Both Grant and Sherman were fighting during a period of technical change in warfare.
They fought like their muskets had an effective range of 100 yards.
Their muskets and mini-balls actually had an effective range of 200-300 yards.
This combination led to wholesale slaughter that can only be attributed (in 20/20 hindsight) to both sides military leaders failure to recognize that war had changed.
Grant deserves to be called a butcher. He just had more cannon fodder then Lee and a willingness to ‘spend it’.
Lee on the other hand doesn’t deserve the praise he gets. Granting he was tactically a genius that doesn’t give him a pass on his lack of insight into the effective range issue. He could have blitzed Washington DC.
posted on 05/22/2008 12:54:19 PM PDT
Lee on the other hand doesnt deserve the praise he gets. Granting he was tactically a genius that doesnt give him a pass on his lack of insight into the effective range issue. He could have blitzed Washington DC.
Lee blew it several times, but he was able to adjust his ways, although it was way too late and way too many of his men had to die before he did. What he started to do at the end of the war in regards to trench warfare would be seen again in France in the first World War. Unfortunately trench warfare itself is a horrible way to fight and die, but he was recognized for his contributions (and it was not due to any kind of tactical genius of his, but more to his engineering and analytical side).
Oh, if you close your hippie eyes and really wish, someday there will be a war where nobody gets killed.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson