Frederick the Great .vs. Robert E. Lee

[Dachs]

The Austrians failed to do this in 1761 when the Russians were helping them, so why would they have been able to do so with less men and less money than before?

Friedrich actually controlled more troops in Silesia than did the Austrians in 1762 even without Chernyshev's Russian army corps, and the Russians barely participated in the campaign before being ordered out again by Yekaterina. The Battle of Burkersdorf and the siege and capture of Schweidnitz, which are what effectively turned the tide in Silesia, were accomplished solely with Prussian troops. Heinrich's offensive against the Imperial army in Saxony that fall did not even require reinforcements from Silesia, and the victory he gained at Freiberg permitted the Freikorps to attack Thuringian territories and further hasten the end of the war.

Austria could not have sustained the war into 1763 arguably even with Russian support. Zinzendorf, the auditor-general, was convinced that the drain of further war would lead to state bankruptcy. It is probable that the war would have concluded with a peace of exhaustion anyway.

 

[Racsoviale]

Wait wasn't Friedrich the guy who surrounded himself with huge muscular men in uniform?

Because If Lee doesn't have anything like that I'd say it's a sure win - you can only beat so many dudes before they overcome you. Even if you are a badass at fisting.

 

[Lord Baal]

Wait wasn't Friedrich the guy who surrounded himself with huge muscular men in uniform?

Because If Lee doesn't have anything like that I'd say it's a sure win - you can only beat so many dudes before they overcome you. Even if you are a badass at fisting.

Dear god, there are so many different ways to read that post.

 

[Racsoviale]

Like what?

 

[Dachs]

Wait wasn't Friedrich the guy who surrounded himself with huge muscular men in uniform?

That was his father. Fred inherited them. He downsized the regiment to a battalion and moved most of the Potsdam Giants out to various other army units.

 

[Traitorfish]

Lee had an uninspiring beard, but it was at least a beard. Frederick had no beard at all. Therefore, it's obvious which was the superior.

 

[Lord Baal]

Like what?

I don't want to be overcome by dudes that I'm fisting, for one.

 

[Leoreth]

Lee had an uninspiring beard, but it was at least a beard. Frederick had no beard at all. Therefore, it's obvious which was the superior.

Also, Frederick spoke French.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Also, Frederick spoke French.

So did General Lee, he got a 98 at West Point and occasionally spoke it with the European observers.

 

[Lord Baal]

Frederick the Great never had a namesake portrayed in a Johnny Knoxville film. That's a big point in his favor..

 

[Racsoviale]

I don't want to be overcome by dudes that I'm fisting, for one.

And where's the fun in that?

But since Lee was one of the 98% and therefore an inherently lazy welfare queen, and Friedrich was a dirty communist by redistributing his muscular dudes they both fail at warfisting and would both surely lose.

 

[Leoreth]

So did General Lee, he got a 98 at West Point and occasionally spoke it with the European observers.

Oh, I didn't mean that in the sense of "was able to speak French". I doubt General Lee used it in his everyday life and wrote his diary in it?

 

[Dachs]

Anyway. My actual opinion is that their generalship is impossible to compare, but it'd be fun to talk about it. Unfortunately, almost nobody's tried to do that, so this thread has been boring.

Having said that, I have a vague sense that Friedrich was better at what he did. And he wasn't fighting for the preservation and expansion of a disgusting government whose raison d'être was the perpetuation of slavery, so there's that in his favor, too.

 

[Masada]

He was instead fighting to maintain the fascistic Prussian Government against the forces of historical progress.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It's probable that Lee didn't have a better option, but his generalship style was ultimately self-defeating. He was able to take huge risks to pull of great defensive victories, but it resulted in a large number of casualties he simply couldn't afford. Lee also looked a lot weaker when he couldn't rely on his cavalry and when he lost Stonewall Jackson, so he loses some points there.

Don't get me wrong, I still think he was a great general, but he had some glaring flaws too. And Gettysburg was a complete mistake for him.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

Do you guys think Lee would have been seen more like Frederick the Great if the South won the American Civil War?

I'm a Northern so of course I am a bit bias .

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think the more logical comparison people would have made is George Washington

 

[Leoreth]

I think the more logical comparison people would have made is George Washington

I was about to suggest Pyrrhus of Epirus instead of Frederick

 

[Dachs]

Why? Pyrrhos could never stick to any single campaign; he could win battles but he'd get bored after awhile and go somewhere else, so he never managed to consolidate any of his winnings. Lee did not have that problem at all.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I suppose the biggest thing would be the casualties in victory, but I'd still say that's night and day. For starters, Lee's casualties weren't unusual for the war, they were just another thing that doomed the Confederacy. I'd have to look up the numbers, but, leaving aside Picket's Charge, I suspect they were lower than Union casualties. It's just that they weren't as replaceable.