I agree. JEB Stuart was a fine cavalryman. You don't get a light tank named after you for no reason.
| 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 7 of 8 |
| Author: | M. Johnson [ Sun Mar 27, 2022 8:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 16 of 24 (Joe Hooker) |
I think Hooker lost the battle. His plan worked perfectly until he started to second guess himself. Once he lost faith in Joe Hooker it was over. |
|
| Author: | Blake [ Mon Mar 28, 2022 2:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 17 of 24 (Jeb Stuart) |
Jeb Stuart Jeb Stuart was an exuberant warrior and a great cavalrymen, whose magnificent exploits did much to promote the development of the cavalry's preeminence among the service branches of the Confederate army. He elevated the cavalry raid to the status of an art, and, at his best, he carried out the more traditional cavalry functions of reconnaissance and force screening more effectively than any other cavalry commander on either side. But the key phrase is at his best. Image and self-image were important to Stuart - not just personally, but as the cornerstones of his charisma and command presence - and these sometimes got in the way of his mission objectives. At Gettysburg, this had the catastrophic effect of depriving Lee of critical reconnaissance and intelligence when they were needed most. Part of the blame belongs to Lee, who wrote Stuart's orders very poorly; however, Stuart showed poor tactical and strategic judgement at the time of Gettysburg and contributed to the defeat of the Army of Northern Virginia and, ultimately, the demise of the Confederacy. HISTORIANS RATING: TWO AND A HALF STARS Whoa whoa whoa! Two and a half stars?? I think not. Stuart, the author admits, is the finest traditional cavalry commander of the war. His abilities to screen the army, raid behind enemy lines, protect lines of supply and communication, were second to none. His greatest failing was at Gettysburg and that has crushed his legacy in many ways. But Stuart deserves far more credit than he is given here. Both Lee and Jackson appreciated all of Stuart's abilities and his loss in 1864 was felt just as keenly as Jackson's the year before. My own rating says 3 stars. |
|
| Author: | Tex McSwain [ Tue Mar 29, 2022 9:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 17 of 24 (Jeb Stuart) |
I agree. JEB Stuart was a fine cavalryman. You don't get a light tank named after you for no reason.
|
|
| Author: | prax [ Wed Mar 30, 2022 4:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 17 of 24 (Jeb Stuart) |
|
|
| Author: | Scott Ludwig [ Wed Mar 30, 2022 6:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 17 of 24 (Jeb Stuart) |
Yeah, I agree..... |
|
| Author: | Blake [ Thu Mar 31, 2022 12:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 18 of 24 (George Thomas) |
George Thomas In an era of glory seekers, George H. Thomas put steadfast devotion to duty, perseverance, methodical professionalism, courage, and loyalty above all else. His Virginia birth cost him the rapid promotion to independent command he deserved even as his absolute devotion to the Union cost him his relationship with his Southern family. Deliberate in manner, partly by his nature and partly because of a back injury sustained before the war, his West Point cavalry students nicknamed him "Slow Trot Thomas," which underscored his methodical approach to combat. This was sometimes confused with uncertainty and delay, even by superiors, such as U.S. Grant, who should have known better. Possessed of a solid tactical and strategic grasp, he was sure and determined in both attack and defense. Unflappable and fearless, his refusal to yield at Chickamauga saved the Union army from disaster there and earned him a far more laudatory sobriquet: the "Rock of Chickamauga." Ezra J. Warner, long deemed an authority on Civil War biography, judged his combat performance unsurpassed "by any subordinate commander in this nation's history." HISTORIANS RATING: THREE STARS I agree. I only wish he would have joined our side in 1861. Pairing him up with the likes of Lee, Johnston, or Beauregard, could only have aided those generals in the early days of the war. |
|
| Author: | M. Johnson [ Thu Mar 31, 2022 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 18 of 24 (George Thomas) |
Thomas was a good general whose legacy was dimmed by never writing any memoirs and dying so soon after the war. HIs wife also burned his correspondence which has robbed us all of knowing more about his personal life and thoughts. |
|
| Author: | Scott Ludwig [ Sun Apr 03, 2022 6:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 18 of 24 (George Thomas) |
Thomas is one of my favorites! He really was a solid commander. Like you said Mitch, died too soon after the war and didn't leave a memoir. He's one of two Union commanders I wish had left a memoir, the other is Henry Hunt, though his papers survive. You do have to wonder though, especially in Thomas' case, would he have even written one?!? I guess only begrudgingly and I'm sure as a way to respond to Schofield. |
|
| Author: | Blake [ Tue Apr 05, 2022 4:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 19 of 24 (James Longstreet) |
James Longstreet James Longstreet, widely considered the finest corps commander on either side of the Civil War, may also fairly be judged one of the war's most profound and perceptive strategic and tactical thinkers. In sharp contrast with the resolutely aggressive and offensively oriented Robert E. Lee, whose chief lieutenant he was, Longstreet advocated what he called "tactical defense," a policy of enticing the enemy to attack one's own strongly defended positions. This approach was based largely on Longstreet's understanding of the nature of the weapons technology of the era, which enable long arms and cannon to be fired continually and in mass, a circumstance (Longstreet understood) that invariably favored the defender. The downside of Longstreet's allegiance to "tactical defense" was inflexibility when it came to accommodating offensively oriented plans and orders with which he disagreed. His response was sometimes passive-aggressive and sometimes more frankly defiant. In either case, the result was damaging to outcomes. For this reason, he must be rated in the upper middle rather than the top rank of the conflict's commanders. HISTORIANS RATING: TWO AND A HALF STARS Longstreet is overrated here. Maybe I am a bit harsh but I just don't see Longstreet as a "great" general. Good.... yeah, I guess. In sports you think of "Wins above Replacement" for players. If you took Player X and replaced him with Player Y, would you be more or less successful? I look at Longstreet's battles and struggle to identify a single battle where his replacement wouldn't have equaled his performance at the very least. His most impactful moment was likely at Second Manassas where it took a number of critical Union blunders and intrigues to allow Longstreet to attack an unprotected flank and finish off the army Jackson had already wounded. If you substitute Early, Anderson, or Hood, for Longstreet in any of the campaigns... does it really matter? Longstreet was not a critical component of success for the ANV at Antietam or Fredericksburg. He missed Chancellorsville. He returned for Gettysburg and we know how that went. He then was sent west and happened to be at the right place at the right time (again) when a Union division was removed from the defensive line just as Longstreet attacked the gap left in their wake. He then made such a nuisance of himself that he was sent to Knoxville (of all places) and failed to successfully dislodge Burnside's forces from the city - accomplishing nothing. He returned to Virginia in time to be wounded almost immediately in the Wilderness. He'd then miss most of the army's remaining battle before returning for the final campaign to Appomattox. If Lee is the "Tom Brady" of the Civil War, and Jackson the "Gronkowski" than Longstreet is... who? Just one of those guys who helps out by catching the ball when he can but whose presence isn't really critical. If he goes down (and Longstreet was missing from numerous battles and for long stretches) then you just plug in another guy and rely on the GOAT to win it all with another guy. |
|
| Author: | Tex McSwain [ Tue Apr 05, 2022 5:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 19 of 24 (James Longstreet) |
Epic rant. I give you the points for bringing up Brady and Gronk and tying them into Lee and Jackson. I want to argue with you but find myself unable to as I am still chuckling to myself. You win. |
|
| Author: | Adam Brookes [ Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 19 of 24 (James Longstreet) |
Interesting take on the Warhorse. I'd have to read more about him to really weigh in more but I am inclined to agree he was overrated. |
|
| Author: | William Treuting [ Fri Apr 08, 2022 3:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 19 of 24 (James Longstreet) |
I'd have to disagree with this take on Longstreet. His actions saved the Army of Northern division several times. At Antietam, he helped stabilize the center after the Confederates were pushed back from the Sunken Road. At the Wilderness, he launched one of the most aggressive assaults of his career and prevented the total collapse of Lee's army. He was ahead of his times in various ways. His decision to array his forces in depth at Chickamauga would be used to great effect by other armies, for instance by Emory Upton at Spotsylvania. It is true that a lucky gap emerged in the Union lines at Chickamauga, but the formation of his troops allowed it to be exploited to the fullest extent. Furthermore, he would ultimately prove correct in his assessment that the future of warfare would strongly favor the defenders, and Lee would replicate this formula repeatedly in the later years of the war. He was not perfect by any means. As for Gettysburg, his actions were debatable but I believe this battle to be a collective failure from Lee and all of the Army of Northern Va's corps commanders. The Knoxville Campaign was executed poorly, but yet it was logistically unsupported and Bragg should carry some of the blame--the campaign should never had occurred. If you have Amazon Prime, watch episode 12 of Unknown Civil War where a series of historians debate the faults and merits of CSA officers. In comparing Civil War officers, Longstreet was certainly more tactically proficient than Stonewall Jackson and if the latter was rated a 4 I think Longstreet deserves better than 2.5. Also check out Jeffry Wert's book on Longstreet. I'm waiting to find a cheap copy of Harold M. Knudsen's biography to see a more modern take. |
|
| Author: | Quaama [ Fri Apr 08, 2022 3:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 19 of 24 (James Longstreet) |
I also like Longstreet, always have. For this rating system to only give him 2.5 starts while a boob like Burnside gets 2 doesn't make any sense to me. I doubt that General Lee would have retained Longstreet in high position had he not had faith in his capabilities. From a recent paper (https://www.americancivilwar.asn.au/meet/2001_02_mtg_longstreet.pdf) that came to my attention: "In contrast to other officers whose performance did not improve over the period of the War, Longstreet learned from his initial mistakes. The Longstreet who commanded at Chickamauga (1863) and the Wilderness (1864) was much better than was the Longstreet at Seven Pines in 1862. By 1864, Longstreet was the outstanding corps commander of the Confederacy and certainly as good as any of the corps commanders on the Union side." I also recommend Longstreet's own book, From Manassas to Appomattox (https://gutenberg.org/files/38418/38418-h/38418-h.htm). Lots of interesting information and an amusing description of some long range artillery shots which I've posted before in the Book Forum (one involving D H Hill and another regarding a rather unfortunate US Topographical Engineer). |
|
| Author: | Blake [ Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 20 of 24 (W. S. Hancock) |
Winfield Scott Hancock In his Personal Memoirs of 1885, Ulysses S. Grant gave what may be the most comprehensive concise evaluation of Winfield Scott Hancock. He stands, Grant wrote, as "the most conspicuous figure of all the general officers who did not exercise a separate [that is, army-level] command. He commanded a corps longer than any other one, and his name was never mentioned as having committed in battle a blunder for which he was responsible. He was a man of very conspicuous personal appearance.... His genial disposition made him friends, and his personal courage and his presence with his command in the thickest of the fight won for him the confidence of troops serving under him. No matter how hard the fight, the 2d corps always felt that their commander was looking after them." Hancock always fought under the command of others, and no field officer was more universally admired than he, who emerged from the Civil War as perhaps the model soldier-general. He is deservedly most celebrated for the leading role he took at Gettysburg, where his command decisions and personal presence on days one and two made Union victory possible, and his sacrifices on day three ensured the defeat of Lee. HISTORIANS RATING: THREE STARS I've never read a bio on Hancock but everything above seems true enough. The only knocks I can recall reading against Hancock were during the Wilderness Campaign. But his corps took such horrific losses that anyone would have struggled to keep it moving and fighting day after day. |
|
| Author: | Scott Ludwig [ Sun Apr 10, 2022 12:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rating the Generals: Part 20 of 24 (W. S. Hancock) |
Without a doubt one of the most reliable and well liked seemed to be the case too! Some missed opportunities for sure, but every general has them. Overall though the rating is solid! |
|
| Page 7 of 8 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|