Lee - the Strategic Commander vs. the Tactical Commander

[Hancock the Superb]

I was just thinking, you know, Lee was probably not a great tactical guy. After reading a bunch about him, he just brings his army at the right point, and lets his subordinates do the rest. He rarely meddles with divisional affairs.

So, here I go:

Lee probably couldn't have won the war by himself. Put him on the line with a brigade or division, and I don't think he would be a star. However, if you give him a list of subordinates, he'll go through and pick the best ones, and understand where he can put them. For instance, Lee stations Longstreet during the Wilderness campaign way out of the area. He then expects Longstreet's forces to march - overnight - to reach Hill's position. What about Ewell? He is facing two Union Corps! Hill ought to be able to withstand the onslaught of the already weakened 2nd Corps! However, Lee predicts right, and Longstreet saves the day.

There are many similar cases where Lee has been a leniant general - it is possible that it could be said that Lee wasn't needed in the Army of Northern Virginia. The Corps commanders seem to do a good enough job, you just need someone to tell them where to go.

At anyrate, I believe that glorifying Lee is perhaps a little too off, he was a good strategist, but once on the battlefield, it was his generals and men that gave him victory, unlike the TC2M series where we take command of brigades and divisions.

On an off not, I wonder if any of us could take down Lee in a fight - perhaps at Gettysburg? Not the AI controlled Lee, the actual Lee.

[Armchair General]

Hancock the Superb wrote:

I was just thinking, you know, Lee was probably not a great tactical guy. After reading a bunch about him, he just brings his army at the right point, and lets his subordinates do the rest. He rarely meddles with divisional affairs.

So, here I go:

Lee probably couldn't have won the war by himself. Put him on the line with a brigade or division, and I don't think he would be a star. However, if you give him a list of subordinates, he'll go through and pick the best ones, and understand where he can put them. For instance, Lee stations Longstreet during the Wilderness campaign way out of the area. He then expects Longstreet's forces to march - overnight - to reach Hill's position. What about Ewell? He is facing two Union Corps! Hill ought to be able to withstand the onslaught of the already weakened 2nd Corps! However, Lee predicts right, and Longstreet saves the day.

There are many similar cases where Lee has been a leniant general - it is possible that it could be said that Lee wasn't needed in the Army of Northern Virginia. The Corps commanders seem to do a good enough job, you just need someone to tell them where to go.

At anyrate, I believe that glorifying Lee is perhaps a little too off, he was a good strategist, but once on the battlefield, it was his generals and men that gave him victory, unlike the TC2M series where we take command of brigades and divisions.

On an off not, I wonder if any of us could take down Lee in a fight - perhaps at Gettysburg? Not the AI controlled Lee, the actual Lee.

For my two cents, I believe Lee was a natural for strategy, but as you mention, just kinda steps aside once the fighting starts (except at the end of the war with the many Lee to the Rear moments). A major example of Lee's not-so-quite tight grasp on strategy would be Malvern Hill and the Third Day of Gettysburg. Both instances have nearly identical situations, and Lee should have learned the lesson after Malvern Hill. Combined, the two assaults had more casualties than the Union attacks on Mareye's Heights at Fredericksburg.


As for myself, if I ever faced off against Lee, I give myself five minutes before he finds a way to break my lines.

[Little Powell]

It's interesting how I've read the same thing about Lee stepping aside, but have also read eyewitness accounts in books (Landscape Turned Red for example) that he did the opposite. He has been spotted personally organizing troops, directing artillery fire, stopping to reprimand stragglers, etc..

[Hancock the Superb]

It's interesting how I've read the same thing about Lee stepping aside, but have also read eyewitness accounts in books (Landscape Turned Red for example) that he did the opposite.

I never took it that way. From that book, I believe he rode forward to personally investigate the situation, and bring up the troops.

Though, there is no doubt that he had a key play in the rallying of troops.

[CupOHemlock]

I have always been a great admirer of Lee, but I feel he made almost constant mistakes at Gettysburg. Despite this, victory was often so very close for the Confederacy.

A couple of examples:

Lee's orders to Ewell as evening approached on July 1 were to, "take the hill if practicable" This was typical of Lee in that it afforded great discretion and civility to a subordinate. Lee either failed to grasp how crucial driving the Union troops out as the sun set was or he expected Ewell to divine a sense of urgency from a very ambiguous order.

Lee incorrectly concluded that since he had been hammering on both Union flanks without success that the center must be weak on July 3. I find it hard to believe that Lee would not have been aware of the defensive benefits of an interior line or that he failed to notice the Union enjoyed the advantage of having one.

I have to dash, but I could list some more. I hate to say it, but Lee is almost entirely the reason the Confederacy lost at Gettysburg.

[Gfran64]

I think that Lee's greatest strengths lie in his ability to maneuver his army into the best possible position and then let his officers in the field react to events as they unfolded.

Greg B)

[O. O. Howard]

CupOHemlock wrote:

I hate to say it, but Lee is almost entirely the reason the Confederacy lost at Gettysburg.

I think the Army of the Potomac also had something to do with it.

[Gfran64]

As Pickett stated.

Well said.

Greg B)

[Hancock the Superb]

I would have to agree.

[CupOHemlock]

O. O. Howard wrote:

CupOHemlock wrote:

I hate to say it, but Lee is almost entirely the reason the Confederacy lost at Gettysburg.

I think the Army of the Potomac also had something to do with it.

I did say, "almost entirely"

As a way of proving my point, I will gladly challenge you to the scenario of your choice upon release. I will take the Confederacy and will not make any of Lee's mistakes. After moping the floor with your digital soldiers we can compare notes again.