American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:17 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 935
Location: Tennessee
John Bell Hood

John Bell Hood was a tough, charismatic combat leader, a fierce warrior whose early battlefield successes launched him from lieutenant to general in less than a year. Promoted to independent command, he failed disastrously. His great qualities - courage, command presence, and the ability to inspire deeds of valor - were not sufficient to cover his lack of tactical brilliance and strategic savvy.
The editor who wrote his obituary in Kentucky's Clark County Democrat described him succinctly as "an excellent soldier but such a poor general."

HISTORIANS RATING: ONE AND A HALF STARS



Ouch! Poor Hood. I am always torn with Hood. On one hand he is an exceptional divisional commander whose actions in 1862 were extraordinary. On the other is his stint as the commander of the Army of Tennessee and the tragic end he led it to. Hood's legacy seems to be that of a broken man whose greatest moments came early in the war under the best commanders in the Confederacy. By later in the war his tactics and strategies were outdated and his opponents were more advanced than him. At Gaines Mill in 1862 his brigade smashed through the Union defenses in a frontal attack. It was the highlight of his career in his mind. Was it this he was thinking of in 1864 outside Franklin? Always more questions than answers with Hood. Albert Castel wrote that Hood's plans were not bad and would have succeeded around Atlanta had the Army of Northern Virginia been there instead of the Army of Tennessee. The ANV being better led and having a higher morale. Hood could not adapt to the realities of the AoT and the war in 1864 and so failed.

Always an interesting and tragic figure is Hood.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 935
Location: Tennessee
George Meade

Like a number of other young men of his generation, George Gordon Meade had entered West Point as an alternative to paying for a college education he could not afford. He never intended to make the army his career, and he possessed neither a soldierly appearance nor a soldierly temperament. His command presence was nil, and he was notoriously irritable and famous for fits of anger. Politically inept, he was abrasive, readily giving as well as taking offense. Yet he had a strong sense of duty, placed a high value on loyalty, was fearless in combat, and, at his best, took a methodical approach to war-fighting, from logistics to engagement.

As a subordinate commander, leading a brigade, a division, or a corps, he was aggressive, taking more initiative than most other Union generals. When he ascended to independent command as leader of the Army of the Potomac, however, he fell back on his natural tendency to caution. Calm, steady, competent, a good judge of men, and a leader willing to empower his subordinates, Meade assumed command of the Army of the Potomac from a badly shaken Joseph Hooker, who made no attempt to create a seamless transition of leadership. Three days after he took over, Meade fought the Battle of Gettysburg and managed to wring a critical turning-point victory using entirely defensive tactics. His failure to pursue the defeated Robert E. Lee, however, almost certainly prolonged the war unnecessarily, and his performance after Gettysburg, still as Army of the Potomac commander but very much in the shadow of Ulysses S. Grant, was adequate at best, careless at worst, and generally lackluster.

HISTORIANS RATING: TWO STARS AND A HALF STARS



I'm good with all of that. Ever wonder "what if Grant never goes East?" I don't think Meade could have done it by himself. Maybe Hancock eventually takes over command. Or the politically connected Sickles somehow convinces his powerful friends to get him the appointment. Who knows?

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 935
Location: Tennessee
Jubal Early

"My bad old man," Robert E. Lee called him. He intended it as high praise. Jubal Early had no religious faith, few friends, didn't care whom he offended, fathered four illegitimate children, was often insubordinate, had opposed secession, and cared little for the usual Confederate ideologies, but he refused either to admit or accept defeat, and to his considerable tactical skill, he added a sheer and ornery will to prevail. In the major battles, Early was the defensive stalwart no whom the commanding generals, especially Lee, knew they could rely. By the Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864 and his daring raid to the very doorstep of Washington, he extended the war by six more months or more. After the war, he kept fighting - on paper and in the press, creating and disseminating the powerful mythology of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.

Although he was a remarkable battlefield commander, Early was never entrusted with a large, permanent independent command. He was no strategist, and although he imposed effective discipline on the men of his commands, he inspired no affection, let alone devotion. He was a battle leader, but not a leader for war. There was about him too much of the angry individualist to be a general of the very first rank. In the end, he kept the cause alive, long after it had been lost. Whether in 1864 or during the years following the war, this was an enterprise of dubious value.

HISTORIANS RATING: TWO STARS STARS



I have yet to read a bio on Early but have always felt him an overlooked general in Lee's arsenal. One would imagine him getting a boost from modern scholars if it weren't for his actions post-war. Much like Wade Hampton, he has become very politically incorrect. Nonetheless, I feel he deserves more than two stars. I'd give him 2 1/2 just for his 1864 Campaign alone. But it is true that in all the books I have read where Early is mentioned, nobody really seemed to care much about him. His men seemed to have no loyalty to him like they did to Jackson, Lee, Longstreet or others. That matters.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:42 pm
Posts: 668
Well, it is only lately that General Early is less appreciated. Claims like "he inspired no affection, let alone devotion" seem dubious at best. He was well regarded in his time.

At the unveiling of the Lee Monument in Richmond, Virginia (see first and second columns - https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85038614/1890-05-30/ed-1/seq-2/):
"When general Early was seen to enter the circle the people set up a great yell and the General was met by scores of old officers and privates, who gave him an affectionate greeting and escorted him to the stand ...
When General Early arose the vast audience cheered, old veterans waved their hats and ladies their handkerchiefs. There was great confusion. Everybody wanted to see the General ...".

Other Generals (Johnston, Hampton and Gordon) were also cheered upon arriving at the stand although not to the same degree as Early. General Longstreet received "so great an ovation" that "Colonel Anderson had to stop speaking for fully two minutes."

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:36 pm
Posts: 592
Didn't he smash a plate over someone's head while at West Point or was he the receiver?
That was Armistead, I think. My bad.

_________________
Colonel Jason "Skeedaddle" Campbell
The Mahoning 4th Brigade
3rd Division
2nd Corp

AoT
"Let's fill up our canteens, boys. Some of us will be in hell before nightfall and we'll need the water"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2022 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 935
Location: Tennessee
Phil Sheridan

In an era and a war in which it was common for me, Union and Confederate, to be commissioned as general officers based on their political connections, Philip Henry Sheridan rose to the top command strictly on his merits as a warrior and leader of warriors. Trained as an infantry officer, he ended up reinventing the Union cavalry, raising it to a level that challenged the vaunted Confederate cavalry while also radically revising its mission from reconnaissance, screening, and guarding trains and rear areas to more strategic attack roles, especially as shock troops directed against the enemy army and civilian populations. In this redesign of the cavalry mission, he had mixed success, especially in Grant's Overland Campaign, in which his neglect of the traditional cavalry functions almost certainly deprived Grant and Army of the Potomac commander George G. Meade of vital battlefield intelligence when it was most needed. On the other hand, his use of mixed cavalry and infantry in the Shenandoah Campaign introduced scorched-earth "total warfare" tactics that presaged William T. Sherman's more famous "March to the Sea" and proved both cruel and effective. He would reprise these, most controversially, in his postwar assignment as chief architect of the Indian Wars in the West.

Despite the mixed results of his approach to cavalry and the moral ambiguity (in the Indian Wars verging on genocide) of his policy of waging war on civilians, it cannot be denied that Sheridan was a superb leader of troops, a fine tactician, and an aggressive fighter, who was especially effective in forcing Lee to surrender his Army of Northern Virginia in the closing weeks of the Civil War.

HISTORIANS RATING: THREE STARS



The rating works for me. It has been 15 years since my last bio on Sheridan so I am a bit rusty on his life and times. But as a general I believe he was an excellent leader and surely got the job done once he was given free reign. Pitting the 1864 version of Sheridan against the 1862 version of Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley would be most amusing. If there is an afterlife where all these generals are wargaming against one another, I'd pull up a seat and watch those two battle it out.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2022 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 935
Location: Tennessee
FYI -

The book I have been using is

Axelrod, Alan. Generals North, Generals South: The Commanders of the Civil War Reconsidered.
Guilford, Connecticut: Lyons Press, 2011.

I believe I got this book from the American Battlefield Trust for one of their promotions. Can't recall.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2024 8:38 pm
Posts: 15
Location: Goldsboro North Carolina
I was disappointed Sterling Price wasn't Mentioned

_________________
Field LT R.T Coyne
7th Brigade 4th Division
1st Corp Army of N.Virgina


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 7:20 pm
Posts: 221
Location: USA
Why AS Johnston and Bragg, but not Buell and Rosecrans? Johnston basically just fought one battle.

_________________
MG Robert Frost


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2024 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 935
Location: Tennessee
I know the author had to draw the line somewhere or it would stop being a "quick" read coffee table book. The one I don't get is John Hunt Morgan. He's simply not in the same category as the others as far as name recognition, importance, and command responsibilities.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 102 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group