Help support TMP

"General Grant - master strategist, or simply used all the" Topic

9 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board

Areas of Interest

American Civil War

Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Ruleset

Featured Showcase Article

1:72nd IMEX Union Soldiers

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian prepares to do some regimental-level ACW gaming.

Featured Workbench Article

1:600 Scale Masts from Bay Area Yards

Hate having to scratchbuild your own masts? Not any more...

Featured Profile Article

Battle Cry in Miniature

A Civil War boardgame is adapted to miniature wargaming.

Current Poll

426 hits since 31 Jul 2020
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP31 Jul 2020 10:25 p.m. PST

…advantages in his favour?.

"I quite admire Grant and I've heard a lot of people say he was a brilliant commander, but I'm yet to begin any extensive research on him so I can't qualify this for myself*. His Vicksburg campaign was certainly quite masterful, but I have heard some people argue that the only difference between him and his predecessors was that he wasn't afraid to use the North's vast advantages in resources and manpower, and had no need of any complex strategy because of these. What do you think of Grant's ability as a strategist and tactician?"

From here


RudyNelson31 Jul 2020 10:47 p.m. PST

He was a trained Quartermaster specialist. So that would help him on the campaign end of campaign planning.
His willingness to spend life's to achieve his objectives was an advantage.

HMS Exeter01 Aug 2020 5:56 a.m. PST

A) Master Strategist
B) Commander who capitalizes on his advantages.

Any "A" who doesn't make a priority of being a "B" won't turn out to be much of an "A" in the end.

USAFpilot01 Aug 2020 7:34 a.m. PST

Grant was very pragmatic; he even kept his uniform simple. His understanding of warfare went beyond the operational level; he was a strategic thinker. He knew that in order to defeat Lee, you had to not just attack his army, but hold onto it and not allow Lee to slip away. Better to sacrifice ten thousand men today, then let the war continue on for another year which would have meant even more casualties.

donlowry01 Aug 2020 8:35 a.m. PST

He was A and B and also C: not afraid to take chances.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP01 Aug 2020 11:40 a.m. PST



Personal logo gamertom Supporting Member of TMP01 Aug 2020 5:50 p.m. PST

He also gets an "A" for persistence to achieve his goals. If you look at all the ways he tried to get at Vicksburg and failed, it becomes more evident that the way he finally succeeded was one of the few options left to try. The 100 Days Campaign in 1864 also exemplifies this trait. It is fortunate for the Union that his other abilities plus the means available to him meant his persistence was not wasted.

Personal logo jdginaz Supporting Member of TMP02 Aug 2020 10:55 a.m. PST

He also understood the difference between a setback and a defeat.

Legionarius02 Aug 2020 4:34 p.m. PST

He may not have been the most brilliant tactician in the war, but he certainly was the master strategist. Lincoln had it right when he said of Grant "He fights!" He picked good subordinates and gave clear orders, he went for the enemy's center of gravity and never let go. He was also quite matter of fact and modest as well as courageous in a low key way. John Keegan has an excellent chapter on Grant's "generalship" in the book The Mask of Command. His memoirs, written when he was dying from throat cancer, are an American literary and historical classic. In short, Grant was a great general despite the vituperation he has received from certain quarters.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.