How much should be consider opponents inferiority when evaluating generals?

[CustersWolverines]

I am midway through Foote's "The Civil War" and I cannot help but notice that Lee was greatly assisted by the managerial incompetence of the Union generals. This in some way reminds me of Patton, who generally faced second tier German troops on his ride to the Rhein.(The best facing the Russians in the East)

Don't get me wrong, I think Lee was great. But this isn't Hannibal smashing Roman legions on their own soil. This is a guy whipping poorly led armies on his own turf. I give him credit for taking advantage of the errors presented to him, but would Lee have been as effective if he faced Grant the entire time?

The title should read 'How much should WE…"

 

[Nathanb1]

I am midway through Foote's "The Civil War" and I cannot help but notice that Lee was greatly assisted by the managerial incompetence of the Union generals. This in some way reminds me of Patton, who generally faced second tier German troops on his ride to the Rhein.(The best facing the Russians in the East)

Don't get me wrong, I think Lee was great. But this isn't Hannibal smashing Roman legions on their own soil. This is a guy whipping poorly led armies on his own turf. I give him credit for taking advantage of the errors presented to him, but would Lee have been as effective if he faced Grant the entire time?

Would Grant have been as effective if he'd faced Lee in the beginning? That's something I've been pondering.

 

[CustersWolverines]

Would Grant have been as effective if he'd faced Lee in the beginning? That's something I've been pondering.

Of course. Equal treatment here, my friend.

 

[Nathanb1]

I'll let the McClellan fans take over from here.

 

[johan_steele]

I am midway through Foote's "The Civil War" and I cannot help but notice that Lee was greatly assisted by the managerial incompetence of the Union generals. This in some way reminds me of Patton, who generally faced second tier German troops on his ride to the Rhein.(The best facing the Russians in the East)

Don't get me wrong, I think Lee was great. But this isn't Hannibal smashing Roman legions on their own soil. This is a guy whipping poorly led armies on his own turf. I give him credit for taking advantage of the errors presented to him, but would Lee have been as effective if he faced Grant the entire time?

Umm Panzer Lehr, 1st, 2nd, 9th, 10, & 12th SS, 21st Panzer... hardly second tier. US & Brit troops faced the best of the German Army and smashed them but they paid the butcher bill to do so.

Lee faced mediocrity at best and smashed them until he faced a competent Genl in Meade then Grant... in which case he lost but Grant paid the butcher bill to do so. Between Patton & Grant... I'll take Grant who had a better grasp & understanding of the necessity of logistics.

 

[CustersWolverines]

Umm Panzer Lehr, 1st, 2nd, 9th, 10, & 12th SS, 21st Panzer... hardly second tier. US & Brit troops faced the best of the German Army and smashed them but they paid the butcher bill to do so.

Lee faced mediocrity at best and smashed them until he faced a competent Genl in Meade then Grant... in which case he lost but Grant paid the butcher bill to do so. Between Patton & Grant... I'll take Grant who had a better grasp & understanding of the necessity of logistics.

Let me put it like this, the Russians faced the vast majority of quality German units in the war. Yes, there was some top notch divisions, but the Western front did not have the depth that the Eastern Front had.

 

[Freddy]

Let me put it like this, the Russians faced the vast majority of quality German units in the war. Yes, there was some top notch divisions, but the Western front did not have the depth that the Eastern Front had.

Exactly, the Russians faced 200 German divisions, while the Americans and company faced 20 German divisions.

 

[johan_steele]

The Russians did the lions share of the fighting & dieing vs the Wermacht they also did the lions share of destroying the Nazi War Machine. But Divisions like Panzer Lehr, 1st & 2nd SS in particular who had been rebuilt and were near full strength at the time of Normandy and again in the Ardennes... the US, Brit & Allied Armies faced the best the Wermacht & Waffen SS had and they destroyed them. No one can take that away from them. Patton did what a good general is supposed to do and put his troops where the enemy wasn't, when it came time to take on fixed fortification lines at Mainz & Verdun he didn't do so well.

Pre June 1944 the Germans were using France to rotate units so they could rest & rebuild, the troops they had manning the Atlantic Wall weren't their best but their mobile reserves were top rate. Units like 501st Pnz Abtl, Panzer Lehr their Fallschimjager (sp?) and others were as good as Germany could field. Units like 1st ID, 1-3 AD, 82nd & 101st Airborne smashed them to pieces.

In the East the Russians used manuever, firepower, millions of men & thousands of T-34's to grind the German war machine into the ground. All of those excellent Panthers & Tigers were run out of gas ammo & men to man them by a Soviet juggernaut that was bent on vengence like no other nation in modern times. By the summer of 1944 the Germans had no legitimate rear area free from enemy action. Between the bombing and roaving armies the Germans were bones like no other in history. No matter how good a tank or Jager btn they were meat for rampaging P-47 & Sturmovicks along w/ Regiments of Arty & steadily improving enemy armor.

Not sure a real honest comparison between WW2 & the ACW can be made. There are just too many differences. The Germans started w/ a professional army and perhaps one of the best genreral staffs in history and they faced epicly incompetent adverseries. But as they inflicted casualties their enemies learned and their enemies could absorb massive casualties but the Germans w/ every casualty lost professional soldier they couldn't easily replace.

I ramble...

 

[Freddy]

I am midway through Foote's "The Civil War" and I cannot help but notice that Lee was greatly assisted by the managerial incompetence of the Union generals. This in some way reminds me of Patton, who generally faced second tier German troops on his ride to the Rhein.(The best facing the Russians in the East)

Don't get me wrong, I think Lee was great. But this isn't Hannibal smashing Roman legions on their own soil. This is a guy whipping poorly led armies on his own turf. I give him credit for taking advantage of the errors presented to him, but would Lee have been as effective if he faced Grant the entire time?

The title should read 'How much should WE…"

As Cash has said the Grant of 1862 was not the Grant of 1864, as he had learned from his earlier battles and sieges. But I think Grant would not have quit on the James Peninsula as McClellan did. I also think grant would have attacked Lee on his retreats from Antietam and Gettysburg. But we will never know.

 

[diane]

It's my opinion that the Union tended the have their best generals out west while the Confederates had their best in the east - which meant neither one met the best of the other side! For example, how would Jackson's famous Valley campaign have gone if the general had been Rosecrans? It almost was. But instead, he got Banks, Shields, Fremont and they weren't the sharpest tools in the shed, which is why they got micro-managed from Washington. That helped Jackson as well. Suppose Stanton and Lincoln had not done that? If Lee had fought Grant at the beginning of the war, Grant would have gotten his hind-end handed to him. More likely by Halleck. Halleck fancied himself a fine general and would have been able to brush Grant aside - and Halleck on his best day was no match for Lee on his worst.

For evaluating generals I believe you have to take them as they are with whoever their opponents were at the time. There were a lot of Union generals who would have done better at the beginning of the war if Lincoln had learned earlier the lessons that served him later - namely, he wasn't a general! McDowell might have done much better if not pushed into the fight at Bull Run before his men were ready. On the other hand, Lee's house cleaning of the ANV swept a number of incompetent boobs west - like Floyd, who arrived in time to sink the Confederacy by surrendering Ft Donelson. Lincoln sent some troublesome generals out to pester the Sioux in Wisconsin - perhaps Davis should have sent some of his to Texas to pester some Comanche!

 

[johan_steele]

The one thing about looking rearward and asking "what if" is that it is too easy to forget what was.

 

[Nathanb1]

It's my opinion that the Union tended the have their best generals out west while the Confederates had their best in the east - which meant neither one met the best of the other side! For example, how would Jackson's famous Valley campaign have gone if the general had been Rosecrans? It almost was. But instead, he got Banks, Shields, Fremont and they weren't the sharpest tools in the shed, which is why they got micro-managed from Washington. That helped Jackson as well. Suppose Stanton and Lincoln had not done that? If Lee had fought Grant at the beginning of the war, Grant would have gotten his hind-end handed to him. More likely by Halleck. Halleck fancied himself a fine general and would have been able to brush Grant aside - and Halleck on his best day was no match for Lee on his worst.

For evaluating generals I believe you have to take them as they are with whoever their opponents were at the time. There were a lot of Union generals who would have done better at the beginning of the war if Lincoln had learned earlier the lessons that served him later - namely, he wasn't a general! McDowell might have done much better if not pushed into the fight at Bull Run before his men were ready. On the other hand, Lee's house cleaning of the ANV swept a number of incompetent boobs west - like Floyd, who arrived in time to sink the Confederacy by surrendering Ft Donelson. Lincoln sent some troublesome generals out to pester the Sioux in Wisconsin - perhaps Davis should have sent some of his to Texas to pester some Comanche!

Unfortunately, the Comanches fell short....Van Dorn lived.

 

[diane]

Unfortunately, the Comanches fell short....Van Dorn lived.

Oh, dang. Well, a Tennessee doc had to make up for bad aim on the prairie! Don't think Van Dorn knew what hit him - he'd just written the guy a pass... Which makes you kind of wonder there...

 

[damYankee]

It seems that opinion's change with each generation of historians. I have not read Foot's works in whole. I am currently reading Walter Geers Campaigns of the Civil War published in 1926, he goes into as much detail of each battle as I have found, quoting both Southern and Northern officers biographies and battle reports.
What is refreshing is the critical opinions of Southern Generals towards fellow CSA officers. I almost have to giggle when I read for the first half of the book, because there is nothing but disrespect for McClelland, until he is replaced by Burnside!
Geer writes;
Regarding none of the leading generals of the Civil War has there been such a difference of opinion as in the case of General McClelland; and after the lapse of three score years the controversy is not yet settled. As Cicero said of Julius Ceaser, "coming generations will dispute over him." To some McClelland is the "prince of egoists, the grand procrastinator, the timid and doubting captain"; to others he is a "military genius of the first order," who was "thwarted by an incapable administration and the intrigue of politicians."
Dr. McCartney writes "had McClelland never done anything else but organize the Army of the Potomac, and bring order out of the chaos after the Battle of Bull Run, his service to the nation would have been not far behind that of any of the Union generals. The weapon which Grant finally used to strike down the Confederacy was the finely tempered sword of McClelland."
So it would seem to me that while Lee was besting McClelland he was a unimaginative, timid leader who never committed his entire force against his enemies weakest point, even when he had Lee's battle plan in his hand, he failed to take full advantage of the circumstances. However, when the same people start writing about the greatness of Lee, there is a need to make McClelland look much better..
You can take from that observation what you want. Lee never had a problem reading Mac's every move, Lee dominated Burnside and Hooker. But he never could figure out Grant. The question then is, could Grant have preformed as well in 1862 as he did in 1864 and 65?
Grant takes much criticism for having "failed" at his earlier military career, but McClelland also left the military to pursue a civilian career. He only returned on the request of Gen. Scott. Once again the reality is that before the war there was very little opportunity to advance in the military.
There also has to be some consideration given to all the fine officers who were very capable rising stars that may well have out preformed Lee or Grant, but were cut down in battle. Ask any person who has been in combat and you will find out that there is no shortage of great leaders under fire, but many die with their men, before their leadership is recognized by higher ups, and rewarded by promotion.

 

[diane]

That is a great observation - the generals who were killed or died early in the war, many of whom had some good ideas as well as good ability. Old Stars comes to mind, for instance. He was the first to create freedmen's villages - Mitchelville, I think it was in SC, proved to be very successful. Basically all he did was give the ex-slaves some land and keep the whites away!

 

[TerryB]

One thing often said about Stonewall Jackson, and to some extent Forrest is that they generally faced second rate opponents. That's certainly used as a criterion for evaluating Jackson.

 

[TerryB]

As to Lee vs Grant, given rough parity of men and supplies, and I'll bet on Lee every time.

 

[damYankee]

At the time of the Civil War all generals were compared to Napoleon, but he never commanded a war on the scale that Lee and Grant did, and in that contest the out come is settled.
There are some who say Grant and Lee on even terms blah blah...etc. etc. We hear some say Grant had an unfair advantage because he had naval guns, he had more men, he had this and that and the other.
McClelland had those advantages, as did Burnside and Hooker. Grant was able to coordinate naval and ground forces over a land mass never imagined before he did it, and he did it when he was at a disadvantage in the West, surrounded by enemy.
Much has been said about the loyalty of Lee's men, and the loyalty McClelland enjoyed, and they did. But Grant took over a demoralized army when he went east. The defining moment for Grant IMO was when he lead his troops out of the Wilderness! When he ordered them to pursue the enemy! Every other leader the AoP had before would have turned towards DC. He turned towards Lee. And they never questioned him again, even after Cold Harbor.
After the Civil War it was Grant that toured Europe and was greeted by every King and Czar, cheered by mobs in every city and declared the New Colossus. I know that was a bitter pill to swallow for many. But that is what happened.
Lee's tactics will always be studied by students of war, but since the Civil War it was Grant's grasp of combined command, amphibious warfare and war on a magnitude never seen before that changed war forever.

 

[damYankee]

That is a great observation - the generals who were killed or died early in the war, many of whom had some good ideas as well as good ability. Old Stars comes to mind, for instance. He was the first to create freedmen's villages - Mitchelville, I think it was in SC, proved to be very successful. Basically all he did was give the ex-slaves some land and keep the whites away!

Jackson is the obvious example on the Confederate side, but Union Gen. Stevens who was killed at Chantilly (as was Kearny) was the one for the Union. Stevens graduated at the top of Halleck's class at West Point in 1839, at the time of his death he was being considered for appointment to the command of the soon to be united armies of Pope and McClelland. Today he is unknown. Reno was another that was killed.
Frederick the Great said " If we had exact information of our enemy's dispositions, we should beat him every time".
If we use that rule to measure McClelland, he comes up short.

 

[diane]

This was touched on earlier but bears a little more of a look, and that is that McClellan excelled at creating a cohesive and working army. He made quite a splendid tool of the AoP. Then Hooker refined it - he liked to add more technology even though that technology went quite a ways toward tripping him up at Chancellorsville. Grant inherited a good weapon and used it well. However, Lee did the same thing only without the help of two or three other generals. He straightened out the ANV, made himself a fine sword and then used it very effectively. I'm not that sure Grant could have created the army he used so well. He also had the straight-out support of Lincoln, who basically dropped the leash and let Grant go for it. Lee had to maneuver Davis, although Davis was much of the same mind he was a much touchier and more difficult person to work with. That was another obstacle Lee managed to overcome. He seemed to have more handicaps than Grant did. But both were good at following a maxim of Nelson's: "Gentlemen, when the enemy is making a mistake, we must not interrupt him too soon!"