The way I’ve see it summed up by smarter history nerds than me. Lee was probably the better general on the micro level, as in he was better at winning single battles, Grant was the better macro level general as he was better at managing a whole campaign.
…and the macro level is where being a good general and being a conqueror is decided lol
Civil War general discourse is all kind of a wash. There were competent and incompetent officers on both sides, with the Union having a better strategy overall developed by Grant and Sherman.
If you’re a general in a modern army your job is making sure the right people are leading the battles and that logistics are running smoothly. You might be great at other things, but that’s not your duty.
The way I’ve see it summed up by smarter history nerds than me. Lee was probably the better general on the micro level, as in he was better at winning single battles, Grant was the better macro level general as he was better at managing a whole campaign.
…and the macro level is where being a good general and being a conqueror is decided lol
Civil War general discourse is all kind of a wash. There were competent and incompetent officers on both sides, with the Union having a better strategy overall developed by Grant and Sherman.
If you’re a general in a modern army your job is making sure the right people are leading the battles and that logistics are running smoothly. You might be great at other things, but that’s not your duty.