Who was a better general? Robert. E Lee or Ulysses S. Grant?

Answer 1

Man, historians will probably go on for centuries arguing this question, just as they've done for the LAST century.

On one hand, Lee was the better strategist and tactitioner. He won more victories with a smaller force than most anyone can remember AND he made the enemy come to him in many occassion, resulting in much loss for the enemy.

On the other hand, Grant had more men and more supplies at his disposal and he adopted a strategy that was basically "all out war" and threw everything he had against Lee, which eventually wore Lee down so much that he didn't have much to work with.

Who was the "better" general?

Depends on how you look at it. Ask yourself "how the fight was won" or you an ask yourself "who won the fight?" They're totally different questions. They both fought in a different way.

Either way, Lee is STILL considered one of the greatest generals in "American" history and his strategies and tactics are still studied today.

Grant, on the other hand, is actually known more for "beating Lee" rather than "a great general".

Answer 2

Most military scholars agree that Lee was a better general. He was a tactical genius as well as a master of defensive combat. (His training and experience as an engineer helped in the later.)

Grant, on the other hand, had almost unlimited resources. During the Battle of Cold Harbor in 1864 (after Gettysburg), for example, Grant with around 108,000 troops attacked Lee's Army of around 59,000. In a half hour of fighting, Grant lost 8,000 men compared to around 750 Confederates. But even with the losses Grant greatly outnumbered Lee. Also, Grant called for more reinforcements. The South was pretty well tapped out by that time.

The difference between Grant and the Union Generals that went before, was that Grant continued to press the attack. Where other Union generals pulled back after taking a beating by Lee, Grant kept coming. Eventually, he forced a siege at Richmond and then Petersburg. The South did not have the population nor the industry to win a war of attrition. After four years of War, Lee was forced to surrender at Appomattox.

Answer 3

personal opinion General Robert E. Lee was a better general. you must remember that General U.S. Grant served under General Lee before the American Civil War so General Grant had a better understanding of how General Lee thought and acted in his commanding armies than General Lee had of Grant's commanding tactics

Answer 4

Hard to say. Grant's approach changed the way wars were battled. Lee was a traditional fighter, who was smart to listen to his subordinates during the conflict. The Civil War was the first modern war. Lee was of old school. Grant, new.

Answer 5

That depends on how you define "better". I have always thought Lee was the more competant General, but he didn't have the resources that Grant did.

Answer 6

Lee did a finer job job with what he had than Grant did. Grant merely used the sheer numbers of men available to him in roder to overwhelm the Confederacy. Grant knew he could lose 20,000 men in one battle and not be phased, but Lee knew he absolutely couldn't do the same. Had Pickett's charge sustained itself after its inital breakthrough, yes it did puncture union lines, we would have no trouble calling Lee the greatest general of his era, but because he lost we can't really give him that much credit.

Answer 7

undoubtedly Robert E. Lee!!He did more with less;while Grant didless with more troops,more railroads,more materiale and more modern and efficient armaments industry!!!!Instilling courage,organizational skills and being a Leader of Men by Example was the province of Robert E. Lee AND ALSO PULLING THE DEVIL'S TAIL WERE HE LEAST EXPECTED IT!One shouldn't forget also that as head of Wst Point Military Academy that Robert E. lee HAD TRAINED THE BEST OFFICERS OF BOTH ARMIES YEARS BEFORE!!AND ALSO HAD LED THEM IN THE MEXICAN WAR PREVIOUSLY TO GREAT SUCCESS AND CREDIT!!

Answer 8

General Robert E Lee is the finest military man. that ever lived and is still a very beloved person among most Southerners to this day. Southerners killed about two Yankees for every one Southerner killed.that does say something in itself.but one in four men of fighting age was killed in the South.about 70.000 Innocent women and children were killed by the damn Yankees.verses about 2000 civilian Yankees were killed by Southerners.
I personally want allow a Yankee in my home under no circumstances.