Round 1: Lee vs. Julius Caesar

[Marshal Murat]

The classical general who crossed the Rubicon, or the victor of Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville, Cold Harbor, but failed to save the Confederacy?

[CountArach]

Caesar, because he was capable of beating all different types of armies. He fought against Iberian tribes early in his lifetime. He fought against plenty fo Gauls. He fought against chariots. He fought against Germans. He fought against other Romans. A whole host of different armies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gaius Julius Dictator -- but this is close; Caesar edges out Bobby Lee by being brilliant in more areas (but I'd rather have Lee for a neighbor -- true gentleman).

Lee was a good general: solid strategist, brilliant tactician, excellent engineer, deeply honorable and powerfully charismatic as a leader. Occasionally let his "blood get up" and be drawn into a situation he should have avoided.

Caesar was an excellent engineer, brilliant politician, good strategist, excellent tactician, wonderful administrator. Did let the Ptolemy bint get in the way of things a bit at the end.

[Kagemusha]

While Lee is certainly one of the greatest and as person an unique army commander, who gained the love of his troops and beated many times his enemies,while the odds were against him. A brilliant Strategist and tactician. Gaius Julius Caesar was still better. Caesar was a superior Strategist,maybe the best ever. He knew how to use every trick in the book to gain his goals. While i think as personality Lee was maybe a better man and a true gentleman. As military leader Caesar was just Caesar.

[Kralizec]

I know next to nothing about Lee, so I'll abstain on this one.

[Strike For The South]

You people know nothing. Ceaser fought with better quality of troops better taining better supplied and better weapons. He fought agianst people who knew nothing of Tactics. Lee was able to inflict massive casulties and drag out the war. Put them on even footing and Lee routes Ceaser

[Grey_Fox]

Ceaser fought with better quality of troops better taining better supplied and better weapons. He fought agianst people who knew nothing of Tactics.

Tell that to Pompey.

[Strike For The South]

Tell that to Pompey.

Ok tell that to Pomopeys green troops compared Ceaser legions which were battle hardened and thought Ceaser was teh winner

[Rodion Romanovich]

I voted Lee. The only really challenging battle in Caesar's career was Pharsalus, which was won out of equal shares of luck as of skill. Politically, Caesar is the man who turned a roman republic (admittedly morally declining republic) into a ruthless military dictatorship, after meaningless, brutal and completely unjustified campaigns all over Gaul.

Compared to Caesar, Lee stands out as more impressive not only in personality, but also because he had more limited resources and worse odds a lot more often than Caesar. Caesar was a colonialist/imperialist and a power hungry (and unfortunately charismatic) maniac - Lee however was a general.

[ShadesWolf]

For me Caesar
Lee was a great general, but no Caesar

[Conradus]

You people know nothing. Ceaser fought with better quality of troops better taining better supplied and better weapons. He fought agianst people who knew nothing of Tactics. Lee was able to inflict massive casulties and drag out the war. Put them on even footing and Lee routes Ceaser

On the other hand, Caesar's battles were almost always outnumbered against soldiers who were most likely better warriors than his troops. He managed to beat any kind of opponent, reformed his Republic into a dictatorship, showed ample political skills, was a charismatic man, second only to Cicero in rhetorics and had cleopatra

[MilesGregarius]

Ceaser fought with better quality of troops better taining better supplied and better weapons.

Lee was faced with far more challenging battles in his career than Ceasar was. Lee took a terrible scrappy army and turned it into a fighting machine that came close to turning the war around--despite the massive industrial and numerical advantages of the North. And in the end, he even secured a decent peace for his troops.

I won't get into the Lee vs. Caesar debate, but I've never seen the quality of the CSA's troops questioned before. A "terrible scrappy army"? Confederate cavalry consistently outfought their Union counterparts until the later stages of the war, their infantry also regularly outclassed the bluecoats for much of the war (leading one general [Phil Sheridan?] to state that with Confederate infantry and Union artillery, he'd be unbeatable), and their officer corps was second to none. And let's not forget that even under the command of Joe Johnston, the Confederates won at First Manassas and stopped McClellan at Seven Pines (admittedly it was left to Lee drive McClellan back). If the CSA had lacked a quality army until Lee "turned it into a fighting machine", the war would have been too short for such to happen - or for Lee to have made a name for himself.

[Conradus]

On the other hand Lee's army wasn't poorer than the ill-trained, hardly equipped, just fetched from their homes, poor soldiers of the North. Eventually he had quite a veteran force. MilesGregarius beat me to it...

Caesar too started with a rather inexperienced legion but he managed to gain the trust and loyalty of his soldiers which aided him enormously in the civil war against Pompey.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Is it worth noting that Arlington National Cemetery, resting spot for America's soldiers, is on Lee's former land?

CR

[Lord Winter]

Lee was faced with far more challenging battles in his career than Ceasar was. Lee took a terrible scrappy army and turned it into a fighting machine that came close to turning the war around--despite the massive industrial and numerical advantages of the North. And in the end, he even secured a decent peace for his troops.

Like Miles said the confed's as a whole even before lee, had better infentry and calvery but their supply and manpower situation was terriable. That's what impresses me more about Leuage that he was able to take a small well trained group and defeat an vastilly outnumbering army, while the rest of the CSA was failing.

[Marquis of Roland]

I won't get into the Lee vs. Caesar debate, but I've never seen the quality of the CSA's troops questioned before. A "terrible scrappy army"? Confederate cavalry consistently outfought their Union counterparts until the later stages of the war, their infantry also regularly outclassed the bluecoats for much of the war (leading one general [Phil Sheridan?] to state that with Confederate infantry and Union artillery, he'd be unbeatable), and their officer corps was second to none. And let's not forget that even under the command of Joe Johnston, the Confederates won at First Manassas and stopped McClellan at Seven Pines (admittedly it was left to Lee drive McClellan back). If the CSA had lacked a quality army until Lee "turned it into a fighting machine", the war would have been too short for such to happen - or for Lee to have made a name for himself.

I completely agree. Just because you have everyone wearing uniforms and shoes doesn't make you a better soldier, or a better army

The type of society in the rural South will obviously produce better shots, better horsemen, more rugged individuals, than the industrial North. So from day one, the South outclassed the North in the quality of their infantry and cavalry. The South arguably had more skilled commanders as well. For these reasons alone was the South able to last that long in a war with the North.

I don't think Lee was as great of a strategist or tactitian as most people would make him out to be. He almost always supported the direct engagement to destroy the Union forces rather than forcing Union forces to capitulate indirectly, as Jackson did. When your enemy's manpower is 2 or 3 times as much as yours, seeking direct battle is often not a good idea. For example Jackson advocated an invasion into the North very early on in the war that would've threatened Washington from behind and cut off the capital from the rest of the Union, which would probably have forced the battleground to the North rather than the South, which in turn would have serious consequences on Union civilian morale.

IMO, the Gauls that Caius Julius fought were superior troops in comparison to the Union army. Definitely more experienced, and individually would probably kill any Roman legionnaire in single combat, not something you can say about Union soldiers, individually or in a group versus the confederate infantry.

The sheer diversity of Julius's opponents itself proves that he is a flexible commander, able to switch tactics to meet the situation very well. He was better than Lee at this, I believe.

[Fisherking]

My dog is bigger than your dog!

Caesar was lucky and had seasoned well equipped troops with abundant supply and logistics.

Lee fought outnumbered and with poor supply. He did great with what he had and was a fine commander.

Since you are asking about apples and oranges I'll take the guy with cannon and rifles over the dude with shield and swords.

[AntiochusIII]

Is it worth noting that Arlington National Cemetery, resting spot for America's soldiers, is on Lee's former land?

If it means it's worth noting that countless Imperial-wannabes have in various ways claimed the title akin to "Caesar" to proclaim their Imperial Greatness. A title that did not exist prior to the life of a man called Julius Caesar. And Goddammit he had a Shakespearean play to himself! :P

I'm not even sure what this contest is about, though. This does seem a rather strange pairing all in all.

[Slug For A Butt]

Forget Lee. Surely the question should be Caesar or Hannibal?
Caesar was more politically and endgame aware, but was Hannibal a better commander in the field? When people are vainly talking about General Lee, they are forgetting true battlefield genius like Hannibal who had extreme troop inferiority and still managed to bushwack the world superpower everytime he met them.
C'mon Americans, stop being so jingoistic.
For me there is no question as long as Lee is the only challenger. CAESAR!

[AntiochusIII]

they are forgetting true battlefield genius like Hannibal who had extreme troop inferiority and still managed to bushwack the world superpower everytime he met them

Pre-Punic Wars Rome was far from a superpower. In fact, the contest at hand between Rome and Carthage was one of the dominant regional power. Rome wasn't a preeminent world power until its conquest of the Hellenistic world at least.

That doesn't mean facing Romans was probably the most annoying thing anyone could've gone through back in the days, though. It was obviously diplomatically displeasing to deal with a people who a) consider themselves absolutely superior to you and b) would love nothing more than conquering you, enslaving your wife, children, and dog, and take away everything you've got eventually.

[Slug For A Butt]

Maybe I misworded it, Rome was the first emerging world superpower. And lets be honest, this was the third Punic war, Rome already had it sewn up. It was on the up, Carthage was a multinational trading corp that employed disparate mercs (and even they were rebellious when they weren't paid on time). In a fight the Romans in my opinion should, and did, whip the Carthageans. The only guy that really shone where others failed was Hannibal.
When we talk about Lee playing on an uneven playing field, I think we should remember the mountainside that Hannibal was on.
Can I vote again for Caesar plz? I think he is worthy of being mentioned in the same breath.

[Boyar Son]

Rome had superior soldiers, equipment. Lee had to fight an army

1. larger than his
2. had better equipment
3. reserves of fresh men
4. blockaded the Confedarate ports thus not much supplies coming in
5. well funded army

Caesar is good and my favorite, but damn he had some good advantages.

Jeez not much Lee historians here so you guess got nothin' to say.

[Kagemusha]

Why everytime we speak about Caesar,we talk about how superior the Roman army was at the time? Are we forgetting the many campaigns that Caesar pulled of during the civil war against Romans? He was outnumbered 2/1 when fighting Pompeys troops in Spain and those were not rookies like Pompeys troops in Italy.Outnumbered heavily against Pompey in the Greece. Outnumbered hugely and most of the year besieged on his Egyptian campaign against the Ptolemy. And outnumbered in Africa against the forces of Senate with their Numidian ally King Juba,who also deployed large number of Elephants and cavalry against Caesar´s forces. Caesar won each time against troops that were of the same quality then his. I think that points out more about his talent as General then his victories in Gaul.

[Boyar Son]

Caesar's done that...

But Lee had militia for cryin' out loud, and he still beat his opponents!

The odds were stacked against him and still prevailed and could have if it were not for Ulysses coming up with a strategy to were down his small number of troops.

And I dont think the Numidians were of the same quality as the Romans.

@ slug for a butt, Carthage had mercanaries, Lee had militia!

[Kagemusha]

Caesar's done that...

But Lee had militia for cryin' out loud, and he still beat his opponents!

The odds were stacked against him and still prevailed and could have if it were not for Ulysses coming up with a strategy to were down his small number of troops.

And I dont think the Numidians were of the same quality as the Romans.

@ slug for a butt, Carthage had mercanaries, Lee had militia!

The Numidians in that particular case were cavalry and Elephants and many would say that as cavalry Numidians were usually of better quality then Romans. I dont mean to put down Lee in any way. He is one of my favourite Generals, but i wouldnt say that the troop quality of the South was anyway inferior to the Union troops they were fighting against. The numbers were just against them from the start.North had more men,supplies,better guns, more everything.
But the Southern forces had a great fighting spirit,no matter of their lack of many things. Ofcourse a great General like Lee had a big part in it,like his subordinates Jackson and Longstreet also.
But if we compare the US Civil War to Roman Civil war. At the beginning Caesar had less,but better troops,just like Lee,but he was able to turn the tables against Pompey,which Lee couldnt do,altough i dont think its not Lee to blame of the Southern defeat,becouse there was lot more reasons that lead to it.

[Boyar Son]

The Numidians in that particular case were cavalry and Elephants and many would say that as cavalry Numidians were usually of better quality then Romans. I dont mean to put down Lee in any way. He is one of my favourite Generals, but i wouldnt say that the troop quality of the South was anyway inferior to the Union troops they were fighting against. The numbers were just against them from the start.North had more men,supplies,better guns, more everything.
But the Southern forces had a great fighting spirit,no matter of their lack of many things. Ofcourse a great General like Lee had a big part in it,like his subordinates Jackson and Longstreet also.
But if we compare the US Civil War to Roman Civil war. At the beginning Caesar had less,but better troops,just like Lee,but he was able to turn the tables against Pompey,which Lee couldnt do,altough i dont think its not Lee to blame of the Southern defeat,becouse there was lot more reasons that lead to it.

...I...dont know...h-how to respond... good post

but I'll try Lee couldn't put the Union in one decisive capitulating battle because the battle was across the states. Caersar also had battle all over the mediteranean, but all decisive battles.

No matter what the victories the south had, the Union kept coming.

[AntiochusIII]

But Lee had militia for cryin' out loud, and he still beat his opponents!

The Union also had a militia of an army, no? The whole of the USA didn't really have that much in terms of fighting traditions or whatever. In fact, many argue the whole "Southern chivalry" and a generally more rural, less industrialized life means that the South's fighting force was actually far superior quality-wise: farmers and hunters tend to be better with the forests, the fields, and the rifles than factory workers.

Of course, that doesn't mean they could stand toe-to-toe with professional fighting forces like, say, the British army at the time. But that's not what Lee faced.

And I'm not saying he's worse than Caesar or anything like that, because I really do think this pairing is quite confuzzled.

[MilesGregarius]

Where do these claims that the Confederate Army was inferior to the Union army keep coming from? I've never before seen such claims, certainly not from any histories I've read nor from any contemporary sources that I know of. In fact, most histories stress the elan of the Southern fighting man, especially in light of the numerical and material disadvantages with which he had to contend.

The South's rural, agrarian character meant that militarily applicable skills - familiarity with firearms, fieldcraft, general physical hardiness - were more widespread than among the more urban Northern populous. Add to this the South's stronger martial traditions, and the South had significantly better troops than the North until experience had hardened Billy Yank while attrition had worn down Johnny Reb.

This was particularly the case in the cavalry arm. Confederate cavalry consistently rode rings around their Union counterparts at least until Gettysburg. While cavalry had ceased to be a decisive arm of battle, it remained the primary intelligence gathering source on the battlefield. As such, the Army of Northern Virginia regularly had excellent knowledge of Union dispositions while Northern commanders often fought nearly blind for the first years of the war.

Lee also faced off with a series of subpar (McClellan) to downright incompetent (Pope and Burnside) opponents. Not until the overly maligned Joe Hooker did Lee face a Union battle plan that even remotely taxed his abilities. Once Lee had to contend with decent Union generals, he was no longer able to consistently overcome the South's material disadvantages .

Additionally, Lee possessed a stable of excellent subordinates. The CSA was choc-a-block with fine commanders at all levels - Jackson, Longstreet, Stuart, A.P. Hill, Ewell, Colston, Rodes, Fitz Lee among others. In fact, it might be argued that Jackson was at least as important as Lee; it's worth noting that Lee's battlefield record became considerably more spotty following Jackson's death.

The significance of Lee's advantage in this area can not be overstressed. Whatever the comparative advantages or disadvantages Lee had in troop quality, Lee could rest assured that his orders would be well executed by his lieutenants, and that said lieutenants could be trusted to react effectively to a fluid battlefield situation. The same could not be said of most of the Union commanders Lee faced.

Take, for example, what some would call Lee's greatest victory, Chancellorsville:

Hooker's original plan called for Stoneman's cavalry to cut Lee's supply lines. Had Stoneman done so, Lee would have been forced from his prepared positions, significantly altering the course of the battle. I think that there can be little doubt that if Lee had given a similar order to J.E.B Stuart, Stuart would have carried it out with speed and daring.

Similarly, when Hooker informed O.O. Howard that his flank was "in the air", Howard chose to ignore the warning, thus ensuring the success of Stonewall Jackson's flank march. It's hard to imagine any of Lee's corps commanders leaving his flank unanchored to begin with, let alone allowing the situation to go unrectified once warned.

As an exercise, take Hooker's original Chancellorsville plan, exchange Stuart and Jackson for Stoneman and Howard, and then imagine the probable outcome:

• Stuart cuts the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad at Hanover Junction, forcing Lee to abandon his defensive line on the Rappahannock.
  
• Stoneman, meanwhile, bungles the reconnaissance, denying Lee the ability to discern the Union Army's right flank.
  
• Even had Stoneman's cavalry found the end of the Union line, Jackson would undoubtedly made sure it was well secured, even without prompting from his commander.
  
• Even supposing Jackson's flank was left hanging, it's inconceivable to imagine a bungler like Howard managing a successful flank march to turn the Union line and the tide of battle.
  
• With his supply line cut, his troops forced from their prepared positions around Fredericksburg, and unable to turn Hooker's flank, Lee must fall back at least to Richmond (and maybe beyond) or face the destruction of his army.

None of this is to say that Lee was not a great commander, nor that he didn't face serious handicaps. The quality of his army was definitely not one of those handicaps, however.

[Boyar Son]

Ookay...

I know Confedarate commanders and officers were better than the Norths. Confedarate officers led the troops to victories that demorilized the North and led to frustration with Lincoln.

The officers gave the troops (militia) a fighting spirit not "hoowee were gonna woop those yankie bastards".

Soo... It's the commanders that gave the south a fighting chance, because without them the troops would've admitted defeat one way or another.

(ok done bashing the poor southern troops... sry)

@AntiochusIII, actually, Northern troops were indeed (admitted levy) regular soldiers. The Union could've gave there commanders a better military education though.

[AntiochusIII]

@AntiochusIII, actually, Northern troops were indeed (admitted levy) regular soldiers. The Union could've gave there commanders a better military education though.

No they weren't. They were by all means a drafted army. That's not the same as a standing army you claim the South faced.