Western Reserve Volunteer
Sergeant
- Joined
- May 12, 2018
McClellan is definitely up there for having an ego larger than his abilities. His actions in the West show to me he was always more interested in politics than battle, and I wonder if his political ambitions aren't partly responsible for the "organizational skill" he's often credited with: perhaps he was just better at greasing the wheels?
Lee had a decently sized ego, too, he came to believe he was responsible for every success and defeat of the CSA, which was partly true since he'd become essentially a propaganda war hero in the South was given a lot of command responsibility. But his generalship was only ever mediocre at best (it's just he didn't have much in the way of serious opponents) and in believing himself indispensable he kind of banker on his cult of peronality to run things and make them work... and that's no way to run an Army. Also, it seems like he felt his failures rather deeply and that probably hurt his performance a bit in a way it wouldn't hurt someone like Grant, for example.
Lee had a decently sized ego, too, he came to believe he was responsible for every success and defeat of the CSA, which was partly true since he'd become essentially a propaganda war hero in the South was given a lot of command responsibility. But his generalship was only ever mediocre at best (it's just he didn't have much in the way of serious opponents) and in believing himself indispensable he kind of banker on his cult of peronality to run things and make them work... and that's no way to run an Army. Also, it seems like he felt his failures rather deeply and that probably hurt his performance a bit in a way it wouldn't hurt someone like Grant, for example.
