Customer Reviews

Grant and Lee: A Study in Personality and Generalship

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

If you do, this is the book for you. Fuller adequately and methodically shatters the myth that Grant wantonly sacrificed his troops in battle. He refutes this notion with painstaking tables and charts which proves (surprise) that Robert E. Lee lost many more men per 1,000 than Grant. Fuller further shows that Lee's stature as a great general should be on tenuous hooks and that greater appreciation should be given to Grant's brilliance.

Is the book unbiased? No, Fuller clearly prefers Grant, which is to his everlasting credit. Had more historians seriously compared Grant and Lee, USG's reputation wouldn't have been so seriously compromised today. Fuller lays the facts out on the table and shows that Grant beat Lee for a reason: he was the premiere American soldier.

Fuller methodically compares the generalship of Grant and Lee, arguing Grant's superiority. His unique and thoroughly documented approach makes the case that Grant, contrary to popular belief, efficiently employed his army in a manner that sustained comparatively fewer casualties than those of his opponent. Though not entirely unbiased, Fuller's analysis of generalship in the Civil War has many lessons for both students of history and leaders of today.

Grant and Lee, A Study in Personality and Generalship, published in 1932, compares quite favorably in its detailed research and readability with works by modern writers and historians like Shelby Foote, James M. McPherson, Gary W. Gallagher, and Stephen W. Sears. This work by Major General J. F. C. Fuller is notable for directly challenging the conventional wisdom that Grant was little more than a "butcher" and that his eventual success was almost entirely due to the North's larger population and more abundant resources. In Fuller's view Grant was not only the greatest general of the Civil War, but ranks among the greatest strategists of any age. Fuller generated even more controversy with his contention that Robert E. Lee in several respects had major failings as a military leader.

Controversial or not, Major General J. F. C. Fuller was no ordinary soldier writing about the Civil War. Fuller was a highly respected British military strategist and noted author. In the 1920s he collaborated with B. H. Liddell Hart in developing new ideas for the mechanization of armies. Ironically, their recommendations were more readily adopted in Germany than in Britain, France, or the U.S.

Grant and Lee, A Study in Personality and Generalship, is a relatively short book, around 300 pages. Fuller writes with clarity and precision. He makes careful use of firsthand accounts; he paid particular attention to opinions of staff officers, as men in these roles were likely to have gained greater insight into the personalities of Grant and Lee. He also utilized the opinions of foreign witnesses of the war, like Colonel Fremantle, as a check on insiders' observations. His sources were identified through extensive end notes as he realized that his findings would be controversial. He includes statistics on battle losses to illustrate that the persistent belief that Grant's losses were abnormally high is simply a myth, and that Lee's percentage losses were actually higher.

There are many exceptionally good books on the Civil War, but there are few that are as readable as Fuller's Grant and Lee, and offer such a fresh viewpoint (albeit, now nearly 75 years old, but one that remains stimulating and thought provoking). Grant and Lee, A Study in Personality and Generalship, is available in a reprint edition (1982) by Indiana University Press. Five stars.

If you read the introduction to this book, you will understand that Fuller has set out to write a brief but direct book on the Generalship capabilities of Grant and Lee. In the introduction, Fuller notes that Henderson's classic book on Jackson is more a romantic study than one that is an objective view. He goes further to say that a full study of Jackson gives a different appreciation. A respect for his maneuvering and desire to fight but also his idiosyncrasies and secrecy that Fuller indicates would cause one to question Jackson's sanity. With that introduction, you are prepared for the author's blunt assessment of both Generals. The book is brief concentrating more on strategy than just battlefield tactics. He concentrates on the critical battles of the war and the general effect the war has as a whole not just the eastern theater. In Lee, he notes that he was not a grand strategist but one that fought with intuition. As a General, he excelled on fighting on the defensive as showed in the final campaign. However, Lee preferred fighting aggressively and his errors show at Gettysburg and Malvern Hill. In the case of Chancellorsville, Fuller notes that Lee should have used the wilderness more often as a greater asset for defensive maneuvers instead of coming out in the open into battle. That like a spider, he should have waited for opportunities to attack and withdrawal with the protection of cover. He further indicates that Lee had a poor operating staff and his administration impaired supply and clarity of orders as all were given verbally and minimally. Grant on the other hand was a former quartermaster, was well organized and had a global plan of the war hence his simultaneous operations with the western theater and his multiple prong attacks in the east. Fuller notes that at first his objective was to follow Lee and not concentrate on the Richmond. But later he changed to maneuver so that Lee had to react to him as opposed to the reverse. Grant was often accused of having little imagination but as Fuller notes, he did not have the imagination to inflate numbers that were against him (McClellan) but he was rational in knowing that the Confederates had limited manpower. Through his intuition, Lee had success against the earlier Union generals but as Fuller points out, he could not fathom Grant.

The book is critical of both; however, as an overall commander, Grant comes across as much more able and Lee a totally different commander highly capable on the defensive but not as much a hands on commander as most would previously think. Both men are stripped bare; the author offers a unique unbiased view of the war without the human frailty of sentiment.

Grant and Lee by J.F.C. Fuller is a compelling book, written with a fresh view. Its main objective was to get a clear and unbiased viewpoint from which to examine these two exceptional men. While I myself do not agree with many of the conclusions drawn from Mr. Fuller's interpetation of the events, battles, campaigns, and lives of R.E.Lee and U.S.Grant, his opinion was generally well reasoned and contained few unfounded inferences. I belive that Grant and Lee is a important read for any objective student of either general.

This is a small book, but don't judge it by its size. It is a great little book. Grant & Lee, with such different backgrounds, lead two great armies in the strangest of times. In the end, with no grudge, the two men get to know and respect each other. But the story of how these men fought & how they thought so similarly in the battlefield and how they were both so noble and courageous help show that two men that could not have been more dissimilar, ended up being so alike serving their causes. I highly recommend this book. Very entertaining, and very educational.

This book is all about generalship. A generals character and personality, are the dominating forces that mold a general. Fuller attempts to explain the personality of both Grant and Lee. Then Fuller movers onto the details of generalship. Fuller explains the battle plans, strategies, and objectives, of various US Civil War battles. Fuller points out the good, the bad, and the ugly, of all the events that result from lee and Grant`s tactics.
The descriptions of the various battles, and how the Civil War leaders reacted, turn this book into a page turning thriller.
The book is written by a British General named, J.F.C. Fuller. I felt this helped the books objectivity. Fuller admits before any research, he considered Grant to be a butcher, and Lee a strategical wizard. Fuller then researches the US Civil War, and realizes the true story is much different.
I highly recommend this book, to anyone interested in military history.

Fuller methodically compares the generalship of Grant and Lee,arguing Grant's superiority. His unique and thoroughly documentedapproach makes the case that Grant, contrary to popular belief,efficiently employed his army in a manner that sustained comparativelyfewer casualties than those of his opponent. Though not entirelyunbiased, Fuller's analysis of generalship in the Civil War hasmany lessons for the leaders of today....

I have to disagree totally with the previous reviewer. While the relative merits of both generals have been argued since the conclusion of the war and will be into the future, the interesting point about this book is that General Fuller began with the assumption that Grant was the butcher of legend who bludgeoned with numbers and that Lee was the battlefield genius. His studies lead him to conclude otherwise (in an intersting appendix he shows that througout their respective careers, Lee lost a higher proportion of his men than Grant).

The main point Fuller makes is that Grant was the first general to understand the totality of warfare in the modern age, including the role of political expectations. He also was a superior strategist and campaigner to Lee, although Lee was probably the better battlefield tactitian. Lee had the advantage in the Overland campaign of fighting on the defensive, and Grant was aware of the approaching elections and the need to produce a result, rather than the traditional Army of the Potomac stalemate, or worse. He additionally had responsibilities for overseeing the Western and Valley battlefronts.

The main point to remember when considering the careers of the two men is that, if my memory is correct, of the three armies that surrendered during the War, Grant received two of them.

There are so many books on this subject that it's easy to start a fight from any point of view. Fuller is writing from across the Atlantic, and I believe that has given him a perspective that makes for a clear study of the two men. Fuller makes good use of Freemantle's observations from the latter's time in the Confederacy, extending observations into well reasoned analysis. This one is worth reading.