4 ms·
Grant was probably a better strategist (or at least he understood his advantages and how to make use of them), but I've never seen it seriously suggested that h
by megaman22 8y ago
Grant was probably a better strategist (or at least he understood his advantages and how to make use of them), but I've never seen it seriously suggested that he was a brilliant tactician. Relentless might be the best description of Grant. There's very little brilliance in the Overland Campaign of 1864; the primary thing that set Grant apart was that he continued pressing on after being bloodied, rather than scurrying back to Washington, feeding men into the meat grinder knowing that he could trade bodies for far longer than Lee could.
- baron_x 8y agoI agree with the north's advantage being in numbers and resources, but I think it's more complicated than him trying to batter down Lee with it. This image of Grant throwing lives away needlessly comes from the Overland campaign in the war, and it was a complex situation with both of them probing for advantage and Grant eventually pushing him into a siege. Lee lost initiative and wasn't able to recover from that. Sherman, another Union General was able to go into the deep south after that and destroy the south's ability to fight leading to a surrender. I think strategically, he was able to out-perform Lee which no other Union general was able to do in the civil war, which was pretty different from how wars were fought up until that point. Comments on this post lays it out in much more detail. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1uabom/grant_is_often_contrasted_against_lee_as_being/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1uabom/grant...