Introduction
Civil War was won through strategy and tactics as well as the use of military technology. However, there were differences in all of those aspects within the Union army. This makes it paramount to review the approaches to the war of two major war generals such as Gant and McClellan and comment on the use of technology on and off the battlefield.
General Grant’s Approach
Grant mostly acted aggressively, yet showed tactical thought as needed. Grant knew he had an advantage over Lee’s number of troops and his aggression was partly justified by that. He simply used this to his advantage. In addition, Gant understood the significance of total, all-year-round war. He pressed his advantage, knowing that casualties at all times are capable of breaking the will of the opponent setting the tempo he wanted. It was all strategic decisions that lead to his conquering the west against a poorly-equipped, fed, and clothed opponent. Given the above, Grant can be regarded as more of a strategist than a tactician. Yet, before battle, he always put his troops in advantaged positions. The Potomac battle was an example of his tactical knowledge. Confidence and control over fear were the character traits that assisted him in leading the troops in battle knowing that the Confederate morale is likely to crumble.
General McClellan’s Approach
Another talented person, whose actions led the Union to victory, is George B. McClellan. The general was also a strategist who understood the meaning of initiative and morale. These two notions became his primary drive for the whole Virginia campaign. Despite certain mismanagement in the higher ranks and Lincoln’s interference, McClellan continued in accordance with his long-nurtured plan. He was certain that well-planned and organized multi-operational attacks in quick succession are able to break down the opponent. However, McClellan’s plans also included the protection of civilians and property of the occupied lands, which contradicted his initial plan. Unfortunately, such misunderstanding of the realities of war in addition to constant political setbacks became the major threats to the success of the general. His successive strike strategy failed, as it required more forces and tactical advantage that McClellan was unable to get. According to Safire, McClelland’s failures in Virginia were caused by his approach that was rooted in his desire not to lose instead of winning.
Technology off the Battlefield
Railroads served as a primary factor that increased the mobility of troops in the battle. Relocation in a matter of days became possible and both sides made use of that. The invention of canned food also significantly contributed to changing warfare. Thanks to that, soldiers had a chance to have a more elaborated and ‘durable’ menu.
Technology on the Battlefield
One of the most significant achievements that changed warfare became the new grooved rifles instead of muskets both sides used during the beginning years. The advancement increased the length and accuracy of a common shot. It increased the predictability of the result and pronounced an additional need for good positioning and tactics. Telegraph increased the speed of communications, which also made warfare more elaborate, fast, and strategy-dependent.
Conclusion
Civil War revolutionized modern warfare and once again showed the meaning of strategy. Talent and skill, as always, remained the main force that leads to victory. Nevertheless, technological advancements also made warfare different and both sides utilized it in and off the battle.
Bibliography
Safire, William. “ESSAY; McClellan’s Way.” The New York Times. 2018. Web.
Donald, David Herbert. Why the North Won the Civil War. New York: Pickle Partners Publishing, 2015.