alexjack
2nd Lieutenant
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2014
- Location
- South Wales UK
.....in his eastern theatre battles or did he rely on overwhelming force in men and materiel. If their roles had been reversed would Lee have done it differently?
Was Grant a tactician...
I take your point about Grant being, as commander of the army, more into strategy than tactics but surely the tactics used by his subordinates stemmed directly from the way he wanted a battle fought. I get the feeling reading about the Wars' later battles that Grants' approach to them was much like WWI generals who thought, ' If we lose one man and they lose one man we'll win in the end because we've got more men than them'.Grant's job didn't entail tactics in the East. His job was overall strategy, and he left the details of the tactics to Meade and the Army of the Potomac's corps commanders.
I take your point about Grant being, as commander of the army, more into strategy than tactics but surely the tactics used by his subordinates stemmed directly from the way he wanted a battle fought. I get the feeling reading about the Wars' later battles that Grants' approach to them was much like WWI generals who thought, ' If we lose one man and they lose one man we'll win in the end because we've got more men than them'.
The problem with the assumption that Grant approached the Overland Campaign with a "one-for-one man trade" mentality is that it ignores his constant attempts to flank and seek advantageous positions from which to fight. That these attempts were countered - sensibly enough, as befitting the numerically weaker side - by Lee's maneuvering skill and use of defensive works is almost beside the point. The real difference between Grant and "the rest" was his willingness to keep up the pressure: using his numbers but not relying on them. (As if the notorious fortunes of war would allow a commander to rely on them...) Grant, unlike McClellan or Hooker, knew that the loss of a battle did not mean the wreck of his campaign.
On the comparison of Lee and Grant, I think Ellensar says it best: "...both of them seem to have had a hard time finding a way to take advantage of the other's mistakes." Two tough-minded generals face each other with two hard-hitting armies. Good thing human endurance itself has limits...
Horse hockey.Grant's job didn't entail tactics in the East. His job was overall strategy, and he left the details of the tactics to Meade and the Army of the Potomac's corps commanders.
Horse hockey.
People who read too much and think about what they read too little rarely do.People who haven't read much about this part of the war often think it's horse hockey. Once they are educated about it, they see the error of their ways.
I'm not really sure where Lee exceeded Grant tactically. But I'm not going to argue the reverse was true - both of them seem to have had a hard time finding a way to take advantage of the other's mistakes.
April 1865?... he was required to protect Richmond. I'm not sure where exactly Lee came to the conclusion that was not necessary ...
What does that mean?Lee could be very effective as a semi-guerrilla fighter
People who read too much and think about what they read too little rarely do.
One other thing that I think is critical in Grant's success was his boss. Lincoln, once he saw what he had in Grant, stopped - for the most part anyway - micromanaging the war. Davis did not. Lee's brilliant defense against Grant's aggressive maneuvers were governed by the fact that he was required to protect Richmond. I'm not sure where exactly Lee came to the conclusion that was not necessary - probably surprisingly early on - and had Davis recognized what kind of general Lee was and let him do his job as he saw best, the Lee/Grant contest would have been a real test of who was the better general. Lee could be very effective as a semi-guerrilla fighter, and Grant had never encountered something like that. With the smaller numbers he had and flexibility, Lee could have done a lot of damage for a longer time - possibly between him and Johnston the war may have been at least partially won. The North was just not inexhaustible. Grant would have had some interesting opportunities to see where his true talents were!
April 1865?
What does that mean?