Originally posted by Lizard3
Lee at times was briliant, other times not. To his advantage, he had excellent commanders under him. Jackson for his lightning offense and "mystification" and Longstreet one of the best defensive tacticians of the war.
True. but the key to any great commander is not only his abilities but those of his subordinate commanders
And the proper placement and application of said commanders talents.
In WWII for example Monty would have in all likelyhood done poorly in operation Cobra He simply wasnt audacous enough.
whereas Patton probably wouldnt have done so well running along the coast.
It can be asked if teh subordinate commanders make the general great, or the other way around.
I think they make each other.
But the ultimate decisions, responcability and recognition usually falls on the general in overall command.
You mention both Jackson and Longstreet. Both IMO could be mentioned in the same breath of Lee, Patton, Monty, Napoleon.
Both were outstanding generals.
But would they have been so successful had a lesser commander been in command and not used them where and how they would do best?
On another note
There was nothing particularly brilliant about Grant. His main asset is he was willing to fight a war of attrition.
Sherman was probably the more capable or at least the more imaginative of the two and his willingness to not be tied to his lines of supply was pretty remarkable for the time
