- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Where does Robert E Lee rank as a military tactician
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:36 pm to teke184
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:36 pm to teke184
quote:
OTOH, Rommel was also noted there as a subpar commander and it claimed Rommel’s reputation came from Allied commanders building him up to explain getting their asses whipped.
The same could be said s a bout Lee. He kept whipping Yankee butt with undermanned and under armed armies so the Yankee generals made him out to be super human when in reality he was terrible and got lucky over and over again.
0
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:36 pm to mattloc
He's right under, Under Grants nuts!
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:37 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
One need not be much of a tactician, when one can overwhelm with numbers and materièl.
Quantity has a quality all of its own.
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:37 pm to KillTheGophers
quote:
Nearly perfect except day 3 of Gettysburg.
Pretty much.
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:38 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
As a tactician he proved himself worthy of some of the best in some battles, while also proving to be mediocre in others.
As a strategist he was downright mediocre.
Genuine question, what is the difference between tactician and strategist? I would think those are synonyms.
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:39 pm to Lima Whiskey
Lima
I meant to upvote.
I accidentally hit the wrong arrow.
I owe you an upvote.
I meant to upvote.
I accidentally hit the wrong arrow.
I owe you an upvote.
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:39 pm to lionward2014
Tactics when the battle strategy wins the war.
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:39 pm to lionward2014
quote:
Genuine question, what is the difference between tactician and strategist? I would think those are synonyms.
Tactics are small scale. Strategy is big picture.
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:39 pm to lionward2014
quote:
Genuine question, what is the difference between tactician and strategist?
It's the difference between small picture and big picture. Lee couldn't see the war past the borders of Virginia and that hurt the Confederacy in the end. Grant saw the war as one giant chess board with every city and river linked together by the railroad.
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:40 pm to Nono
quote:
I accidentally hit the wrong arrow.
I owe you an upvote.
Refresh and hit the up arrow..........
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:42 pm to KillTheGophers
quote:
Nearly perfect except day 3 of Gettysburg.
What about his performances at Beaver Dam Creek and Malvern Hill?
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:51 pm to KillTheGophers
quote:
Nearly perfect except day 3 of Gettysburg.
^^^^^THIS^^^^^
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:55 pm to mattloc
After either victory at Manassas, had the Confederates marched straight into DC, the war probably ends and the country splits.
Posted on 1/20/20 at 2:58 pm to Quidam65
Maybe so with First Manassas but both armies were so disorganized after that battle there was no way anyone was going to be launching any kind of campaign any time soon.
Second Manassas...not so much. The Union Army checked Lee's attempt to cut off their retreat at the Battle of Chantilly and McClellan was close at hand with the balance of the Army of the Potomac, just recently returned from the Virginia peninsula.
Second Manassas...not so much. The Union Army checked Lee's attempt to cut off their retreat at the Battle of Chantilly and McClellan was close at hand with the balance of the Army of the Potomac, just recently returned from the Virginia peninsula.
Posted on 1/20/20 at 3:04 pm to RollTide1987
At the end of the day, and I'm sure I am going to ruffle some feathers but this is by no means a troll post, Lee ultimately lost the war for the Confederacy. He lost it by being way too aggressive. Had he fought the Civil War how he fought against Grant in 1864, there is a strong possibility that he forces the United States to seek a negotiated peace.
He didn't. He waged the war too aggressively and cost the southern army valuable men and material. Had he been more conservative and fought battles like he did at Fredericksburg instead of like he did at Chancellorsville or Gettysburg, he might have ultimately won and we'd be talking about two separate nations right now.
He didn't. He waged the war too aggressively and cost the southern army valuable men and material. Had he been more conservative and fought battles like he did at Fredericksburg instead of like he did at Chancellorsville or Gettysburg, he might have ultimately won and we'd be talking about two separate nations right now.
Posted on 1/20/20 at 3:10 pm to teke184
quote:
Someone did a set of analytics on a number of generals and claimed Lee was below replacement level in quality.
The implication was that Lee was a significant detriment to the war effort.
Maybe it is my alsheimers kicking in - but never in my live have I heard a serous commentary about Lee being a sub-standard General.
Posted on 1/20/20 at 3:11 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Lee ultimately lost the war for the Confederacy.
Others have said the same but Lee lengthened the war with his skill and leadership.
I give three reasons why the South lost. They left the Union before they were ready. They attacked a federal installation giving the North immediate cause. Jefferson Davis.
Posted on 1/20/20 at 3:13 pm to mattloc
I think he is over rated. He had the advantage of being up against incredibly incompetent opposition until Grant.
He also benefitted from Jackson who was a military genius and Longstreet . He gets a lot of press because he was in the Eastern theater .
The important stuff was in the West....Nashville,Ft.Donaldson, Shiloh,New Orleans, Vicksburg, Chattanooga were far more consequential than anything Lee did
He also benefitted from Jackson who was a military genius and Longstreet . He gets a lot of press because he was in the Eastern theater .
The important stuff was in the West....Nashville,Ft.Donaldson, Shiloh,New Orleans, Vicksburg, Chattanooga were far more consequential than anything Lee did
Posted on 1/20/20 at 3:13 pm to goatmilker
quote:
Lee lengthened the war with his skill and leadership.
He may have lengthened the war but he was also one of the major reasons why the South ultimately lost it. His refusal to see the big picture beyond Virginia and his aggressive tactics in the face of superior numbers were huge contributing factors to the Confederacy's ultimate demise.
Had he been more conservative, he might have not only lengthened the war...he might have also won it.
He should have taken a page out of George Washington's book and offered battle only when the deck wasn't completely stacked against him. Lee's battles are beautiful to look at on a map, but they cost him valuable manpower that he was never going to get back.
This post was edited on 1/20/20 at 3:14 pm
Posted on 1/20/20 at 3:17 pm to mattloc
If Stonewall Jackson had not been tragically killed, Gettysburg would have never happened.The outcome of the War for Southern Independence would have ended differently.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News