How would you rate Robert E. Lee as a General? - Historum

**Salah** · February 23rd, 2010, 06:20 PM

I'm interested in the Civil War but my understanding of the military tactics and strategies of the time is pretty weak, admittedly. General Lee has went down in history as a great general, but I've also seen him subjected to a lot of criticism, especially for his perceived "arrogance" at Gettysburg.

So how do you rate him, and why?

**Edratman** · February 23rd, 2010, 09:20 PM

I rate Gen. Lee as a very good general, but not one of the great captains by any stretch.

Lee had quite a few significent successes against numerically superior forces. Those are assests on his resume. But he conducted only two offensive campaigns and lost the sole battle in each campaign.

All the generals considered great captains were victorious in offensive campaigns against superior numbers.

Additionally, Lee's victories were predominately achieved within a one year period. His first field command was in June of 1862 and the battle of Gettysburg occured in July 1863. Following the retreat from Gettysburg, Lee's army was continually pushed back, reaching Petersburg in June 1864 and remained besieged there until April 1865.

Quote:

Lee's first field command for the Confederate States came in June 1862 when he took command of the Confederate forces in the East (which Lee himself renamed the "Army of Northern Virginia").
Both of his campaigns to invade the North ended in failure. Barely escaping defeat at the Battle of Antietam in 1862, Lee was forced to return to the South. In early July 1863, Lee was decisively defeated at the Battle of Gettysburg in Pennsylvania

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee

**DIVUS IVLIVS** · February 24th, 2010, 01:56 AM

Lee was a tactician of the first order. He was far out and away easily the best tactician of the American Civil War, and one of the true greats for the ages.

As an Operational Strategist he was again superb - the epitome of bold and cunning.

As a Grand Strategist opinion is divided. He either was a big failure in this regard or he never really had the opportunity to demonstrate it, depending on who you ask. This is his potential very big let-down.

As a leader of men he is up there with the likes of Caesar.

daftone · February 24th, 2010, 03:30 AM

I'd give him a 4. He did a lot with limited resources, but you have to consider how bad the first union generals were and how much their mistakes affected his victories.

**Cicero** · February 24th, 2010, 04:24 AM

I think that he was the best general on either side in the USCW so voted him 5 stars. He made his mistakes for sure, such as the frontal attack on day three of Gettysburg. As to strategy, Jefferson Davis, former US Secretary of War, viewed that as his area of expertise and meddled here.

**tjadams** · February 24th, 2010, 05:40 AM

Lincoln wanting to pick Lee to command the entire Union army in 61' should be plenty of indictment as to how high esteem Lee was viewed. Every general makes errors in judgment or had his subordinates not execute the orders given, leading to disasters. Lee was a fine tactician & field commander.

**diddyriddick** · February 24th, 2010, 06:25 AM

I would vote 4 stars. For most (myself included) the problem is Lee's curious behavior at Gettysburg. What I think people forget is that his moving into Pennsylvania was a desperation move in the first place; Marse Robert had seen the handwriting on the wall at this point, and knew that the CSA had to win quickly if they had any hope at all. In fact, he "sold" the Pennsylvania campaign to Davis as a means of relieving some of the pressure on Vicksburg, half a continent away.

On balance, then, I would give Lee tremendous credit for audacity, and as a leader of men, but he was limited by hubris.

Shadow Dragon · February 24th, 2010, 11:31 AM

Lee was a good general, possibly a great one. In retrospect, I think the Union winning was almost guranteed. So the fact that Lee kept the Union at bay for so long is a good accomplishment.

However, considering they had a numbers and resource advantage, the Union generals were overly cautious. This made them more predictable. It wasn't until Grant took command that the Union became a strong fighting force.

It's been brought up before and will likely be brought up again, but at the battle of Gettysburgh, Lee made several tactical errors that pretty much cost him any shot he had at winning the war.

**Richard Stanbery** · February 25th, 2010, 09:25 AM

He was a good general for the Napoleonic era, but poor general for the first world war tactical doctrine. The ACW was somewhere in between where tactics go, so Lee was a man who had outdated notions and learning. As the war progressed and tactics developed and weaponry modernized, he fell farther and farther behind in his tactical thinking.

**tjadams** · February 25th, 2010, 09:28 AM

Interesting concept Richard. So would you say any Grant victories should be marked down as pure luck due to Lee's mismanagement? I value your replies.