Thread: Was William T. Sherman an average at best battlefield commander?

Agreed 100 percent. The targeted killing of civilians under Sherman was never tolerated in the ranks, and rarely happened. I have seen a few revisionists make similar claims, with no solid evidence of course. If anything, those employed by the rebel armies such as Forrest and Quantrill, freely used mass murder that made Sherman look like Mickey Mouse. Stewart must be one of those "lost cause" comedians.

Lee's Pennsylvania campaign (resulting in Gettysburg) would have been successful had he actually done what he set out to do. But due to many circumstances (including his own ego), he lost the campaign. Had he listened to Longstreet, and had moved to higher ground and taken an entrenched defensive stance, he would have won the war. Longstreet, had he been in command, would have done this.

Good post and great linkage to the "dropping A-bombs on Hiroshima" thread. It is also worth noting that Jeff Davis and other Southern leaders had encouraged the people in Georgia and such to adopt scorched earth policies to slow Sherman's advance, so they can hardly complain about scorched earth.

Betty I am also a vet (only 6 years and one war '91) and I can say seeing the battlefield from the cupola of a tank (as I did) and from the command post are really two different animals as well. I, like you, don't care much for Monday morning quarterbacking by amateurs and historians, but there is something to be learned. Everything could have been done better. In the chaos of battle, such is always the case. It is rather like...

Smallchief I think this is an interesting thread. I do disagree with this: "Generals go down in history for bold and spectacular victories -- which are often worthless in deciding a war." Alexander: Gaugamela, decisive victory of the Macedonians caused an immediate collapse of the Persian Empire; Caesar: Pharsulus, destroys the Army of Pompey ending the Civil War Any of a dozen battles fought by Gehngis Khan, Subotai, or...

Curtis Allred- You make alot of good points but I think that if the south had had a Lee, Jackson or a Longstreet in the western theater things would have gone alot better for them. Lee took risks because he had too- southern victories were needed politically for the purpose of foreign recognition- that was the purpose of what became the Antiteam campaign. The campaign that became the Gettysburg campaign was really more of a raid than an...

Thank you for your service! 20plus Marine Corps Infantry veteran myself. Kinda ashamed of myself for posting such a rude comment as I did - but there are many out there who judge the conduct of battle solely on what they read and have no real life experience to factor in to their opinions on the actions of those who have "seen the elephant". My apologies to any I may have offended but just the same please remember that...

I agree..Sometimes the best commanders are the ones who get the job done. No fancy tactics or great heroics...Just what are known in hockey slang as the "Grinders", the guys who get into the corners and do what is needed as that moment..

Thank you John M. Lane, your reply is what I am looking for, an honest opinion from someone else concerning my question.

DMB, Please cite the sources for your claim that there was "slaughter of civilians". The destruction primarily involved government and military buildings and installations. As J. Henderson points out, if Southern forces resisted, and were assisted by local civilians, their houses went up too. Methinks you don't know what you're talking about.