Give me some parameters and then I will vote.
In other words:
Which general achieved the most
Which general did the most with the least
Which general was the most cunning
Which general......... well....you get my drift.
Grant won in the end, Lee did great with less...I say flip a coin.
+1
It always comes down to these guys. And I never seem to be able to make up my mind...
I have no problem with bestowing a 'greatness' mantle on Grant. But I think using the 'because he won' matrix is flawed. I liken it to sports whereas the best teams do not always win. They may have won on a particular day but perhaps not overall. That's why they say it's hard to beat the same team twice. There are always intangibles that come up and can interfere with the outcome. I'm not a military historian and don't claim to be, but wasn't Grant's army almost twice the size of Lee's at the start of the Overland Campaign? That's one heck of an advantage.When it comes to generals, only the surrender document really matters.
What separates Grant and Lee?Grant is at the top, with Lee a very, very, very close second.
What separates Grant and Lee?
I would use the term shielded his buddies rather than developed his subordinates.Beyond the obvious, that Grant won, Grant also developed his subordinates. He grew the men who would play key roles in defeating the confederacy. Which of Lee's subordinates was able to excel in larger roles?
Lol at Grant. Give me a 100K plus army and I'd beat Lee eventually as well.
Beyond the obvious, that Grant won, Grant also developed his subordinates. He grew the men who would play key roles in defeating the confederacy. Which of Lee's subordinates was able to excel in larger roles?