dh76513
Posts: 131
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tevans6220
I do think one thing you guys are forgetting is that some leaders were not very good at handling armies but may have been excellent corps or division commanders. Hood is a very good example. At brigade or division command he was a very good leader but as commander of the Army of Tennessee he left a lot to be desired.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Oldguard
…..I'd add Jubal Early to that list. A good brigade and division commander, but less effective at Corps level.
quote:
ORIGINAL: RERomine
Hood was a much better divisional commander than he was leading the army around Atlanta. The same could be said for a lot of generals.
Gentlemen,
Level of command (e.g., brigade, division, corps, army) is not necessarily representative of a general officer’s tactics or strategic genius success as much as it is their political ties. As such and in all fairness, I do not think one can rightfully judge the tactical skills and battlefield abilities of a commander because of his functioning at different levels or after they are promoted.
Remember the higher the rank, the more political involvement in the position. For the most part, if commanders are “great” at the brigade and division level they are “great” at the corps and army levels. A general officer does not lose his tactical skills or forget his battlefield capabilities or knowledge following a promotion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: RERomine
I was intrigued by some of the generals listed as potential zeros. Personally, I would reserve a '0' rating for generals who were never successful at any point. Burnside and McClellan certainly had moments of success.
I was one of those who brought intrigue in your life as I gave Burnside and McClellan both zeros. However, I would like to point out that of 1008 general officers of the Civil War, I only rated seven at the zero level. As for my reasoning to include these two on my list, look at their record of “blunders” and these certainly outweigh their greatest successes. For McClellan, I will quote historian Brian C. Pohanka:
With Sherman’s overestimations of the South’s abilities and McClellan’s reluctance to confront the enemy, the Civil War would continue with a far greater cost of men, economic devastation, and social havoc.
Sherman’s successes greatly outweighed his mistakes. And as for McClellan, I stated in another post:
quote:
ORIGINAL: dh76513
George Brinton McClellan (USA) – The master of over-estimation and slow movement, he constantly proclaimed himself the Savior of the Union, yet seemed unwilling to fight. At Antietam, he had the opponent's game plan and still could not win. Tommy Franks [speaking to U.S. soldiers], “I will avoid the McClellan strategy of sit and wait here and will employ those tactics of Cleburne repulsing the enemy from the heart of Iraq [Baghdad].
And for Burnside the blunders were far more serious costing sending many of his soldiers to a foolish death:
quote:
ORIGINAL: dh76513
Ambrose Burnside (USA) – Named for the "Burnside's Bridge" fiasco at Antietam; chief architect of the futile, murderous assaults at Fredericksburg; leader of Mud March; arrested for "seditious sentiments" and let’s not forget about his obvious failure at Petersburg.
Nonetheless, returning to my argument, I think most historians would agree that Germany boasted the better lot of generals at the start of World War II. For example, one would not judge the brilliant tactical skills or question the battlefield capabilities of Heinz Guderian, who is considered to be the father of Blitzkrieg. However, with rank came more political pressure and despite his proven battlefield genius, Guderian followed the orders of Hitler? The same happened to Patton. One cannot fairly say that Patten was less effective as an army commander. Both these commanders had greater limitations placed on them with higher commander responsibilities due directly to their promotions.
The same is true for Hood. Let’s not forget that Johnston failed to attack Sherman as ordered by Davis which eventually led to his replacement by Hood. As such, let’s not forget that Hood was following “Presidential” orders to attack. Also, I think it is important to note that Sherman’s force was very overwhelming against a much smaller, tired, hungry, sick, and already beaten army that was under siege during most of the Atlanta campaign.
Generally at the brigade and division levels, commanders are encouraged to bring their honest thoughts and strategies to the command table while at the Corps, Army, and Theater levels such actions are discouraged and highly politically influenced. And this case is well illustrated with Patton, Guderian, Rommel, and many, many more generals throughout history. So as I am certain that few if any with any knowledge of history would say that Patton’s battlefield effectiveness or “rating” (for this game’s sake) as a general officer declined when he was placed in command of a fictitious army for the Normandy invasion. However, his abilities were limited politically.
quote:
ORIGINAL: RERomine
I'm going to toss this out there for consideration. At what level is a general officer being considered? The highest level the achieved or their best level?
With the forgoing being said, I think this is a mute point.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gil R
The ratings are fixed, but the ratings themselves are used in randomized calculations. So even McClellan with the "Terrible" initiative rating he seems destined to have can beat Lee in an initiative check.
Furthermore, I think the foregoing argument validates Gill’s rating system for general officers to remain being fixed.
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
Generals Ratings -- Overview - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread