Grant Grant and Lee compared, to others.

[wausaubob]

There may be possible comparisons between Civil War generals and modern generals.
The one comparison I have seen is between Ulysses Grant and General Omar Bradley. Both were described as uniquely suited to command American non-professional soldiers. Is that a valid comparison?
One of our honored hosts suggested that there is a comparison between Thomas Jackson, the Confederate general, and the World War II mobile warfare practitioner, George Patton. However, I think General Jackson was pre-modern in his capabilities. Jackson was devoutly religious and also boldly unconventional in the degree of risk he assumed. The comparison might be to a Indian leader such as Crazy Horse.
So what are the comparisons you perceive?
I think Robert E. Lee compares to General Eisenhower.
General McClellan might compare to Douglas MacArthur.
The controversial Philip Sheridan might be a better comparison to General Patton.
William Sherman has to be compared to German generals such as the elder van Moltke, and Rommel.The comparison is that Sherman adjusted to the logistics of his time and emphasized movement.
Although Sherman did emphasize targeted property destruction, he did not demonstrate indiscriminate killing, as in night bombing as utilized in World War II.
So this is just a suggestion. The rest of you may come up with better comparisons.

 

[leftyhunter]

There may be possible comparisons between Civil War generals and modern generals.
The one comparison I have seen is between Ulysses Grant and General Omar Bradley. Both were described as uniquely suited to command American non-professional soldiers. Is that a valid comparison?
One of our honored hosts suggested that there is a comparison between Thomas Jackson, the Confederate general, and the World War II mobile warfare practitioner, George Patton. However, I think General Jackson was pre-modern in his capabilities. Jackson was devoutly religious and also boldly unconventional in the degree of risk he assumed. The comparison might be to a Indian leader such as Crazy Horse.
So what are the comparisons you perceive?
I think Robert E. Lee compares to General Eisenhower.
General McClellan might compare to Douglas MacArthur.
The controversial Philip Sheridan might be a better comparison to General Patton.
William Sherman has to be compared to German generals such as the elder van Moltke, and Rommel.The comparison is that Sherman adjusted to the logistics of his time and emphasized movement.
Although Sherman did emphasize targeted property destruction, he did not demonstrate indiscriminate killing, as in night bombing as utilized in World War II.
So this is just a suggestion. The rest of you may come up with better comparisons.

One complicating factor among others is that in WW2 American Generals for the most part had excellent logistics and outnumbered their opponents. For example after the U.S. defeat in the Philippines ,American soldiers and Marines outnumbered and had much better logistics and fire power then the Japanese. An exception of course is after the battle of Savo the 7th Marine Division was left on their own for weeks and suffered greatly.
McClellan never lost a battle on the same scale as MacArthur did during the Chinese Winter Offensive of 1950.
General Eisenhower had much greater manpower ,logistical and technological advantages over the Germans then Lee could even dream of.
Rommel never was able to have his troops roam through enemy territory with scant military opposition from milita units.
Patton in France enjoyed complete air superiority in which P-47"S and R A F Typhoons devastated German tanks.
Comparing past generals to more modern generals is difficult at best.
Maybe Colonel Harrison to USMC General Brut K u r l a k in Vietnam might be a somewhat better comparison.
Leftyhunter

 

[mofederal]

McClellan was more comparable to Lucas at Anzio. MacArthur was much more of a tactical commander. He made the island hopping strategy work. Bradley was a lot like Lee, Bradley had good generals under him, who made his plans work. Lee was much more like that than Eisenhower to me. Ike was an Allied man, who tried to please everyone, while rarely succeeding. Jackson plans were much riskier, and they didn't always work so well. Forrest was the general the Germans liked and tried to emulate. Rommel was said to be a fan of him. The thing was in WWII, was airpower and air superiority and plenty of supplies, enough for even our allies. Better training, better soldiers and weapons. A lot of differences.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Eisenhower was promoted over a number of other, and arguably better generals.
This was done because he was better suited for the job of commanding a large number of generals from a large number of different states with different military cultures and languages. It was his diplomatic /people skills that got him the job.

No civil war general had to do anything remotly similar.

 

[67th Tigers]

Eisenhower was promoted over a number of other, and arguably better generals.

Ike really needs comparison to Halleck in position.

The Grant-Bradley comparison I regard as reasonable, both were middling commanders who played the game within their command structures well.

 

[wausaubob]

Eisenhower was promoted over a number of other, and arguably better generals.
This was done because he was better suited for the job of commanding a large number of generals from a large number of different states with different military cultures and languages. It was his diplomatic /people skills that got him the job.

No civil war general had to do anything remotly similar.

I think Lee could have done it. He was physically imposing and had that Virginia charm. I think that was one of his main assets, his ability to rule over a set of highly individualistic personalities.

 

[wausaubob]

The comparison between McClellan and MacArthur would be based on their grandiose egos and political ambitions.
Both had only a loose commitment to the subordination of the military to the civilian authority.

 

[thomas aagaard]

but Lee did not have to. Sure there might have been clear differences between the officers from one state to another.
But they are still way more similar, than the american, british, polish and free french officers of WWII. And the allied states all had different agendas other than simply defeating the Germans.

 

[wausaubob]

Of course the situations are different, and Lee made a tragic choice. But think about Lee making a different choice, could he have been the one to bring the nation back together?
Of course the Civil War is different, because their are Americans on both sides, and there is no air power.
What would Eisenhower have done if MacArthur had quit and run for President in 1944, while Patton was fighting for the Germans, and so forth.
You folks want to compare the situations faced by the various people, and that is unexpected, though interesting.

 

[wausaubob]

I think the comparison would lead to discussions of Nazi Germany and that would be against the rules.

 

[wausaubob]

Sort of puts McClellan quixotic attempt to unseat Lincoln in perspective. And may explain why the soldier vote went against him.

 

[wausaubob]

Well, I tried, but these responses are unimaginative.

 

[WJC]

Eisenhower was promoted over a number of other, and arguably better generals.
This was done because he was better suited for the job of commanding a large number of generals from a large number of different states with different military cultures and languages. It was his diplomatic /people skills that got him the job.

No civil war general had to do anything remotly similar.

Eisenhower had never led men in combat. However, he was an expert at logistics. Logistics are important in every campaign but was crucial in the planning and execution of D Day and the battle for Europe.
Most of us tend to overlook the vital role logistics played in Civil War battles and campaigns.

 

[WJC]

The comparison between McClellan and MacArthur would be based on their grandiose egos and political ambitions.
Both had only a loose commitment to the subordination of the military to the civilian authority.

The comparison of McClellan and MacArthur is one of two brilliant military minds, two exceptional military leaders and two military men who pursued their strategies which, in the end, were in conflict with those of their civilian commanders- in chief.

 

[wausaubob]

The comparison of McClellan and MacArthur is one of two brilliant military minds, two exceptional military leaders and two military men who pursued their strategies which, in the end, were in conflict with those of their civilian commanders- in chief.

Thanks for the attempted help. This topic is beyond my capabilities.

 

[WJC]

Ike really needs comparison to Halleck in position.

Halleck, as General-in-Chief of all U. S. forces, occupied a position more analogous to that of George C. Marshall, Eisenhower's superior.
As a side note, though Marshall's protege Eisenhower is often thought of as the strategist who conceived Operation Overlord, that effort was the brainchild of Marshall.

 

[Yankeedave]

The comparison of McClellan and MacArthur is one of two brilliant military minds, two exceptional military leaders and two military men who pursued their strategies which, in the end, were in conflict with those of their civilian commanders- in chief.

Well spoken!

 

[leftyhunter]

Of course the situations are different, and Lee made a tragic choice. But think about Lee making a different choice, could he have been the one to bring the nation back together?
Of course the Civil War is different, because their are Americans on both sides, and there is no air power.
What would Eisenhower have done if MacArthur had quit and run for President in 1944, while Patton was fighting for the Germans, and so forth.
You folks want to compare the situations faced by the various people, and that is unexpected, though interesting.

Comparing the presidential politics of 1864 to 1944 would be very problematic at best.
Leftyhunter

 

[WJC]

Well spoken!

Thanks!

 

[Yankeedave]

Thanks!

You are Welcome!