Who was better? Lee VS Jackson!

Who was a better general?


  • Total voters
    43
Both General Lee and General Jackson had honorable careers and were both exceedingly good at their jobs. Which do you think was better? After voting in the poll, please tell why you voted for them.
 
This is a tough one, because both also had some pretty ridiculous flaws that got in the way of effective generalship.

And not dissimilar ones - Jackson's secretiveness works out not unlike Lee's lack of respect for staff work and clear orders.

I'd bet on Lee just because Lee could work with subordinates (and make them work with each other) better.
 
I voted for Lee, because of his clear, and generally effective leadership, despite being perennially hampered by Davis.
 
Lee. Lee at least for all his faults was a damn good general on defense, perhaps the best general of the entire war in this regard. He also had the capability to conduct literally unrivaled successes that don't match anyone else other than Grant, in the final analysis. Grant won the war for the USA single-handedly, Lee transformed the Civil War from the one-year rise and fall of the Confederacy to a war where the CSA had at least two prospects of actually winning and did so single-handedly.

Jackson in his own time suffered from massive skill-inflation. His very first battle was a complete flop, and he had a continual, serial tendency to make basic tactical errors up to Chancellorsville, while the turnover of officers under him and his sheer pettiness rival only Braxton Bragg, without something like the latter's Perryville and Chickamauga ventures to redeem him in independent command.

Was Jackson a good strategist? Yes. But in terms of overall generalship, Lee must in any fair analysis take precedence, as even Jackson's masterpiece was Lee's actual concept and one of the few instances in the war where the Confederacy engaged in multiple campaigns at the same time intended to focus on a single result.
 

Free Lancer

Banned
Instead, he left his subordinates in the dark by not telling them anything except the absolute minimum of instructions.

Why is this better?


Well it’s a matter of the lesser evil.


I would take Jackson keeping his subordinates in the dark then then Robert lees unclear order giving which led to his defeat at Gettysburg.
 
Instead, he left his subordinates in the dark by not telling them anything except the absolute minimum of instructions.

Why is this better?

In my opinion, this is not only better, but how it should work. Soldiers (and subordinates generally) don't need to know why they do things, they merely need to do them.

But I'm in an extreme minority in this view.
 
This is a tough one, because both also had some pretty ridiculous flaws that got in the way of effective generalship.

And not dissimilar ones - Jackson's secretiveness works out not unlike Lee's lack of respect for staff work and clear orders.

I'd bet on Lee just because Lee could work with subordinates (and make them work with each other) better.

I'd bet on Lee because when it counted for the Confederacy Lee single-handedly reversed the tide of the entire war and in 1864-5 he conducted perhaps the most brilliant defensive campaign of the entire war. Only one other Confederate general, Bragg, did anything similar and in Bragg's case it was purely the paralysis of the Union Western command that enabled him to do it. Lee did all his acts himself by his own action and thereby assured a psychological advantage not broken until the Union's own great man went at him and it took a guy who was equally able to turn disaster into victory to beat the CSA's A-Team.

Jackson, like Sherman, was a brilliant thinker but I'd never want either directing a battle.

I will have to go with Jackson based on the fact that he didn’t give unclear orders.

No, he simply didn't give orders at all. At least Lee gave unclear ones that his subordinates proved able to make into actually brilliant feats of arms. Unclear orders v. no orders favors unclear ones every single day of the week. At least with unclear orders there's *some* idea.
 
In my opinion, this is not only better, but how it should work. Soldiers (and subordinates generally) don't need to know why they do things, they merely need to do them.

But I'm in an extreme minority in this view.

They need to know at least something to do, however. Even the German Aufstragtaktik gave more information than Jackson did. And when we factor in that he had the same turnover rate after every single campaign that Braxton Bragg did, it's pretty clear that he had JFK-style Martyrdom points. Unfortunately when he went, the ANV lost one of its best and most charismatic thinkers and was left with James Longstreet, who was rather dour and unimaginative by comparison to Jackson (by comparison to everyone else, however......).
 
I'd bet on Lee because when it counted for the Confederacy Lee single-handedly reversed the tide of the entire war and in 1864-5 he conducted perhaps the most brilliant defensive campaign of the entire war. Only one other Confederate general, Bragg, did anything similar and in Bragg's case it was purely the paralysis of the Union Western command that enabled him to do it. Lee did all his acts himself by his own action and thereby assured a psychological advantage not broken until the Union's own great man went at him and it took a guy who was equally able to turn disaster into victory to beat the CSA's A-Team.

Jackson, like Sherman, was a brilliant thinker but I'd never want either directing a battle.

Agreed. Jackson at division or corps level, with a good general on top, could do well. Picking between Jackson and my (and your) favorite Confedrate officer, the Virginian loses. Both Virginians, if we compare Lee to him.

No, he simply didn't give orders at all. At least Lee gave unclear ones that his subordinates proved able to make into actually brilliant feats of arms. Unclear orders v. no orders favors unclear ones every single day of the week. At least with unclear orders there's *some* idea.
Jackson's old division being routed hopelessly at Cedar Mountain comes to mind. That was unforgivably botched by Stonewall's inability to handle anything he didn't dictate the terms of.

Or, as an occasion showing one of his other faults...Jackson ruining Garnett's career for Kernstown.

Say what you like on Bragg, but he never was so utterly mean spirited (in absence of a better description, because this goes beyond cold) to his subordinates.

And Bragg didn't try very hard to be "nice" except to the common soldier. Imagining Bragg trying to crack jokes is pathetic, but he did try. Jackson, at most, would pray.
 

Free Lancer

Banned
No, he simply didn't give orders at all. At least Lee gave unclear ones that his subordinates proved able to make into actually brilliant feats of arms. Unclear orders v. no orders favors unclear ones every single day of the week. At least with unclear orders there's *some* idea.


Well I will admit that I don’t really know much about Jackson so I will give that concede that to you snake.

But compared to lee who if had given a clear order to Ewell most likely would have won at Gettysburg I still have to pick Jackson.
 
Agreed. Jackson at division or corps level, with a good general on top, could do well. Picking between Jackson and my (and your) favorite Confedrate officer, the Virginian loses. Both Virginians, if we compare Lee to him.

Eh, the problem with that entirely is that Longstreet has the whole "Trying to steal Bragg's job at the worst possible time" thing against him. It's not that displacing Bragg would necessarily have been bad, but with the Army of the Cumberland trying to relieve the siege and the siege itself nowhere near completed, that was not at all the time to sour Bragg even worse than he'd be otherwise.

On the battlefield, I do think Longstreet has the best record of any CS officer. By the same token George H. Thomas has the best of any Union officer.....

Jackson's old division being routed hopelessly at Cedar Mountain comes to mind.

Or, as an occasion showing one of his other faults...Jackson ruining Garnett's career for Kernstown.

Say what you like on Bragg, but he never was so utterly mean spirited (in absence of a better description, because this goes beyond cold) to his subordinates.

Pretty much. And you're right about Bragg, as if Bragg were remotely so inclined, he had more than enough excuse to be that petty. There were plenty of men who would have pulled a Jeff Davis on Leonidas Polk for a fraction of what Polk regularly did. And of course for all his faults, Bragg single-handedly pulled off in the West what Lee did in the East, and even when he lost battles controlled the pace of them against superior numbers.

Unfortunately for Bragg in any comparison with Lee, Bragg's indecisive disposition and his tendency to look for scapegoats rates poorly with Lee's decisiveness and willingness to accept responsibility for his own failures.
 
Well I will admit that I don’t really know much about Jackson so I will give that concede that to you snake.

But compared to lee who if had given a clear order to Ewell most likely would have won at Gettysburg I still have to pick Jackson.

Lee didn't have a chance of an actual victory in any Gettysburg scenario. It was a meeting engagement that should not have been one, and with Lee having to deal with a purely improvised battle his commanding style simply didn't cut it and he resorted to bloody, stupid frontal attacks. Lee didn't lose Gettysburg, Meade won it, and Meade won it by virtue of having the best tactical situation in any battle against Lee and playing it for all it was worth.

Meade's rather sadly underrated as a field general.
 
Well I will admit that I don’t really know much about Jackson so I will give that concede that to you snake.

But compared to lee who if had given a clear order to Ewell most likely would have won at Gettysburg I still have to pick Jackson.

Except that Ewell would never have advanced his corps as he did (prior to the "Why didn't Ewell advance?" moment) if Jackson was in charge, because disobeying an order - remember, Lee ordered Ewell not to bring on a general engagement until the army is concentrated - would get Jackson pursuing him with an almost malicious vendetta.

I admire Jackson in some ways, but he could be a colossal jerk.
 
Except that Ewell would never have advanced his corps as he did (prior to the "Why didn't Ewell advance?" moment) if Jackson was in charge, because disobeying an order - remember, Lee ordered Ewell not to bring on a general engagement until the army is concentrated - would get Jackson pursuing him with an almost malicious vendetta.

I admire Jackson in some ways, but he could be a colossal jerk.

Not to mention that like with Antietam neither Jackson nor Longstreet would have wanted a Gettysburg as it unfolded IOTL. Longstreet at least did his all to enforce Lee's idiotic orders in cases like Pickett's Charge. Jackson would in all probability have finally pulled a Polk on Lee even his popularity cult couldn't have glossed over. How Lee would have solved that problem would make for a fascinating min-TL in its own right.

The real winner, of course, is George Meade.....
 
Eh, the problem with that entirely is that Longstreet has the whole "Trying to steal Bragg's job at the worst possible time" thing against him. It's not that displacing Bragg would necessarily have been bad, but with the Army of the Cumberland trying to relieve the siege and the siege itself nowhere near completed, that was not at all the time to sour Bragg even worse than he'd be otherwise.

On the battlefield, I do think Longstreet has the best record of any CS officer. By the same token George H. Thomas has the best of any Union officer.....

Agreed.

Thomas vs. Longstreet would be a more interesting intellectual contest than most, although my money is on the Virginian in THAT scenario. :D Longstreet could be mule stubborn in bad ways, as he showed after pissing Bragg off.

Pretty much. And you're right about Bragg, as if Bragg were remotely so inclined, he had more than enough excuse to be that petty. There were plenty of men who would have pulled a Jeff Davis on Leonidas Polk for a fraction of what Polk regularly did. And of course for all his faults, Bragg single-handedly pulled off in the West what Lee did in the East, and even when he lost battles controlled the pace of them against superior numbers.

Unfortunately for Bragg in any comparison with Lee, Bragg's indecisive disposition and his tendency to look for scapegoats rates poorly with Lee's decisiveness and willingness to accept responsibility for his own failures.

Couldn't agree more.

What I don't get is why Jackson has the bloody halo of glory he does. I mean, okay, he won battles and was a martyr. Fine. I can see that being glorified. But how him being a bigger prick than Bragg is kinda forgotten disturbs me.
 
Not to mention that like with Antietam neither Jackson nor Longstreet would have wanted a Gettysburg as it unfolded IOTL. Longstreet at least did his all to enforce Lee's idiotic orders in cases like Pickett's Charge. Jackson would in all probability have finally pulled a Polk on Lee even his popularity cult couldn't have glossed over. How Lee would have solved that problem would make for a fascinating min-TL in its own right.

The real winner, of course, is George Meade.....

Yeah. I'm not as sure as you are on Gettysburg being unwinnable, so I'll just say this:

Lee fought the battle in exactly the way a guy destined to have his ass kicked would.

Meade never let the ANV's reputation being well earned (if still exaggerated) get in the way of making it a big defeat for Lee.

That took both brains and guts.

And most of his subordinates seem to have followed that when it counted - Sykes on Day 2 looks actually decent, for instance. Hancock's record speaks for itself.
 
Top