Grant Or Lee (1 Viewer)

jazzeum said:
I agree with Ron, a gentleman General.

However, I think the war was lost from the get go because the South was primarily an agrarian society whereas the North was primarily an industrial society. As such, they had the capacity and the werewithal to eventually beat the South. The South could just not call on the industrial capacity they needed to beat the North or at least recognize them as a separate country. Just as the Germans lost the war because of the incredible capacity of the United States, so was the South doomed as well.

In addition, and Louis mentioned this earlier, Lee was fighting a 19th century war whereas Grant was fighting the first war of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

Brad

Those are all good points as well. :)

Ron
 
To say that Grant simply won because he had greater numbers doesn't tell the whole story. He had to know how to use them as well. Sure, he made his blunders (Cold Harbor?), but all in all he understood that he had to be a bulldog and wear Lee down to nothing.

Burnside surely had great numbers at Fredericksburg and it didn't do much for him ...

One thing Grant consistently did - he won. His list of victories is quite impressive.
 
Peter Reuss said:
To say that Grant simply won because he had greater numbers doesn't tell the whole story. He had to know how to use them as well. Sure, he made his blunders (Cold Harbor?), but all in all he understood that he had to be a bulldog and wear Lee down to nothing.

Burnside surely had great numbers at Fredericksburg and it didn't do much for him ...

One thing Grant consistently did - he won. His list of victories is quite impressive.
Click to expand...

Peter

There is no question - Grant was a great General - but, Lee did more with less and had an impressive string of victories himself.

Ron
 
I know little about ACW apart from the famous battles personalities etc.How would you say Lee rates along side people like Rommel,Patton,Napoleon and wellington etc.And do you think he ever really stood a chance against such odds.

Rob
 
Rob

I think Lee could have won Gettysburg with early tatical moves (Little Round Top) that would have displace the Union line and caused a different result.

Lee was a great commander and had tremendous repsect from his troops.
 
I personally believe he is up there with the very very best. He mixed a sound strategic view with the ability to inspire and lead and was a good tactician. I agree with Brads earlier post, in the end it became a war of attrition the South could never win.

If you think of the men who did the most with the fewest, Alexander the Great, Gustavus Adolphus, Lee and more recently Wavell/O'connor shine out.
 
It's alot harder to manage a large army than a smaller one...it just ment the Rebs had a larger target than the Union.....:)


WELLINGTON/GRANT.......:)
 
Capitolron said:
Rob

I think Lee could have won Gettysburg with early tatical moves (Little Round Top) that would have displace the Union line and caused a different result.
Click to expand...

One of Lee's strengths also turned into a weakness. He placed a lot of responsibility and decisionmaking on his subordinates - and for the most part that served him well. However, there were times (like ealier at Gettysburg) when his subordinates did not take the initiative and drive for the high ground when they should have.

Lee was a man of action. He believed that his generals would also be men of action. When they were not, problems arose.
 
The tactics on both armies parts were outdated for the weapons used during that time.....



WELLINGTON
 
I have to disagree with the belief that the winner is the better leader simply because he wins. The Civil War was lost from the moment it started if it required the South to fight a prolonged military conflict. As stated before the South did not have the industry, rail, resources, manpower etc to defeat the North. The only way they could defeat the North was to achieve a political truce through a quick decisive victory or to win with political pressure from European allies. Actually they were close on both points. The loss at Gettysburg essentially sealed the fate for the Confederacy. The losses were threefold: loss of Southern men which could not be replaced, loss of European support and the last chance to try and broker a truce with the North.

So when Grant was placed in command the war was won but the fighting wasn't over. At the time he took charge of the Army of the Potomac here are the size of the armies on the field.

Army of Potomac: 120,00
Army of Northern Virginia: 64,000

Shermans Army 100,000
Johnston's Army of Tennessee 60,000

Along with the superior number of men was probably a more overwhelming superiority of supplies and equipment. For Grant not to have won in this situation would have been of epic proportions.

In war all leaders make mistakes. In the case of Lee his mistake at Gettysburg was one that could not be overcome. Lee did not want and should not have fought at Gettysburg. His subordinates got him into a fight and then performed poorly and allowed the Union to control the highground. When Grant made his mistake at Cold Harbour he simply had replacements sent in to replace the 7,000 men he lost.


Ronnie
www.crossroadsdiecast.com
 
Crossroads said:
I have to disagree with the belief that the winner is the better leader simply because he wins. The Civil War was lost from the moment it started if it required the South to fight a prolonged military conflict. As stated before the South did not have the industry, rail, resources, manpower etc to defeat the North. The only way they could defeat the North was to achieve a political truce through a quick decisive victory or to win with political pressure from European allies. Actually they were close on both points. The loss at Gettysburg essentially sealed the fate for the Confederacy. The losses were threefold: loss of Southern men which could not be replaced, loss of European support and the last chance to try and broker a truce with the North.

So when Grant was placed in command the war was won but the fighting wasn't over. At the time he took charge of the Army of the Potomac here are the size of the armies on the field.

Army of Potomac: 120,00
Army of Northern Virginia: 64,000

Shermans Army 100,000
Johnston's Army of Tennessee 60,000

Along with the superior number of men was probably a more overwhelming superiority of supplies and equipment. For Grant not to have won in this situation would have been of epic proportions.

In war all leaders make mistakes. In the case of Lee his mistake at Gettysburg was one that could not be overcome. Lee did not want and should not have fought at Gettysburg. His subordinates got him into a fight and then performed poorly and allowed the Union to control the highground. When Grant made his mistake at Cold Harbour he simply had replacements sent in to replace the 7,000 men he lost.


Ronnie
www.crossroadsdiecast.com
Click to expand...

Ronnie:

Great Points - I agree. :D

Ron
 
Me too, well said. The amazing thing was the way the South fought so long and so hard. And gave a few 'bloody noses'. The real tragedy was why fight at all........
 
wellington said:
The tactics on both armies parts were outdated for the weapons used during that time.....



WELLINGTON
Click to expand...

Yes, it was great to see the European Powers learned from our mistakes in the ACW, by using the same tactics 49 years later in WW1. :D Michael
 
maddadicus said:
Yes, it was great to see the European Powers learned from our mistakes in the ACW, by using the same tactics 49 years later in WW1. :D Michael
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more Michael, first the Boer war then the big one......What lessons are we not learning now I wonder.:rolleyes:
 
Hply Mother of God pray for us. Oops sorry but maybe she'll have to if we don't learn.....Ah well to ere is human and so forth.
 
panda1gen said:
Couldn't agree more Michael, first the Boer war then the big one......What lessons are we not learning now I wonder.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Korea, on and on and on. We humans, especially our fearless leaders don't have a clue how to stop this vicious cycle we humans we are in :(

I guess I should not insult "Fearless Leader" from Rocky and Bulwinkle. To compare today's leaders to Fearless Leader is an insult to Fearless Leader.
 
War has always been around......before Man War waited.

Problem nowdays our enemies understand we that cannot be defeated on

the battlefield can be destroyed in the media.

I am amazed at all the people lining up for the job as President..........and

how little they suport the current one.

America needs to present a united front to our enemies.

When I hear duly elected political leaders state it is not their job to offer

alternate solutions to our current situation it makes you wonder.

When a person is elected to represent a group of people he has a

responsibility to act on their behalf..........not claim a lack of

responsibility.

Njja:mad: :mad: :eek:
 
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