I think McClellan was one of the best generals of the war on both sides, but that is another argument altogether.
The problem in classifying is, most of the war's generals were either spectacularly good or spectacularly bad.
Not again with this bizzare formula.....
Who was that bloke who led the Confederate campaign in the West but never pressed his advantages ?
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Who was that bloke who led the Confederate campaign in the West but never pressed his advantages ?
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
If you mean the guy at Vicksburg, it was Pemberton, who gets my vote for "Average". The guy at Tennessee, other than Johnson? I've got no clue.
And McClellan sucked. He was a better-than average organizer, and a passable leader, but as a general (compared to, say, quartermaster-general) he was an unmitigated failure. You do need to occasionally attack the enemy you outnumber 3-1.
You mean Braxton Bragg. He spent far too much time alienating his subordinates to really take care about pressing his advantage home.
Who was that bloke who led the Confederate campaign in the West but never pressed his advantages ?
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
And McClellan sucked. He was a better-than average organizer, and a passable leader, but as a general (compared to, say, quartermaster-general) he was a almost unmitigated failure. You do need to occasionally attack the enemy you outnumber 3-1.
EDIT: Yes, there was Antietam. He still should have won better.
When did McClellan ever have a 3:1 advantage?
That'd be Yorktown, I believe.