Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: jmacusa
Eishenhower was an equally worse field commander than Lee was.

Like most commanders of armies, Lee was not not primarily a "field" commander (neither was Eisenhower). He would plan the campaign and leave it to "field commanders" to execute the actual battle. For example, Lee made the decision to divide his army and send Jackson around to flank the Federals at Chancellorsville. How he got there and what he did there was left to Jackson. Lee was constantly having to plan how to attack the enemy while not letting them over-run Richmond (Lee did not think Richmond should be the Confederate Capitol). When one looks at how many times Lee successfully divided his forces, he seems to be an audacious commander. Much of the time, with limited resources, it was all he could do.

110 posted on 06/22/2018 1:15:20 PM PDT by Sans-Culotte (Time to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: Sans-Culotte

Lee was serving an evil cause. Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander of all Allied forces in the field fighting in Europe. George Marshall was The Chief Of Staff in Washington. Eisenhower was the general in Europe, the man on the ground, as it were.


366 posted on 06/22/2018 10:11:07 PM PDT by jmacusa ("Made it Ma, top of the world!'')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson