Henry Hunt
Private
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2019
Robert E. Lee as Grand Strategist
(Wikipedia)
Spillover from my Joseph Johnston thread, where many of the posters have been debating the merits of Lee as a grand strategist. No one doubts Lee's tactical ability as demonstrated at 2nd Bull Run and Chancellorsville however how good of a grand strategist was he?
Alan Nolan's in his work Lee Considered: General Robert E. Lee and Civil War History takes the viewpoint that Lee's grand strategy of the offense was ultimately too costly for the Confederacy. Additionally, Richard McMurry in his works concludes that the AoT lost in large part because it did not receive the same resources as AoNV. Pre Joseph Harsh Lee had 112,000 men, the largest Confederate army ever fielded, under his command on June 26th, 1862. With this army, he pushed the Union back from Richmond but failed to destroy the AoP and lost some 20,000 men. The invasions of Maryland and Pennsylvania thereafter were costly ventures.
Was Lee's grand strategy of the offense too costly for the Confederacy? Should the AoT have gotten more resources? Did Lee focus too much on Virginia and ignore the crisis situation in the West? Should he have dispatched manpower to the West instead of attempting the Maryland and Pennsylvania campaigns? How did Lee expect to win the Maryland campaign? Would a victory at Gettysburg have even brought the war to an end? What was his overall grand strategic vision? Was he as good a strategist as McClellan and Grant?
(Note not my views just what has been floating around, I'm not an anti-Lee partisan or anything.)
(Wikipedia)
Spillover from my Joseph Johnston thread, where many of the posters have been debating the merits of Lee as a grand strategist. No one doubts Lee's tactical ability as demonstrated at 2nd Bull Run and Chancellorsville however how good of a grand strategist was he?
Alan Nolan's in his work Lee Considered: General Robert E. Lee and Civil War History takes the viewpoint that Lee's grand strategy of the offense was ultimately too costly for the Confederacy. Additionally, Richard McMurry in his works concludes that the AoT lost in large part because it did not receive the same resources as AoNV. Pre Joseph Harsh Lee had 112,000 men, the largest Confederate army ever fielded, under his command on June 26th, 1862. With this army, he pushed the Union back from Richmond but failed to destroy the AoP and lost some 20,000 men. The invasions of Maryland and Pennsylvania thereafter were costly ventures.
Was Lee's grand strategy of the offense too costly for the Confederacy? Should the AoT have gotten more resources? Did Lee focus too much on Virginia and ignore the crisis situation in the West? Should he have dispatched manpower to the West instead of attempting the Maryland and Pennsylvania campaigns? How did Lee expect to win the Maryland campaign? Would a victory at Gettysburg have even brought the war to an end? What was his overall grand strategic vision? Was he as good a strategist as McClellan and Grant?
(Note not my views just what has been floating around, I'm not an anti-Lee partisan or anything.)
Last edited: