 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 23rd, 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
Grant was fond of siege warfare apparently.
And why not if he could pull it off? It’s a generally low-cost way to reduce an enemy army. Time and again Grant skillfully maneuvered his enemies into such untenable positions…Lee understood the danger (“We must destroy this Army of Grant's before he gets to the James River. If he gets there it will become a siege and then it will be a mere question of time"), yet couldn’t avoid that fate.
In any case, don’t you think it’s a bit disingenuous to lump siege warfare in with other forms of attritional strategies? I submit that it’s not what people generally mean when they argue that Grant defeated the Confederacy by resorting to a war of attrition.