Why was Lee a brilliant tactician?

Marse Robert

Cadet
Joined
Jun 30, 2021
Hello everyone, this is my first CWT post. I've enjoyed reading your threads over the past few months and thought I would join in.

I was wondering why Robert E. Lee became (arguably) the greatest tactician of his age almost overnight. From what I understand, he had not commanded troops in battle prior to the Civil War. Likewise, he was trained as an engineer at West Point—not necessarily an indication that he would become a brilliant tactician. I believe he also studied the campaigns of Napoleon while superintendent at West Point, but besides this I am unaware of any information which would suggest Lee would become such an effective commander. Having been dubbed "Granny Lee" by the press, and "cautious" by none other than George McClellan, it seems that no one expected much from Lee prior to the Seven Days.

I'm particularly asking if anyone has any information/insight on:

A.) Who (Napoleon, Winfield Scott, Wellington, etc.), or what experiences (Mexican War, West Point, etc.), influenced Lee's approach to tactics?

or...

B.) Did Lee innovate battle tactics in any way?

I've always wondered why Lee was able to become a brilliant tactician, as most authors seem to take this fact for granted. I'd really appreciate your insights. Since I enjoy reading these threads—the more detail, the better!
 
Welcome Bobby Lee! What an introduction! You don't beat around the bush. If I am not mistaken Robert E. Lee commanded troops in the war with Mexico as American infantry and artillery drove towards Mexico City. I cannot understand why some men are better leaders in war than others. When George McClellan road in front of his troops, they cheered! Yet Little Mac loved his men so much that he couldn't bring himself to fight them.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
I cannot understand why some men are better leaders in war than others.
It's the same as in business - some people are willing to go forward at the right moment when things aren't perfect (Grant and Lee), and some people are too afraid of failure to strike when the iron is hot (McClellan).
 
Vote Here:
I was wondering why Robert E. Lee became (arguably) the greatest tactician of his age almost overnight.
Let's start by questioning the accuracy of that statement, that Lee was the "greatest tactician of his age." Lee was certainly an effective commander whose past experience and training in the US Army combined with his insight and strong leadership abilities. These attributes allowed him to leverage the unique advantages that the ANV started off with against an enemy that was beset with a flawed command structure and political leadership. So Lee's early military victories as commander of the ANV bought time for the Confederacy but failed to derange the AotP or destroy northern morale to the extent that an independent southern Confederacy could be attained. But despite his bold movements, his slowly diminishing numbers and overreach finally caught up with him and his men by the time of the Pennsylvania invasion in 1863.
 
Vote Here:
Let's start by questioning the accuracy of that statement, that Lee was the "greatest tactician of his age." Lee was certainly an effective commander whose past experience and training in the US Army combined with his insight and strong leadership abilities. These attributes allowed him to leverage the unique advantages that the ANV started off with against an enemy that was beset with a flawed command structure and political leadership. So Lee's early military victories as commander of the ANV bought time for the Confederacy but failed to derange the AotP or destroy northern morale to the extent that an independent southern Confederacy could be attained. But despite his bold movements, his slowly diminishing numbers and overreach finally caught up with him and his men by the time of the Pennsylvania invasion in 1863.
Agree - I'm not sure that he was all that great a "tactician". That term gets thrown around pretty loosely and there are good examples of Lee using poor tactics - Malvern Hill is a pretty solid exhibit, for one. I'm not touching the Gettysburg stove ....
 
Vote Here:
Agree - I'm not sure that he was all that great a "tactician". That term gets thrown around pretty loosely and there are good examples of Lee using poor tactics - Malvern Hill is a pretty solid exhibit, for one. I'm not touching the Gettysburg stove ....

I'm not really sure either about being a great tactician. Granted, Lee was bold and audacious and his tactic of dividing parts of his army often made sense and were successful as at 2nd Manassas and Chancellorsville. (But of course not always as in the Maryland raid.) But his use of direct assaults were often disastrous as you note at Malvern Hill and Gettysburg. It also didn't hurt Lee that he had some of the best subordinate Corp commanders like Jackson and Longstreet, and a huge stable of highly effective division and brigade leaders such as AP Hill, Ewell, and Rodes.
 
Vote Here:
As several of you have pointed out, perhaps it is debatable whether or not Lee was a brilliant tactician. I stated this because that is what I have repeatedly read from other authors and commentators. I will concede that this is an arguable point and a potentially flawed assumption. That is a question for another thread. I apologize if my language was not clear.

What I'm primarily interested in is who or what influenced Lee's military thinking. Lee is widely regarded as one of the most effective commanders of the Civil War. Who or what influenced Lee to succeed in battle where many others failed?
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
Lee had to have been extremely focused on his own opportunities, through West Point and thereafter. He was nearly a perfect student of academia and etiquette. Whatever he studied must have remained a viable memory to draw upon. When the war broke out in 1861 he was undivided in his belief to defend Virginia and the south. Coupled with the willingness to take chances, whatever he set out to do he backed 100 per cent to see it through. Of course such perseverance does cause problems such as the third day at Gettysburg, but one should understand brilliance, which has it's own folly. That is Lee.
Lubliner.
 
Vote Here:
As several of you have pointed out, perhaps it is debatable whether or not Lee was a brilliant tactician. I stated this because that is what I have repeatedly read from other authors and commentators. I will concede that this is an arguable point and a potentially flawed assumption. That is a question for another thread. I apologize if my language was not clear.

What I'm primarily interested in is who or what influenced Lee's military thinking. Lee is widely regarded as one of the most effective commanders of the Civil War. Who or what influenced Lee to succeed in battle where many others failed?
I think the issue is that the term "tactics" is often used in ways that ignore its technical meaning. Washington, for example, was (with the very isolated and unique exceptions of Trenton/Princeton), a mediocre to poor tactician. He had other military attributes that overcame that.
 
Vote Here:
who or what influenced Lee's military thinking
Lee was a career US Army officer whose high West Point standing gained him a top spot in the Engineering Corps. As such, Lee spent much of his early career involved in constructing infrastructure projects such as harbor works at St. Louis, and fortifications along the Atlantic coast. Not only did he sharpen those important military engineering skills and understanding of terrain and coastal fortifications that would become critical during the CW, but Lee did not waste futile years in western outpost duty that drained the spirit out of many regular officers. Lee's topographical knowledge came to the attention of Winfield Scott during the Mexican War, and gained Lee an important mentor from that time forward. And finally, Lee's promotion to Lt. Col. of the newly formed 2nd Cavalry Regiment brought Lee into contact with other notable officers such as AS Johnston and George Thomas, which further aided Lee in the development of his leadership skills. These experiences, his pattern of key assignments, and his long standing relationship with leading members of the army's engineering, infantry, and cavalry, were important influences on Lee's military thinking.
 
Vote Here:
Lee knew most of his opponents from West Point days and was able to get inside their heads. Grant was the exception...at the surrender, Lee said he couldn't remember meeting him.
Yes, but I'm wondering whether Lee purposely did not remember his meeting with Grant during the Mexican War. Lee, a notable Mexican War hero, might have been expressing his disdain for Grant, a lesser figure in that war who went on to resign from the army in disgrace. Yet here it was at Appomattox that Grant, for all his past flaws had bested Lee, who was everyone's model of the perfect soldier.
 
Vote Here:
Hello everyone, this is my first CWT post. I've enjoyed reading your threads over the past few months and thought I would join in.

I was wondering why Robert E. Lee became (arguably) the greatest tactician of his age almost overnight. From what I understand, he had not commanded troops in battle prior to the Civil War. Likewise, he was trained as an engineer at West Point—not necessarily an indication that he would become a brilliant tactician. I believe he also studied the campaigns of Napoleon while superintendent at West Point, but besides this I am unaware of any information which would suggest Lee would become such an effective commander. Having been dubbed "Granny Lee" by the press, and "cautious" by none other than George McClellan, it seems that no one expected much from Lee prior to the Seven Days.

I'm particularly asking if anyone has any information/insight on:

A.) Who (Napoleon, Winfield Scott, Wellington, etc.), or what experiences (Mexican War, West Point, etc.), influenced Lee's approach to tactics?

or...

B.) Did Lee innovate battle tactics in any way?

I've always wondered why Lee was able to become a brilliant tactician, as most authors seem to take this fact for granted. I'd really appreciate your insights. Since I enjoy reading these threads—the more detail, the better!

Lee benefited from numerous hagiographies that inflated his military genius and military prowess in a literary sense. If anyone scrutinizes Lee's military prowess it will be revealed he wasn't that good of a tactician and was given the advantage from the jump. Lee was given sufficient forces to defend a constricted operational theater. He was tasked with defending the axis between Washington, D.C. and Richmond Virginia, a fairly constrained, predominantly landbound geographical corridor with good communications and reasonable defensive terrain. He did so at a time when the defense was particularly effective. People overlook that Lee was a better engineer building fortification than he was a general making decisions and in conjunction with above mentioned advantages it should be no surprise he was somewhat successful. Keep in mind also, to add to the above above-mentioned advantages he had: he knew the terrain, had a spy network tracking the Unions movements and this is where Civil War buffs get the jitters, he was in an era where there was no carpet bombing to soften up fortified perimeters, which these advantages gave him time to tactically maneuver. Through transfers to the western theater, Lee made sure he staffed up with the best subordinates in the south, which also added to his success on the field.

Lee was pretty miserable on the attack. He went after McClellan in the peninsula campaign where his aggressive pursuit cost him dearly at Malvern Hill. Then he went north into Maryland and nearly lost his army at Antietam. After his victory at Chancellorsville, he invaded the north again, and again nearly lost his whole army in the Gettysburg campaign. Both McClellan at Antietam and Meade at Gettysburg, had they been slightly more aggressive, would have wiped Lee out. He was lucky. Afterward he went on the defensive and was able to stall Grant, losing much of his army along the way to the Petersburg siege. Those lost troops could not be replaced. I want to know is why people think he was a brilliant tactician when all he did was flank frontal attacks? Did Lee innovate some flanking movements?

So, Lee was a good defensive general (where he had tactical success), a poor offensive one (little tactical success), and his success was substantially, although not entirely, the result of facing poor Union commanders. Once he faced the first string, he was not successful.

Back to his hagiographies, Lee was used by the Southern Agrarians, a group of writers who idealized the slave South as a bastion of manly virtue. Frank Owsley, the most prominent historian among the Agrarians, called Lee “the soldier who walked with God.” One pillar of this narrative is transforming the South’s defeat on the battlefield into a source of moral elevation while placing Lee at the top of the pantheon, where he is the repository of all Southern virtue and valor. IMO, Lee was not a great tactician, and considering all the above reasons he had no choice to have some tactical success.
 
Vote Here:
Personally I don't find Lee (or Jackson) to be good tacticians.
As I see it the great victories at 2nd Manassas and at Chancellorsville was won on the operational level.
(And the same is very much the case of Jacksons success in the Valley)
Lee was better at getting the most out of his men and moving them effectively from A to B.

And I think he was good at understanding the terrain. Not surprising since that was what he did in Mexico and it was his job as an engineer. then add the massive advantage of having locals guides in many cases. (compared to Longstreet's problems on 2nd of july at Gettysburg)

For inspiration. Well, they where all inspired by Napoleon I... but looks to me that Lee learned the lesson for quick marching better than many other west pointers.
 
Vote Here:
Personally I don't find Lee (or Jackson) to be good tacticians.
As I see it the great victories at 2nd Manassas and at Chancellorsville was won on the operational level.
(And the same is very much the case of Jacksons success in the Valley)
Lee was better at getting the most out of his men and moving them effectively from A to B.

And I think he was good at understanding the terrain. Not surprising since that was what he did in Mexico and it was his job as an engineer. then add the massive advantage of having locals guides in many cases. (compared to Longstreet's problems on 2nd of july at Gettysburg)

For inspiration. Well, they where all inspired by Napoleon I... but looks to me that Lee learned the lesson for quick marching better than many other west pointers.
I agree completely. As for Jackson, he was a consistently mediocre tactician - First Kernstown; McDowell; Port Republic; Cedar Mountain; Brawner's Farm; Day 2 of Second Bull Run; Fredericksburg/Hamilton's Crossing. I've left out the Seven Days only because that will likely generate a thread based on Freeman's "fatigue excuse". Like Lee, Jackson's strength was movement at the operational level (although Lee's troops were probably in better condition at the end of the movements, and fewer subordinates were under arrest).
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top