 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 10th, 2010 |
| Location: | South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 212 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
| View single post by csamillerp | |||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Oct 31st, 2011 01:23 am |
|
||||||||||||
|
csamillerp Member
|
Something that has been perplexing me for a while now is Lee's tendency to order frontal assaults on very strong positions. The major ones would be malvern hill and the pickett pettigrew trimble charge. It has got me thinking that maybe with jackson Lee was just a mediocre offensive commander. I know by me saying that i'll ruffle alot of feathers but i'm also a southerner and I'm not saying Lee was a bad general, whether he was a great offensive commmander or not he still remains one of the greatest generals of all time because of his way to fight a war with limited to no resources and instilling the love of his troops. But i want to know everyones view on this... was lee's only offensive successes possible because of jackson? and if so do you think jackson would have been a better commander?
|
||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||