Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg


As for Lee's avoidance of combat, you ask "what battle did he refuse to fight?". The ones that didn't happen - that's the whole point! Lincoln's frustration with the inability of his commanders to engage Lee is testament to Lee's ability to avoid combat. Granted, many of the Union commanders were overly cautious, but even Grant didn't exactly find it easy to nail Lee down to decisive engagements. You also have to remember, we aren't exactly talking about a large theater of operations in Northern Virginia. To avoid complete destruction at the hands of a vastly superior enemy force in such a small area for so long a time, an army commander would have to be rather adept at avoiding fighting on the enemy's terms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Grant's first battle that he was in charge of was Belmont in Nov 1861. Lee's first was Cheat Mountain two months earlier. As an army commander, Grant from Dec 1861, Lee June 1862. (wikipedia)

T- hank you, not sure if this argument works for me yet, even though you gave the data I asked for, as it seems to me Lee commanded larger bodies of men earlier than Grant, but I'm at work so will not be able to run to my library. Grant also had some down time when he was serving under Halleck in the Corinth campaign.

Another tidbit. While in round nembers Lee lost 20% of the total, he inflicted 15% (134,602) on his opponents.

In the first 14 months he commanded the AVN, he lost 80,000 against inflicting 73,000.

Daring? Yes he was. Bold? I would say so. But when you're on the short end of the 4 to 1 ratio, you can't fight the way he did.

- I agree entirely. My nephew and I have had some long discussions on this as he thinks Lee is the ideal general. His theory is that Lee was trying to win smashing victories, regardless of casualties, to create northern war weariness as Lee knew he couldn't win a long term fight and an aristocrat couldn't be a guerilla. Of course, my nephew lives in Virginia so he might be a bit biased

How Robert E Lee lost the Civil War is an interesting book.

I compare the two because they were both defending geographical objectives. True, the Western theatre was larger, but Johnston did keep Sherman out of Atlanta. I don't know if he would of fought for the city when it came down to it. But I think he would of done far better than Hood did.

- I think there is some chance that you or I might have done better than Hood I think Lee might even agree with me there. After all, Hardee has more experience managing an army. Just for fun, I'll point out that if Johnston isn't wounded before Seven Days, even McClellan might have managed to get into Richmond. I know Johnston was supposed to have a plan, but I'm not sure what he would have done against McClellan's seige tactics.

I think when it got down to brass tacks, he would rather lose a city than an army.

- A fascinating discussion for another time. You need your army, but without the cities where do you draw supplies from? I certainly don't have an answer as to which the superior choice would be.


I must say that this game has me reading all the CW books I have again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Henry

I'm not sure if it's quite fair to compare Johnston/Sherman to Lee/Grant. It seems to me that Johnston had a lot more territory to work with than Lee. Lee was defending a fixed point in Richmond that was much closer to Grant than Atlanta was to Johnston. Johnston could fall back to the next defensive position but I'm not sure that Lee had any defensive positions to fall back to (at least in front of Richmond) if he let Grant turn his right flank. I'd compare Johnston in the Peninsula to Lee except that Johnston was lucky enough to be opposing McClellan.

One question to hopefully improve my understanding of the Lee/Grant casualty comparisons. Could you define what period of time is being covered by the two figures. Lee's "time in command" would seem to me to be much longer than Grant's and he commanded a larger force than Grant earlier in the war. I don't disagree with the basic point that Lee's victories often resulted in more casualties than he could afford in the long run.

Interesting discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Henry

Antietam - Due to a staff officer, Lee doesn't have much choice about fighting but does pick a good position. Of course, he doesn't have many options if he does not retreat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I guess my 19th Century American History professor was way off then. That class was about 40-50% devoted to the Civil War and one of the key points I took out of that class was that Lee extended the war greatly by being very selective about when he would stand and fight. This selectivity is what caused Lincoln's frustration with his Eastern Theater commanders. They were unable to successfully deal the "knock out blow" to crush the ANV.

Maybe the professor didn't know what he was talking about or maybe I was too often too hung over in class to keep things straight. (I suspect it may have been the latter. College was a bit too much fun I guess. )

quote:

but that was more or less only due to the fact that JEB Stuart was off showboating rather than doing his job of scouting/screening.

quote:

"If you find that he [Hooker] is moving northward, and that two brigades can guard the Blue Ridge and take care of your rear, you can move with the other three into Maryland, and take position on General [Richard] Ewell's right, place yourself in communication with him, guard his flank, keep him informed of the enemy's movements, and collect all the supplies you can for the use of the army."

Lee

quote:

"I think your passage of the Potomac by our rear at the present will, in a measure, disclose our plans. You had better not leave us, therefore, unless you can take the route in rear of the enemy."

Longstreet

quote:

Early in Stuart's march, he captured a Union wagon train. Many historians criticize Stuart for keeping this train, which supposedly slowed his march. What is seldom mentioned is that a primary cargo of this train was oats. If one grazes the horses on grass, one needs five hours of grazing a day, and one can't push the horses too hard for two hours after they graze. A wagon train full of oats allowed more time on the march. While a fully rested pure cavalry column can outpace a wagon train, Stuart's mounts were exhausted by the time they captured the oats, and were likely not slowed by the train. The combined column, with the wagon train and its oats, moved 15, 30, 22 and 26 (as the crow flies) miles in subsequent days. They fought at Westminster, Hanover, Carlisle and Gettysburg. This was a pace sufficient to kill horses. It was not a joyride.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBoats
... Grant would have held his ground against Lee. So many of the eastern battles saw the Union commanders yield the battlefield prematurely. McClellan could have turned on Lee on the Peninsula after Malvern Hill or unleashed a fresh corps at Antietam. Hooker should have stood his ground at Chancellorsville. Meade might well have bagged the ANV after Gettysburg ...

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malagant


I love General Lee, but something has bothered me for some time...why weren't the cavalary brigades left to screen the mountain passes to the south called up to screen/scout east of the ANV after Harrison's reports were received? Had Lee not steadfastly waited for Stuart to report, but instead used his other cavalry forces to develop a more clear picture of the AoP's movements he might not have been sucked in to a fight on ground he didn't choose.