understood the need for newer, attritional tactics in an age were firepower made manuever tactics (at least for now) bloody and obsolete. Grant was the best fit for the role he was assigned.
Since the question's about general skills and tactics, my vote goes for Lee. If I were asked without any qualifiers, Grant would be my vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 13:18:07 GMT
You have to remember the fact that it was projected that the South would lose easily. They didn't have the factories or people to fight the North. Lee was one of the best generals in the war, ultimately prolonging the defeat of a nation, that should've been defeated at the start. Sure Lee mounted too many offensive assaults, but that was too make up for his lack of soldiers.
Ultimately, Grant was forced to use the Anaconda Plan, which truly would require loads of factories to fight. The South's lack of factories, made it so hard for them to even come close to winning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Sept 16, 2016 13:51:43 GMT
You have to remember the fact that it was projected that the South would lose easily. They didn't have the factories or people to fight the North. Lee was one of the best generals in the war, ultimately prolonging the defeat of a nation, that should've been defeated at the start. Sure Lee mounted too many offensive assaults, but that was too make up for his lack of soldiers. Ultimately, Grant was forced to use the Anaconda Plan, which truly would require loads of factories to fight. The South's lack of factories, made it so hard for them to even come close to winning. Grant did not create the Anaconda Plan, Winfield Scott did. And it was a genius plan. The best generals of the war knew the advantage their country had and how to successfully apply and use it. McClellan was a terrible Union general because he was too cautious and never really applied the Union advantage. Grant and Sherman were great generals because they knew their advantage; industry and people. Dont get me wrong, Lee was a great general, but he was too offensive minded. |
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Sept 16, 2016 14:06:23 GMT
You have to remember the fact that it was projected that the South would lose easily. They didn't have the factories or people to fight the North. Lee was one of the best generals in the war, ultimately prolonging the defeat of a nation, that should've been defeated at the start. Sure Lee mounted too many offensive assaults, but that was too make up for his lack of soldiers. Ultimately, Grant was forced to use the Anaconda Plan, which truly would require loads of factories to fight. The South's lack of factories, made it so hard for them to even come close to winning. Here's the thing: Lee's offensives were risky and didn't pay off. His arny could have been destroyed in 1862 when on the offensive (Antietam). The turning point of the war itself happened when Lee attacked (Gettysburg). His offensives weren't required, period. He could have used a "backhand blow" strategy to rout every Union army that came at him (like what Erich von Manstein did to the Soviets at Kharkov). Makes more sense than senslessly trying to win costly victories at Union land. Lee didn't fit his role as commander of an army with little resources. |
|
