Reply #14: Maybe "recognized" as such, but hardly the best

[PurityOfEssence]

Lee was not as good a General as either Grant or Sherman, nor was he a match for Nathan Bedford Forrest, but then again, I don't know of ANYONE who's ever been as good a tactical and operational general as Forrest. Forrest is the true military genius of the war, and is still considered the father of modern mechanized warfare, and he did it with no formal military training. Frankly, I'd say that Jackson and Longstreet are every bit as good as Lee, and arguably better.

Yes, Chancellorsville was spectacular. Fredricksburg was the proper response to a sloppy attack. His response in the Wilderness bears note, too.

Still, Grant never fucked up like the third day at Gettysburg. Never. Not even close. That was a truly bad idea, and the intelligence was there ahead of time. Longstreet couldn't even bring himself to order the attack. He let himself get caught in a terrible position at Sharpsburg, but mercifully, it was McClellan attacking.

Greene deserves note, as do Patton and Arnold, but the ongoing gushing of awe for the military prowess of Washington and Lee really doesn't stand to scrutiny.