Frederick the Great .vs. Robert E. Lee

[Leoreth]

I suppose the biggest thing would be the casualties in victory, but I'd still say that's night and day.

Yeah, that was basically my line of thinking.

 

[Lord Baal]

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.

Dachs has dispelled that myth multiple times. Lee was quite talented at killing his own men.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Do you have the number breakdown? I agree that he had far more casualties than were necessary because of his style, which essentially gambled a lot to win the set victory rather than wearing down the enemy, but high casualties were not unusual for the Army of the Potomac either.

 

[Masada]

The actual losses during the battle are irrelevant if, as was the case, Lee and traitors couldn't replace the losses.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

When it came to Bobble Lee and manpower, he was horrible at resource management.

Everyone here agrees that almost no matter what you do, if you fight a battle in the mid 19th century your going to take a hellacious number of casualties. The question for the South was how best to win the war before running out of war bodies. Arguably the strongest the Confederate army in the East got ever was in spring of 62 when McClellan was pushing on Richmond and the Confederates pulled every available man from North and South Carolina, basically handing east North Carolina to Burnside, and yanked most of the new units raised for the western theater. When Lee takes this grand expression of Confederate might and pushes Little Mac south in the Seven Days, he does this by taking many more casualties than the Union.

This becomes a pattern for Lee during the war. Pulling troops from the south and west, thus keeping those theaters artificially weak, to try and make his army strong enough to destroy the Union army. Luckily for the South, other than the Union Navy the Army didn't really try in Florida or Georgia. However, this was disastrous in the West where the Confederate armies could never really keep up with the Union.

For example, in Bragg's Heartland Campaign in which Bragg, for once looking like he knew what he was doing, flanked the Union in West Tennessee and actually routed the Union out of Kentucky. This is an incredibly important victory, as Kentucky can provide the Confederates with men, resources, and buffer-state area that that desperately needed and relieving pressure on Missouri and Western Tennessee. However, Bragg didn't have enough troops to hold Kentucky for even a little bit, and especially after the glorious tie at was Perryville, and had to return to losing in east Tennessee. This inability to hold Kentucky in large part can be attributed to Lee drawing everything to him in the East and leaving noting for the rest of the Confederacy.

In Lee's defense though, his plans did have some merit. If he could completely destroy the Union army between Richmond and Washington then enough pressure could have been placed on the U.S. Capitol to gain a favorable outcome. However, by early 63 there were enough troops and fortifications in Washington to make this impractical. Even if Lee was victorious at Gettysburg, he couldn't have taken Washington and couldn't besiege it long enough by the time Union troops from the west and north were brought down.

Lee should have reevaluated his campaign plans in winter 62/63 to find a new way to try and win the war. IMO the defend hard-points tactic that Joe Johnston was trying to use in Atlanta was the best approach.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

Dachs has dispelled that myth multiple times. Lee was quite talented at killing his own men.

Amen to that. Lee wasn't a bad general but he wasn't a real great one.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Amen to that. Lee wasn't a bad general but he wasn't a real great one.

Actually, Lee was a great general. He constantly was able to get into the opposing general's head and could punk lesser men. When he was given an opportunity, like a slow moving McClellan at Sharpsburg or a shell shocked Hooker at Chancellorsville he took them. He did absolutely destroy Pope at Second Manassas and he wasn't out generaled at Gettysburg, Meade outlasted him. Grant took up this idea, he couldn't outright defeat Lee in a battle, you have to outlast and outflank in the campaign in general.

Lee's problem was that he didn't do well at the grand strategy of the war. He placed far too much emphasis on Virginia. He didn't change his tactics when they were no longer going to win the war. But many great generals have this problem, see Hannibal, Napoleon, Rommel, ect.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

Actually, Lee was a great general. He constantly was able to get into the opposing general's head and could punk lesser men. When he was given an opportunity, like a slow moving McClellan at Sharpsburg or a shell shocked Hooker at Chancellorsville he took them. He did absolutely destroy Pope at Second Manassas and he wasn't out generaled at Gettysburg, Meade outlasted him. Grant took up this idea, he couldn't outright defeat Lee in a battle, you have to outlast and outflank in the campaign in general.

Lee's problem was that he didn't do well at the grand strategy of the war. He placed far too much emphasis on Virginia. He didn't change his tactics when they were no longer going to win the war. But many great generals have this problem, see Hannibal, Napoleon, Rommel, ect.

A Great General doesn't almost lose his battles because of wasting his troops. Fritz over Lee anytime.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

A Great General doesn't almost lose his battles because of wasting his troops. Fritz over Lee anytime.

Name one battle he almost loses due to casualties taken during the battle. The battles he does lose are never due to wasting troops. Even if Pickett's Charge didn't happened, both armies were too exhausted to fight on July 4th. Plus the charge was actually a decent idea committing fresh divisions to what was thought to be the weak point in the Union line.

 

[LightSpectra]

A Great General doesn't almost lose his battles because of wasting his troops. Fritz over Lee anytime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zorndorf

 

[Dachs]

Actually, Lee was a great general. He constantly was able to get into the opposing general's head and could punk lesser men. When he was given an opportunity, like a slow moving McClellan at Sharpsburg or a shell shocked Hooker at Chancellorsville he took them. He did absolutely destroy Pope at Second Manassas and he wasn't out generaled at Gettysburg, Meade outlasted him. Grant took up this idea, he couldn't outright defeat Lee in a battle, you have to outlast and outflank in the campaign in general.

The best Lee could manage at Sharpsburg was survival, and it was less due to his own efforts and more due to the failures of McClellan and the initiative of Lee's subordinates (like Jackson and A. P. Hill). At Chancellorsville, Lee made one good move that succeeded in spite of all conventional military wisdom (and conventional military wisdom is usually right) and then spent the rest of the battle engaging in unimaginative and foolishly costly attacks on a perimeter that was only abandoned due to Federal command incompetence. And at Gettysburg, he absolutely was outgeneraled in that he chose to fight there under unfavorable circumstances and in so doing made the incorrect decision.

Lee was certainly an adept general officer in some respects, but he left a lot to be desired in tactical terms, not just strategic.

Name one battle he almost loses due to casualties taken during the battle. The battles he does lose are never due to wasting troops.

Seven Days' Battles. If you want a single specific one, Malvern Hill. You've seen the ground there. An attack over that against the fortified Federal position was lunacy, and the hemorrhaging the ANV sustained was commensurate with the stupidity of the assault.

Even if Pickett's Charge didn't happened, both armies were too exhausted to fight on July 4th. Plus the charge was actually a decent idea committing fresh divisions to what was thought to be the weak point in the Union line.

Correct, but it was incompetently executed, partially due to the failings of Lee's own subordinates and partially due to Lee's own failings. That reflects badly on his generalship.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

The best Lee could manage at Sharpsburg was survival, and it was less due to his own efforts and more due to the failures of McClellan and the initiative of Lee's subordinates (like Jackson and A. P. Hill). At Chancellorsville, Lee made one good move that succeeded in spite of all conventional military wisdom (and conventional military wisdom is usually right) and then spent the rest of the battle engaging in unimaginative and foolishly costly attacks on a perimeter that was only abandoned due to Federal command incompetence. And at Gettysburg, he absolutely was outgeneraled in that he chose to fight there under unfavorable circumstances and in so doing made the incorrect decision.

Lee was certainly an adept general officer in some respects, but he left a lot to be desired in tactical terms, not just strategic.

At Sharpsburg, just surviving was about all you can expect to get when you’re caught looking the other way during a snatch ‘n grab raid and two major elements of your army are not around. At Chancellorsville while yes after a miraculous start Lee didn’t get much done, but he still called out Hooker as even more inactive than Little Mac. And his rearguard action defending against Sedgwick from Fredericksburg at the close of the battle was impressive too.

Gettysburg was not his choice, it was chosen for him. July 1st, the armies have already started engaging. If Lee wanted to try and go back the way he came than his forces would have gotten even more separated and have gone deeper north, making the possibility of getting cut off more real. If you want to go south, you have to go through the Union army or expose yourself to flanking attacks. There was almost nothing Lee could have done to avoid Gettysburg.

Seven Days' Battles. If you want a single specific one, Malvern Hill. You've seen the ground there. An attack over that against the fortified Federal position was lunacy, and the hemorrhaging the ANV sustained was commensurate with the stupidity of the assault.

A) Seven Days was his first battle in command of the ANV. The only reason that he was put in charge was because Johnston was wounded and Lee was sitting in the War Office twiddling his thumbs. He was thrown into a situation with officers and staff he hadn’t worked with before and an army in retreat.

B) He still won the Seven Days. Knowing your enemy, hounding him, freaking him out; these things he did masterfully well here. Yes, he went a little gung hoe in the attack department, but he was close a number of times in cutting the Union army in half. It’s a testament to the Union army that they held.

C) The question at hand was if there was a case where his wasting of manpower almost lost him the battle, in the Seven Days battles he was never really in a position to lose. Most of the battles were attempts to make the most out of a Union retreat already in progress.

Correct, but it was incompetently executed, partially due to the failings of Lee's own subordinates and partially due to Lee's own failings. That reflects badly on his generalship.

Never said he was perfect, in fact I have often said otherwise. But again, the question of debate is if he lost because of manpower misuse. He didn’t here, if anything it was a good allocation of manpower executed poorly.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

That's what I mean. Half of Lee's battles he won on pure luck alone and not with a combination of skill and luck. Can't be great if you win only on luck alone.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

That's what I mean. Half of Lee's battles he won on pure luck alone and not with a combination of skill and luck. Can't be great if you win only on luck alone.

Que? The point that Dachs is trying to make is that Lee won his battles despite the troops he lost and that some of his gametime decisions were not the wisest, not that he was total suck. (And usually if he does say that its to get under my skin)

To restate in different words, the problem with Lee wasn't in his command skills or tactics per se when it comes to winning battles. The problem is that his strategy wasn't sustainable nor would it most likely have won the war, especially by mid-63. Great commander still make mistakes and still lose wars.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

Well he still not the best.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Well he still not the best.

That is the most intelligently worded counter argument in the history of historical debates. You should feel honored.

I thought your thread was comparing Fredrick and Lee, not the best.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

That is the most intelligently worded counter argument in the history of historical debates. You should feel honored.

I thought you thread was comparing Fredrick and Lee, not the best.

Aren't you so smart as well!

I am. Frederick was always a better general, plain and simple. So he screwed up at Kolin. How many times did Lee get whoop?

 

[LightSpectra]

this thread is a trainwreck

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Aren't you so smart as well!

I am. Frederick was always a better general, plain and simple. So he screwed up at Kolin. How many times did Lee get whoop?

Well I do have a degree in this stuff so I'd like to think so, but I still like to back up my serious arguments with facts and have no problem asking questions about topics I'm not as well versed on as others (see the current WWII thread) nor and I afraid to seek the opinion of other on topics that I do. This is how you refine your knowledge and understanding of history.

This is your thread and you have yet to provide any arguments to your conclusions other than remarks that my 14 year old brother and his dog could make. If you think Fredrick is better then say why, other than just he rules and Lee sucks.

this thread is a trainwreck

Ain't that the truth...

 

[Antilogic]

this thread is a trainwreck

I wouldn't have expected much from it. These sorts of general v. general threads never go quite how you would like.