POLL: Longstreet Or Lee?

79 votes were cast.

Old Contemptible

writes:

"the Second Day at Gettysburg"

Longstreet reacted to the disagreement by delaying his corps' preparations and conducting a slow, deliberate approach march. Because of that hesitation, his attack failed to synchronize with the assault on Culp's Hill. Rather than combining a flanking maneuver with a frontal assault, he confined his troops to the latter—apparently preferring to carry out the commander's explicit order rather than exercise his own tactical initiative. The old man wants a frontal assault then that is what he gets.

So instead of carrying out his orders to the best of his abilities he sulked and pouted. If you disagree with the plan then resign and let someone else carry that attack through.

Longstreet was an excellent corps commander but Gettysburg wasn't his best moment. Wasn't Lee's either. I am not worshipping Lee. Those who do worship Lee has good reason to worship him. He wasn't perfect but he was the best they had.

Back to the Homepage

Areas of Interest

American Civil War

Featured Hobby News Article

On Bloody Ground: The American Civil War Arrives Early

ACW Stern Wheelers

Top-Rated Ruleset

Brother Against Brother

Rating:

Featured Profile Article

First Look: Barrage's 28mm Streets & Sidewalks

Editor in Chief Bill looks at some new terrain products, which use space age technology!

Current Poll

Why Should a Player of Historicals Try 40K? (Round 1C)

Featured Book Review

Dead Presidents

If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?

VOTING RESULTS
Answer	Votes	%	Chart
Longstreet	30	38%
none of these/no opinion	8	10%
not my cup of tea	4	5%
this is ridiculous	1	1%
not my genre	6	8%
Lee	30	38%

POLL IS CLOSED

POLL DESCRIPTION

gamer1 writes:

I admit this is just another one of those opinion topics you may or may not be interested in. I think we can all agree that Lee is considered the best battlefield tactician the south had or at least that is the reputation.

I must admit though the more I read about Longstreet the more I am impressed with him and think history hasn't given him the credit he deserves. I am wondering if he would not have been just as good or even better as commander of the ANV?? It seems he was very cool under fire, great tactician, well liked. He seemed to try and keep the casualty count down on his troops when he could, forcing the enemy to attack fortified positions, good ground, etc., but I have read several accounts that if he saw a chance to gain the advantage, he was willing to attack, take a chance.

Am I way off base here and missing something, or do you guys think the same?? Just curious.

Poll set up by Editor in Chief Bill , based on this pre-poll discussion.