- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
A modest and unassuming man, Grant never lost a battle, leading the Union to victory over the Confederacy during the Civil War, ultimately becoming President of the reunited states. Grant revolutionized military warfare by creating new leadership tactics by integrating new technologies in classical military strategy. In this compelling biography, Mosier reveals the man behind the military legend, showing how Grant's creativity and genius off the battlefield shaped him into one of our nation's greatest ...
A modest and unassuming man, Grant never lost a battle, leading the Union to victory over the Confederacy during the Civil War, ultimately becoming President of the reunited states. Grant revolutionized military warfare by creating new leadership tactics by integrating new technologies in classical military strategy. In this compelling biography, Mosier reveals the man behind the military legend, showing how Grant's creativity and genius off the battlefield shaped him into one of our nation's greatest military leaders.
"Concise and informative . . . Mosier does an excellent job explaining Grant's genius for the art of war. . . . [A] Lucid, enlightening picture of the general and what made him truly unique."—Military Review
"A solid description of the most effective Union general. Grant has been consistently underestimated and Mosier helps correct that."—Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the US House of Representatives and author of Gettysburg and Grant Comes East
"Mosier has written the best appraisal of Grant's generalship ever to appear. Synthesizing and occasionally rebutting the estimates made by various experts—military historians, biographers, and prominent military men—Mosier has gone farther than anyone in proclaiming Grant to have been a military genius, one who in a number of ways surpassed both Napoleon and Wellington. This is a bold thesis, but Mosier is fully persuasive on point after point, smoothly and effectively placing Grant into perspective not only in terms of the Civil War and American military history, tradition, and doctrine, but also in favorable comparison with the greatest European generals of the past three centuries."—Charles Bracelen Flood, author of Grant and Sherman: The Friendship that Won the Civil War and Lee: The Last Years
Grant's Life and Military Career before 1861
• The Early Battles: Belmont, Forts Henry and Donelson, Shiloh
• The Vicksburg Campaign
• The Battle of Chattanooga
• Grant as Commander in Chief
• The Destruction of the Confederacy: Spottsylvania to Cold Harbor
• The Destruction of the Confederacy: Petersburg to Appomattox
• Grant as Strategist
• Grant and Lee
• Grant, the Underappreciated President
Posted July 30, 2006
The author, John Mosier, has apparently set out to deify Ulysses Grant. Not satisfied with the simple facts of Grant's successes, he makes up new ones to inflate the man's already outstanding career. One example is the battle of Belmont, in November of 1861. Mosier states Grant's forces as '..about 12,000 men: five regiments of infantry, a battery of artillery, and a troop of cavalry...' In the 'Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant' the forces are '..a littler over 3,000 men and embraced five regiments of infantry, two guns and two companies of cavalry.' The author proceeds to describe the battle,saying that 'The North needed something it could call a victory, and the Belmont raid provided it.' Yet Grant in his memoirs states 'Belmont was severely criticised in the North as a wholly unnecessary battle, barren of results, or the possibility of them from the beginning.' Again, describing the Battle of the Crater during the siege of Petersburg, he states that 'Grant himself had to wade into the melee and order the assault called off.' This was an eye- opener for me, and a fact apparently overlooked by such authors as Bruce Catton and Shelby Foote. The author also indulges in extraneous and often irrelevant comparisons to battles after the Civil War. In this case, 'The aftermath of the Petersburg mine explosion should have warned the generals of the First World War why mine warfare was unworkable.' I think any serious student of both the Civil War and the First World War will find the comparison to be erroneous. A great deal of the book is spent, as I noted, in making comparisons to post- Civil War battles and many other commanders. It breaks the flow of the narrative, and would only be confusing to a layman wanting to find out about Grant. It's as if the author wants to underscore his knowledge and authority on the subject by name- dropping as often as possible ( see, I know what I'm talking about because I can bring up the raid on Dieppe and Gallipoli! ). The examples I have given do not cover the depth to which page after page is filled with these comparisons, distortions, and misrepresentations of the facts, all towards trying to over- inflate the already exciting and successful story of U. S. Grant. A knowledgeable person might read it as a bad example of military history and biography. Those not knowledgeable should avoid it like the plague, and seek a better source for their facts and enjoyment.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted January 31, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
Posted October 23, 2010
No text was provided for this review.