Grant or Lee?

[LightSpectra]

The further away from the conflict we get the more regard that goes Grant's way. Right after the war and for decades after Grant's claim to fame was that he fought the greatest general in the war to a draw in the East.

By draw, you mean unconditional surrender, right? One of three in the war, which were all claimed by Grant, by the way.

And Lee wasn't the perfect general either, he lost bad at Gettysburg which was strategically worse than Cold Harbour.

Gettysburg was far and away from Lee's worst defeats.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

They have entered consideration, at least among the people who haven't been spending their time in this thread giving Lee the Butcher a blow job.

So why is Lee the butcher but Grant not (or Sherman)? I mean, I know you hate him for being a traitor but let's try to retain some level of objectivity here.

 

[Dachs]

So why is Lee the butcher but Grant not (or Sherman)? I mean, I know you hate him for being a traitor but let's try to retain some level of objectivity here.

The one-sentence answer: proportionately, armies that Lee commanded suffered the highest casualties of any in the entire war.

The more-than-one-sentence answer: read my posts in this thread.

 

[vogtmurr]

The one-sentence answer: proportionately, armies that Lee commanded suffered the highest casualties of any in the entire war.

As I've indicated that doesn't actually make any sense. The Greeks probably lost 50% at Thermopylae, while the Persians only lost 10%. They had the 'victory' only because they actually took the pass.

 

[LightSpectra]

As I've indicated that doesn't actually make any sense. The Greeks probably lost 50% at Thermopylae, while the Persians only lost 10%. They had the 'victory' only because they actually took the pass.

Aside from the comparison between the Persian Wars and the American Civil War being ridiculous due to vast differences in war objectives and strategy, Thermopylae is considered a Greek defeat, just as the Overland Campaign and Siege of Petersberg are considered Confederate defeats.

 

[vogtmurr]

The point stands that proportionate casualty rate without context is meaningless, and if it wasn't clear enough I was acknowledging Thermopylae was a Persian victory. It did however involve a brutal slave state. How about the Alamo or Rorke's Drift then ?

 

[.Shane.]

The one-sentence answer: proportionately, armies that Lee commanded suffered the highest casualties of any in the entire war.

The more-than-one-sentence answer: read my posts in this thread.

I'm not a military historian, so this is my very general observation.

Without making an ultimate judgement, its seems to me that part of the problem w/ the question is that, by-and-large, Lee fought way more defensive engagements than Grant, especially when they were mano y mano at the end. Generally speaking, defensive engagements are easier to fight and offensive actions take higher casualties. I don't think its a coincidence that when Lee was on his strongest offensive action (Gettysburg) that he had his most significant failing.

Again, this is my mid-level understanding, feel free to politely show me the errs of my ways/reasoning.

 

[Dachs]

As I've indicated that doesn't actually make any sense. The Greeks probably lost 50% at Thermopylae, while the Persians only lost 10%. They had the 'victory' only because they actually took the pass.

Who's talking about "victories"? I was explaining why I call Lee "Lee the Butcher".

I'm not a military historian, so this is my very general observation.

Without making an ultimate judgement, its seems to me that part of the problem w/ the question is that, by-and-large, Lee fought way more defensive engagements than Grant, especially when they were mano y mano at the end. Generally speaking, defensive engagements are easier to fight and offensive actions take higher casualties. I don't think its a coincidence that when Lee was on his strongest offensive action (Gettysburg) that he had his most significant failing.

Again, this is my mid-level understanding, feel free to politely show me the errs of my ways/reasoning.

That's a very good by-and-large way to put things. Usually, the tactical offensive has the consequence of higher expected casualty rate (per Lanchester's law, which is the only thing close to a valid dictum in military theory): the usual claim is three to one.

Lee is also extremely well known for having preferred the tactical offensive. In the Seven Days' battles, the ANV was on the offensive in every single engagement; same at Second Manassas (Lee's greatest victory, by the way), Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg. The tactical offensive has some attendant advantages that can be good force multipliers - like possession of the initiative (and therefore, usually, concentration of force) - and, more importantly, one almost always needs to take the offensive in some form to actually win. In some circumstances (again, like Second Manassas) the ANV benefited from those force multipliers. During the second half of the battle of Chancellorsville, and again at Gettysburg, it was however drawn into relatively disorganized and uncoordinated attacks that did not make full use of concentration of force, losing the tactical offensive's most significant advantage.

Some of these same problems afflicted the Army of the Potomac in 1864. Its command structure was relatively new and untested, and much confusion resulted, especially from Grant's early disagreements with Meade. (These were ironed out by 1865, such that the Army of the Potomac was able to mount one of the best-run maneuver campaigns in the history of modern warfare, namely, the Appomattox campaign, which is frequently and unfairly slighted on the grounds that it was against a weakened and doomed enemy - false - and victory was practically inevitable at that point.) Coordination suffered as a result. Other tactical problems were relatively new. It was in 1864 that you really get the first instance of the sort of constant fighting that eventually became well known in the World Wars: two armies, in more or less constant contact, spending virtually all of their time either marching or fighting. Nobody was prepared for the strains of such a sort of campaign; everybody was used to the stop-and-start actions that usually constituted warfare. And in such circumstances, the exhaustion that resulted invariably favored the defender. At the same time, though, from an operational standpoint, that constant fighting was necessary. The campaign had to keep going, partly for political reasons and partly for attritive reasons. Exhaustion, and the poor coordination that was its result, ultimately stemmed from that.

So we see multiple instances of Grant ordering grand tactical outflanking maneuvers and such, but poor staff work and sheer exhaustion on the part of his own troops generally prevented these from being effective before Lee could respond. This became especially prevalent during the later parts of the campaign, e.g. the march from Spotsylvania to the North Anna River. At least twice, the Federals missed the opportunity to destroy Lee's army in detail (once on the march, once in battle positions) because Grant's troops were simply too tired to carry out their orders. Should Grant have been aware of this? Almost certainly. He may very well have been. But if they had even the slightest chance to succeed, attempting such maneuvers was necessary if he wanted to accomplish the goals of the campaign.

Ugh, that got away from me pretty quickly...

 

[G-Max]

As I've indicated that doesn't actually make any sense. The Greeks probably lost 50% at Thermopylae, while the Persians only lost 10%. They had the 'victory' only because they actually took the pass.

As I recall, the Spartans lost 100%

 

[Dachs]

As I recall, the Spartans lost 100%

The Spartans weren't even ten percent of the Greek army at Thermopylai.

 

[G-Max]

True. They were, however, the only Greeks who stuck around for the end. Probably not the smartest decision on their part, but it made for a much cooler movie.

 

[vogtmurr]

True. They were, however, the only Greeks who stuck around for the end. Probably not the smartest decision on their part, but it made for a much cooler movie.

Actually the full drama is missed if you don't include the 700 Thespians who decided he wouldn't make his last stand alone. And that was pretty epic because it represented all the available manpower of this minor Boeotian town, which not once but thrice made that sacrifice.

 

[Traitorfish]

The Spartans weren't even ten percent of the Greek army at Thermopylai.

Yes, but they brought more soldiers.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

True. They were, however, the only Greeks who stuck around for the end. Probably not the smartest decision on their part, but it made for a much cooler movie.

Except they weren't. The Spartans, Helots, Thesbians, Thebans, and Phoicans remained as a rear-guard to protect the rest of the retreating Greek army. It would be as if you said Marshal Ney was the only French general to invade Russia.

 

[Traitorfish]

Except they weren't. The Spartans, Helots, Thesbians, Thebans, and Phoicans remained as a rear-guard to protect the rest of the retreating Greek army. It would be as if you said Marshal Ney was the only French general to invade Russia.

Wouldn't put it past him to try, mind.

 

[swimandciv]

Grant became a better general over the course of the war. He made mistakes early on but learned from them. Lee was better at first but by the very end I think Grant was better. Grant also was superior on the nation-wide strategic scale. In this regard he was unmatched by any general of the war.

 

[Gem Hound]

The Union overwhelmed the Confederacy. Saying Grant was better is like saying that the Russian generals in WW2 were better than the German generals. It just isn't true. I'm unbiased, as you can tell by me being in a different country. Look at the numbers. The Union lost to the Confederacy many many more soldiers than battles led by Lee lost the Confederacy.

Lee nearly always faced a larger army. Grant, faced an army that had been beaten on for nearly 4 years by what would have seemed like endless soldiers with better equipment. I with an unbiased look at the comparisons, heavily vote for Lee because even though he lost the war, he was a better and more inventive general.

 

[sophie]

The Union overwhelmed the Confederacy. Saying Grant was better is like saying that the Russian generals in WW2 were better than the German generals. It just isn't true. I'm unbiased, as you can tell by me being in a different country. Look at the numbers. The Union lost to the Confederacy many many more soldiers than battles led by Lee lost the Confederacy.

Lee nearly always faced a larger army. Grant, faced an army that had been beaten on for nearly 4 years by what would have seemed like endless soldiers with better equipment. I with an unbiased look at the comparisons, heavily vote for Lee because even though he lost the war, he was a better and more inventive general.

Wow. Way to not read the thread before posting, dude. Go back and try again, please.

 

[Gem Hound]

I know on the History Channel this week in the U.S. they're running several specials on the American Civil War. One of these is about Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee. I was curious to see who you all think was the better general overall.

Wow. Way to not read the thread before posting, dude. Go back and try again, please.

I posted on topic.

 

[Quackers]

Do Grant or Lee rank alongside Napoleon? Or is that a whole new league here?