Robert E. Lee as a General?

Robert E. Lee as a General?


  • Total voters
    112
Your claim is that their education stopped with West Point. So did Lee's. Except by the definition of education Nytram is using (and I'll let you work that out with him), all of them had to learn how to do this without special education.

Lee was hardly even half-prepared as a "specialized staff officer" by Scott.

And it's worth noting, too, that Lee was an engineering officer, not a combat officer, and that his commands in the Mexican War were as small in scale as those of everyone else. Thus Lee didn't have any more experience than the rest of them, and his failures in Georgia and West Virginia illustrate this.
 
And it's worth noting, too, that Lee was an engineering officer, not a combat officer, and that his commands in the Mexican War were as small in scale as those of everyone else. Thus Lee didn't have any more experience than the rest of them, and his failures in Georgia and West Virginia illustrate this.

Failures in Georgia? I'm confused about that. I dont remember Lee ever going to Georgia during the Civil War. West Virginia and the Carolina's sure, but not Georgia.
 
And it's worth noting, too, that Lee was an engineering officer, not a combat officer, and that his commands in the Mexican War were as small in scale as those of everyone else. Thus Lee didn't have any more experience than the rest of them, and his failures in Georgia and West Virginia illustrate this.

And even Scott's experience is small scale compared to what you need to direct an army in the tens of thousands.
 
Failures in Georgia? I'm confused about that. I dont remember Lee ever going to Georgia during the Civil War. West Virginia and the Carolina's sure, but not Georgia.

I thought that the Fort Pulaski thing was when Lee was sent to Georgia and the Carolinas to halt the Confederacy's landings. I could be mistaken and it was only the Carolinas, but the point would stand either way.

And even Scott's experience is small scale compared to what you need to direct an army in the tens of thousands.

While comparing Santa Anna to almost any of the Civil War generals on either side is an insult to those generals.
 
And even Scott's experience is small scale compared to what you need to direct an army in the tens of thousands.

Well if you want to prove that both Lee and his adversaries were technically incapable fine. I only sought to demonstrate technical incapability in his adversaries but if you wish to extend that to Lee himself then good luck to you.
 
Well if you want to prove that both Lee and his adversaries were technically incapable fine. I only sought to demonstrate technical incapability in his adversaries but if you wish to extend that to Lee himself then good luck to you.

I think that argument is very easy to make, with McClellan's inexperience being worse than Lee's and a classic example of the Peter Principle akin to the promotion of one John Bell Hood.
 
While comparing Santa Anna to almost any of the Civil War generals on either side is an insult to those generals.

I'm afraid to ask who isn't insulted just by the comparison. There's unsuccessful, and then there's "more of a threat to his own men than the enemy".

Frankly, I'm not sure how anyone in the US could have been prepared for something on the scale of commanding an ACW sized army. Even if the US army wasn't a such a skeletal force it would be a widely dispersed force by the nature of its "peacetime" (in quotes as it just struck me on the nonsense of calling service on the frontier as "peace"") work.

Well if you want to prove that both Lee and his adversaries were technically incapable fine. I only sought to demonstrate technical incapability in his adversaries but if you wish to extend that to Lee himself then good luck to you.

What I want to prove is that no one was prepared for the ACW. Lee was a better general than McClellan not because of superior education but because of superior ability. Bragg was a good artillery captain in Mexico and underwhelming (better than he's given credit for, but not enough better) at managing the artillery organization of the AoT.

Picking Bragg as an example of an underprepared guy who fell short, as distinct from the underprepared guys who didn't.
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid to ask who isn't insulted just by the comparison. There's unsuccessful, and then there's "more of a threat to his own men than the enemy".

Frankly, I'm not sure how anyone in the US could have been prepared for something on the scale of commanding an ACW sized army. Even if the US army wasn't a such a skeletal force it would be a widely dispersed force by the nature of its "peacetime" (in quotes as it just struck me on the nonsense of calling service on the frontier as "peace"") work.

Leonidas Polk and Franz Sigel are the obvious examples on both sides.
 
Leonidas Polk and Franz Sigel are the obvious examples on both sides.

At least Sigel had one good day, didn't he?

Polk was either the best double agent in the history of the United States or . . .

Well, I'm hoping that was the case. Because imagining how someone who thought of himself as a Confederate loyalist would do what he did to screw over his superiors makes me ill.

Whatever one says about Bragg, Polk did not limit this to Bragg, so the "his superior was an asshole" isn't relevant.

Sufficient to say, Santa Anna might actually come out ahead on this one. He didn't try to screw over himself.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Polk was either the best double agent in the history of the United States or . . .

Well, I'm hoping that was the case. Because imagining how someone who thought of himself as a Confederate loyalist would do what he did to screw over his superiors makes me ill.

Whatever one says about Bragg, Polk did not limit this to Bragg, so the "his superior was an asshole" isn't relevant.

I think you should give credit where credit is due. Polk was, by all accounts, a pretty good bishop.
 
At least Sigel had one good day, didn't he?

Polk was either the best double agent in the history of the United States or . . .

Well, I'm hoping that was the case. Because imagining how someone who thought of himself as a Confederate loyalist would do what he did to screw over his superiors makes me ill.

Whatever one says about Bragg, Polk did not limit this to Bragg, so the "his superior was an asshole" isn't relevant.

Sufficient to say, Santa Anna might actually come out ahead on this one. He didn't try to screw over himself.

Yes, ironically at the Battle of Pea Ridge. It was where his soldiers performed their best.

I do agree that if Leonidas Polk didn't exist Abraham Lincoln would have had to invent him. :p
 
Yes, ironically at the Battle of Pea Ridge. It was where his soldiers performed their best.

I do agree that if Leonidas Polk didn't exist Abraham Lincoln would have had to invent him. :p

Whats' weird, going back to the issue of Lee with the AoT, is that Lee did have a knack for working with difficult people.

But the AoT, as shown by Johnston's time there, needed to be forged into a team, and while I'd rate Lee over the others here . .. that's not saying much.
 
Whats' weird, going back to the issue of Lee with the AoT, is that Lee did have a knack for working with difficult people.

But the AoT, as shown by Johnston's time there, needed to be forged into a team, and while I'd rate Lee over the others here . .. that's not saying much.

Sidney, Joe or both?

Oh, and, erm, Lee's "knack" for working with difficult people was to shift them off into different departments.
 
Sidney, Joe or both?

Oh, and, erm, Lee's "knack" for working with difficult people was to shift them off into different departments.

Both. Different sorts of problems for each, but I'm not impressed with either Johnston.

Joe tried, but he still had issues thanks to the AoT being fubared by the time he took over, and Sidney was just . . . unfit for command.

And I point to Lee managing to keep the issues Jackson and Longstreet had with A.P. Hill from causing disaster.

Harvey Hill being ambiguous - Lee certainly didn't weep to get rid of him, but he seems to have tried working with him more than say, Bragg did.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
But the AoT, as shown by Johnston's time there, needed to be forged into a team, and while I'd rate Lee over the others here . .. that's not saying much.

Bragg's big people problems were with Hardee, Polk, Cheatham, and Breckinridge. He got along fine with Wheeler, who was always telling Bragg what a great genius he was. When Johnston took over, he got along fine with Hardee, Polk, and Cheatham (Breckinridge had been brought east by then). But Hood had entered the equation by then, and one might say that he caused more trouble for Johnston than all the others put together ever caused for Bragg.
 
Bragg's big people problems were with Hardee, Polk, Cheatham, and Breckinridge. He got along fine with Wheeler, who was always telling Bragg what a great genius he was. When Johnston took over, he got along fine with Hardee, Polk, and Cheatham (Breckinridge had been brought east by then). But Hood had entered the equation by then, and one might say that he caused more trouble for Johnston than all the others put together ever caused for Bragg.

The problem is that his senior subordinates are Polk, Hardee, Cheatham, and Breckinridge (I think that's the order of seniority). So any one of them wanting to cause trouble is disrupting a substantial part of the army.

Not sure on Hood causing Johnston more trouble, although given Johnston's misplaced trust in Hood, Hood certainly was more than willing to try.
 
Top