Who were the better soldier, Rebs or Yanks?

[samgrant]

Which were the better fighters?

What do you think?

I think that in the beginning, the Rebs were much more prepared to fight than were the yanks.

In prelude to that war it seems there were many Souther Militias organizing before the war commenced. Not so in the North.

Motives: Was the feeling of defending hearth and home, much less allegiance to a southern state more powerful incentive for the Rebs than the appeal to Union was to the Yanks?

Skills: It has been said that Southerners had better horse riding and shooting skills than those in the North. That may have been true in th East, but not in the West.

Casualties: More of the Yanks in killed and wounded in total numbers, but percentage wise more disadvantageous to the Rebs.

[johan_steele]

I don't think one can say one side field the better soldier... especially when looking at the differnece between the East & West. IMHO the Union AoT was its finest force ad the CS Cleburnes Division... but that is only one persons look at the subject.

There were superb soldiers on both sides of the aisle; MEN, real fighting men.

[lrd89]

Skills: It has been said that Southerners had better horse riding and shooting skills than those in the North. That may have been true in the East, but not in the West.

In the west I'd say they their skill in the field was just about evenly matched.

[nbforrest]

I don't think I could rate one side above the other in the entirety, but I think certain armies on each side could be rated as better fighters than others, for a myriad of reasons.

Respectfully

[ole]

And some units, on both sides, you avoided tangling with.
Ole

[matthew mckeon]

Neither North or South, but the West had the best soldiers.

[larry_cockerham]

This could be a discussion to last long enough for Sam to make lieutenant? Gets to be a matter of definition pretty quickly. Armies, divisions, brigades, regiments, companies, soldiers. Many were distinguished on the field of battle. Length of service had to be a factor. A.S. Johnston gets points, but alas he fell at Shiloh early in the war. N.B. Forrest was a survivor with lots of press and a fan club of sorts. Did that make him better than Johnston or an unknown who fell at Ft. Donelson? Perhaps not. We'll never know. The cavalry and infantry of Thomas J. Jackson showed the feds how to operate in the Shenandoah Valley, dodging behind ridges and making much distance in a short amount of time. Did that make him better than Forrest and Wheeler? Jackson was not so long on the stage. J.E.B. Stuart had feathers in his hat. A great soldier, perhaps, but again a relatively early exit. J. W. Starnes could draw a few votes as could Ulysses Grant, Bill Sherman, Phil Sheridan or even Sam of Company aiych. Guess it depends on your favorite and your focus.

[ole]

Oh sure, Larry.
Spoil everything by bringing logic in.
Ole

[whitworth]

Probably not a lot of great soldiering at First Manassas or Bull Run.

The South probably had more hunters than what one would find in the populated areas of the north. But western Pennsylvania and points west had their rural areas and many hunted or had handled a rifle or shotgun. But good infantry was not good hunting. The mass formations of the time made up for any lack of expertise in shooting for some. We know that many AoP regiments were armed with smoothbore muskets at Gettysburg, so distance shooting wasn't an absolute necessity, even that late in the war.

Inspite of the Pope's, the Burnsides, the Sigel's, the Schurtz's, the Sickles', the Union in the east survived over four years. Even R. E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were unable to destroy the Union army. Says something about the Yankee fighting ability, even if at times they lacked good leadership.

Of course, the fact the Confederate army went to Pennsylvania, so critically short of necessary supplies, says something about what Lee thought of his infantry.

If you watched the movie, Gettysburg, the fight on Little Round Top showed that each side exhibited bravery. And as we know from that battle, bravery wasn't quite enough.

[nbforrest]

I would not rate the AOP terribly high. It just wasn't the greatest fighting force to emerge from the war. That doesn't have anything to do with bravery, but rather with a myriad of reasons relating to generalship, morale, and everything else. I mean, one doesn't see the same sort of panics the AOP experienced in the ANV or the AOT, do they? Of course that goes back to the myriad of reasons...but sometimes I like to compare say, the reaction of the Yanks at Atlanta on July 22 and the reaction of the Yanks at the Wilderness to flank attacks...very different.

Respectfully