- This topic has 8 voices and 24 replies.
-
Posts
-
It's long been my belief that Grant “was a butcher” in part due to the limitations of the officer corp of the Army of the Potomac. –other tactics weren't open to him. I think, for example, of the failure to seize Richmond and the Battle of Crater are goods examples of the failure of the officer corp and problems Grant faced.The Western Army, in contrast, had an efficient officer corp. In fact, Grant had to transfer Sheridan to the Army of the Potomac to defeat Lee.What would have happened had Lee faced Grant and the Army of the West with Sherman, Sheridan and the western officer corp?
I think Grant did much to rectify the leadership problems of the Army of the Potomac. His reputation comes from the butcher's bill in the battles shortly after he took command. Combat is Darwinian to an extent and it took him time to revamp the leadership in the East. That being said, I would guess that Lee would have gotten owned by the Army of the West because it was so much more versatile an instrument than the Army of the Potomac.
I would guess that Lee would have gotten owned by the Army of the West because it was so much more versatile an instrument than the Army of the Potomac.
Yes.Scout…let's change the hypothetical for a moment. What would have happened if Lee were against Army of the West commanded by Sherman?
Or you could take the obverse – if Lee were in the West, and the Confederate commanders from Tennessee and the West were in Virginia, what would the outcome have been. Confederate leadership in the West was far from the level of the Army of Northern Virginia – any many Confederate commanders in the West had cut their teeth in Northern Virginia and had been found wanting.Then again, I think much of it also had to do with geography. Northern Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley provided some pretty serious natural protections for Lee's army, allowing for lateral movement, natural flank protection, and rivers as defensive barriers with limited crossing sites… not to mention logistical support from Richmond.All open to endless debate!
Then again, I think much of it also had to do with geography. Northern Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley provided some pretty serious natural protections for Lee's army, allowing for lateral movement, natural flank protection, and rivers as defensive barriers with limited crossing sites… not to mention logistical support from Richmond.All open to endless debate!
That is the problem with what ifs, we will never know what would have happened because it did not. That makes them great for arguments at a bar but useless from the standpoint of serious academic study.
I would guess that Lee would have gotten owned by the Army of the West because it was so much more versatile an instrument than the Army of the Potomac.
Yes.Scout…let's change the hypothetical for a moment. What would have happened if Lee were against Army of the West commanded by Sherman?
I personally do not think you would get the same outcome. Grant was a fighter and I won't say he didn't care about losing men, but he went in with guns blazing, that was his forte. Sherman on the other hand preferred the “total war” tactics to head on combat… to save soldiers lives on both sides.Grant was the right man for the right time. They needed a no-nonsense, forget the game playing, and accept nothing but surrender attitude that Grant had.I personally feel that overall Sherman was the better general of the two, but again, not for that particular point in time. Grant was the man and it showed.
What if? Err … Hannibal would had crossed the Atlantic and pwned both the Confederacy and the Union with a tactically surreptitious elephantry charge ! 8) (ask any good Military historian)
What if? Err … Hannibal would had crossed the Atlantic and pwned both the Confederacy and the Union with a tactically surreptitious elephantry charge ! 8) (ask any good Military historian)
I don't necessarily think that this is germane to the discussion. What's next, Dinosaurs with rocket launchers? Any fool can turn a serious discussion frivolous, is that your goal?
I don't necessarily think that this is germane to the discussion. What's next, Dinosaurs with rocket launchers? Any fool can turn a serious discussion frivolous, is that your goal?
It's just about “What if”. How serious or frivolous is that? With a “what if” you can recreate the world so …
You don't think Hannibal and Elephants are a little far afield for a what if? I am just saying keep them plausible. An ocean and 2,000 years are not plausible.
You don't think Hannibal and Elephants are a little far afield for a what if? I am just saying keep them plausible. An ocean and 2,000 years are not plausible.
I agree but you never know with a “what if?” question 😉
Omar:I had a professor who occasionally used “what if” questions. In time I learned they were of value–as well as often being interesting.Answering a “what if” question requires one to analyze historical events in order to predict the outcome of the hypothetical situation. Vulture6's remarks about Lee benefiting from Northern Virgina's topography is an example of insights that can come from answers to “what if” questions.
Omar:I had a professor who occasionally used “what if” questions. In time I learned they were of value–as well as often being interesting.Answering a “what if” question requires one to analyze historical events in order to predict the outcome of the hypothetical situation. Vulture6's remarks about Lee benefiting from Northern Virgina's topography is an example of insights that can come from answers to “what if” questions.
Omer not Omar, don't confuse pls…
