SouthernRebel772
Sergeant
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Location
- USMC
Okay this has been annoying me for some time, and finally brought to a head when I read a magazine article by a military historian bashing Lee and calling Jackson the greatest of the South's Generals and superior to Lee.
Well I wanted to ask you guys your opinions. The main argument the author had against Lee was his use of frontal assaults. I find this argument lacking in substance. Aside from Gettysburg, as far as I know Lee always tried to maneuver on the enemy's flank to defeat them.
Aside from this I do think the argument has become more discussed recently. For me, While I regard Jackson highly, I just don't think he was of the same caliber as Lee. He was a fine Strategist, but decidedly lacking in the tactical sense.
And this is not biased at all.
Well I wanted to ask you guys your opinions. The main argument the author had against Lee was his use of frontal assaults. I find this argument lacking in substance. Aside from Gettysburg, as far as I know Lee always tried to maneuver on the enemy's flank to defeat them.
Aside from this I do think the argument has become more discussed recently. For me, While I regard Jackson highly, I just don't think he was of the same caliber as Lee. He was a fine Strategist, but decidedly lacking in the tactical sense.
And this is not biased at all.