ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lvaces
quote:
McClellan should be at least a 6 on tactics, people fail to realize while his Initiative should be a 0 as he was incredibly hesitant McClellan was quiet possibly the best tactician in the union army. To his credit he was the only general Lee never caught napping, the 7 days were 6 union tactical victories with the 1 defeat costing the rebels dearly. McClellan was in all honesty a GREAT tactician however his other massive flaws tend to hide this fact.
Have to disagree on this one. I don't think anyone argues that McClellan's tactics at Antietam were great. Normal is a generous rating for that battle. Also, at the 7 Days battles, he let Lee undercut one flank while most of his army sat doing nothing at the other. And remember, Lee didn't break Little Mac's flank and force his retreat until the 2nd day. A great tactician would have strengthed the key point on the battlefield (Gaines Mill) when given over a day to do it. It is true that the Union army won multiple defensive battles along the retreat, but McClellan was not in command for most of those. He was elsewhere while his corp commanders and soldiers won the battles without him. A 4 could be arguable, a 6 is too high.
I suspect that one reason McClellan tends to get points from people is that Lee said he was the best of his opponents -- and I suspect that one reason Lee said that wass that McClellan was the closest thing to a gentleman among the opponents he faced. Lee was not especially cold-blooded or rational -- and episodes like Grant's letting the wounded Union troops die out on the field after Cold Harbor must have excited his contempt.quote:
quote:
And of course we have the persistent myth that Grant was a great general. He wasn't too bad -- but consider the three failed assaults on Vicksburg, managing to lose at the Wilderness with a 2-1 superiority in manpower, Cold Harbor (one would think he would have learned from Vicksburg), and managing to run the Army of the Potomac into the ground. After Cold Harbor, they just wouldn't attack -- why do you think Lee was able to hold Richmond for so long? Grant would be more or less John Bell Hood with plenty of troops.
The mark of greatness for a general is success. Grant commanded in 4 major campaigns and won then all. What more do you want?! 1) The Fort Donelson/Shiloh campaign where he broke the back of the CSA defense of western Tennessee (and if Halleck hadn't shown up to take over and slow things down, would have in all liklihood done more), 2) The Vicksburg campaign were he captured both an army and a key fortified city through what may be the most brilliant manuevering of the war, 3) Missionary Ridge where it took him only weeks to take things from the edge of disaster to complete success, and 4) Virginia 1864/65 where he captured the CSA's most important army and city. If this isn't greatness for a general, then greatness has no meaning. Remember Lee lost 3 of his campaigns - 1) Antietem (drawn battle but lost campaign), 2) Gettysburg, and 3) Virginia 1864/65.
Yes, Grant did lose 2-1 men against Lee in Virginia. But this was not because he stupidly kept butting his head straight ahead against foritified positions. His manuevering in Virginia was almost as good as in Mississippi. He never went straight ahead, always moving to the left to get around his opponent's flank. The only reason it bogged down in head-to-head slugging matches was that Lee was almost superhuman in seeing what was coming and judging the right moment to move to his right. Against most generals, Grant would have probably won his victory on the battlefield or at least had near even attrition. And remember, if it hadn't been for that (from Lee's point of view) luckly forest fire in the Wilderness forcing Anderson's corps to move on to Spotsylvania Courthouse earlier than Lee's orders called for, Grant would have beaten Lee there and the campaign (and war) might have ended very soon thereafter. It is true that Grant usually had more troops, but it is also true he was almost always on the offensive, a huge handicap with the new rifle technology. What would have happened if Grant had been in Hood's place on the CSA side and Hood on the Union side? Well, we will never know, but we do know Grant always won and Hood destroyed the one army he had.
Well, I don't see winning with a stronger army as proof of much of anything. Else we get 'Norman Schwartzkopf: Military Genius.' How 'bout those Germans overrunning Poland? Real proof of great generalship.
Look: Grant had his strong points. For one, as Lincoln said, he fought. He would move. Largely, the Vicksburg campaign you cite was no more than an example of that. Grant didn't come up with this brilliant plan. He just kept trying things until something worked. That is not genius. It's only determination. If I'm trying to get my car to start, and I test the battery, and then the solenoid, and then the starter, and finally find the problem, I'm not a car repair whiz -- I'm just determined.
Moreover, Grant's career was studded with egregious blunders that would have cost him defeat if he had not enjoyed such numerical superiority. At Shiloh, he managed to let himself be completely surprised by a Confederate force that he knew was at Corinth. In the course of the siege of Vicksburg, he launched a bloody and futile assault -- and when it failed, tried two more equally bloody and futile assaults. Cold Harbor was a masterpeice of bad generalship. As I said, I don't really see any reason to see him as more than a Union John Bell Hood with more troops at his disposal.
Sure: others might differ and rate Grant as better than Hood. But as good as Lee? Hardly. That he ranks so high in the Union pantheon is more a tribute to the lack of competition than to anything else. A good man to pick if you've got plenty of replacements and want to win the war sooner rather than later -- but that's about all that can be said for him. Sort of an American Haig.
< Message edited by ColinWright -- 12/3/2006 7:41:04 AM >
_____________________________
I am not Charlie Hebdo
|
Printable Version
RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread