General Grant On History Channel

**ABNAK** · 05-28-20, 13:26

I find the documentary very interesting. I am somewhat knowledgeable about the Civil War, though far from an expert on it. I know it enough to wonder how truly "brilliant" Grant was as a general. His biggest selling point was his tenacity and being pugnacious on the battlefield, something other big-name Union generals lacked up to that point. But could Grant have pulled it off without superior numbers on his side? I have my doubts. His "tenacity" was because he burned through quite a few soldiers at Shiloh, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, etc. Tactical stalemates in some of those battles didn't deter him as it had previous commanders. He pushed on, ever-trying to flank the Confederates once he was in Virginia after the Wilderness battle ground to a halt. He did have a reputation in the North as a "butcher" with some people.

I don't think he displayed the tactical prowess some of his adversaries had, but he had beaucoup more men and resources. The South couldn't replace losses nearly as readily as the North could. That played well into Grant's bull-headed strategy.

I guess a better question is if the North had a Lee or Stonewall Jackson in charge, could they have prevailed with fewer losses?

**chuckman** · 05-28-20, 13:48

I admit I know little about him beyond the casual reading and textbook stuff. I have read his Wiki page to get the Reader's Digest version. I look forward to seeing it. I wish History Channel would do biopic mini-series like this on every president.

**Diamondback** · 05-28-20, 13:55

Originally Posted by chuckman

I admit I know little about him beyond the casual reading and textbook stuff. I have read his Wiki page to get the Reader's Digest version. I look forward to seeing it. I wish History Channel would do biopic mini-series like this on every president.

"But this is BORING! Where's the Aliens Pawning Gold?" Let's face it, most of the populace are morons who can barely muster the competence to spell their own frickin' names right and can't even hang on long enough to match the attention span of a gnat, and so are most of the network execs who pander to them.

**flenna** · 05-28-20, 14:06

General Grant understood that logistics was the key to winning the war. He kept constant pressure on the Confederates while constantly feeding in more men and more supplies at a pace the South could not match. The Confederacy had brilliant generals (heck, General Rommel studied General Nathan B. Forrest’s calvary tactics and applied them to his tank corps) but could not keep up with the North logistically.

**Uni-Vibe** · 05-28-20, 16:02

General Eisenhower understood the same thing about Europe in '44.

To meet the surprise of the Bulge he moved 240,000 men and 50,000 vehicles in a matter of days. No army anywhere has done that, before or since.

**Averageman** · 05-28-20, 16:06

Originally Posted by flenna

General Grant understood that logistics was the key to winning the war. He kept constant pressure on the Confederates while constantly feeding in more men and more supplies at a pace the South could not match. The Confederacy had brilliant generals (heck, General Rommel studied General Nathan B. Forrest’s calvary tactics and applied them to his tank corps) but could not keep up with the North logistically.

I would say a time or two he took some damned thin line risks with logistics in the Western Theater.
More than once had the Confederates decided to cut his supply line rather than meet him in battle or siege, they could have won the day with some cavalry action aka WB Forrest.

**Diamondback** · 05-28-20, 18:31

Originally Posted by flenna

General Grant understood that logistics was the key to winning the war. He kept constant pressure on the Confederates while constantly feeding in more men and more supplies at a pace the South could not match. The Confederacy had brilliant generals (heck, General Rommel studied General Nathan B. Forrest’s calvary tactics and applied them to his tank corps) but could not keep up with the North logistically.

In a way, Grant's embrace of railroads for mobility could be called the first baby step into Mechanized Warfare, just as USS Monitor and her progeny were the first baby step towards modern engine-powered and turret-gunned warships.

**Uni-Vibe** · 05-29-20, 00:42

Originally Posted by Diamondback

In a way, Grant's embrace of railroads for mobility could be called the first baby step into Mechanized Warfare, just as USS Monitor and her progeny were the first baby step towards modern engine-powered and turret-gunned warships.

The US civil war features a number of firsts:

Railroad-mobile soldiers
Instant comms via telegraph
Machine guns, (Gatling)
Wide use of rifles
Anaesthetic
Aerial reconnaissance (manned balloons!)
Iron ships powered by steam
Submarines (not true submersibles, but a start)
Camouflage uniforms

**flenna** · 05-29-20, 06:15

Originally Posted by Uni-Vibe

The US civil war features a number of firsts:

Railroad-mobile soldiers
Instant comms via telegraph
Machine guns, (Gatling)
Wide use of rifles
Anaesthetic
Aerial reconnaissance (manned balloons!)
Iron ships powered by steam
Submarines (not true submersibles, but a start)
Camouflage uniforms

And something very important in the medical field was improved upon and first used on a wide scale during the Civil War: triage.