Is he the most mediocre general to ever be glorified in popular culture? Seriously...

>Or are you talking about how he fought every battle outnumbered and still kicked ass?
Or are you talking about things that never happened?

What should he have done? Surrender without a fight?

>Putting Hannibal and Rommel on the same sentence like that

Lee was definitely one of the Best Generals of the war, but it's not like he was fighting against tough opponents

>Winfield Scott
>Henry Halleck
>Irvin McDowell
>George McClellan
>John Pope
>George McClellan(again)
>Ambrose Burnside
>Joseph Hooker
>George Meade
>Ulysses S. Grant
all these men cannot be called "great Generals" nor can most of them be called "good Generals"

remember Lee also had Stonewall Jackson, Jeb Stuart, and James Longstreet.

>Is he the most mediocre general to ever be glorified in popular culture
>*blocks your path*

no, Lee is defiantly more polar than Mac

>polar
*popular

I always forget MacArthur, Montgomety as well.

>Your options in war are either engaging in pitched battles or surrendering

user...

>Is he the most mediocre general to ever be glorified in popular culture
There is no better example of glorified mediocrity than Custer.

>glorified
who glorifies him? he is internationally known for his stupidity at the little big horn

Maybe back in the day, nowadays idolization of Macarthur is very mainstream and love of Lee is controversial. Video related:
youtu.be/pAidPDemXBU?t=5s

Not him, but what exactly are you suggesting that Lee have done instead? What was the mistake or set of mistakes?

Did rommel ever have a chance in North Africa?

>love of Lee is controversial
no its not. Lee is probably the only man in the CSA people, on both sides of of war, respected, and in fact still respect.

I've never heard anyone say a negative thing about Lee, other than criticize choosing his state above his nation.

no

To win outright? No. To actually fulfill his mission of preserving an Axis force in Cyrenica as long as possible with a minimum of expenditure? Yes. He could have held on far, far longer if he didn't idiotically insist on charging off past where his logistical apparatus could supply his army and leading to debacles like Crusader and 2nd El Alamein.

>but what exactly are you suggesting that Lee have done instead?
not who you replied to but, he should have chose his nation and not his state. he would have saved many Virginians that war.

>he should have chose his nation and not his state
"The United States" was a bigger spook for him than Virginia was.

well it's not like there weren't southerners who stayed loyal to the Union. tens of thousands of southerners from all over the CSA joined the Union Army.

Sam Houston was against succession even George Henry Thomas and Winfield Scott, Lee's fellow Virginains, stayed loyal to the Union.

Rommel says hi.

*mismanages logistics

No, he failed from a strictly military military perspective. They had a short advantage in the early war, but Lee chose to use his limited resources and time advantage wastefully, trying to engage in pitched battles for some reason, losing huge amounts of troops the Confederates could not replace, but the Union could.

Why did he need to have huge setpiece battles? He was clinging to an outdated and clearly inapplicable school of warfare that many, including his opponents in the Union (Sherman) knew wouldn't work

>They had a short advantage in the early war,
What advantage? When? If you're talking in the immediately post Bull-Run area, Lee wasn't even in command at that point. And in any event, they hardly had the ability to invade or occupy the north, which I'm sure you'd decry as "wasteful".

>but Lee chose to use his limited resources and time advantage wastefully, trying to engage in pitched battles for some reason,
And again, I'm not sure what else you expect him to do. Furthermore, he often did not engage in pitched battles, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg were the exceptions, mostly he simply created filed fortifications and waited for the Union to break their teeth on them.

>Why did he need to have huge setpiece battles?
Because he needed to defend territorial integrity. You know what happens if you try to mount say, a classic guerilla resistance against a regular army? It means they go where they will, when they will, and you hope you can attrition them away slowly. This can work, to be sure, but not when close to a third of your overall population and the backbone of your economy are chattel slaves, who will be taken away by the encroaching armies. Which means you need to block Union advances physically, and that implies a set piece battle.

The two things MacArthur is remembered for are attempting to start an insane war with china, and getting fired by Truman as a result.

maybe 30 years ago, nowadays the CSA is toxic to historians and it's been pretty popular to shit all over Lee and put Grant at #1. That said I still think Lee was the best Civil War even though Gettysburg was a disaster and he bears the responsibility. Eisenhower was obsessed with him so he couldn't have been that bad.

Thomas and Scott were born in Virginia but lived a majority of their lives in the north and married into northern families.

>Sam Houston

so, being against secession doesn't mean shit. Jefferson Davis was against it and Vice President Alexander Stephens voted against it every time he had a chance. Those states had existed seperately for hundreds of years and had only been a part of the union for 70.

>lel Lee sucks because he fought battles to win a war
>the only reason he won was because of Longstreet and Jackson
>who cares if he wins battles if he loses the war

Holy underwear you are a next level autist.

The a south conducting a guerilla war would never have worked as the country would've been overrun and all the slaves freed so fighting set battles was pretty much their only option. I bet you're the type of faggot who thinks militias and guerilla tactics won the American Revolution.

I guess by your logic Napoleon was shit tier as well. Once again you're an autistic inbred moron.

Criticizing a General for putting good subordinates in leadership positions is quite possibly one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Read a book on US military leadership; Lee pretty much exemplifies all the principles of it.

>The a south conducting a guerilla war would never have worked as the country would've been overrun and all the slaves freed so fighting set battles was pretty much their only option.

this. Sherman already showed that he'd burn everything he marched through so why the fuck would you conduct a guerilla war.

Did you have to work hard to reach this level of stupidity?

So is Manstein arguably the best WW2 general?

Manstein was very good but he best WW2 general was pic related

>Holy underwear you are a next level autist.

I died.

What did he do so differently in the Korean War that brought him success versus what he did in World War II?

He was very popular Amon the public at the time, and his defeat on the American bicentennial romanticized his fall.

YES YOU FUCKING LEGEND, THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO HAD HEARD OF 8X HERO OF THE SOVIET UNION ROKKOSOWSKI HERE.

Some retard said that rommel was the best and when I queryed about rokkosowki he said "literally who"

Wehrniggers need to die tbqh

Bump

>the only reason he won was because of Longstreet and Jackson
thats true though, after Jackson died even the possibility of a cessation of violence became an impossibility

i'm a russian-american dual citizen lurker and he comes up all the time, user. westerners seem to be very limited in knowledge past him and zhukov and i don't even blame them for only ever discussing these two men

patton was about an average general, maybe a bit above average, but the dude gets hyped like few others because he was an absolute quote machine. kinda like the allies version of rommel.

its the movies fault.

But then you'd never hear about people like Koniev and Vattutin (sp?)

Should be noted Pemberton was from Philadelphia.

Allegiance works in odd ways sometimes.

Baron Robert von Massow was some random Prussian of minor nobility who heard about the American Civil War and decided to take a ship to New York and travel south just to enlist in the Confederacy for no clear reason. They initially told him to fuck off but he was persistent enough that he was allowed to join Mosby's Raiders and was injured in battle. After the war he just decided to go back to Prussia and later served in WW1. The 19th century was a weird time.

This is quite possibly the most amusing thing I learned this month.

"During the Dranesville skirmish, von Massow was attired in a cape lined in with scarlet over a gray uniform with green trim, and he had two large ostrich plumes extending from his slouch hat."

And then apparently refused to use a firearm and charged with his sabre.

>Is he the most mediocre general to ever be glorified in popular culture?

Nah.

He did pretty well with what he had, although he did absolutely fuck up when he decided to conduct an overt conventional invasion of the north, as opposed to conducting guerilla ops to disrupt logistics, civil services, and morale.

Is this thread stuck in a thought loop?

Yes. Veeky Forums is full of retards

You could join the von Massow train.

Buy low on the next Jack Churchill/ von Ungern, reap benefits soon!

Yes because OP or other Lee haters abandoned the thread so there isn't much discussion. The general consensus here seems to be Lee was a great general who make some bad mistakes. He's probably overrated in the south and underrated in the North.

Lee was a great defensive general, offensively not so much. Best general of the Civil War.

T. Australian.

Sounds like fine equipment for a character in some weird rpg.

Ok, now please start bashing Rommel for a evening's nice redpill

...

>Hannibal
>mediocre

>Best general of the Civil War

He never had a command high enough to prove/disprove his supposed genius. After all, Hood was considered a stellar general until the Atlanta campaign. Definitely one of the war's big "what-ifs".

>rise from Private to Lieutenant General in a single war
>greatest and most feared cavalry commander of the war
>not a genius

advance past Pyongyang after being explicitly warned by China not to do so like a fucking spastic

>rise from Private to Lieutenant General in a single war

That was because he was a millionaire of high standing. Wade Hampton did the same.

>greatest and most feared cavalry commander of the war

That's a pretty baseless assertion. You could've said the same about Jackson, Early, Hardee or the Grey Ghost.

Forrest was a great cavalry tactician but like I said, never held a high enough command to really prove that he was the best general. He's a standout because he was one of the few greats in the western theater, meanwhile the east was full of great cavalry commanders.