Robert E. Lee: Military Genius?
It is standard thought for Americans (Southerners in particular) to regard Gen. Robert E. Lee as one of the greatest military minds of all time.
When one considers the realities of the Civil War a different viewpoint should be considered: Lee was a suburb tactical thinker, but a strategic failure.
Consider, for example, the South's numerical disadvantage during the war. One would assume that sound military policy would be to spend the lives of his men conservatively in order to keep his army intact. Lee, on the other hand, seemed intent on doing the exact opposite, throwing his men into the meat grinder (Malvern Hill, The Cornfield at Antietam, Pickett's Charge) with seemingly little regard for the long term consequences.
On a whim, I compiled the casualty figures for the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. Honestly, I quite surprised by the results. While the Confederates lost fewer overall men in most engagements, they lost higher percentages of soldiers in an alarming number of battles, even ones typically thought of as Confederate victories. At Chancellorsville, widely regarded as Lee's greatest victory, the Army of the Potomac suffered about 12.8% casualties. Lee's army suffered 20.9% casualties. At Gettysburg, Lee's army lost 32% of its numbers.
The Army of Northern Virginia suffered more than 20% losses in no less than 5 major engagements, not counting Petersburg (The 7 Days, Antietam Creek, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, and Spotsylvania). The Union Army, on the other hand, only suffered those levels of losses at Gettysburg.
U.S. Grant, considered a bumbling butcher by comparison, never lost more than 20% of his men in a single engagement, even in the debacle at Cold Harbor.
Lee's army was unable to stop Grant, not because of Union steam-roller tactics, but because the Army of Northern Virginia was a hollow wreck by the time 1864 rolled around.....
This is what happens when I can't sleep [;)]
When one considers the realities of the Civil War a different viewpoint should be considered: Lee was a suburb tactical thinker, but a strategic failure.
Consider, for example, the South's numerical disadvantage during the war. One would assume that sound military policy would be to spend the lives of his men conservatively in order to keep his army intact. Lee, on the other hand, seemed intent on doing the exact opposite, throwing his men into the meat grinder (Malvern Hill, The Cornfield at Antietam, Pickett's Charge) with seemingly little regard for the long term consequences.
On a whim, I compiled the casualty figures for the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia. Honestly, I quite surprised by the results. While the Confederates lost fewer overall men in most engagements, they lost higher percentages of soldiers in an alarming number of battles, even ones typically thought of as Confederate victories. At Chancellorsville, widely regarded as Lee's greatest victory, the Army of the Potomac suffered about 12.8% casualties. Lee's army suffered 20.9% casualties. At Gettysburg, Lee's army lost 32% of its numbers.
The Army of Northern Virginia suffered more than 20% losses in no less than 5 major engagements, not counting Petersburg (The 7 Days, Antietam Creek, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, and Spotsylvania). The Union Army, on the other hand, only suffered those levels of losses at Gettysburg.
U.S. Grant, considered a bumbling butcher by comparison, never lost more than 20% of his men in a single engagement, even in the debacle at Cold Harbor.
Lee's army was unable to stop Grant, not because of Union steam-roller tactics, but because the Army of Northern Virginia was a hollow wreck by the time 1864 rolled around.....
This is what happens when I can't sleep [;)]
0
-
I don't think he was a genius - he was a good general - did well with very
limited resources/supplies but no genius.
Gettysburg smashed both armies - the north rebuilt theirs with inexhaustible
supplies - The Army of Northern Virginia - and the rest of the other Southern
forces never recovered/grew any stronger.
Basically, the South never had a chance without European help - Ft. Fort Sumter was
pretty much like Pearl Harbor ... a bad idea at best ... a forecastable disaster in the
long haul.
... that was pretty much the unanimous belief of seven of our family War of The Great
Rebellion Vets.0 -
Lee was a genius in my opinion. The casualties his men took were not a result of reckless indifference to his men's welfare, but rather the superior firepower of the Northern armies and the often times lacking disciplineof the Southern rank and file.
But given the handicaps he was faced with, it was amazing that he held out as long as he did.
It was not a failure in strategy that brought about the South's defeat, but rather a failure in supply. Had his men been equipped with standard arms using standard munitions, had he the number of cannons that the North had, and had the same amount of rail mileage been available to him, Lee would have, without a doubt, won the war.0 -
Use actual numbers instead of precentages. Lee usually had fewer men so his precentages will of course be higher.
He was probably the best General of the war, but without bacon in the bellies of your troops, you are hopelessly outclassed.0 -
Lee's losses at Chancellorsville were worth it. This was a devastating defeat for the Union, caused a great deal of consternation in Washington, and got the Yankee general fired.
I agree with you, in some cases Lee inexplicably wasted troops, such as Malvern Hill and Pickett's charge.
Years after the war, Pickett was heard to say of Lee, "That old man destroyed my army."
For his work at Chancellorsville, and the Seven Day's battles, he deserves to be called a genius.
The Antietam campaign might have turned out very well for the South, if Lee's orders had not been captured by McClellan. We will never know.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
Lee was a genius in my opinion. The casualties his men took were not a result of reckless indifference to his men's welfare, but rather the superior firepower of the Northern armies and the often times lacking disciplineof the Southern rank and file.
But given the handicaps he was faced with, it was amazing that he held out as long as he did.
It was not a failure in strategy that brought about the South's defeat, but rather a failure in supply. Had his men been equipped with standard arms using standard munitions, had he the number of cannons that the North had, and had the same amount of rail mileage been available to him, Lee would have, without a doubt, won the war.
I know I do not agree with EMM often but he is dead on on this one!
The south would have won the thing if they would have had equal firepower and resourses as the north. And probly would have done it in very short order!0 -
Gettysburg: Lee underestimated the Army of the Potomac and failed to exert his will over his subordinates. Subsequently, Lee assumed full blame for the defeat.
When you look at the math, though, it didn't really matter. It was a numbers game.
1.) The North had an established government and therefore did not have to waste time trying to set up a governing system as did the South.
2.) Almost all of the nation's industry was located in the North. This allowed the North's ability to mass produce artillery, rifles, and munitions. The South, on the other hand, lacked any major industrial facilities that could mass produce weapons.
3.) The majority of the nation's farms were in the North. This provided agricultural resources for an army and its civilians. Southern farms produced staple crops like cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. This made it difficult to have adequate food to feed an army and the civilian population.
4.) The North controlled 20,000 miles of railroads to the South's 10,000.
5.) The North began the war with an existing Navy and the South had no navy and few resources to build one.
6.) The North had a much greater population - 22,000,000 million people to the South's 6,000,000 free whites and 3,000,000 slaves.0 -
superb generals dont hand their swords over in defeat.[;)] 0 -
Not takng any sides but here's an extract from a www.us-civilwar.com publishing ...
Many historians consider Robert E. Lee the greatest general of the Civil War, and it is generally agreed that his military genius, hampered though it was by lack of men and materiel, was a principal factor in keeping the Confederacy alive. Others point out, however, that he never developed a coordinated overall strategy, that he failed to provide an adequate supply system for his armies, and that he was reluctant to deal with difficult subordinates such as Longstreet. Of admirable personal character, Lee was idolized by his soldiers and the people of the South and soon won the admiration of the North. He has remained an ideal of the South and an American hero.
(The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition Copyright c1993, Columbia University Press.)0 -
He would have been an excellant general for Napolean, operating with superior numbers of men facing an enemy armed with smoothbore muskets. However, he did not grasp that tactics had changed by the 1860s; the rifle musket meant that if you charged an enemy position, you could be under fire for 600 yards or more of aimed fire, vs. 100 yards under smoothbore muskets' fire. That means the enemy could get off 5, 6, 7 shots at you and cut your charge to shreds.
He also did not appreciate the value of entrenched positions vs. open maneuver. Sure, the Confederates made good use of fortified positions, but basically the South only had to hold its ground to win, wheras the North had to invade the South. Had Lee dug in in Northern VA and made no attempt at moving into the North, and fought a purely defensive war, he'd have saved a lot of men and let the North grind themselves to dust. It works. That's how a bunch of ill trained and poorly equipped Turks throttled the Brits at Gallipoli.
In movement, he was good at securing the classic phyrric victory- a victory, but the South couldn't afford many of that type of win.0 -
I really like this discussion. Lee was no military genius, my opinion. Easily the most able commander of the war was Sherman. He was a master of both strategy and tactics. His march to the sea isolated Lee's army in Virginia and drained the south of its last resources to fight. By the time Lee surrendered the southern armies had at least 100,000 deserters. 0 -
Grant was the best. His campaign at Vickburg was unmatched. He was modern and adapted to the times. Lee had terrific generals to support him. When Jackson died much of Lee's success went with him. Lee also had the advantage of fighting against some truly inept generals.
Anyway that's my opinion. I also think the best football team ever was the 60s Green Bay Packers. Fun to argue things that are subjective, eh ?0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
Had his men been equipped with standard arms using standard munitions, had he the number of cannons that the North had, and had the same amount of rail mileage been available to him, Lee would have, without a doubt, won the war.
That isn't the point. The fact is the Southern armies DIDN'T have those luxuries and Lee countinually attempted to match Northern armies man-for-man on the battlefield as if he did.0 -
Opinions, opinions, opinions ................................[}:)]
Opinions, opinions, opinions ................................[}:)]
Opinions, opinions, opinions ................................[}:)]0 -
As Lee commented after the failure of Pickett's charge: "It's all my fault."
The failure of Union forces to follow up and destroy retreating Confederate forces from Gettysburg cost both sides two more years of war, antagonizing Lincoln.0 -
Robert E. Lee...
An honorable human being doing his best to cope with a situation over which he had little control, except by fortuitous circumstance, luck, and strategy that happened to pan out.
Brilliance? I doubt brilliance plays much part actual war. Brilliance is what we assign to the winner well after the battle is over. Most honest military men will admit that. Brilliance is Storman Norman's "Hail Mary" after it worked, not before.
Good generals DO offer their sword in surrender. There comes a point where the loss of even one more life is pointless. Give Lee credit for realizing this. Give him credit for being man enough to do what had to be done.
Robert E. Lee was a decent and honorable human being. He was called to a duty he never sought and performed it to the best of his ability. He did it with honor and honesty. Few men can honestly make such a claim. Fewer will be remembered in 140 years.0 -
Genius or not, he didn't suck as bad as all the others. Lincoln asked General McCllelan, "If you're not going to use your army, may I borrow it?" 0 -
Yep - best line of the war!
... and - for some reason, with utmost respect,
another quote that has forever been with me,
"Let us cross over the river and rest under
the shade of the trees."0 -
Don't git riled - Bobby Lee did good - them dyin words of
Stonewall have always been with me since my grandpap
read me them words some 55 years ago. His daddy was
at Gettysburg.
[8D]
Have a nice day - offen ta work!0 -
Lee was a traitor. He joined the confederacy because he could not take up arms against VA. He never really wanted the south to win. Bleen him. 0 -
Fighting for slavery was not a good idea (and yes, that is what the Civil War was all about!!). 0 -
Whether he was a great general or a genius, he blew it at Gettysburg. It is unbelieveable, to me, why he ordered some attacks there on high ground that was more like a fortress than any natural terrain feature.
The South was seriously outmanned during this war, the Confederates were by far the most well disciplined soldiers, and no one knew this better than Grant, Sherman, and Lincoln. Grant, and most especially, Sherman, had little control over a huge and highly undisciplined force, from high ranking commanders to privates. They bombed, burned, raped, and murdered the Southern people, men, women, and children. And, when such reports did get to Lincoln, to the astonishment of good union men, the criminals were praised or promoted. Consequently, many towns were completely destroyed by artillery and fire. Court Houses were also a favorite target for being burned to the ground, homes/farms were burned to the ground as well. Whatever folks might think about Lee, or his men, they earned the admiration and respect of civilians on both sides for their discipline and valor, and that, my friends, cannot be spun any other way.0 -
quote:Originally posted by zipperzap
Yep - best line of the war!
... and - for some reason, with utmost respect,
another quote that has forever been with me,
"Let us cross over the river and rest under
the shade of the trees."
That line, Zip, has a prominent spot in my father's memorial services.0 -
Two wars fought on our soil. The Revolution, and the Civil.
The best General of each;
Arnold, a trator to his country, his side lost.
Lee, a trator to his country, his side lost.
Since when do we honor trators?0 -
quote:Originally posted by mcaso
Two wars fought on our soil. The Revolution, and the Civil.
The best General of each;
Arnold, a trator to his country, his side lost.
Lee, a trator to his country, his side lost.
Since when do we honor trators?
Wrong. Lee led the Confederate States of America during the War Between The States. Since when do we honor traitors, you ask? Did you vote for Kerry? Huh?0 -
Perhaps some of us should read history and study it from both sides.
The war was NOT about slavery! It was about state's rights. Lincoln had the political savvy to add slavery into the mix. Right or wrong? I don't know.
Lee was most certainly NOT a traitor! He went with Virginia because he believed it to be his duty. Remember... State's rights.
Both sides were guilty of allowing technology to surpass tactics. The Civil War was the first conflict fought with modern technology and the last war fought with ancient tactics. Gettysburg was a huge disaster for both sides with the north only "winning" by sheer numbers and a bit of luck. Neither side learned what now seems so obvious.
Sherman, for better or worse, understood what war was all about. Unlike many of his contemporaries who still fought by "gentleman's rules", Sherman fought to win. He believed that the quickest and most humane way to end the conflict was to devastate Confederate forces and resources. He is remembered as being unspeakably cruel, but he's the first to really make the transition to modern warfare.
Lee remains a gentleman for all seasons. He did his duty with honesty and dignity... And maybe a touch of brilliance from time to time.0 -
nord, there is a lot of truth to what you say. Lee, like any decent man, would protect his family, his home, and his neighbors from invading enemies - this part is a no brainer. 0 -
quote:imi:
nord, there is a lot of truth to what you say. Lee, like any decent man, would protect his family, his home, and his neighbors from invading enemies - this part is a no brainer.
Yep - and by the way, that's exactly what my ancesters did in Pennsylvania.
[8D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by zipperzap
quote:imi:
nord, there is a lot of truth to what you say. Lee, like any decent man, would protect his family, his home, and his neighbors from invading enemies - this part is a no brainer.
Yep - and by the way, that's exactly what my ancesters did in Pennsylvania.
[8D]
That is correct Zip. It was "A poor man's fight in a rich man's war." Our government will always have the means to turn brother against brother, or son against father.0 -
kimi
Lee was an American who decided to fight against his country, the U.S.A. That means he was a TRAITOR. You can white wash that anyway you want, but it is still TRAITOR. Everything else is just an excuse to justifiy his actions.
Your question about Kerry is a red herring. Its answer is, of course not!
How many of the confederate states, in their decairlation of suscession said it was over wanting to preserve slavry. Or words to that effect?0 -
nord,
It was about a state's right to allow for slavery. Saying the Civil War wasn't about slavery is a little disingenuous.
Now the individual was fighting to defend his home and his family, but the State was fighting for the right to dictate terms over slavery, whether the State was for it (the Union) or against it (the Confederacy). Mind you, I'm not attaching any sort of stigma to this - it's what folks did back then and I'm not gonna act Japanese and pretend the whole thing never happened. It happened, I had nothing to do with it, and over 600,000 dead white guys say we've done enough to atone for it.[;)][8D]
quote:Sherman, for better or worse, understood what war was all about. Unlike many of his contemporaries who still fought by "gentleman's rules", Sherman fought to win. He believed that the quickest and most humane way to end the conflict was to devastate Confederate forces and resources. He is remembered as being unspeakably cruel, but he's the first to really make the transition to modern warfare.The problem with Sherman's approach to warfare is that it makes winning the peace that much harder and relies upon an absolute numerical and economic superiority that your side may not possess.
That's not war, that's math and demographics in my opinion.
Rack Ops,
I'm not saying Lee was perfect. No one is and you are correct in pointing out that a good general deals with the materiel he has, not what he wishes he had (Peng Dehuai's strategy and tactics during the Korean War are a brilliant example of adapting your approach to your army's limitations).
But in the overall scheme of things, a lack of success cannot be the meter by which is brilliance is determined. A great many military men have been brought low by poor supplies - Rommel, for example, can hardly be called a failure for what happened in North Africa.
All in all, I still believe that Lee, given his performance, was a military genius, albeit not a perfect one.[;)]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
48 comments