The American Civil War

[unmerged(5309)]

Who do you think was better Grant or Lee

and give a rating in EU Term (Shock, siege ect..)


I think Lee was better, he had Less but held the Union off, and was amazing in knowing what the enemy was goung to do, he really did a number on Grant also, Grant almost destroyed his army 2 times in the war, were as Lee couldnt afford losses, also the Confederates were deprived of supplies and other needs but still inflicted huge losses on the Union,

Grant = 2,6,6,0
Lee 6,6,5,2 (he was orgionally an Enginer in the Mexican war, and helped scott out on a few menuvers)

 

[unmerged(3004)]

Oh no, not again.

 

[unmerged(234)]

Lee, 4-5-4-1
Grant, 3-3-3

As an EU typr of general Grant was not very great, but he was the first one to understand the logic of industrialsed warfare wich did not help much in individual battles but won the war in a stratgeical sense. He was the first of the New general, and Lee may have been the last of the old(wich is the only way Generals is represented in EU)

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by MaL
Oh no, not again.

At least it makes a change from the interminable WWII discussions.

Although, sadly it seems like the American Civil War is the only 19th century topic ever discussed on this forum.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Dark Knight
At least it makes a change from the interminable WWII discussions.

Although, sadly it seems like the American Civil War is the only 19th century topic ever discussed on this forum.

Almost inviting a hijack there..................

Anyway, as to the ratings......
Grant 3:4:3:1
Lee 5:3:4:2

Satisfied? Now, just don't ask me for the details.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Agelastus


Almost inviting a hijack there..................

Anyway, as to the ratings......
Grant 3:4:3:1
Lee 5:3:4:2

Satisfied? Now, just don't ask me for the details.

Details please! What did Lee ever do to merit a 2 siege? Especially if Grant, the hero of Henry/Donelson, Vicksburg, Petersburg only gets a one.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
Details please! What did Lee ever do to merit a 2 siege? Especially if Grant, the hero of Henry/Donelson, Vicksburg, Petersburg only gets a one.

Held out in the lines around Petersburg and Richmond for longer than perhaps seems humanly possible against the "hero of Henry/Donelson, Vicksburg, Petersburg". Hero?

Maybe that's a broad definition of "siege rating" but it has to be noted somewhere............

 

[unmerged(469)]

Originally posted by Agelastus


Held out in the lines around Petersburg and Richmond for longer than perhaps seems humanly possible against the "hero of Henry/Donelson, Vicksburg, Petersburg". Hero?

Maybe that's a broad definition of "siege rating" but it has to be noted somewhere............

Let's not forget this was an age with the odds stacked in favor of the defense. I give Lee great credit for the motivational miracle of holding his army together that winter, but have read nothing about the fighting around the works that suggest was a tactical genius in fixed positions.

OK, Grant was no hero for Petersburg, but Henry/Donelson to a certain degree, and Vicksburg definitely yes. And best of all, a true hero and gentleman at Appomattox.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Admiral Yi
Let's not forget this was an age with the odds stacked in favor of the defense.

For assaults yes-but not to as great an extent as that for formal sieges, despite common wisdom. The majority of sieges of the seventeenth and eighteenth century seemed to have been carried through to a successful conclusion, even when besiegers were menaced by a relieving force which Grant didn't have to face, and Lee wasn't defending anything approaching the strength of Vauban's fortresses by comparison. Firepower may have improved, but the basics of siege technique hadn't.

I've never been overly impressed by Grant's performance in the static period of 1864-5. Before and after probably yes, but not during the almost formal siege lines phase itself.

 

[unmerged(2539)]

Excuse me, coming through, make way for a Lee fan,...oops...

Lees use of fortifications was unusual in that he often did so to enable offensive action to be mounted, most simply sat behind them and called it a plan. In particular during the 40 days he made extensive use of entrenchments to trap the AoP, see his use of topography on the North Anna during may to trap AoP to see what i mean, pg 270 onwards in vol 3 of Shelby footes Cival War.

Engineering was a strong suit of the ANV, lee was particulary good at reading ground, had they had the need to prosecute a siege they would have done a stand up job of it, but that was not the chosen methods of Lee.

Hanny

 

[unmerged(301)]

I think you can make a case for both, but I'd give a slight nod to Grant.

The good side for Lee:

1) Tactical genius.
2) His armies had incredible morale.
3) He was fighing outnumbered and without enough supplies for most of the war.

The bad side for Lee:

1) He was so focused on the Virginia theater that he gave bad advice or ignored the other theaters. It was directly his job, I know, but he did have enourmous prestige, which he used to make his theater the main focus of Confederate effort.
2) His use of the offensive at Gettysburg, etc. caused casualties that couldn't be replaced.
3) He lost.

The good side for Grant:

1) Vicksburg campain was a work of genius.
2) Promoted the right subordinates.
3) Understood the strategic situation, and tried to attack on all front at the same time when he was in charge.
4) He won.

The bad side for Grant:

1) Was surprised on several battlefields.
2) He made several assaults that caused huge casualties for no gain.
3) He didn't handle the 64-65 Wilderness/Petersburg campain that well, but that might have been because he was facing Lee.

 

[unmerged(5309)]

Grant deffenitly had a good personality, he was a Gentalmen to Lee at Appomattox, Lee offered his sword but grant turned it down, I read some were that Grant didnt feel any happiness when Lee surrendered because he had fought so long and hard and had to give it up.

The Campagin against Vicksburg was ingenious, but he nearly destroyed his army, 50,000 men were lost assulting the city before digging in for a siege.

1 thing to also note about Lee, his tactics were not fully understood until the eariler part of the century, I personally think that he was the Greatest General in American history, and he is recognized by many Military historians as one of the greatest Generals in history.

 

[unmerged(6116)]

As a Lee's fan i would say he was better, but then i would be a little partial .Well at the end he lost didn't he?
Well but is he to blame why the south lost the civil war?
I think not.

The south had about a third of the population of the north, while the south was mainly rural the north was in full progress and had entered the industrial revolution a few decades ago.

The war was not only faught on the battlefield but also on the foreground, the economy that could bear such a long war as it turned to be , contrary to what northerners thaught at the start of the conflict,as they could resolve the war in no time.

As someone said Grant was an excelent officer and a gentleman.
They were both excellent generals, but Lee is one of the generals that history claims as one of the best.

 

[viper37]

Originally posted by Dark Knight

At least it makes a change from the interminable WWII discussions.

Although, sadly it seems like the American Civil War is the only 19th century topic ever discussed on this forum.

You mean there's something else in the 19th century???

Just start a thread about a 19th century event (other than Napoleon or that boring industrial revolution) and I'm sure we will all take a look at it.

 

[unmerged(301)]

Originally posted by viper37


You mean there's something else in the 19th century???

Just start a thread about a 19th century event (other than Napoleon or that boring industrial revolution) and I'm sure we will all take a look at it.

How about the Mexican-American War?

 

[unmerged(5384)]

Lee was an earlier incarnation of Rommel. And Grant = Montgomery.

 

[Dark Knight]

Except that Montgomery tried not to lose men.

 

[TeutonicKnight]

Until I investigated a little bit I had very little in depth knowledge of the subject. I had to do several reports on the Civil War, both in College and High School and would give the huge advantage to Lee.

While Grant won in the Western Theatre, he was also facing Southern Generals who were more into stalling him, and waiting for reinforcements; rather than beating him. Had Grant faced Lee the entire war he would probably be no more than a clift note.

Grant did give favorable terms to the South. He allowed the officers to retian thier swords and allowed the ANV to return back to thier fields without internment. Much has been made of that, but how would you expect him to act when Lincoln was the same way and knew that harsh terms would equal a harsh to unbearable occupation that the country could not handle. Might have led to more uprisings on a local area, thus taxing the already depleted treasury.

The one thing that can be said about Grant was he ultimatly won and Lee loss. Grant's advantage was manpower, more weapons, artilliary, horses, supplies and munitions. Was said that during the battle of Spotsylvania in the "Bloody Angle," that Southern Artilliary had ran out of Ammo, and started loading rocks to help repusle the attack. Later in the defense of Petersburg the Southern troops were living on 1 pint of oatmeal a day!

One thing I most remember of Lee... was during the 2nd Battle in the Wilderness, Lee had taken command of Longstreets corps, Lee stops amid the battle to put a baby bird back in its nest where it had fallen out.


I have a book of fascianting things about the Civil War. I'll find it and post some crazy things.

 

[unmerged(592)]

Is it really the task of a field commander to do anything above operational level?

 

[unmerged(3708)]

I cant say which general was better (I didnt vote).

Lee knew how to win.
Grant knew how to not lose.

The Wilderness is an excellent example of this: Lee with all his genius, hitting the Union forces with the right force at the right time won the battle by any tactical assesment.
However, Grant refused to lose the battle - he kept his forces moving south. Other commanders would have retreated and regrouped but Grant understood that he had the resources to wear down his opponent, provided he maintain the pressure.

Grant did the same thing at Shiloh - his army was beaten, but he refused to retire from the battlefield and on the second day retook all the ground that had been lost on the first day.

Two things about Grant and Siege - the action around Petersburg was not really a siege as the Lee's troops were in no particular danger of being surrounded. It was trench warfare. When Grant did manage to cut the supply line to Lee's army, he finally forced Lee into the retreat that ended at Appomatox.
It should also be rememberd that Grant did a great job ending the siege at Chatanooga - give him Siege bonus points for that. However the strange success against entrenched troops may have led Grant to believe that similar assaults could work at such places as Cold Harbor.