POLL: Longstreet Or Lee? [3rd TIEBREAKER ROUND]

83 votes were cast.

Old Contemptible

writes:

Never heard that. Most post war writings support Lee and Longstreet was unfairly trashed, blame anyone but Lee. Lee is one of the finest field commanders in American history. He wasn't perfect. No general was. But he was the best the CSA had. He has been criticized for being too Eastern theater Centric but after all until late 1864 he only commanded the ANV. Davis picked himself to be General n Chief and wasn't very good at it.

Back to the Homepage

Areas of Interest

American Civil War

Featured Hobby News Article

3Dprintable Lighthouse Hex Tile Available

HistoryNet

Featured Ruleset

A Nation on Trial

Featured Showcase Article

1:72nd IMEX Union Artillery Limber

Editor in Chief Bill completes his initial Union force in 1:72nd scale.

Featured Workbench Article

Deep Dream: Getting Personal

Generating portraits using Deep Dream Generator.

Featured Profile Article

The Joy of Minis

Editor in Chief Bill ponders nirvana.

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.

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
not my genre	6	7%
Lee	31	37%
Longstreet	34	41%
not my cup of tea	0	0%
this is ridiculous	6	7%
none of these/no opinion	6	7%

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.