Posted on Sep 7, 2017
Interview with Ian C. Hope: West Point and the War
1.41K
17
6
7
7
0
This is an interesting interview with a Canadian military officer and historian. He has some interesting views on Sherman and Grant as well as military science.
Interview with Ian C. Hope: West Point and the War
Posted from historynet.com
Military History
American History
Civil War
USMA
Logistics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
West Point's revolutionary study of war greatly influenced the international growth of American power into WWI. While Europe spent decades catching up, Americans did not rest and continued to explore the science of conflict. One of the reasons, our Constitutional Republic is the oldest government.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Thanks for sharing SGT (Join to see)
As a USMA, West Point graduate and somebody who has been interested in history for over 50 years I am not going to comment any further, my friend.
As a USMA, West Point graduate and somebody who has been interested in history for over 50 years I am not going to comment any further, my friend.
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
SGT (Join to see) - it is an overview which is correct on some points and misses it on others.
1. "But Grant’s Overland Campaign demonstrates this best. Grant in Virginia did what Sherman could not in Georgia: switch bases of operation and swivel around the enemy’s flank with great dexterity." This is wrong. The Petersburg Campaign drug on for a long time. Grant and Lee jockeyed for advantage and each held an advantage for a time. The Federal force had advantage of sheer numbers while Confederacy had interior lines of communications.
2. 'The clear influence of doctrine and training of officers was not un-covered before. Too many histories are written using the assumption that performance on the battlefield or in command or armies, was based strictly on innate powers of genius and character." This is sheer hubris from a Canadian historian. I have read a number of historical military histories of the Civil War and many talk about doctrine and training in addition to lessons learned in the Seminole Indian wars, the war with Mexico and the Plains Indians wars.
This was part of the challenge of the Civil War with West Pint classmates who trained and fought alongside each other fro so long suddenly being elevated to flag officer and fighting against each other.
1. "But Grant’s Overland Campaign demonstrates this best. Grant in Virginia did what Sherman could not in Georgia: switch bases of operation and swivel around the enemy’s flank with great dexterity." This is wrong. The Petersburg Campaign drug on for a long time. Grant and Lee jockeyed for advantage and each held an advantage for a time. The Federal force had advantage of sheer numbers while Confederacy had interior lines of communications.
2. 'The clear influence of doctrine and training of officers was not un-covered before. Too many histories are written using the assumption that performance on the battlefield or in command or armies, was based strictly on innate powers of genius and character." This is sheer hubris from a Canadian historian. I have read a number of historical military histories of the Civil War and many talk about doctrine and training in addition to lessons learned in the Seminole Indian wars, the war with Mexico and the Plains Indians wars.
This was part of the challenge of the Civil War with West Pint classmates who trained and fought alongside each other fro so long suddenly being elevated to flag officer and fighting against each other.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google