|View single post by JoanieReb|
|Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 04:34 am||
|"five months after Cold Harbor, Hood loses 6,300 men in a frontal assault at Franklin. Guess he must have skipped class the day that the Cold Harbor lesson was being taught."
Hood was a special case, I think; horribly injured and mutilated, he was heavily reliant on opiates and, by some accounts, alcohal, which simply HAD to have impaired his ability to learn and act reasonably - it's a discussion we've had before, I think. He also seemed to have been emotionally-driven at the time.
One thing that is bothering me, in going through this thread (I'm not speaking of this particular post, mind you, but several other ones), is that numerous defenses of Grant depend upon comparisons: so-and-so lost so many here; this army lost so many over such a period of time, 7000 was a drop in the bucket....
I'm all for the big picture, but is it so hard to defend Grant's actions just looking at this single battle? Certainly, the type of warfare needs to be considered. But the whole thing about making Grant seem less culpable based on how many men were killed over a three-month period, or who else screwed up where - well, those points have been made.
I think you, Pvt. Clewell, put forth an excellent defense in the arguments I sited earlier.
"As a friend PM'd to remind me, this was Napoleanic warfare fought with technologicalladvanced weapons. It was a hard lesson for all to learn."
A good thing to always remember. I believe Antietum was the poster-child for this argument. And I am going to start a new thread about that.