Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

33821RE: [civilwarwest] partially OT - Army of the West vs. Army of the East

Expand Messages
  • Harry Smeltzer
    Sep 5, 2005

      By the time Grant came east, I don’t think the AotP felt in anyway inferior to the rebel army, apologies to Michael Adams.  I think the rank and file did feel that they were “on their own” against their enemy, and that they were not getting support form the powers that be.


      I think Rhea was a little too easy on Grant’s failures during the Wilderness Campaign (though he did stick his neck out and say that the AotP and 9th Corps lacked the firm, guiding hand necessary to defeat Lee OWTTE), but he is a little tougher on HUG in the Spotsy book.  But that’s OT, and MO.


      In addition to a different opponent, different and less favorable topography, and unfamiliar subordinates, Grant necessarily had to adjust for the concerns part and parcel to operating in such proximity to Washington and the administration.




      -----Original Message-----
      From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Gower
      Monday, September 05, 2005 3:55 PM
      To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [civilwarwest] partially OT - Army of the West vs. Army of the East


      I am reading “The Battles for Spotsylvania Court House and The Road to Yellow Tavern” by Gordon Rhea.  In the intro, he talks about Grant having to adjust his tactics somewhat to fit the style of the AOP.  I can see one big difference between the armies in the west vs. the east, the armies in the west were psychologically used to winning and did not feel inferior to the Rebel army.  How else was the army of the west different from the army in the east?  Certainly history of leadership was a big factor.  What else?





    • Show all 23 messages in this topic