Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You can sum up his generalship as this: From start to finish, he never lost a battle.
.....Anybody have any idea what a battle between Lee and Sherman would've looked like? Not the early Sherman, and not the late Lee. But when both were in their prime (Sherman in 1864 and Lee in the Spring of 1863). Lee has the services of Jackson and Longstreet. Sherman has Sheridan and Thomas.
Any thoughts?
Have to mention Burfords part at beginning of the battle too, would have been a very different fight had he and the union Calvary units didn't hold up the confederates until more of the army showed up.
Some good points davprl.
However, you arent giving Grant credit for his maneuver strategy at various pints in the war.
Take Vicksburg for instance, the events leading up to the seige was nothing but manuevering in the countryside that managed to confuse the confederates, divide up their forces so as to defeat them in detail and finally to try everything possible prior to laying a seige on the city. he even attempted to dig a canal to divert the Misssissippi around the city so as to render the city strategically worthless.
You can sum up his generalship as this: From start to finish, he never lost a battle.
But, in a different line of thought. Anybody have any idea what a battle between Lee and Sherman would've looked like? Not the early Sherman, and not the late Lee. But when both were in their prime (Sherman in 1864 and Lee in the Spring of 1863). Lee has the services of Jackson and Longstreet. Sherman has Sheridan and Thomas.
Any thoughts?
Actually, It probably would be more appropiate and interesting for Sherman to meet Jackson at both their heights. Both were a different breed although as a commanding general, I would trust Jackson more, not because of his incredible military ability, but for his loyality.
Hmmm... Jackson's loyalty...
Jackson had devoted loyalty to Lee. The real issue is Sherman, who, I understand ,tended to try to undermine Grant and did some things that really made Grant angry.
Sherman was another tenacious bulldog type of fighter. He wanted a win, and wasnt tied down by orthodoxy and tradition to get it.
He and Grant were of the same mold and same way of thinking. perhaps because they were in the same commands for so long.
Total war and total destruction of the opposing Army.
Jackson had devoted loyalty to Lee. The real issue is Sherman, who, I understand ,tended to try to undermine Grant and did some things that really made Grant angry.
Jackson had devoted loyalty to Lee. The real issue is Sherman, who, I understand ,tended to try to undermine Grant and did some things that really made Grant angry.
I was thinking of loyalty on a larger scale...
timshatz said:Grant didn't see the point of Sherman's March and worried he would be cut off and destroyed. That's what bugged Grant.
It was very risky. Sherman was lucky that the South at that time was already depleted of forces and materiel. Had the Confederates be able to engage Sherman in any kind of lenghty fight, Sherman would have quickly run out of ammunition. He could have then been stuck a long way from his base in dire straits.
The reason Sherman made his march was his knowing that there wasn't any confederate forces who could stop him, and the land was rich in booty to supply his troops.