Posted on Jun 30, 2015
Was General Lee a good offensive General? History tells us Lee was a great leader, but was he a good offensive General? Your thoughts
1.37K
19
7
2
2
0
Posted in these groups: 
Military History
Leadership
Military History Leadership
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
4
4
0
Yes CW3 Kevin Storm, Robert E. Lee was a masterful strategist who generally exploited his advantages of internal lines of communication, soldiers motivated by his leadership. The Army of Northern Virginia held off the Army of the Potomac through a succession of commanders. His incursions into Maryland at Antietam in 1862 and Pennsylvania at Gettysburg in 1863 were into enemy territory. The confederates were instructed to pay for what they needed and not loot as they moved into the north. This was another indication of the capable leadership of Lee.
From the battles at Fredericksburg through the Wilderness campaign and up to the siege at Petersburg, Lee masterfully combined a somewhat mobile defense with stinging local attacks. His use of cavalry as both recon and combat force in the Shenandoah Valley kept significant Union forces in the operational area so that they could not be used elsewhere.
From the battles at Fredericksburg through the Wilderness campaign and up to the siege at Petersburg, Lee masterfully combined a somewhat mobile defense with stinging local attacks. His use of cavalry as both recon and combat force in the Shenandoah Valley kept significant Union forces in the operational area so that they could not be used elsewhere.
(4)
(0)
SFC Joseph Bosley
Good answer sir, I also concur that Lee was great battlefield commander. His only blemish I can think of is Gettysburg.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Malvern Hill, far worse blunder than Gettysburg in that it was a one day fight, uphill, towards a porcupine assemblage of artillery. Casualties were stunningly high in a battle that had no chance of being won. Poor coordination among subordinates and a host of organizational issues thrown in because Lee had just assumed command of what would become the Army of Northern Virginia.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Thanks for mentioning Malvern Hill, SSG (Join to see).The best leaders and strategists learn from their mistakes and tend to learn quickly. Lee had capable troops and leaders in many cases and was able to leverage their strengths to prosecute the war. If had not been such a good strategist, leader and tactician the war might have been over much quicker.
Virtually every one of the US Civil War battles and certainly every one of the major battles had stunningly high casualties which were not exceeded in ferocity and scope until WWI. From most accounts Gettysburg was not a blunder. It was the last strategic assault into Northern territory and Lee was generally able to retire back south in good order - certainly skirmishes occurred all the way back to Virginia.
Virtually every one of the US Civil War battles and certainly every one of the major battles had stunningly high casualties which were not exceeded in ferocity and scope until WWI. From most accounts Gettysburg was not a blunder. It was the last strategic assault into Northern territory and Lee was generally able to retire back south in good order - certainly skirmishes occurred all the way back to Virginia.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Without being a Civil War buff, I will try to wing this. Lee was good at the offensive. He knew it was a matter of attrition the North would utilize to win the war, so he went on the offensive to nullify the attrition.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
COL Ted Mc
LTC Stephen F. & SGM Steve Wettstein - Gentlemen; I think that you are both correct.
Considering that "defending" is a "force multiplier" almost any commander is going to be better at defending than they are at attacking. General Lee was no exception.
Considering the disparity of forces between the Union and the Confederacy, it isn't surprising that General Lee eventually lost. [Remember, the German Army was very significantly better than the Red Army - and lost to the Red Army (partly through natural degradation of quality on the part of the Germans and improvement of quality on the part of the Russians - but also due to the fact that the Germans simply couldn't kill as many Russians as the Russians could send out to kill Germans).]
Considering that "defending" is a "force multiplier" almost any commander is going to be better at defending than they are at attacking. General Lee was no exception.
Considering the disparity of forces between the Union and the Confederacy, it isn't surprising that General Lee eventually lost. [Remember, the German Army was very significantly better than the Red Army - and lost to the Red Army (partly through natural degradation of quality on the part of the Germans and improvement of quality on the part of the Russians - but also due to the fact that the Germans simply couldn't kill as many Russians as the Russians could send out to kill Germans).]
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google