Most Underrated General

[Rebforever]

Hes been shown the numbers numerious times from multiple sources and even Foote , so no thats not all it takes...Im suprised you don't remember that since you contributed on the same threads

Sent you a PM.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Hes been shown the numbers numerious times from multiple sources and even Foote , so no thats not all it takes...Im suprised you don't remember that since you contributed on the same threads

Wilber, let me announce something: yes, Lee suffered more than 20000, certainly. The casualties at Gettysburg were almost equal for both sides. I will no longer mention the figure I have been suggesting, because probably it's low.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[wilber6150]

Early won a great tactical victory at Monocacy, forcing Lew Wallace to flee. He attacked Fort Stevens and inflicted just under 500 casualties to the Union defenders, suffering just over 300 himself. Chambersburg was burned by John McCausland, not Early himself.
Sheridan's victories were results of his numerical superiority. Everything Early wanted to hold the Valley was men. It is easy to say you won a triumph when your opponent is nothing but a tub against your whale. Don't forget that, while Sheridan's loss was just over 23000, Early lost just under 10000, making great use of the troops he had.
Finally, I referred to the EAST, not the whole outlook. The observers operated in the East and were aware of the operations there, where the Confederacy was gaining victories and glory.
Civil War Scholar.

Your numbers for Ft. Stevens are reversed...

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Wilber,
The Union suffered 373 casualties at Fort Stevens and Early just over 400. Sorry, I reversed the figures, but now I've corrected my error.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Thanks, you're right! Getting that second cup of coffee... Anyway, I don't think there was a clear Confederate victory all the way to Appomattox. (Cold Harbor excepted. Can't say the Federals didn't get beat there!) Myself, and I happen to like Jeff Davis in many ways, I think he should have dropped the reins and let Lee have his head. I don't agree that Confederate defeat was sealed after Gettysburg, as some do.

Diane,
both Wilderness and Spotsylvania can classify as Confederate victories.
Let's make a parallel of the Battle of the Wilderness and the Battle of Chancellorsville.
At Chancellorsville, Hooker achieved some initial surprise. At the Wilderness, Grant was himself surprised several times.
At Chancellorsville, Hooker ended up with one of his flanks turned. At the Wilderness, Grant had both flanks turned.
At Chancellorsville, Hooker had detached one of his biggest Corpses, Sedgwick's. At the Wilderness, Grant had all his force at hand.
At Chancellorsville, Lee inflicted 17300 casualties and suffered just under 12000 (Sources: Foote and Long). At the Wilderness, Lee inflicted 17766 casualties (Foote and Long) and suffered just over 7500 (Long) or just under 7800 (Foote).
As Foote said, speaking tactically, Lee had not beaten an adversary so soundly than he beat Grant in the Wilderness.

Now, going to Spotsylvania. Lee won the race to the position, made formidable entrenchments, repulsed all of Grant's advances and relocated his army in time to stop his adversary's next move. At Spotsylvania, Lee inflicted 18399 casualties and suffered 10000.
For both the great battles, Grant suffered 36165 casualties and Lee 17800.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[rpkennedy]

Diane,
both Wilderness and Spotsylvania can classify as Confederate victories.
Let's make a parallel of the Battle of the Wilderness and the Battle of Chancellorsville.
At Chancellorsville, Hooker achieved some initial surprise. At the Wilderness, Grant was himself surprised several times.
At Chancellorsville, Hooker ended up with one of his flanks turned. At the Wilderness, Grant had both flanks turned.
At Chancellorsville, Hooker had detached one of his biggest Corpses, Sedgwick's. At the Wilderness, Grant had all his force at hand.
At Chancellorsville, Lee inflicted 17300 casualties and suffered just under 12000 (Sources: Foote and Long). At the Wilderness, Lee inflicted 17766 casualties (Foote and Long) and suffered just over 7500 (Long) or just under 7800 (Foote).
As Foote said, speaking tactically, Lee had not beaten an adversary so soundly than he beat Grant in the Wilderness.

Now, going to Spotsylvania. Lee won the race to the position, made formidable entrenchments, repulsed all of Grant's advances and relocated his army in time to stop his adversary's next move. At Spotsylvania, Lee inflicted 18399 casualties and suffered 10000.
For both the great battles, Grant suffered 36165 casualties and Lee 17800.
Civil War Scholar.

Lee lost more than 10,000 at the Wilderness.

Lee lost more than 12,500 at Spotsylvania.

R

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Lee lost more than 10,000 at the Wilderness.

Lee lost more than 12,500 at Spotsylvania.

R

Sources, please?
Apart from Wikipedia, which you don't consider reliable.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[rpkennedy]

Sources, please?
Apart from Wikipedia, which you don't consider reliable.
Civil War Scholar.

For both, Gordon Rhea.

Wilderness

Longstreet loses about 3,000 (although that's an estimate due to the lack of returns).

Ewell loses less than 1,500 (based on his own report).

Hill loses about 7,000 (based on his returns from before and after the battle).

R

 

[Elennsar]

On the issue of underrated commanders: Dorsey Pender?

I do not think "underrated" means what CWS thinks it means. In fact, I know it doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

From Barksdale to Early to Pender - what's next, Stuart? Jackson? Lee?

For both, Gordon Rhea.

Wilderness

Longstreet loses about 3,000 (although that's an estimate due to the lack of returns).

Ewell loses less than 1,500 (based on his own report).

Hill loses about 7,000 (based on his returns from before and after the battle).

R

Cash mentioned this Lee's Army during the Overland Campaign: A Numerical Study by Alfred C. Young, does anyone in this thread have a copy at this point?

 

[rpkennedy]

For Spotsylvania:

Ewell's corps alone loses a little less than 10,000 men (including a little less than 5,000 from Johnson's Division).

Longstreet's Corps (under Anderson) suffers minimal casualties.

Hill's Corps (under Early) loses about 2,000, almost entirely from taking the offensive.

R

 

[rpkennedy]

On the issue of underrated commanders: Dorsey Pender?

I do not think "underrated" means what CWS thinks it means. In fact, I know it doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

From Barksdale to Early to Pender - what's next, Stuart? Jackson? Lee?



Cash mentioned this Lee's Army during the Overland Campaign: A Numerical Study by Alfred C. Young, does anyone in this thread have a copy at this point?

I do not.

R

 

[rpkennedy]

I tend to agree with Elennsar about Pender. He was considered one of the best brigade commanders in the Confederacy, and could have made an excellent division commander if he hadn't fallen at Gettysburg. Underrated he was not.

R

 

[NedBaldwin]

From Barksdale to Early to Pender - what's next, Stuart? Jackson? Lee?

Meade? Thomas?

Cash mentioned this Lee's Army during the Overland Campaign: A Numerical Study by Alfred C. Young, does anyone in this thread have a copy at this point?

I have it on kindle. You want any particular info from it?

 

[Elennsar]

I tend to agree with Elennsar about Pender. He was considered one of the best brigade commanders in the Confederacy, and could have made an excellent division commander if he hadn't fallen at Gettysburg. Underrated he was not.

R

Yeah. And while one could say "somewhat overlooked" in popular history, popular history can't name very many generals - I'll bet you a hat that the average man on the street couldn't name half of Lee's division commanders, even if we count Stuart and A.P. Hill (promoted to corps command, and thus not judged solely on their division command record).

 

[Elennsar]

Meade? Thomas?

How many people refer to them as good generals? Thomas has a fan club (to put it more bluntly than I'd like), Meade not so much.

I have it on kindle. You want any particular info from it?

Just to compare what rpkennedy quoted from Rhea to it if there's any substantial difference between the two.

 

[NedBaldwin]

How many people refer to them as good generals?

In my experience, everyone.

 

[diane]

Diane,
both Wilderness and Spotsylvania can classify as Confederate victories.
Let's make a parallel of the Battle of the Wilderness and the Battle of Chancellorsville.
At Chancellorsville, Hooker achieved some initial surprise. At the Wilderness, Grant was himself surprised several times.
At Chancellorsville, Hooker ended up with one of his flanks turned. At the Wilderness, Grant had both flanks turned.
At Chancellorsville, Hooker had detached one of his biggest Corpses, Sedgwick's. At the Wilderness, Grant had all his force at hand.
At Chancellorsville, Lee inflicted 17300 casualties and suffered just under 12000 (Sources: Foote and Long). At the Wilderness, Lee inflicted 17766 casualties (Foote and Long) and suffered just over 7500 (Long) or just under 7800 (Foote).
As Foote said, speaking tactically, Lee had not beaten an adversary so soundly than he beat Grant in the Wilderness.

Now, going to Spotsylvania. Lee won the race to the position, made formidable entrenchments, repulsed all of Grant's advances and relocated his army in time to stop his adversary's next move. At Spotsylvania, Lee inflicted 18399 casualties and suffered 10000.
For both the great battles, Grant suffered 36165 casualties and Lee 17800.
Civil War Scholar.

Let's forget Chancellorsville. Yep, Lee beat Grant to Spotsylvania but only because Stuart told his men to run! And Anderson, in one of those strange things, was camped on a creepy piece of old battlefield amid dead bodies - he was up and booking it out of there way before he would have been...and so was on the road at just the right time. Despite any numbers - and the figures really don't matter because outcome is what matters - Lee and Grant wrasseled all over the Virginia countryside and the upshot is neither of them won a decision and neither of them lost one, either. In the end, the decisive outcome of the Overland Campaign was Grant finally treed Lee in Petersburg.

 

[Civil War Scholar]

Let's forget Chancellorsville. Yep, Lee beat Grant to Spotsylvania but only because Stuart told his men to run! And Anderson, in one of those strange things, was camped on a creepy piece of old battlefield amid dead bodies - he was up and booking it out of there way before he would have been...and so was on the road at just the right time. Despite any numbers - and the figures really don't matter because outcome is what matters - Lee and Grant wrasseled all over the Virginia countryside and the upshot is neither of them won a decision and neither of them lost one, either. In the end, the decisive outcome of the Overland Campaign was Grant finally treed Lee in Petersburg.

Why is it such a disadvantage? Lee could beat everyone of Grant's assaults and inflict tremendous losses, while suffering minimal. During both the Overland and Petersburg campaigns, the pattern was that: Grant advances with a specific aim, Lee divines his purpose, armies or parts of them meet, the Confederacy repulses the Union suffering less than half the enemy's casualties, Grant makes a new move, Lee beats him again. For 11 months, Lee was constantly beating an adversary who is constantly praised for his foresight and his skills on the battlefield.
Civil War Scholar.

 

[Elennsar]

In my experience, everyone.

I can't speak on Thomas, who I think is broadly appreciated here (at least in the threads I've participated in), but I point you to OpnCoronet's determination to present Meade's pursuit of Lee as one of the most timid military operations ever conducted by a Union general.

I'm not counting CWS as he paints all Union generals as losers.

 

[diane]

Why is it such a disadvantage? Lee could beat everyone of Grant's assaults and inflict tremendous losses, while suffering minimal. During both the Overland and Petersburg campaigns, the pattern was that: Grant advances with a specific aim, Lee divines his purpose, armies or parts of them meet, the Confederacy repulses the Union suffering less than half the enemy's casualties, Grant makes a new move, Lee beats him again. For 11 months, Lee was constantly beating an adversary who is constantly praised for his foresight and his skills on the battlefield.
Civil War Scholar.

Lee was valiant, there's no disputing that. But the finish was defeat. Grant was a head-down fighter who would not retreat and so was Lee. They were one of history's great matches. But somebody had to lose eventually, and that somebody was Lee.