"Lee can't be the only one??" Topic

Got to thinking about all the controversy surrounding Lees reputation as a great general, mainly, if he deserves the title or not. NO, this is not another post to try and resolve that, personally I think it comes down to personal opinion and never will be.
BUT……it did get me thinking that he is not the only general who's reputation is controversial. By that I mean either getting more credit than deserved or not enough. I'm sure many of you have one or more that quickly come to mind and not just during the ACW period but throughout history.
For example, for me, field marshal Montgomery comes to mind quickly. I know there are many British that will tell you how great he was, just as there are many Americans (and probably some Germans) that will be quick to say he was just average at best. So, just curious, who tops your list of generals history has misrepresented??

Grant can be controversial. The Lost Cause tries to belittle his victories. Custer pops to mind also.
Joseph Johnston gets to much criticism. I think people overdue Patton's role in WW2. People turn Washington into one of the greatest generals but I feel that is pushing things too far.

As a Brit, I consider Montgomery an average general, but an excellent motivator and trainer of men.
I think Lee was a good general- he was also able to take great risks in battle, which against better opposition may have come a cropper, but he knew his enemy and played well to the strengths and weaknesses of both his and his enemies armies.
I think Grant was a smidgeon better though!!!

Custer is a good one I didn't think of, yes. I think he was "immortalized" for political reasons dealing with the Indians at the time.

I do agree I think Monty's greatest contributions was simple rebuilding the 8th army to be willing to carry on. From my research I consider Grants greatest strength was being able to "see the big picture" at a time when apparently no other leading Union generals did??

I had thought about making a poll question out of this and if Bill wants to that's his option. I know others may have additional criteria, but these are mine.

What makes a Great commander.

To be classified as great, you need to have at least a score of 7. So take your chosen commander and grade them.

1. In battles they led, they were undefeated
2. The leader had charisma and could inspire their men to greatness and greater physicality
3. The leader had audacity. Was willing to take risks and accept the consequences
4. The leader was tactically gifted
5. The leader was strategically gifted
6. The leader was innovative in at least one: technology, tactically, strategically.
7. The leader believes in themselves and inspires others to believe in them
8. They have personal courage
Bonus point: In the majority of the battles they led, they were either outnumbered or believed to be militarily inferior, or both, and still WON and won 80% of those battles.

So for me, my top is Alexander the Great. I believe he scores an 8 and gets the bonus point. So an overall 9.

Since British commanders have been introduced, I thought was not limited to the US civil war. But the rating system would work in the Civil War as well. I can't see any 7's off the top, but you might.

So I would give Grant a 5, he might be stretched to a 6. But I am staying with a 5 for my number. Good at 5, very good at 6.

Well, I think I have seen several posts about a rating system, what should be considered, what should not. Once again, I think a large part of that comes down to personal point of view. I was mainly curious if there were some generals throughout history that I had not considered or may be not even heard of that folks thought history was either unkind or to kind to.
…….and yes, the white powder that used to be the bones of what used to be the horse of the lost cause/Lee debt has been covered beyond my interest. I merely mentioned him because, being an ACW form thought it would be a good starting place and example for my post thoughts.

So based on the criteria, how do you rate Lee?

I always think one test of the reputation of a general, is to consider how well he (or in rare cases she) would have got on if he changed places with his opponent. How good would Grant have been if he commanded the NVA, and Lee the Unionists. I have seen claims of Grants superiority to Lee based purely on the fact that he won. I suspect that if the roles were reversed Lee would have won.
You can play the same game with other eras too. I suspect if Alexander and Darius reversed roles at Issus, the Persians would have won, thereby confirming Alexanders greatness.
Remaining undefeated is in my opinion not a vital attribute for a good general. Napoleon was defeated a few times, but is anybody suggesting he was not in the front rank ?

Plenty of American Generals who were rated wrong by peers. Eisenhower grouped numerous Generals to get the Supreme commander slot. He was only a Colonel in 1941. So his peers did not regard him highly.

ACW was a point of controversy.

"Remaining undefeated is in my opinion not a vital attribute for a good general. Napoleon was defeated a few times, but is anybody suggesting he was not in the front rank ?"

No, being undefeated is NOT a vital attribute for a "good" general, but it is an attribute for a truly "Great" general. 🙂

A general's greatness is very difficult to assess. A battle is won by thousands of soldiers led by NCOs and officers at many levels. A battle won, lost, or drawn is a function of all of these decisions. With few exceptions, such as choosing the ground (this is not always possible), committing the reserves, and finding and exploiting enemy weaknesses, a general's job is done before the battle. A campaign brings in many more additional factors. Napoleon had a point when he said "Bring me the lucky ones." The Romans spoke about "the fortunes of war", and Clausewitz explored the effects of friction and the fog of war. Many generals have been excellent officers and proficient leaders, but to speak of "greatness" is a very slippery concept.

I'm not sure there's a single rating for generals of the type wargamers love, where Ambrose Burnside is a +0 and His Imperial Majesty Napoleon I is a +4. Mostly, senior officers have the training, experience and temperament to do well in some situations, but not in others. Take Montgomery. He's a first-rate organizer and trainer, and looks really good at Alamein, or in the preparation for D-Day. In the pursuit and exploitation phase, Primosolo and Arnhem Bridges both come to mind. George Patton was also a good trainer, but his improvisational skills probably exceeded his talents in a set-piece battle.

Reverting to the ACW, I just finished going back over the Knoxville Campaign, and if you only had that campaign to go by, I think most people would rate Burnside well ahead of Longstreet--quite the reverse of their Virginia and Maryland experience.

It's always necessary for senior officers to understand how warfare works at that time and at that level, to give clear, timely orders and accept responsibility for consequences. Often, they're responsible for seeing that the men are suitably trained, and sometimes for seeing they're suitably equipped. But the man you want to conduct a siege is rarely the man you want to conduct a pursuit. A set-piece battle may be a third man, and pacifying a rebellious province a fourth. One set of skills says nothing about the others.

TimePortal, the last I heard, the US Army did not practice promotion by peers, but by superiors. Ike made brevet Lt Colonel three years out of the Academy, but before the WWII expansion of the US Army, peacetime promotion (and permanent rank) for the Class of 1915 was "glacially slow" and largely based on seniority. Any idea how his classmates stood?

Custer is a good one I didn't think of, yes. I think he was "immortalized" for political reasons dealing with the Indians at the time.

Custer may have been an arrogant ass in many respects, but during the Civil War he became the youngest General in the Union Army. That wasn't by accident or a political appointment. That he made some serious [or stupid] mistakes in 1876 doesn't change that.

What I find interesting is which generals are controversial during their tenure in command and which become so after they are dead and gone.

Very interesting and informative, thanks for all the feedback. Ow, and based on your list I would give Lee 5.5:)

I would give Lee a 5. I said Grant was a 5 as well, but could be a 6. So really a 5.5.

One thing I should have said is the commander should have led more than 1 or 2 battles. There should be a minimum. Also the commander had to have had battles where the opponent was at least technologically equal. A commander leading gun and cannon armies against opponents still using bows and arrows, should never be ranked among the greats. Could be good, but not great. As we know there were commanders who lost to technologically inferior armies, ( Isandlwana, Battle of the Wabash, Little Big Horn, etc.), so you could rank good, if you never lost to them, but never great.

Actually if you ranked good prior to a loss to a technologically inferior enemy, you should drop a rank. 🤔

So I would rate McClellan a 2 at best. He showed personal bravery and he could inspire men(not always and not everyone).

Yah I can see that but I wonder instead of inferior tech you should just say inferior "combat power". For an extreme example yah cannon and muskets should be expected to win against inferior weapons but at some point there could be enough numbers to make up for it, thus making the fight an even one, the Zulu ones you mentioned being good examples??? ….and yes you could always chalk just one or two battles to luck, there should be enough to show a pattern one way or the other??? Yah from my research McClellan was great at making armies….just not using them:):) Ironically he seemed to remain popular with the common soldier…even after his losses???

Not sure McClellan showed personal bravery when he commanded the Army. He did so in his earlier career.

Just to clarify McLaddie, at the time Custer was promoted he was the youngest general then serving in the U.S. Army. Galusha Pennypacker was promoted Brigadier General in 1865 at the age of 20, making him the youngest overall U.S. Civil War general. If you don't mind the asterisks LaFayette was commissioned Major General in July 1777, about a month before his 20th birthday.

I always find this with Montrose in the English civil war. Personally I think what he pulled off with an army made up largely of feduel levies (and some top notch Irish professional soldiers) was hugely impressive and marks him out as one of the best generals of his era but plenty of people disagree with me and think he was massively overrated and cant compete with Fairfax, Cromwell or Hopton. I think when it comes to ranking generals Wargamers all have our own prejudices or bais that we tend to struggle to overlook.

Interesting, have to check him out. Not all that familiar with that period. Yes I think you could say that about everyone and life in general, not just gamers and history……just human nature:)

Lee has before Gettysburg and after Gettysburg ratings for me. He is a 6 before and 4 after. Grant ascends to a 7 after Vicksburg, Stonewall a 6. Many solid corps commanders on both sides.

I look for commanders with vision and resolve, both tactical and strategic. MacClellan was so seriously unable to plan and execute a battle against the hundreds of thousand of rebels he was sure he was facing that he cannot rate much more than a 2. Longstreet has always been sold short to bump up Lee, but I give him a 5.
Resolve is not about hanging on, it's about fulfilling objectives.

But Sherman gets a 6, like Jackson. Bot were resolute and understood war.

I feel bad for Lee. Surely he understood future held after Picketts charge.

Herkybird makes an interesting point, "he knew his enemy." That's what makes the ACW different from so many wars. The generals all knew each other, they'd served together, they'd all been (more or less) to school together. They knew each other not just as officers and leaders, but as people, their strengths and their weaknesses.

Would agree with the 6 on Jackson, but could slip to 5 if one does not believe he had:

". The leader had charisma and could inspire their men to greatness and greater physicality"

Lee had it in spades. Do you all believe Jackson had it? I've read varying comments on him.

Would be interested in Thomas ratings.

Also just think, except for a division moving out of position at exactly the wrong time, Rosecrans may well have been high on the list. Fame is a fickle bit#ch.

e has before Gettysburg and after Gettysburg ratings for me. He is a 6 before and 4 after.

Sometimes my best cardplaying comes when the cards bad. Even though I lose I actually played better. When the cards are good it is easy to play well. I think Lee's command effectiveness in late 1863 and 1864 was quite masterful at times and proved him to be a great commander. Some very good commanders lost critical battles because of events beyond their control.

As an aside, I would take Scipio or Hannibal any day over Alexander. What Hannibal did in Italy for 14 years was incredible. I don't there is anything equivalent that Alexander did that matches it.

Marcus rare I disagree with you, but for me it is Alexander hands down. The man took down the greatest empire of his time. I believe he was outnumbered in 90% to 95% of his battles. He was sometimes outnumbered over 2 to one. He tactically outmaneuvered and outthought the Persians at every battle. His Army was not even viewed as a true Greek army, inferior to the majority of Southern Greeks. When he did not win by fighting, he won with diplomacy (Egypt). He overcame obstacles with unique methodologies (siege of Tyre). He inspired his men long after they would have normally stopped, even invading Indian and winning there. He fought and defeated Greeks, Persians and their allies and Indians. I think he fought and won 19 battles and waged 12 seiges. He led from the front and personally fought in his battles. He basically fought and defeated the preeminent armies of his time. My only complaint with Alexander was his lack of preparation for the future.

Both Scipio and Hannibal were good, I would even give Hannibal great, but I don't see them at Alexander's level.

But my opinion and you have yours. 🙂

I have always found Rosecrans a strange mix and hard to rate for my game. On the one hand he had what many have called a textbook perfect campaign. Then on the other hand he made many mistakes and was considered way to cautious at times, kinda like he was two different commanders in the same body??
Interesting prospective about rating generals different after certain events. I do agree that it would seem some, especially Grant got better with time, learned from his mistakes and tried not to repeat them. I have also read conflicting reports as to how popular Stonewall was with his troops and I agree that Longstreet probably deserves more credit than he gets. He was one of the leading generals that urged the relief of Vicksburg vs another northern invasion that ultimately caused more harm than good to the southern cause.
I would also take Alexander for the one reason that while there is no doubt Hannibal was a great general, he was never able to successfully siege and defeat Rome, a major flaw that to a degree made all his victories on the battlefield ultimately pointless for his cause. It reminds me of an exchange I heard took place at the Paris peace talks over Vietnam, an American general commented the US never lost a major battle and his Vietcom counterpart basically said …..so what, it didn't make a difference.
On a side note, my original question was about commanders' folks thought history misrepresented one way or the other and I think it's safe to say that Scipio, Hannibal and Alexander all deserve the fame history has given them.
Happy gaming all!!

Your comment about winning battles and not the war is interesting and shows the difference between a good tactician and a good strategist. As Forrest asked after Bragg won at Chickamauga but then failed to follow it up, "What does he fight battles for?" The battle, whether won or lost, needs to serve a strategic purpose. Take Lew Wallace at the Monocacy: just fighting the battle, even though he lost it, served the strategic purpose of delaying Early's advance on Washington.

Rosecrans was a good strategist and could be a good tactician, but he got over-excited sometimes, as at Chickamauga, to the point where his staff couldn't understand what he was trying to say. Grant, on the other hand, was said to always remain calm on the battlefield, even when things were going wrong.

Rosecrans. A difficult individual to evaluate. I have read he had issues, either physical, mental or both. Which may have had an effect on him at Chickamaga. He had resigned early in his career for poor health. Did this play a part?

"Rosecrans resigned from the military due to poor health in 1854"

He showed signs of strategic brilliance. Tullahoma and maneuvering the confederates out of Tennessee and taking Chattanooga without a battle. He was methodical, which makes him seem slow. He showed personal bravery(I disregard Dana's biased comments at chickamauga. Dana had an agenda). Many of his men were inspired by him, but he was also hard to get along with, and could be difficult and could p#SS people off, which cost him dearly at Chickamauga. He got on Grants bad side after he won at Corinth and Iuka, but Grant felt that Rosecrans did not follow his victories up. This of course cost him after Chickamaga when Grant took over. But then again, maybe Grant saw him as direct competition. Grant did not care much for Thomas or the army of the Cumberland and underrated both. Grant was not always right and had his own biases.

Interestingly, when Rosecrans did act impetuously after taking Tennessee and splitting his Army, it cost him.

Also, I would say look who he faced as opposing commander, Braxton Bragg.

Yes, Rosecrans is not as bad a general as is often portrayed. he had his moments.

True. Hard to judge him when Bragg was his opponent. Bragg was not exactly high on the list of great generals.

Yep, like I said kinda two generals in one, which is why I decided to split the difference and rate him in the middle as average in my game.

Yeaaaah. Let's see how Joseph E. Johnston's reputation holds up after the upcoming multi-volume Atlanta Campaign gets released. Its not looking good. Let's just say Hood is looking better while Johnston should get some asbestos pants. At least as far as Cassville and up to New Hope.

Grant said he thought Rosecrans was a good general, on his own, but as a subordinate he could not get him to follow orders.

I wasn't aware there was any dispute regarding Lee's status as a great General, but in my view, there's no question about it. He undoubtedly ranks among the finest Generals in American history. Just consult figures like Joe Hooker, Ambrose Burnside, or John Pope for confirmation. As for George McClellan, well, he'd likely find someone else to blame, probably Lincoln.

When Lee assumed command of the Army of Virginia from Joe Johnston, the Union Army was dangerously close to Richmond, merely five miles away. Meanwhile, Confederate forces in the West were enjoying significant victories and momentum.

In my opinion, if Richmond had fallen at that critical juncture, the war would be over and before Emancipation. Lee wasted no time after taking command, swiftly pushing the offensive and forcing the Army of the Potomac off the peninsula. Moved his army to the Potomac and scored a decisive victory against Pope's Army of Virginia. All of this was achieved within a mere three months. This underscores his brilliance as a military tactician.

As for the roster of exceptional Confederate Army Commanders, it's a brief one indeed, with Robert E. Lee standing head and shoulders above the rest. Comparatively, the Union Army Commanders offer a more extensive list. Grant undoubtedly claims the top spot, arguably the finest General of the entire conflict, given his success in defeating Lee. Lee wasn't the overall strategist that Grant was. To be fair Lee was never given command of all CSA forces until very late in the war.

When it comes to Joe Johnston, well, let's just say his inclination toward retreat is a defining characteristic that's hard to ignore.

Still no evaluation of George Thomas? If we talk of very underrated and under appreciated commanders in the Civil War, George is at the pinnacle. He was undefeated as an Army Commander. He was the only one to destroy an opposing army that in the Civil War. A brilliant commander at all levels. Personally brave. Inspired his men. Strategically and tactically gifted. Allowed the rest of the Army of the Cumberland to escape by holding the Confederates back while the other Corp were routed at Chickamauga. Did this while being mistrusted by most, because he was a Virginian. Suffered Grant's jealousy. His family in Virginia disowned him. Not represented at the victory celebration in Washington at the end of the war, in spite of his great contributions to that victory.

"Bruce Catton, one historian who gave Thomas his full due, was an admirer of Grant. Nonetheless, he argued that the lesser-known general delivered some of the war's most devastating blows. "There was nothing slow about Thomas," Catton wrote. "He liked to make sure that everything was ready before he moved, but when he did move, somebody had to get out of the way."

"Thomas never had a bad day," Catton added. "One gets the haunting feeling: Perhaps this man actually was the best of them all.""

Subject: Snubbed! George Thomas: Unknown General of the Civil War


link

I think Thomas was good, but not THAT good.

He actually caused much of the problem at Chickamauga that he gets credit for solving, by repeatedly calling for more and more troops for his sector, and thus stripping the rest of the front (which led to the hole in the line that Longstreet fortuitously happened to hit).

At Nashville, he wanted to make a frontal attack until Schofield and Wilson talked him into attacking Hood's flank instead. Then he botched the pursuit by taking the wrong road with most of his army.

Thomas…. was the only one to destroy an opposing army that in the Civil War.

Um, didn't Grant destroy Confederate armies at Fort Donelson, Vicksburg and Appomattox?

Yes, very good, but Thomas has remained underrated. Not very good at blowing his own horn was part of his problem, not just Grant.

Stonewall was able to get great effort from his men, not counting the Seven Days. Not the God- like charisma of Lee, but his eccentric behaviors did confer a sort of weird charisma on him none the less. He drove his people and displayed daring and resolve. And the results were self evident.

As for Lee, I wonder about his health in that last year. And I am not sure how he still thought he could win. Or else why allow so much bloodshed to continue? We have hindsight, but he was a smart guy and could see what was happening as Grant stuck with him no matter what. Good strategic and tactical defense of his theater, but the big picture was grim.

Thought this would generate some posts. 😉

Some good points. I should not have paraphrased that: "He was the only one to destroy an opposing army that in the Civil War." And instead have used his exact quote, which was:

"On December 15 and 16, 1864, he demolished Hood's Confederate Army of Tennessee in what historian Thomas Buell has called the war's "unsurpassed masterpiece of theater command and control." It was the only battle in which one army virtually destroyed another, and it ended major combat west of the Appalachians."

But yes, Grant got 3 Armies to surrender.

Yes Thomas did hound Rosecrans for more troops. But I don't blame him for the gap between Brannan and Reynolds command, left when Woods pulled behind Brannan. Rosecrans and Woods and a pi##ing contest they both had gotten into previously are to blame for that.

I do believe Grant played favorites and also suffered from jealousy, with both Rosecrans and Thomas and viewed both as direct competition. He showed this same favoritism as President.

As far as Wilson and Schofield. I would have to read the battles again. But I do question Schofield. Wilson on the other hand, I believe had a high opinion of Thomas. So again I'd have to read. Wilson was also over the Cavalry, so I assume would be more familiar with the flanks.

From a post in another article:

"Did Schofield lose his nerve? For someone who criticized Thomas for not attacking sooner, his timidity on the 16th of December is quite hypocritical.

Schofield fretted about rebel troops marching towards his right flank, and requested a division of Smith's corps to reinforce him. This was done, but still not satisfied, he requested yet another division from Smith, who refused. Without John McArthur's initiative, there may have been no assault on Shy's Hill on the 16th at all. Certainly if Schofield had his way, there wouldn't have been.

Schofield did eventually attack, at Thomas' urging, but by that time the rebel line was already collapsing under the 16th Corps advance. On the positive side, his timidity ensured that the 23rd Corps came through the battle virtually unscathed. The whole organization ended up losing less men than some regiments in other corps.

So, does anyone have a possible explanation for Schofield's behavior this day? Perhaps his previous experiences in the campaign left him rattled and cautious."

The question was inspired by "The Western Confederacy's Final Ganble: From Atlanta to Franklin to Nashville by James Lee McDonough. Relevant pages 244-251."

I know there was friction between Thomas and Schofield, that dated back to West Point.

So come on, your overall rating of Thomas? 🙂

I will give him a 5. Like Longstreet. Near great. Neither had the charisma, or much affinity for self promotion, especially Thomas. But they were skilled commanders who did not get enough credit. Catton's endorsement counts for much.

I have probably scored everybody too low if the top score is 10. Lee has become an enigma for me. I recognize his stature and ability, but some decisions make me wonder if he was too confident sometimes. . I would love to see a new bio of him.

For what its worth, I rated him, Thomas pretty high in my game, 4 out of 5. I also gave him the Defensive and Logistical trait that make him one of the better ones for the Union for sure, basically up there with Sherman and Hancock. I actually didn't rate Rosecrans that good; it just seems to me that his one great campaign was more the exception than the rule and it does seem he showed a bad habit of "cracking under pressure" at critical times.

Gamer1….re; Montrose's rebellion against the government was a product of the English Civil War rather than an integral part of it and the ECW itself was in a sense a product of England's defeat in the Bishop's War. The term 'War of the Three Kingdoms' is better, but really the English and Scottish conflicts are two separate wars with a degree of overlap.
Feudal levy is a very questionable term to use, but aside from that, the Irish professionals were really the crucial item in Montrose's victories not simply due to their training, but due to their senior officers saving Montrose's bacon repeatedly. Montrose's victories were achieved despite his efforts and were – at best – tangential to the English Civil War…he hoped to take an army into England but was never in a position to do so. Most of his opposition were – at best – 'home service' units; the real government army was in England fighting against the king. When the Scottish government decided they could not defeat the rebels with the resources at hand they recalled a modest portion of the 'real' army from England and crushed them toute suite. Montrose was a perfectly dreadful person and a pretty awful commander who 'got lucky' when his subordinates overcame his ineptitude.

Ah thanks "ugly" now I know…sounds like a familiar tale:)