Sherman Sherman's Wartime Record

[Sid J.]

Is there a definitive biography on Sherman? I want to give them a fair shake since so far my impression of him is an unpleasant one.

Marzalek's is the closest to definitive I've read. If you want to know Sherman, "Sherman's Civil War" is #1. It's a collection of his wartime letters.

 

[Cycom]

If you can stomach it, his memoirs aren't terrible. As with any memoir you have to take it with a grain of salt but it might be helpful to let the man speak for himself - if only to add to the overall understanding of the man. You seem to know what a bunch of other folks have said about him, why not see what he says for himself?

Good point, thanks

 

[Nathan Stuart]

After reading about Sherman's wartime exploits, my short impressions are that he was single-minded, determined and ruthless, as well as somewhat of a pragmatist. As Grant's subordinate, Sherman's mindset fitted in well and suited Grant's way of thinking, to the point that Grant relied on him.

 

[rbasin]

That's a line of argument that goes really deep into the weeds really fast. Grant was on the offensive. Offensive armies didn't typically throw up earthworks on the move at that point in the war. I don't see anyone giving Lee grief for not throwing up earthworks at Sharpsburg 6 months later. Was Lee a dummy too?

I think Shiloh speaks more to Sherman's two weaknesses: he lacked battlefield vision (intuition, a sense of what the other commander would do given the operational situation), and when things went sideways he tended to deflect blame onto others (McClernand at Shiloh, Morgan at Chickasaw Bayou, McPherson at Snake Creek Gap, Thomas at Atlanta).

With all due regards to mr. Simpson, Grant was ordered to dig in, but later said he didn't want to because it may have demoralize the troops.

 

[tony_gunter]

With all due regards to mr. Simpson, Grant was ordered to dig in, but later said he didn't want to because it may have demoralize the troops.

Simpson? Where was Simpson mentioned in the discussion?

Grant was never told to entrench. He was told to wait for reinforcements before pushing towards Corinth. Which makes sense. Halleck was a big proponent of concentration. Nobody at the time, however, advocated creating progressive lines of entrenchments for an offensive movement. That would come later in the war.

Again, it's an interesting argument but one that doesn't speak to Sherman's abilities on the tactical defensive.

 

[th'anchoriticsybarite]

Nope. What he should have surmised is that as he got into Italy, the Romans had an almost inexhaustible number of soldiers. He destroyed armies, and the Romans kept coming.

No. The inexhaustible number of soldiers had nothing to do with the Roman's defeat of Hannibal. Look instead to a Roman army in Spain which was able to ship from Spain to Carthage and threaten Hannibal's homeland. Faced with that threat he had to rush to Carthage leaving his veteran army behind, take command of untried homeland troops against a military genius like Scipio.

Now if you want to give credit to the Roman senate for approving a totally unorthodox plan, no arguement. But I know of no other example where the enemy is LITERALLY at the gates of your capitol and you send an army away from the enemy to htreaten his capitol.

I would assert that the Roman's decision is the ballsiest move in the annals of warfare.