Grant Or Lee (1 Viewer)

wellington

wellington

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
1,350
Who do you think was a better General Grant or Lee...personally I think Grant was........:D Also who was a better leader....Lincoln or Davis.....:p



WELLINGTON
 
wellington said:
Who do you think was a better General Grant or Lee...personally I think Grant was........:D Also who was a better leader....Lincoln or Davis.....:p



WELLINGTON
Click to expand...

If by "better," you mean maximized the ability of his troops - then Lee is a winner hands down. Grant simply exploited a numerical superiority in a war of attrition. There is no comparison between Lincoln and Davis. Lincoln was his superior in every way. Davis had the advantage of better Generals, but Lincoln held the government together and eventually found a formula for victory despite some of the most inept military commanders in American history. Davis failed to exploit early opportunities or convince any of the European powers to intervene on behalf of the Confederacy.
 
I was only joking....was just trying to be a wise guy......:) I think that Napoleon was a far greater General than Lee.....LOL...JUST KIDDING MEN....I'm staying out of it...


WELLINGTON
 
Last edited:
wellington said:
Who do you think was a better General Grant or Lee...personally I think Grant was........:D Also who was a better leader....Lincoln or Davis.....:p WELLINGTON
Click to expand...

I would think that the definition of leadership and what is a leader should be discussed first before any discussion about leadership styles can be started. There are as many opinions and definitions of leadership as there are stars in the sky. The US military has its academies and its graduate colleges just for the issue. MBA schools do teach business skills but they are primarily leadership colleges. Leadership is an ordinary facet of everyday life both civilian and military.

A simple definition is the best leader is the leader who prevails. Therefore using that definition, Grant is the better leader. However, if you were to put the South and the North on equal ground (for resources) who knows? Lee may prevail. But we will never know as the question is very subjective and theoretical.

What your first question primarily asks (especially Americans) is with whom do your loyalties lie, North or South?

What your second question asks is - if the responder chooses Davis, just how missinformed and ignorant of the facts are they (the responder)? To compare Lincoln to Davis is like comparing Washington to George III of England. Very striking and very obious differences.
 
Last edited:
Take it as you will....the thread was a bit of a joke.....



WELLINGTON
 
Actually, it's not a bad idea for a thread. Why not keep it going.
 
My take on this ...Lee was more of a leader by commitee as he trusted his very able subordinates to make very suggestive stragedies work. Lee would say to his Generals...I suggest that we turn their flank and leave the details to his Corp Commanders. Grant would say we will turn their flank and tell his Generals how to do it. It might be said that when left to his own devices ( after Jackson's death ) Lee never led his forces to a decisive victory again. That said, the South was more effective at the beginning ( at least in the Eastern theatre )because each Corp was set up as a mini army ,with strong leaders that were allowed to make command decisions...The North had able, but average Corp commanders that were tightly held in check by a central authority...Lee might have been a better tactician, but Grant knew that he had more men, and could get more men, and so he was more secure in the smash mouth tactics, that he is noted for. Michael
 
Picket said , "The union got all the smart ones and look where it got them!" At
least it was what Stephan Lang said in the Gettysberg movie
 
I think that Robert E. Lee might have been the greatest general of Napoleonic Era tactics that ever walked the planet. He was a master motivator, worshiped by his men, from whom he got the very best. I think that if Lee and his Rebs took on Wellington and his "Goddams", the brits wouldn't have stood a chance.

That being said, Lee was using Napoleonic tactics meant for smooth bore muskets and transport by horse, in what was the first truly modern total war with rifled muskets, repeating carbines, primitive machine guns, iron clad warships, recon from the air, train transport and telegraph communications. Grant may have otherwise been Lee's inferior, but he understood war in the modern era. He recognized that he could force a war of attrition that only the Union could win, and he did so. So by my estimate, Grant was indeed the superior general.
 
You Know - I cant get involved in this thread.

For one thing most of you on this Forum are Yankees. You dont understand the South - You dont understand our culture and you certainly dont understand Robert E. Lee.

I will close on this one statement:

Robert E. Lee took command of an Army that never existed before, lead the troops of a Country that for practical purposes barely existed, had no large amount of War material and supply to compete with his adversary - who was ten times his superior in both and finally managed to conduct a theater of operations for 4 YEARS under those circumstances.

Yes, my YANKEE friends - you will never understand.

Son of the South, Ron
 
I am from the south and I choose Genral Grant. Why because he is on a 50 dollar bill and if I have one I can buy soldiers. Grant wins hands down.
 
Ron, This Yankee (bred, born, raised and proud to be one) has had the great honor of living in the South for 10 years and I have found one true fact that I do understand about the South. That one true fact that I understand about the South is that some poeple in the South have not learned acceptance and moving on. Southern state’s righter’s and slaveholders and the British lost (yeah I said British, they supported the South but as usual hedged their bet); the United States was and is the winner.:cool:
 
Capitolron.......Paybacks a BIT@#.........:D



WELLINGTON


Friends still though right.......

IF WELLINGTON WAS THERE HE WOULD HAVE WON THE WAR IN 1861.......
 
Last edited:
Wellington we are Brothers in Arms. :D

As far as this thread - nope - not going to do it.
 
Common.....I'll forgive you for your ignorance....just read a few more books and you will see how great a General Grant was.....



WELLINGTON
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top