"Same question -just want to know if I am thinking correctly" Topic

Hey guys, hope all is well. I have a Grant – Lee question. I know it comes down to opinion and has been debated since the day after the war ended:) Just want to know if you think I have the correct take on it.
My question is not which general is better. After all I have read and opinions I have heard I have made this conclusion, correct me if I am wrong.
In my mind there are two main types of generals, ones that are good at winning battles, and ones that are good at winning wars. Now I think both men were good at both, better than most.
That being said, would you guys say I am correct in my thinking that Lee was a slightly better battlefield commander and Grant was a slightly better "Campaigner" or knew how to win the war? Hope I explained myself, so, yes no, right, wrong???
Thanks, happy gaming Travis.

Now that is an interesting question – I think that Grant was a very capable battlefield commander but he excelled in strategy

Lee was a superb battlefield commander but he did make some very major tactical mistakes (Picket's Charge springs to mind) so with all respect to Marse Robert I am not sure I would say he was a much better battlefield commander than Grant

In my opinion Lee was not any good at winning wars. His view was to myopic. He was unable/unwilling to see beyond Virginia and so was unwilling to send reinforcements from the Virginia theater westward where they were needed and could be put to better use.

Malvern Hill springs to mind as well.

Well by the time Grant went to Virginia, the Confederacy could not really win the war no matter what Lee did. Their only chance was for foreign recognition or to make the war more costly than the north was willing to accept.

Did the South actually have the ability to win the war to start with? In regards to production capabilities, population and transportation systems, they were always behind. Even the best battlefield commander could not overcome these deficiencies in the overall war.

I think General Lee was a charismatic commander, who understood the odds against the Confederacy. As such, he excelled at taking risks, and seized the initiative whenever possible.
Other generals had similar problems, and similar solutions, for example Erwin Rommel, Frederick the Great (Esp in the 7YW), Hannibal…et al

Hum some interesting feed back thanks. I do think Lee had a good gasp of overall strat, just Grant had a better one. From what I have read he (Lee) understood the CSA was the underdog and the longer the war lasted the more it favored the union. In fact my understanding is that he was one of the few from day one that was pushing for Davis to attack as soon as possible with as much as possible and hope to erode union public support or at least convince the union the price was to high.
Davis from what I understand on the other hand choose to defend only, at the beginning, so that the Union was perceived by Europe as the "aggressor" and would come to their defense. Obviously Lee didn't think this was practical.
My conclusion of Lee being better on the field was because of the spectacular victories he achieve because of on the spot decisions. Was he perfect, obviously not but seems like he got it right more often than wrong.
Grant on the other hand, while certainly not a bad battlefield general never had any unexpected wins because of on the spot decisions. He seemed to be better at "seeing the big picture." Being able to do army and navy combined operations out west being an example and realizing two "game winning" strat many other union generals seemed to have missed that the key to bring the south down was to use the union advantages and exploit the souths disadvantages, the idea of total war to destroy the souths fighting industry/morale, etc and using the unions numbers to simple stay on Lee and sap all the souths remaining man power and to keep on fighting battle after battle, win lose or draw.
As for did the CSA every realistically have a chance to gain independence. I think they did right after first bull run and then much later, IF they had been able to hold on to Atlanta and some other area's right before the 1864 election I have read there was a real chance Lincoln could have lost re-election and since McClellan was running on a "peace with honor" promise, might have happen. Just some FYI.
Anyway, as I said just my limited opinion explaining my thought process based on what I have heard and read:)

I disagree with you premise that there are two kinds of generals. Winning wars and winning battles are so deeply interrelated that to separate them seems a mistake.

Why do you think Grant was not a good battlefield commander? Many generals would not recover at Shiloh. He always made do with what he had rather than waiting for troops, supplies, more, more, more.

While I agree that normally winning battle helps win a war I think they are not always directly related. There are a number of examples of generals through out history that could repeatedly win a battle but could not exploit it and when the war, Hannibal Barca comes to mind off hand. Also think of Vietnam, the USA did not lose a single battle but still lost the war. Sure there were non military issues at work but that didn't change the end result. Also were did you get the impression I suggested Grant was not a good battlefield commander, I think he was very good, better than most the union had. All I was thinking of is which had the slight edge in each category.
Now whether its fair to separate the two categories, I think that is a separate debate??? I think they were both very good in both respects, just seems to me they were slightly more talented in different area's. Just like its been pointed out different generals are better in certain roles than others. But I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time:)

Lee mentioned that fi he didn't stop Grant at the North Anna, it would just be a matter of numbers after that. He was the issue, but he did not have the means to fix it. I agree with BTC on this one.

It is a very tough question because the Strategic situation, necessary goals, Political support, resources and tools [in the way of armies] were very, very different.

I would suggest that Grant may not have done any better if he'd been in Lee's position. Whether Lee could have done any better than Grant is also questionable.

I think that Lee wasn't that great on the strategic offensive. He only moved into Union territory en masse twice, and both weren't very well conducted (in my opinion). Grant, on the other hand, did much of his fighting in enemy territory, and excelled at understanding the larger aims (rather than just those of the specific battle at hand). Just my two cents worth!
Remember, only one of them was a war-winning general!

I concur with Herkybird's summation and like the comparison to other generals, especially Rommel [I'd not thought of them in terms of similarities but I can see it now].

I also like to think what if the roles of Lee and Grant were switched as alluded to by McLaddie. I think that Lee demonstrated that he could do a lot with limited resources and troop numbers but doubt that Grant could have achieved the same level of success with those restrictions. Had Lee had similar resources and men to Grant I suspect the war's outcome could have been very different.

Had Lee and Grant exchanged commands, Lee would have won.

Both were very skillful generals, but the strategic situation of the South made a military victory over the North so highly unlikely as to be an effective impossibility. The South's only real hope of success/survival was to so dishearten the North's political leadership that a negotiated end to the war might be achieved.

B

Had Lee and Grant exchanged commands, Grant would have won.

Lee would not have been able to implement the grand multi-theater strategy that won the war. He would likely not have coordinated with commanders in other theaters since I imagine his strategy would simply have been a redux of "On to Richmond" so the other theaters would not have mattered to him. Meanwhile a Confederate Grant would have recognized this and by bleeding and bogging down another Richmond drive would have been able to destroy Union morale and likely bring about a peace that preserved the Confederacy. I would like to think that Grant would have been able to coordinate Confederate strategy better as well but Davis and State Governors probably would have frustrated that effort, though I think he would have done better than Lee.

In an ideal world Union Lee would face off against Confederate Grant. Lee would seek that "Perfect Campaign" being a Great Captain type general. Grant would either leave whole areas of the Confederacy wide open to lure in Lee's army, isolate it and then pick it apart or fortify all critical areas and make them bleed for it.

Of course Davis and the various Confederate leaders would never accept this and even if Grant could end up making Lee look like a fool, he'd be ousted far more quickly than Washington would seek to replace Lee.

Grant could only achieve what he did because Lincoln supported him and understood the sacrifice that had to be made. Davis would be unable to let one of his generals use the Confederacy in a manner that would be seen as too costly.

So while Grant may be the better general in many regards, Lee would probably win after Grant is sidelined and the Confederacy fails to get a coherent winning strategy going. Although I strongly suspect that Lee's victory would inevitably be mostly confined to the battlefield rather than the crushing defeat in our reality, which might give post-war "Cause" apologists plenty of ammo to claim that "One more charge" might have turned the tables and therefore the Confederacy was never really beaten. How much this would branch into major political fallout is up to your speculation.

A craftsman is only as good as his tools. Lee had better army, division and brigade leaders for most of the war. Grant only had some.

Often forgotten, Grant did a very good job in the Vicksburg campaign. He was no slouch as a battlefield commander.

No matter who was 'Best', I am glad things worked out the way they did. After all, it was a major step in crushing slavery! (though sadly, not prejudice).

In the Vicksburg campaign the USA outnumbered the CSA by more than two to one and had much stronger naval support. Although the CSA generals opposing Lee and Sherman were good they were not in the same class as other CSA generals like Lee.

Although I agree that Grant performed well in the Vicksburg campaign, I don't believe it can be used as strong evidence that he was a better battleground commander nor capable of bettering Lee at strategy.

I don't recall that any general pulled off anything very brilliantly on the battlefield itself. Once combat began, things were usually decided at a lower level (corps, division, even brigade). It was in the maneuvering leading up to a battle that generals really showed what they were good for. Once you get there "fustest with the moistest" you have probably already won the battle.

One characteristic that Grant and Lee shared was an ability to keep their heads when things seemed to be going wrong. I think Shelby Foote called it "2 o'clock courage": wake them up at 2 in the morning with news that the enemy has turned their flank they didn't panic, they just went to work setting things right.

I concur with Herkybird's summation and like the comparison to other generals, especially Rommel [I'd not thought of them in terms of similarities but I can see it now].

If i remember correctly, Harry Turtledove, in an alternative history novel, wrote about Rommel visiting the US and learning about deceptive tactics used by Nathan Bedford Forrest to make his Union opponents think he had more troops than he did. He notes that Rommel goes on to use a similar stratagem when parading tanks through Tripoli upon first arriving in North Africa (which really happened in our current iteration of history).

Lee would not have been able to implement the grand multi-theater strategy that won the war. He would likely not have coordinated with commanders in other theaters since I imagine his strategy would simply have been a redux of "On to Richmond" so the other theaters would not have mattered to him.

Secsesh:

Considering that Lee was never given command of grand strategy for the CSA until very late in the war…too late to actual accomplish anything, I don't think that is a fair assessment of what Lee 'could have done' in Grant's position. In Lee's position, he would not have had any opportunity to command the entire CSA war effort either. Because of Davis, the CSA states' issues, Grant would have been locked in the same theatre.