| American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC) http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/ |
|
| Rating the Generals: Part 24 of 24 (Phil Sheridan) http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=22843 |
Page 8 of 8 |
| Author: | Blake [ Wed Apr 13, 2022 12:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 21 of 24 (John Bell Hood) |
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 By later in the war his tactics and strategies were outdated and his opponents were more advanced than him.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. |
|
| Author: | Blake [ Fri Apr 15, 2022 2:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 22 of 24 (George Meade) |
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? |
|
| Author: | Blake [ Tue Apr 19, 2022 3:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 23 of 24 (Jubal Early) |
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. |
|
| Author: | Quaama [ Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 23 of 24 (Jubal Early) |
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." |
|
| Author: | warhorse123 [ Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 23 of 24 (Jubal Early) |
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. |
|
| Author: | Blake [ Sat Apr 23, 2022 4:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 24 of 24 (Phil Sheridan) |
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. |
|
| Author: | Blake [ Sat Apr 23, 2022 5:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 24 of 24 (Phil Sheridan) |
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. |
|
| Author: | Richard Coyne [ Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 24 of 24 (Phil Sheridan) |
I was disappointed Sterling Price wasn't Mentioned |
|
| Author: | Robert Frost [ Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 24 of 24 (Phil Sheridan) |
Why AS Johnston and Bragg, but not Buell and Rosecrans? Johnston basically just fought one battle. |
|
| Author: | Blake [ Mon Feb 05, 2024 8:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 24 of 24 (Phil Sheridan) |
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. |
|
| Page 8 of 8 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|