GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

[dude]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

You are wrong about grant having poor commanders.
...

I’m correct about Grant have SOME poor commanders… Grant even complains about some of them. I just didn’t happen to mention which ones so please don’t assume I meant them all. He couldn’t replace them because they had political supporters in congress. Give me a break… I didn’t imply that all his commanders where bad. But Grant was unable to remove everyone and replace them with some that he wanted.

Yes Pres. Lincoln did micromanage… that was a terrible problem and did handicap some of the early generals… I don’t see how that fits into this discussion of Lee Vs Grant.. J “ In my first interview with Mr. Lincoln alone he stated to me that he had never professed to be a military man or to know how campaigns should be conducted, and never wanted to interfere in them: but that procrastination on the part of commanders, and the pressure form the people…. Forced him into issuing his series of “Military Orders”… All he wanted or had ever wanted was some one who would take the responsibility and act, and call on him for all the assistance needed, …” U.S. Grant

[8|] Of course Grant threw away some opportunities… of course he made some mistakes… I don’t think I’ve denied that... (nor does Grant for that matter.) I’ve never stated that Grant was this mythic General. It’s just that I don’t buy into the Lee Myth… and I live in Virginia! [:-] No one likes to point out Lee’s mistakes and the opportunities he missed because then you’d have… well Grant. Gotta keep that myth alive somehow. It’s one of the reasons I believe he never wrote his memoirs… he’d have to tarnish the myth if he told the truth.

Grant and Lee only faced each other for just over a year. Not much time really to compare the two directly. I believe Grants record out west easily equals Lee’s record during that same time period and probably surpasses it. I don’t see too many bold, innovative moves like Grant’s operations along the Mississippi coming from Lee during this time. Grant was able handle the western Confederate generals pretty much the way Lee handled the eastern Union generals. Which is again why I say the two are fairly equal.

You mentioned earlier about the two facing off in an equal force that the Lee would wipe Grant… I doubt it… Grant was an innovative strategist. He would have most likely come up with a sound strategy for the size force he was given (as he showed this repeatedly in the west which you keep ignoring as most pro-Lee supporters do.)

[histgamer]

I am not saying that Grant is not good; I am saying he was not the best union general in terms of tactics.

I look at Grant like IKE more of a strategist than a tactical level field commander. No he wasn’t a horrible field commander but that wasn’t his strongpoint, his strongpoint was his strategy.

Lee is the opposite Lee is more of a tactical level general, that doesn’t mean Lee couldn’t do strategy it just means that Lee's job was of its very nature more tactical.

Personally I don’t think Meade gets enough credit for the 1864 maneuvers, as it was Meade not Grant who carried them out. Grant just gave him basic orders.

The reason I way grant would be whipped by Lee with equal forces is simply that I personally think that Lee was one of the best overall generals in American history. I don’t think he was perfect, he made plenty of mistakes everyone does.

Can we at least agree Grants greatest skills lay in strategy while Lee's lay in tactics? I would then argue Lee is better on the tactical front while Grant is better on the strategic front. Grant didn’t handle the tactics on the east front, he handled the strategic Meade handled the tactics. (With one notable exception (or its at least been reported by some) that Meade got fed up with grant at a point just before the cold harbor battle and thus didn’t put in the usual amount of work and such for prep before cold harbor thus resulting in that catastrophe.)   P.S. When I say Lee is a better general overall its because my view of a general is different than just victory. I see grant more as a GREAT Chief of Staff than as a great field commander. My view of a great field commander would be someone like Sherman, Reynolds or Hancock.   Personally I really wish that Hancock would have been given an independent field command at some point (other than July 1st at Gettysburg) I think he seriously could have been the best union general in the war with regards to commanding a field army. Even Grant in his writings mentioned that Hancock was the best Union general never to receive an independent command, that he was a great leader and his men loved him. In some regards I think of Hancock as a more aggressive McClellan and had he received a command I think he truly could have put up GREAT results.

[dude]

its a draw... [;)] Grant with without a doubt was a great stategist but more than just a Chief of Staff as his western Campaign showed. I think Shiloh showed how great of a field commander he could be when a situation turned bad.

I do believe Lee was a great general... I just believe he was not the only one and Grant rates right there with him. Lee was of course an outstanding tactician. It's hard though to compare the two directly and say which was better. I think each was best for the way he fought.

Meade though is a differnt problem... I think he was good which is why Grant asked him to stay on (partially... he didnt' want to demoralize the AoP by replacing it's commander [Grant admits this in his memoirs.]) But it was an awkward situation that Grant admits too and that he issued all orders through Meade... but that he had to take command of some troops locally since he was closer sometimes. I've seen it written elsewhere besides Grant's memoirs that Meade felt like a middle man and that Grant was really running the full show in the East.

Grant was suppose to be in command of all the armies... and he admits to having planned to operate from a more central location to command them but that the AoP really needed his attention. So he placed his headquarters with it and practically ran it via issuing order through Meade.

"Meade's position afterwards proved embarrassing to me if not to him. He was commanding an army and, for nearly a year previous to my taking command all the armies, was in supreme command of the Army of the Potomac – except from the authorities at Washington. All other general officers occupying similar positions were independent in their command so far as any one present with them was concerned. I tried to make General Mead’s position as nearly as possible what it would have been if I had been in Washington or any other place away from his command. I therefore gave all orders for the movements of the Army of the Potomac to Meade to have them executed.” U. S. Grant (Personal Memoirs)

Grant didn't issued such detailed orders to any other command like he did the AoP...

But don't get me wrong I think Meade was a very good commander. But from my read of Grant's memoirs Grant deserves most of the credit (and fault) for the tactics in the east. The really hard part and grey area is where does stategy end and tactics begin? [&:] At any moment in the east you could make the claim for either one of them handling the tactics for the AoP.

I agree with your choices of great field commander but I just happen to include Grant in that too for his exploits in the West and early in the war especially.

[histgamer]

I dont know how good of an example Shiloh is, it wasnt a miserable performance but i wouldnt say it was GREAT. McClellan was suprised many a time and managed to fight off Lee to a tactical victory.

Then again i think Mac was better than most people sooooooooooo

[dude]

[8|] [:)]  I won't debate McClellan... I think he was a decent general... just lacked inititive.
 
Shiloh is a great view of what Grant could do... yes he was surprised and in what I quoted above from him he admits to his and his troops inexperience... but I believe his actions throught the first day to hold on showed just how good he was to become.  I don't claim it was great...
 
I don't think any one battle proves a commander to be great or bad... I think it's the collection of battles that prove thier worth... and Grant kept proving it.

[histgamer]

Yea well personally i think McClellan was probally the most talented union commander who had 0 inititive. That said i think Hancock was a McClellan with inititive.

Mac certainly had the confidence of a Napoleon, would have been interesting to see if he had acted on his confidence what might have happened.

Fact is though in the 7 days Lee  nearly destroyed his army, luck for him Mac was so parinoid. (then again Lee nearly destroyed his army during those 7 days because he knew if he did Mac would withdraw so Lee knew the guy he was facing)

[6971grunt]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Yea well personally i think McClellan was probally the most talented union commander who had 0 inititive. That said i think Hancock was a McClellan with inititive.

Mac certainly had the confidence of a Napoleon, would have been interesting to see if he had acted on his confidence what might have happened.

Fact is though in the 7 days Lee  nearly destroyed his army, luck for him Mac was so parinoid. (then again Lee nearly destroyed his army during those 7 days because he knew if he did Mac would withdraw so Lee knew the guy he was facing)

"Little Mac" was a great organizer, but a poor combat general - apparently afraid to "break" the army in battle what he had so painfully organized. His lack of intitive was so frustrating to Lincoln that the Presdient once wrote him [and I might be paraphrasing here] - "General, if your not going to use your army, can I borrow it for a while?" - classic Lincoln.

As an aside, I wonder if Gil and the boys have considered John Singleton Mosby as a cavalry commander [I know he was only a Colonel, but I wonder if his presence in Northern Virginia can be represented in some fashion?]

[histgamer]

I am aware but in some regard Lincoln only made McClellan worse. Lincoln continually told his generals one thing and then did another.

That said McClellan was a great tactician and he was the only federal general that old bobby Lee never found and nearly destroyed.

Yes grant was nearly destroyed at the Wilderness and had Lee had a more aggressive corps commander in Ewells spot and had longstreet not gone down Grants army would have probably lost double of the 17,000 men that they lost at the wilderness.

(Ewells corps had the federl right flank completely exposed yet he wouldn’t attack, finally near nightfall when lee was informed of the situation a limited attack was made (due to the night falling) the attack cost the south 90 casualties and the north over 2000, one can only imagine what would have happened had Ewell launched his attack at the time Longstreet was flanking and nearly destroying Hancock (Burnside moved his corps out of support of Hancock’s right sot here was a massive hole in the Union Line) Had Longstreet not been wounded there is no doubt he would have followed up his flanking attack and possibly destroyed the 2nd corps driving it into the river. (2nd corps was the largest union corps over 40,000 men)

Yes Burnside could have lead to the destruction of the union army, had both corps attacked and Longstreet not gone down we are looking at a battle that instead of 8,000 CSA losses and 17,000 Union could have very well been near, 40,000 Union 20,000 CSA.

Grant wouldn’t have had a choice but to withdraw to reorganize. (1/3 his army destroyed and 2 of his 3 corps smashed to pieces)

I doubt it would have altered the result of the war but it certainly could have changed the election results for Lincoln in 1864 especially depending on how long it would have taken grant to reorganize. Yes grant took far more losses than that during his overland campaign but 40,000 men as soon as the campaign started? It would have certainly delayed the campaign some, and just on a side note Grant lost so many men in his overland campaign the north actually ran out, he was loosing men faster than Lincoln could replace them, lucky for him he made it to Petersburg right around the time his reinforcements were completely used up.   That blunder by Burnside could very well have been worse than his Fredricksburg campaign as hard as that may be to belive.

[dude]

... and IF Johnston hadn't been wounded at Shiloh... and IF Jeb Staurt had been available at Gettysburg... and IF Longstreet wasn't out of action at... and IF Lee wasn't ill.... as Grant said "[font="times new roman"]Ifs defeated the Confederates..."  [/font]
[font="times new roman"][/font] 
[font="times new roman"]That's what makes a game like this fun; getting to replay the IFs... we all know how it came out historically...  [/font]
[font="times new roman"][/font] 
[font="times new roman"]I like to play - what IF the better Union generals were available sooner... [/font]
[font="times new roman"][/font] 
[font="times new roman"][/font] 

[dude]

...oh and IF Meade had pursued Lee at Gettysburg he would have wiped Lee out before he could get across the Potomac... end of war! To bad Grant wasn't at Gettysburg to push Meade along.

[histgamer]

The CSA really got unfortunate in those woods though, Longstreet was hit less than 3 miles from where jackson was hit.[X(] Yea and it was basically the exact same thing occuring surpise rebel flank assult with the opertunity to destroy the whole federal army.

CSA just dosnt like those woods.[;)]

[dude]

... guess the rebs should stop trying surprise flanking attacks... they seem to lose too many good officers that way.[;)] [:D]

(see what your fancy tactics get you...[;)] )

[histgamer]

Sorry they couldnt afford the Grant tactics of losing 60,000 men in less than a month while their army remained the same size.[X(]

[dude]

[:)] well... yea a war of attrition was just not an option for the south.

[histgamer]

It was more of a war of grant throwing his men at dug in southerners and the south just ran out of ammo.

DAMN CHEATERS[:-]

(hehehe yea that was a joke, from the north anyway, WISCONSIN HOME OF THE IRONBRIGADE.[8D])

[dude]

“I have always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made.  I might say the same thing of the assault of the 22nd of May, 1863, at Vicksburg.  At Cold Harbor no advantage whatever was gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained.  Indeed, the advantages other than those relative losses, where on the Confederate side.”  U.S. Grant.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: lvaces

flanyboy - My posts were in answer to ColinWright's statements about the "myth of Grant's great generalship" and putting him at the same level as Hood. I do not know how you can look at Grant's overall record and not see a record that proves great generalship...

I look at Grant's record and don't see greatness pretty easily, actually. If two countries go to to war, and one side outweighs the other between two to one and five to one depending on what values you choose to weight, victory for the larger isn't a matter of genius, it's a matter of time.

Put it this way. My eleven year old son plays Pee Wee Football. Let's bend the rules a bit and let me go out for the team next year as well. Suppose I manage to gain three hundred yards a game. Now how can you look at that record and not see great athletic ability?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: dude

[font="times new roman"]Oh and just to bring this back in terms of the ratings and this game:[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

Leadership: helps disorganized units regain order; gives morale boost for rallying; has chance of negating effects of fatigue from forced march

[font="times new roman"]Grant at Shiloh personally rallied units and lead them back into the fight. He did this in a number of battles. Also his army in the east kept on the march and was willing to keep going for quite some time (yes he eventually wore them out but they came back just as strong.) Under his leadership his forces just didn’t quit and retreat.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

Leadership: at Shiloh, Grant was attacked by a force no larger than his own; so many units panicked and fled that he almost lost the battle. Worse, Grant never was able to rally all those huddled under the bluff. At Cold Harbor, after the failure of the initial assault, regiment after regiment simply ignored the orders to attack.

Initiative: Adds to the movement of brigades in detailed combat; affects the movement initiative of the division/corps/army on the main map

[font="times new roman"]Grant took the initiative and kept his army moving south after getting a bloody nose from Lee. If he’d had a low initiative rating he would have just sat in DC (i.e. McClellan). Also with his very first command he jumped across the river into Kentucky to try and beat the Confederates to Paducah. Then he took the initiative to take Fort Donelson and Fort Henry. Grant probably should have the highest initiative rating than any other general in the game.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

Initiative. I can never quite get over the spectacle of Grant sitting in front of Richmond for nine months, completely flummoxed by the presence of a force half the size of his own. There must have been some move to make -- but Grant never made it.

Tactics: Increases damage[/b] done by brigades in combat

[font="times new roman"]It can be claimed that Grant did his best to inflict great causalities (on both sides) by his style of fighting. Lee’s tactics didn’t necessarily inflict more causalities as it did force units to withdraw by suddenly appearing were they weren’t expected. So perhaps Grant should have a higher Tactics rating that Lee in terms of this game. You would need another type of rating to reflect what Lee did (something that could cause units to break or panic perhaps?). Tactics in this game refers to damage inflicted. Grant was great at that.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

Tactics: check out the damage done by the attacking Union brigades at Cold Harbor.

Command: Determines the chance of bringing out-of-command units back into command; helps brigades change formation; helps units resist charges; enables units to enter dangerous zones

[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Grant was able to get his units to charge head first in frontal assaults that are generally criticized by most (I agree they were foolish) but that sure constitutes “enabling units to enter dangerous zones.” He was very good at keeping overall command of a battle and as pointed out in my previous posts on Shiloh he was able bring units back into line. Lee frequently had commanders do their own thing. Where was Stuart at Gettysburg?? Why did his commands start a fight he initially wanted to avoid? He basically wasted a day trying to figure out what was going on.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]So if anything in terms of this game (and this game only) perhaps Grant’s rating should be higher than Lee’s…[/font]

See Cold Harbor again. Union regiments simply refuse to attack after the first twenty minutes. In game turns, the first round of attacks all get a bloody nose. The next turn, no unit will attack. What command rating would you say that calls for?

Now I'm getting sucked into calling Grant an idiot and incompetent. I don't want to do that; I'm merely trying to resist the notion that he was a 'great general' -- in any sense the equivalent of Lee, Jackson, Forrest, or even Sherman. Grant was decidely limited in his abilities. He merely happened to have the rather minimal qualities needed to lead a greatly superior force to victory over a smaller one. Rather inevitably, he has been extolled as a great general ever since. He wasn't great; he was on the side with the big battalions.

Let's suppose Lee had ever enjoyed the luxury of being attacked by a force no larger than his own, as at Shiloh. Can you imagine what Lee would have done to Johnston's army? Alternatively, let's suppose Lee had begun his invasion of Pennsylvania not with 70,000 to Meade's 90,000, but with 180,000 to Meade's 90,000? Tell me how that Wilderness goes...or Spotsylvania, or Cold Harbor. There wouldn't be an Army of the Potomac left to withdraw into the works surrounding Washington.

The history of Grant's campaigns shouts the truth: he had determination. However, that's about all he had. Given the physical superiority he invariably enjoyed, determination proved sufficient. Hell, I'll be generous: let's concede that Grant displayed competence. He was even respected by his men. However, none of this is greatness. It's evidence that you have the requisite qualities to be a high school principal.

[dude]

You can point to Cold Harbour while I...... Gettysburg showed Lee's tactical Genius... Pickett's Charge??? didn't Fredricksburg ring any bells to him??? Hey look an open field! We can charge right up to that wall there!

We can go on and on picking one portion of a battle or another to highlight each commanders greatness or faults... I still feel Shiloh showed how good he could be... the confederates fled the field of battle not to return... Grant WAS able to go and bring men back to his lines (I didn't say ALL.) And he held the field with a smaller, less skilled force.

What you found one incident where Grant sat and waited? While his entire campaign out west was of movement DOWN the Mississippi... while good ole Lee just sat in Virginia waiting for someone to attack him for what three years??? His one and only Major offenisve into the North was a failure and only due to a lack of intiative by Meade was he not wiped out before he could cross back into Virginia.

Yup you are right... Grant's troop refused to attack... once... did they do this repeadely through his entire career??? in every battle????

Why must people claim Grant was a bad commander for a bad move here and there? Look at his ENTIRE career... just like everyone does with Lee. I could claim Lee was worse if I wanted to pick out his boneheaded moves and leave it at that.

[:)]

[Conhugeco]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Sorry they couldnt afford the Grant tactics of losing 60,000 men in less than a month while their army remained the same size.[X(]

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. The AOTP army took heavy casualties during the Overland Campaign, which started with the Battle of the Wilderness, and received reinforcements, but the reinforcements never brought the AOTP back to the strength it had when it started the campaign.

The ANV also did not remain the same size during the Overland campaign, but Lee did receive somewhere in the vicinity of 40,000 reinforcements between the start of the campaign and the Battle of Cold Harbor, which is considered the end of the Overland Campaign.

Gordon Rhea's book are must reading for this campaign.

DickH