At the beginning of the war, the South had a distinct advantage in experienced officers. Most of the professional US Officer Corps was made up of southern aristocrats. Following Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, the southern states began drilling their state militias in fear of a slave rebellion or other armed conflict. So the advantage in trained personnel went to the South at the start of the war. Gradually, however, the North learned from experience. McClellan took the green volunteers and turned them into a highly competent force, especially after continual encounters with Southern forces. Grant learned how to command, and Sherman, along with Sheridan, Mead, and other northern commanders learned by trial and error until they became the equal of the southern commanders. Eventually the Anaconda Strategy and he overwhelming material advantage of the North came into play, and attrition worked in favor of the North.
the south were the confedrate soldiers An the north were the union soldiers
ee
I believe, even though the south had lost. they had the better end of it. They had ready generals and men who knew how to fight on foot and horseback. The north did not have ready generals at the time the war started. Overall towards the end of the war the north had the best strategy by taking the forts and capturing the river.
There were no American generals or troops in the battles of El Alamein
Most US generals came from the ranks of the graduates of the US Military Academy at West Point, New York. The North had a larger pool of military trained men then did the South. The pool of officers was larger for the North, no doubt. However, on both sides the general pool was diluted due to the necessity of making political generals. On a ratio basis, it can be debated that the South had a higher quality of possible generals.
the North had good generals, a firm purpose, willing soldiers, and a good God.
Private soldiers are not usually involved in strategic planning. Generals and their staffs are. Soldiers use tactics to carry out operations at the service of greater strategies.
The answer is Nathaniel Greene is one of his best Generals.
because north had not that many soldiers
Grant Meade Meigs
Grant and Sherman
Southern advantages: 1. Higher morale 2. Greater skilled generals 3. Invasion of the north (plundering of resources) Northern advantages: 1. Well equipped 2. Greater numbers 3. Defending home soil
The North by far. The North took the Industrial road while the South took the agricultural road. At the time more countries wanted industry rather than plants, so the north had a lot more importing and exporting going on. Which gave them the advantage of technology. Their only downfall was getting that technology to all of their soldiers. This was not possible. The south on the other hand had less soldiers and could then equip them with better technology. The south also had many major US generals for that time period. IF the north had had the generals that the south had, the war would have ended much quicker.
because of you
The South had better generals than the North did at the time.
The North was invading an unfamiliar territory and most of the generals were inexperienced or inept.
There were several British Generals in North America prior to independence.