General Butterfield
Sergeant
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2017
- Location
- Philadelphia
Why did Hood Fail at Atlanta?
Been reading through a few books on the Hood/Atlanta campaign by Richard McMurry, Stephen Davis, Stephen Hood and have been trying to get a feel for why Hood failed. The potential reasons I've found are numerous: It was Hood's personal issues wounds/drug use, It was Hood's level of experience, it was the wrong strategy, he didn't understand the capabilities of the AoT.
Here's my take on it:
I don't think it had anything to do with his personal issues, i think the addiction claims have been largely debunked. I also don't put his defeat on his level of experience, he might not have been completely prepared for this new role but he certainly had alot more first hand experience then most generals on taking command.
In regard to the strategy, I have in the past thought the best move would have been keeping Johnston in command and hoping for a miracle at Peach Tree Creek but I have started to rethink it a bit. I don't fault Hood's aggressiveness and I think it was the best chance to hold Atlanta. Hood was well in line with the strategy that Lee employed in his 62 defense of Richmond. Sherman, in similarity to McClellan at Richmond, was in an awkward position around Atlanta with numerous openings for the Confederates to exploit. Had Johnston stayed in command I don't think the Confederacy would have been able to hold out as long in Atlanta, or Richmond in 62 for that matter, but perhaps the army would have been more intact going forward.
The final point I think is probably the most valid. Soldiers in the AoT called Hood a "dandy" from the AoNV, to them the entire war Lee's army had got best men-material while they were starved of resources. I'm not sure Hood ever full understood the capabilities of the AoT and treated it like the AoNV. He expected them to be able to preform a serious complex counterattacks what they were simply unable to do effectively. His men were not of the same quality and his subordinates failed t live up to his plans. In my opinion had Hood been in command of the AoNV at Atlanta he very well might have emerged victorious.
What do you think?
Been reading through a few books on the Hood/Atlanta campaign by Richard McMurry, Stephen Davis, Stephen Hood and have been trying to get a feel for why Hood failed. The potential reasons I've found are numerous: It was Hood's personal issues wounds/drug use, It was Hood's level of experience, it was the wrong strategy, he didn't understand the capabilities of the AoT.
Here's my take on it:
I don't think it had anything to do with his personal issues, i think the addiction claims have been largely debunked. I also don't put his defeat on his level of experience, he might not have been completely prepared for this new role but he certainly had alot more first hand experience then most generals on taking command.
In regard to the strategy, I have in the past thought the best move would have been keeping Johnston in command and hoping for a miracle at Peach Tree Creek but I have started to rethink it a bit. I don't fault Hood's aggressiveness and I think it was the best chance to hold Atlanta. Hood was well in line with the strategy that Lee employed in his 62 defense of Richmond. Sherman, in similarity to McClellan at Richmond, was in an awkward position around Atlanta with numerous openings for the Confederates to exploit. Had Johnston stayed in command I don't think the Confederacy would have been able to hold out as long in Atlanta, or Richmond in 62 for that matter, but perhaps the army would have been more intact going forward.
The final point I think is probably the most valid. Soldiers in the AoT called Hood a "dandy" from the AoNV, to them the entire war Lee's army had got best men-material while they were starved of resources. I'm not sure Hood ever full understood the capabilities of the AoT and treated it like the AoNV. He expected them to be able to preform a serious complex counterattacks what they were simply unable to do effectively. His men were not of the same quality and his subordinates failed t live up to his plans. In my opinion had Hood been in command of the AoNV at Atlanta he very well might have emerged victorious.
What do you think?