I know this is a little off topic but who does everyone think is the best civil war general from either side
Without question, I would say General Lee. He would routinely win even when vastly outnumbered. (Though I will qualify this by noting that Lee could have won at Gettysburg but failed to do so).
General Grant was the best on the union side. He understood the only way to beat General Lee. Not by outwitting him on the field, no general the union had could do this, but by slugging it out. The union could afford vast losses of men, but the confederacy could not. therefore, Grant simply kept taking the battle to Lee until Lee’s forces became exhaused.
Grant was a horrible general. He was not unlike Stalin in his approach. Throwing men to die and winning by using the material advantage and soaking it is not the best way to manage an army.
Will Sherman did alot more with less. And he understood that you can beat an army by other means than military.
@Imperious:
Will Sherman did alot more with less. And he understood that you can beat an army by other means than military.
If I remember correct, Sherman did kill a lot of women and children too, and here in Europe that is not considered honourable, but whatever works, you know.
Thomas Jackson was aggressive and inventive. He had such a passion for defending the south. He has to be in your top five general officers of the civil war even though he left the scene early.
I like fishmoto am a huge stonewall jackson fan I don’t know if I would say I think he is best but i have heard that argument that when you look at the timeline the confederates never lost a major battle until jackson died after he died they only won one or two
@Imperious:
Grant was a horrible general. He was not unlike Stalin in his approach. Throwing men to die and winning by using the material advantage and soaking it is not the best way to manage an army.
Will Sherman did alot more with less. And he understood that you can beat an army by other means than military.
I assume you are reffering to shermans march to the sea if so I would argue that this did not in fact “beat the army” but only hardend the resolve of all southerners involved. Plus I dont know about you but I dont consider abusing women and children looting and destroying private property that in many cases had nothing to do with the war effort, an acceptable means of warfare especially since it was unnecessary and did not accomplish its goal. honest abe and grant were both against it at first so most people did not even think it would work going into it.
still i would agree that sherman was a great general and perhaps the best the north had I would also throw out there perhaps hancock buford or reynolds
Sherman understood the concept of total war, he did alot more than commit atrocities. He had the idea that broke the south faster than any battles where the Union would lose too many men.
Cutting the South from supplies had a much pronounced effect on its ability to fight any battle. Why fight set piece battles when you can just break them apart and ruin their economy and will to fight?
Sure it angered the South because it was very effective.
Mosbys raiders performed some of the same kinds of atrocities as Sherman.
Without a doubt Lee was the best strategist that the Confederacy had. His two largest mistakes were Malvern Hill and Gettysburg. Jackson was probably among the top, if not the best tactical fighter. Jackson’s campaign in the Valley stands out to historians even today. He tied up four federal armies and soundly defeated three of them. Jackson however failed for reasons still unexplained today in the peninsula campaign. Other confederate generals belong on this list, Longstreet, Clebourne, and Stuart. That is probably the best ranking I can come up with.
For the Union Side Grant may not have been a superior tactician or particularly brilliant but he understood what the brilliant McClellan failed to understand. Grant new that time and attrition would defeat the south. Sherman is often reviled as a less than average fighter but his “March to the Sea” did almost as much damage to the Confederacy as the Vicksburg and Gettysburg battles. Buford was a superior cavalry commander and his untimely death due to pneumonia was a serious loss to the Union.
The worst commanders are pretty easy for me though. For the Confederacy Braxton Bragg is probably in last place. For the Union Ambrose Burnside or John Pope. Toss up between those two.
Jackson and Lee for south, but thats an obvious conclusion.
Burnside was good. forgot to include him.
BURNSIDE? You have got to be joking!@Imperious:
Jackson and Lee for south, but thats an obvious conclusion.
Burnside was good. forgot to include him.
I am not very well educated on the specific accomplishments of the generals but my own opinions are similar to the others above. I believe Jackson and Lee were exceptional but even that is difficult to prove. The Southern Generals were fighting on their ground and had assistance from the population the Union troops and leaders didn’t enjoy. Also, for most of the war, Lee didn’t face a first rate tactician, so he may appear better than his true capability. Jackson did run wild against union forces, but his knowledge of the terrain may have been more of an advantage than most can quantify. Jackson taught at VMI so he was certainly very well acquainted with the geography of the Valley.
The Union generals have no qualities to recommend them. The few that achieved success were either facing little to no genuine resistance or had such resources that even when squandered would produce some positive results. Sherman would be a war criminal even only 80 years later, and much more by todays standards. Grant would have been reviled for his unnecessary losses. He could not have been elected president on his war record with the media we have today. Burnside, McClellen and others had some good qualities but there were no top ranking Union tacticians I can note.
It is unfortunate that Lee’s men didn’t take the ridge at the first opportunity (Gettysburg) for the purpose of giving him a better rating as a field general. On the other hand, I know only few that truely wish the Soulh had successfully succeeed from the Union. If the South had a significant victory at G-burg, all history may have changed significantly.
The confederacy had other opportunities to make a difference besides Gettysburg. In both of the Battles of Bull Run they sent the majority of the opposing force running back to Washington. If Jackson had managed to pull off his part of Lee’s plans during the Peninsula Campaign then Lee might have achieved his goal of destroying the Union Army of the Potomac. And lets not forget the copy of Special Orders 191 that wound up wrapped around three cigars and then fell into Union hands.
McClellan turned a humiliated army into a first rate fighting force. However he proved unwilling to take any risk with that force to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia. His intelligence estimates routinely overestimated Confederate strength. Even when he knew the disposition and plans of Lee’s army he still moved slow and attacked piecemeal at Antietam. If he had sent everything in at once he would have crushed Lee in 1862.
Custer acquired a solid reputation during the Civil War. He fought in the first major engagement, the First Battle of Bull Run. His association with several important officers helped his career, as did his performance as an aggressive commander. Before war’s end, Custer was promoted to the temporary rank (brevet) of major general. (At war’s end, this was reduced to the permanent rank of Lieutenant Colonel). At the conclusion of the Appomattox Campaign, in which he and his troops played a decisive role, Custer was on hand at General Robert E. Lee’s surrender.
Custer was at Gettysburg also.
I think the South enjoyed superior generalship overall, but that did not compensate the huge difference in resources. Another Southern general who deserves to be mentioned, though not quite in the same league with Lee and Jackson, was Jubal Early.
Among Union generals, one who stands out is General Thomas, commander of the Army of the Cumberland. His accomplishments don’t include a daring tactical victory like Chancellorsville…nonetheless his forces were never really defeated, and the victories of his army played a huge part in wearing down the confederacy. Solid defensive, conservative tactics…these proved the undoing of the confederates and Thomas was the master.
Lee was definitely overrated. He did well early in the war because he mostly fought a defensive battle with better troops, on familiar terrain, and against poorly led under trained Union soldiers. Most of his success can be attributed to the generals that fought under his command. His failure at Gettysburgh is indicative of what kind of General he really was. Here is a qoute from just one such man that he should have listened to:
“General, I have been a soldier all my life, and should know, as well as any one, what soldiers can do. It is my opinion that no fifteen thousand men ever arranged for battle can take that position.”
– General James Longstreet to Robert E. Lee,
warning against ordering Pickett’s Charge.
Longstreet was right. He was probably the most maligned southern general in Civil War. Longstreet strongly adhered to his theories about defensive warfare. He was reluctant to attack at the Second Battle of Bull Run. He was also highly critical of the failure of the Army of Tennesee to follow up victory after Chickamonga(spelling). In 1864 he was wounded by friendly fire in the Battle of the Wilderness. This was not too far from where Jackson fell over a year earlier, also wounded by friendly fire.
Most of the ire directed at Longstreet came from some of his criticisms of Lee (especially after Lee had died), Gettysburg(which was not Longstreet’s fault, at least not primarily), his decision to become a republican after the war, and others.
I would have to agree with Imperious…Sherman was the best. and no attacking women and children is not dishonerable. they contribute to the war effort too! and shooting EVERYthing gives you a crazy reputation which gives you a psychological advantage in future battles. WAY better general. wasnt afraid to make the tough choices.
