Grant better general then Lee?

[Urban Ranger]

Sure? I thought Lee was a lousy strategist. He should have never attacked Gettysburg.

[Ted Striker]

Wasn't Gettysburg the battle where Lee apologized to his soldiers but they refused to let him? I think he realized that he overextended himself, but you are right, he did overextend himself there.

The Southern commanders were so much better at every single level, they just didn't have the firepower and logistics to back it up.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
By definition, if you are outnumbered (as at Chacellorsville, for one example) and you then go on the offensive and drive the enemy off the battlefield, you are going to incur higher casualties. When the alternative is a high cost attack, or a retreat into an inevitably fatal siege, any general worth his salt will attack. The question is would Grant, faced with Lee's sitation and resources at Chancellorsville, have exceeded Lee's performance?

By definition, a great general is somebody who dictates terms to his enemy, not the other way around.

[David Floyd]

By definition, a great general is somebody who dictates terms to his enemy, not the other way around.

So a great general commanding a platoon will end up dictating terms to a piss poor general commanding a division?

Come on

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Wasn't Gettysburg the battle where Lee apologized to his soldiers but they refused to let him? I think he realized that he overextended himself, but you are right, he did overextend himself there.

IIRC, Longstreet tried to stop him, pointing out that if the South could achieve a stalemate, then Lincoln might lose his re-election to somebody allowing the South to secede.

Originally posted by Ted Striker
The Southern commanders were so much better at every single level, they just didn't have the firepower and logistics to back it up.

This was somewhat compensated by the South having the inside line.

[orange]

i read about this guy. It's not "Yankee Propoganda" if he's a southerner...I think he lives somewhere near Myrtle Beach, and people down there HATE HIM.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So a great general commanding a platoon will end up dictating terms to a piss poor general commanding a division?

Come on

When was the last time you found a general commanding a platoon?

The point is a great general will choose the time and place of engagements while avoiding the ones forced on him by his enemies.

[David Floyd]

When was the last time you found a general commanding a platoon?

OK, smartass, how about a brigade against an army? Both are generally commanded by generals, yet the brigade is not going to defeat the army - it can run away, but it isn't going to win on the basis of superior leadership alone.

[Shi Huangdi]

" If that's what you need to get you through the night baby, have at it."

Ahhh..... I knew this would work great for a low effort troll thread the moment I saw the CNN article.

"People can argue against Pickett's charge, but regardless of whether one thinks it necessary or not, it still put enough of a sting on Meade that he was lackadaisical in pursuing the ANV when it could have and should have been trapped against floodwaters of the Potomac and destroyed."

Was that because of Pickett's charge though or because of a bad decision by Gen. Meade? The South wasn't exactly in the best position in terms of manpower and so losing those forces had to a be tough sting to the South.

"So a great general commanding a platoon will end up dictating terms to a piss poor general commanding a division?"

Maybe but was that the case in the South vs the North. Logistical problems aside, the South still had a real army that had been doing quite well. Grant took control of forces that had seen a good deal of defeat and won the war with them. Lee had his chances to go up against some of the dumbest generals in American history and still couldn't put together a victory.

In any case, Grant is rightly remembered as an American hero for defeating the Slaveocracy of the South, Lee is rightly remembered as a villain because of his defense of the Southern Slavocracy.

[David Floyd]

Lee had his chances to go up against some of the dumbest generals in American history and still couldn't put together a victory.

The problem was one of logistics, industry, that sort of thing - you touched on that in the sentence preceding that one. Are you telling me that if the South had as much industrial power as the North, and the same access to hard currency, the world trade market, munitions, food, etc., that they would have still lost?

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by David Floyd


The problem was one of logistics, industry, that sort of thing - you touched on that in the sentence preceding that one. Are you telling me that if the South had as much industrial power as the North, and the same access to hard currency, the world trade market, munitions, food, etc., that they would have still lost?

Those things are all disadvantages that Lee faced, but he was still able to field an army so it wasn't like a brigade against an entire army. But Lee faced advantages too in that he had an excellent cast of subordinate generals and for the early part of the war faced very incompetent US Generals. All Lee was able to make of that advantage was delaying the war and defending the South until the North finally got some decent generals.

[TCO]

Floyd likes slave-owning. It's part of his libertarian code that you're allowed to own other people.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
OK, smartass, how about a brigade against an army? Both are generally commanded by generals, yet the brigade is not going to defeat the army - it can run away, but it isn't going to win on the basis of superior leadership alone.

Are you familar with the war between Octavius and Mark Anthony? Or between the CCP and the KMT? It is entirely possible that, overall, you have a numeric inferiority to your enemy, but a local superiority.

If you can't swamp the other side all at once, chew it up bit by bit.

[Andrew1999]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi In any case, Grant is rightly remembered as an American hero for defeating the Slaveocracy of the South, Lee is rightly remembered as a villain because of his defense of the Southern Slavocracy.

Except, of course, in the Southern Slaveocracy itself, where they still celebrate Robert E. Lee Day instead of Martin Luther King Jr. Day. I remember last year the editorial pages in my local rag were evenly split between praising Lee as the greatest person who ever lived, and calling for John Walker Lindh to be drawn and quartered. You would think they would treat all the traitors consistently.

[TCO]

Robert E. Lee was not a traitor. Slave-owning is worng. Agreed. But going so far as to call Lee a traitor? no.