RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865 >> Generals' Ratings

Message

Conhugeco -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/16/2006 10:22:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Well...pursuits of beaten enemies usually look pretty sharp.... quote: ... All three proved able to lead men to perform military miracles and proved able to whip armies twice the size of their own. I don't recall Lee ever pursuing and capturing the AOTP after one of these whippings. Grant captured outright two Confederate armies, and one army-sized Confederate force during the war. DickH

dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/17/2006 2:29:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Look: Grant had competence, and he had determination. No Union commander in the East had managed to combine these two attributes prior to him. Grant took these two attributes, combined them with a two-one superiority in numbers, and eventually managed to wear Lee down. This isn't evidence of greatness. gee like I've said before and the Confederate fan club likes to keep overlooking... Grant did not have a two-to-one superiority in numbers in the west and he had an inferior force in the early part of the war where he equal or fewer troops and much poorer quality and he was able to beat confederates even when surprised attacked! Compentence, determination.... don't make a good general??? wow... so you would perfer incomentance and lack of will? Grant was able to take the AotP and do with it things that no other Union general would... fight. Too bad Lee never stuck around to try and fight it... it took Grant a year to get Lee to come out and actually fight. Lee's tactics of hit and run and fancy footwork wasnt' going to win him the war against Grant so I don't see the greatness in Lee after Grant showed up in the East. Grant marched his army where ever he wanted... quote: The great generals of the American Civil War were Lee, Jackson, and Forrest. All three proved able to lead men to perform military miracles and proved able to whip armies twice the size of their own. No Union general really had a chance display greatness -- simply because none faced having the odds stacked against him and managed to win anyway. However, I could see Sherman managing to win under such circumstances. Sheridan also displayed talent -- although he was such a thorough-going bastard that it's hard to consider him objectively. Then you have to include Grant for whipping confederate armies that were superior to his at times when he was out west. Ah, Sheridan... yea... you have to hate a guy that can march an entire corps all the way around Lee's army... cut his lines... and return on the other side...without losing his corps at all, gee where were those "great" confederate generals to stop him? I'd also love to see those great confederate generals try and duplicate Sherman's march... Forrest... hmmm... lost to Grant at Fort Donelson, lost to Grant at Shiloh... yes very good... Fighting a defensive war is far easier than an offensive war... which Grant was fighting. Grant may of had the numbers late war but he did not have the advantage of fighting on his turf... he had to run supply lines... garrison rear areas... and fight a defender that was entrenched at times... Lee didn't do any better the one chance he got to fight on the offensive (Gettysburg) especially if he was so "great" why didn't he defeat those "inferior" Union generals on July 1st? He outnumbered them then??? So sorry... I still don't buy into the myth of the [&o]Great Confederat Generals. Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas... were just as good as those Confederates.

bountyhunter -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/17/2006 4:37:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dude Forrest... hmmm... lost to Grant at Fort Donelson, lost to Grant at Shiloh... yes very good... Hmmm, Forrest was a colonel and brigade (not to be confused with corps or army) commander at both. At the fort he led most of his own men out while his superiors stayed and surrendered after which he directed the rearguard at Nashville. At Shiloh due to the terrain there was very little oppurtunity for the use of mounted troops. Bottom line these two fights really have nothing to due with the argument as Forrest really wasn't in a postion to make a difference. At Shiloh he actually observed the reinforcements crossing the Tennessee River after dark and tried to find Beauregard to infrom him but he never was able to find him. Grant had nearly 35,000 fresh troops when he started the 2nd day at Shiloh bringing his total to nearly 70,000 versus 44,000 Confederates not subtracting their losses from the 1st day. The strength on the 1st day was quite even. So I don't think you can count this one as a fight where Grant was facing a superior foe especially since it was nealry a miracle that the Confederate army he faced even made it to Shiloh. I really can't think of a battle where he was outnumbered, unless maybe you add up the strength of the entire Confederate Department. Maybe at Belmont but not after that. But in the end he got the job done and you can't argue that. Sheridan had situation similar to Grant (at Shiloh) at Cedar Creek- where the starving Confederates overan the Union camps and decided to eat instead of fight and pursue - giving Sheridan time to reorganize and push them back. I don't think there is a general on the list that didn't make a few mistakes in the war... I don't think only Confederate generals were great but I had to make sure I filled in some missing facts.

dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/17/2006 6:17:12 AM)
Oh I agree everyone of those generals made mistakes... I'm just tired of hearing the myth about the confederate generals. I believe I've already posted elsewhere the numbers at Shiloh... and yes I can count it where Grant was facing a superior force, I was talking about the first day. Especially if you consider how he admits that both he and his men were very green and inexperienced and he was caught off guard. A lesser general wouldn't have lasted until his reinforcements arrived. You need to read Grants comments on the way forces were counted... (I think I posted this elsewhere too.) At Donelson Grant was only a Brig. General. Grant estimates the number of Confederates at Donelson at about 21,000, while his force numbered 27,000 including men guarding the supply roads. I’d say that was a fairly even match or worse for Grant since he had to siege a fort and cover his supply routes. My arguments do make a point that every time I hear a comment like "No Union general really had a chance display greatness" someone needs to point out the errors the great confederate generals made. I think Grant, Sherman, et al, showed just as much “greatness” as the confederate generals. I’m not arguing one over the other… just that the Confederates didn’t have a monopoly on great generals.

Feltan -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/17/2006 3:37:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dude ...the Confederates didn’t have a monopoly on great generals. I concur. However, I concur from a post 1865 perspective. A few item: 1. In reality, the real differences between "generalship" were most pronounced at the begining of the war, and gradually waned to parity as the war proceeded. One could argue that by 1864-1865, the Union had far better staff and logistics that also influenced "generalship." However, in 1861 the Confederate general was a motivated man on a mission, while the Union general was hesitant. 2. The Union (soldiers, officers, and even the President) had a crisis in confidence about their own generals throughout the war. While Grant and Sherman would emerge as great leaders by the war's end, one should not underestimate that during the war the average informed person in the Union thought (rightly or wrongly) that southern generals were better. This had implications. Namely, the feeling and morale among the Union armed forces never matched that of the Confederate armed forces. Face it, if you were a Union soldier at Fredricksburg your opinion of "Union Generals" would forever be tainted. 3. Hence, after 150 years of writing and analysis, one can reasonably state that there were a few Union generals who approached greatness -- or were, at a minimum, in parity to their Confederate counterparts. I believe that to be true. However, I believe it is also almost irrelevent. The Union itself never annointed its own generals with the same level of awe and confidence that the South did -- and to be fair, some annointed and famous Southern generals really sucked despite the fact that they were hugely popular at the time. If one were able to poll Southern aristocracy in 1861 and ask, "Who is the greatest general in the world?" the answer would be: Beauregard. Historians in 2006 would disagree. 4. If you measure results, U. S. Grant wins. He got results. He won. He was also largely despised by his own men during the war (after was a different story). Grant was considered a butcher who had little regard for the welfare of his troops. The Union troops never had the affection for Grant as the Confederates had for "Bobby Lee." 5. This dichotomy between "opinion" and "results" continues on to this day. The perception of the mystique and awe of Southern generals, and the perception of bungling incompetence of Union generals, was established by the end of 1862 -- and it has never really changed since then. Part of this opinion was based on fact, and the opinion endures, in part, due to pure romance. Regards, Feltan

chris0827 -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/17/2006 7:03:20 PM)
Grant was liked by the men he commanded not despised. Where did you get that idea?

dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/17/2006 9:53:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feltan ...However, in 1861 the Confederate general was a motivated man on a mission, while the Union general was hesitant. I agree in the east... but not out west. The main view of the war was from the East were most of the population lived. The west was considered a back water... but it's that back water that created the best generals and showed what the Union troops could do under good leadership. quote: 2. The Union (soldiers, officers, and even the President) had a crisis in confidence about their own generals throughout the war. While Grant and Sherman would emerge as great leaders by the war's end, one should not underestimate that during the war the average informed person in the Union thought (rightly or wrongly) that southern generals were better. This had implications. Namely, the feeling and morale among the Union armed forces never matched that of the Confederate armed forces. Face it, if you were a Union soldier at Fredricksburg your opinion of "Union Generals" would forever be tainted. again this was because the view of the war was eastern-centric. Look at Vicksburg... victory there fell on the same day as Gettysburg but was mostly overlooked. quote: 3. Hence, after 150 years of writing and analysis, one can reasonably state that there were a few Union generals who approached greatness -- or were, at a minimum, in parity to their Confederate counterparts. I believe that to be true. However, I believe it is also almost irrelevent. The Union itself never annointed its own generals with the same level of awe and confidence that the South did -- and to be fair, some annointed and famous Southern generals really sucked despite the fact that they were hugely popular at the time. If one were able to poll Southern aristocracy in 1861 and ask, "Who is the greatest general in the world?" the answer would be: Beauregard. Historians in 2006 would disagree. After Grant was beaten after his first battle in the East instead of returning north... he marched further south... and his troops were estatic! They couldn't believe here was a General would would actually fight. The reports actually talk about his troops cheering him for this move. quote: 4. If you measure results, U. S. Grant wins. He got results. He won. He was also largely despised by his own men during the war (after was a different story). Grant was considered a butcher who had little regard for the welfare of his troops. The Union troops never had the affection for Grant as the Confederates had for "Bobby Lee." odd... I've never read this... Yes his critics considered him butcher especially the southern ones (they still hate Sherman too)... but in regards to his troops... everything I've always read pointed to his men repspecting him.. sure they weren't in awe of him like Lee but they had a great deal of respect (excpet of course when he ordered that last assult at Cold Harbor). And let's face it... Lee's men didn't like him when he first arrived... they thought he was too old. When Grant was given his first command (as a Col.) his men quickly came to respect him because he dilled them and treated them as regular soldiers... he didn't act as some politically appointed (or elected) officer. quote: 5. This dichotomy between "opinion" and "results" continues on to this day. The perception of the mystique and awe of Southern generals, and the perception of bungling incompetence of Union generals, was established by the end of 1862 -- and it has never really changed since then. Part of this opinion was based on fact, and the opinion endures, in part, due to pure romance. I agree.. which is why I've never bought into the myth of the Confederate Generals... it's just that a myth. They were just as prone to mistakes as their union counterparts... but most are overlooked because everyone likes an underdog. Yes... the Confederate Genrals were far better than their Eastern counterparts pre-1864. But the Western Union Generals like Grant and Sherman were their match and deserve just as much credit as the Confederate Genrals... if they had been as incompentent as their Eastern counterparts then the war would have been over by the end of 1862. Let's face it... the east was for the most part a stagnant front until 1864. Minor thrusts here and there (and some really stupid moves by both sides). The action pre-1864 was out west... but this by and large recieved very little play in the press and in later writings. It would hurt the southern myth to discuss and admit to the losses out west where the real war was occuring. I've always considered the east a holding action while the Confederacy was being dismantled one state at a time out west. Grant's march down the Mississippi cut it in half. Sherman’s march cut it in half again. So it doesn't speak too well of the Confederate Generals to allow this to happen. They had tunnel vision... they could only see the war in terms of the war in Virginia. (Though both side's principle leadership could be blamed of this... at least the western Union generals saw a grander strategy.) but that's just my 2 cents... [:)]

Conhugeco -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/17/2006 10:01:10 PM)
Chris, I don't know where that one came from either. Feltan, I think much of what you write has merit, except that most of the points apply only to the eastern theater of operations, and not to the western theater. Your point about opinion vs. results, especially in the east, is in large part due to the writings of Jubal Early and his cabal at the Southern Historical Society, who attempted, and largely succeeded, in re-writing the history of the war after the event. In particular, he and his gang attempted to canonize Lee, largely at the expense of Longstreet. Conveniently, his "history" also managed to deflect any criticism of his own role in the utter defeat of the Confederacy. There is no character from the ACW that I despise more than Early. Edit to add that dude covered many of the same points, and in more detail, while I was writing my post. DickH

dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/17/2006 10:54:31 PM)
Conhugeco, Precisely…(I'm not sure I had more details... [:)] just a bit long winded in getting to my points).. but you hit the nail on the head better than I could. One of the things I've read repeatedly; where how grossly slanted the various writings were by both sides. The southern generals are criticized for just trying to justify their position or find others to blame while a number of the Union generals used their writings to help in their later political careers. Grant’s memoir is one of the few that’s given a good deal of praise. He wrote it after his political career and only at the urging of others while we was dieing of throat cancer. He had a desire to set the record straight (which most agree he did). There are things he overlooked or didn’t touch too much on (like his drinking.) But by and large most of his facts are not heavily disputed.

Feltan -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 4:18:36 AM)
There has been much history written on Grant. Lately, the trend has been to -- if one wants to be kind -- reinterpret some events, or as has been stated elsewhere -- they are rewriting history to make Grant seem kinder and more gentle. To his credit, Grant was a bulldog determined person. As a Union general, the implication was huge casualty lists, especially in 1864. He actually preferred maneuver warfare and was able to demonstrate that on several occasions, but his legacy cannot be separated from the long lists of Union death he generated. Yes, his troops did not like him. There are accounts that prove otherwise, especially in the West; however, the Union soldier in late 1864 would prove to want to serve under virtually any other commander. Being in Grant's army only meant you had a higher chance of meeting your maker sooner than anywhere else. This is reflected in numerous newspaper articles, diaries and contemporary accounts of the time. After the war, when time and distance were a mitigating influence, fonder statements of Grant can be found by his former soldiers, who, after all, appreciated being on the winning side. A similar contemporary example would be Patton -- whose troops hated him. However, after the war all were proud to state they had served with him. Like it or not, the Civil War is east coast centric. It is so for very practical reasons. Namely, the population, infrastructure and industry were largely east coast based. The "west" was a backwater in comparrison. For example, in this time period the largest manufacturing center west of the Mississippi was Leavenworth, Kansas. It does not even rate a "city" status on the game map. Yes, the Union won at Vicksburg the same day as Gettysburg. But, if the Confederates had won at Gettysburg and marched into Baltimore or Washington D.C., the war would have been over despite victories out west. The situation in the western theater didn't really affect the Confederacy until late 1863 or early 1864, and by then everything was falling apart. Regards, Feltan

ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 8:37:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Conhugeco quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Well...pursuits of beaten enemies usually look pretty sharp.... quote: ... All three proved able to lead men to perform military miracles and proved able to whip armies twice the size of their own. I don't recall Lee ever pursuing and capturing the AOTP after one of these whippings. Grant captured outright two Confederate armies, and one army-sized Confederate force during the war. DickH It's hard to 'pursue' when you're still outnumbered after the victory. The thought of what Lee, Jackson, or Forrest could have done with the kind of numerical superiority and logistical support Grant enjoyed makes the mind reel.

ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 8:48:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dude quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Look: Grant had competence, and he had determination. No Union commander in the East had managed to combine these two attributes prior to him. Grant took these two attributes, combined them with a two-one superiority in numbers, and eventually managed to wear Lee down. This isn't evidence of greatness. gee like I've said before and the Confederate fan club likes to keep overlooking... Grant did not have a two-to-one superiority in numbers in the west and he had an inferior force in the early part of the war where he equal or fewer troops and much poorer quality and he was able to beat confederates even when surprised attacked! Compentence, determination.... don't make a good general??? wow... so you would perfer incomentance and lack of will? Now there you go. I have never objected to the description of Grant as a 'good' general. I will freely and immediately concede that he was a 'good' general. What I object to is the notion that he was a great general -- or even more absurdly, the greatest general of the Civil War. quote: Grant was able to take the AotP and do with it things that no other Union general would... fight. Too bad Lee never stuck around to try and fight it... it took Grant a year to get Lee to come out and actually fight. Lee's tactics of hit and run and fancy footwork wasnt' going to win him the war against Grant so I don't see the greatness in Lee after Grant showed up in the East. Grant marched his army where ever he wanted... I take it he didn't want to march his army into Richmond then. It scertainly took him long enough to get there. In fact, the disasters of Grant's 1864 campaign nearly cost the North the war. It was Sherman's capture of Atlanta that won Lincoln the 1864 election and made Union vicotry possible. quote: quote: The great generals of the American Civil War were Lee, Jackson, and Forrest. All three proved able to lead men to perform military miracles and proved able to whip armies twice the size of their own. No Union general really had a chance display greatness -- simply because none faced having the odds stacked against him and managed to win anyway. However, I could see Sherman managing to win under such circumstances. Sheridan also displayed talent -- although he was such a thorough-going bastard that it's hard to consider him objectively. Then you have to include Grant for whipping confederate armies that were superior to his at times when he was out west. Such as which armies? Grant certainly didn't have the smaller force at Shiloh, nor did he around Vicksburg. quote: Ah, Sheridan... yea... you have to hate a guy that can march an entire corps all the way around Lee's army... cut his lines... and return on the other side...without losing his corps at all, gee where were those "great" confederate generals to stop him? I beleive I remarked Sheridan seems to have been pretty good. I am objecting to the attempt to describe Grant as a 'great' general. If you want to start the Phil Sheridan fan club, be my guest. quote: I'd also love to see those great confederate generals try and duplicate Sherman's march... Sure. Just get that situation where there's no Union army in the way and ample Confederate seaborne supply waiting at the end. quote: Forrest... hmmm... lost to Grant at Fort Donelson, lost to Grant at Shiloh... yes very good... Goddamn -- learn something new every day. Forrest was in command at Donelson and Shiloh? And here I thought he was still just a brigadier... quote: Fighting a defensive war is far easier than an offensive war... which Grant was fighting. Grant may of had the numbers late war but he did not have the advantage of fighting on his turf... he had to run supply lines... garrison rear areas... and fight a defender that was entrenched at times... Lee didn't do any better the one chance he got to fight on the offensive (Gettysburg) especially if he was so "great" why didn't he defeat those "inferior" Union generals on July 1st? He outnumbered them then??? Actually, he did defeat them. The Union was routed on July 1st. quote: So sorry... I still don't buy into the myth of the [&o]Great Confederat Generals. Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas... were just as good as those Confederates. Include yourself why don't you? Hey, if they become great by virtue of winning with overwhelming superiority, why not decide you're great too even if you weren't even there at all. I mean why not? Perfect record, really....

chris0827 -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 9:00:39 PM)
Grant was outnumbered at Belmont. He had a small division of 3114 troops and the confederates had about 5000. Apart from that he had the larger force in every other battle he fought. He had only a slight edge the first day at Shiloh but after Buell's troops arrived he had about a 5 to 3 advantage on the second day.

ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 9:00:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bountyhunter quote: ORIGINAL: dude Forrest... hmmm... lost to Grant at Fort Donelson, lost to Grant at Shiloh... yes very good... Hmmm, Forrest was a colonel and brigade (not to be confused with corps or army) commander at both. At the fort he led most of his own men out while his superiors stayed and surrendered after which he directed the rearguard at Nashville. At Shiloh due to the terrain there was very little oppurtunity for the use of mounted troops. Bottom line these two fights really have nothing to due with the argument as Forrest really wasn't in a postion to make a difference. At Shiloh he actually observed the reinforcements crossing the Tennessee River after dark and tried to find Beauregard to infrom him but he never was able to find him. Grant had nearly 35,000 fresh troops when he started the 2nd day at Shiloh bringing his total to nearly 70,000 versus 44,000 Confederates not subtracting their losses from the 1st day. The strength on the 1st day was quite even. So I don't think you can count this one as a fight where Grant was facing a superior foe especially since it was nealry a miracle that the Confederate army he faced even made it to Shiloh. I really can't think of a battle where he was outnumbered, unless maybe you add up the strength of the entire Confederate Department. Maybe at Belmont but not after that. But in the end he got the job done and you can't argue that. Sheridan had situation similar to Grant (at Shiloh) at Cedar Creek- where the starving Confederates overan the Union camps and decided to eat instead of fight and pursue - giving Sheridan time to reorganize and push them back. I don't think there is a general on the list that didn't make a few mistakes in the war... I don't think only Confederate generals were great but I had to make sure I filled in some missing facts. With regards to Forrest, aside from his own brilliant record as an independent commander of small armies, it should be noted that he consistently advocated the correct course of action when he was a subordinate in larger actions. At Donelson, he didn't want to surrender, and managed to lead those troops under his command away. At Shiloh, amid general Confederate confidence at the end of the first day, he alone thought to see what the supposedly beaten Federals were up to and concluded the Confederates should withdraw immediately. (the next day he then displayed incredible heroism in the rear-guard action). At Chickamauga, Forrest could have been court-martialed for the ferocity with which he berated Bragg for not mounting a pursuit. After the war, Jefferson Davis apparently felt overlooking Forrest's talents had been one of his greater mistakes. For my money, Nathan Bedford Forrest goes down as one of the greatest generals of that war. Hence I put him up there with Lee and Jackson.

ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 9:04:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chris0827 Grant was outnumbered at Belmont. He had a small division of 3114 troops and the confederates had about 5000. Apart from that he had the larger force in every other battle he fought. He had only a slight edge the first day at Shiloh but after Buell's troops arrived he had about a 5 to 3 advantage on the second day. So it would seem that at least one of the arguments for Grant being a great general is based on his performance at Belmont. Well, don't forget Franz Sigel and McClellan...

dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 9:10:43 PM)
I don't believe I ever claimed that Grant was the greatest general of the civil war... I've mearly been pointing out that the Confederates did not have a monopoly on great generals and that I don't buy into the confederate myth. Sorry you are offended by it but like I've said that's my two cents. So far no one's pointed to anything that shows me that the confederates had the only good generals in the war. Respectfully, Dude

ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 9:18:42 PM)
...

ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 9:22:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dude I don't believe I ever claimed that Grant was the greatest general of the civil war... Respectfully, Dude You're not the only one posting here. Specifically, 'Conhugeco' approvingly quotes Sherman's assessment of Grant as 'the greatest soldier of our time if not all time.'

ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 9:29:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feltan There has been much history written on Grant. Lately, the trend has been to -- if one wants to be kind -- reinterpret some events, or as has been stated elsewhere -- they are rewriting history to make Grant seem kinder and more gentle. To his credit, Grant was a bulldog determined person. As a Union general, the implication was huge casualty lists, especially in 1864. He actually preferred maneuver warfare and was able to demonstrate that on several occasions, but his legacy cannot be separated from the long lists of Union death he generated. Yes, his troops did not like him. There are accounts that prove otherwise, especially in the West; however, the Union soldier in late 1864 would prove to want to serve under virtually any other commander. Being in Grant's army only meant you had a higher chance of meeting your maker sooner than anywhere else. This is reflected in numerous newspaper articles, diaries and contemporary accounts of the time. After the war, when time and distance were a mitigating influence, fonder statements of Grant can be found by his former soldiers, who, after all, appreciated being on the winning side. A similar contemporary example would be Patton -- whose troops hated him. However, after the war all were proud to state they had served with him. Like it or not, the Civil War is east coast centric. It is so for very practical reasons. Namely, the population, infrastructure and industry were largely east coast based. The "west" was a backwater in comparrison. For example, in this time period the largest manufacturing center west of the Mississippi was Leavenworth, Kansas. It does not even rate a "city" status on the game map. Yes, the Union won at Vicksburg the same day as Gettysburg. But, if the Confederates had won at Gettysburg and marched into Baltimore or Washington D.C., the war would have been over despite victories out west. The situation in the western theater didn't really affect the Confederacy until late 1863 or early 1864, and by then everything was falling apart. Regards, Feltan Interestingly, the South didn't especially think it was losing the war until the fall of Atlanta or so. Vicksburg and Gettysburg only became the climactic turning points in retrospect.

ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 9:34:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dude ...I've always considered the east a holding action while the Confederacy was being dismantled one state at a time out west.... One could regard the East as a 'holding action' -- except that it was Lee doing the holding. The North certainly certainly sought decisive results there; it just couldn't obtain them.

ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 9:39:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dude ... I've mearly been pointing out that the Confederates did not have a monopoly on great generals... You've been claiming that; you haven't been 'pointing it out.' No argument has been posted that convincingly establishes the 'greatness' of any Union general. All that's been posted is a recitation of Union victories obtained with the aid of numerical superiority. As I've said, like me gaining three hundred yards in a Pee-Wee football game. Not proof of athletic prowess...

chris0827 -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 10:04:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: dude ... I've mearly been pointing out that the Confederates did not have a monopoly on great generals... You've been claiming that; you haven't been 'pointing it out.' No argument has been posted that convincingly establishes the 'greatness' of any Union general. All that's been posted is a recitation of Union victories obtained with the aid of numerical superiority. As I've said, like me gaining three hundred yards in a Pee-Wee football game. Not proof of athletic prowess... Sounds like you can only be a great general if you are outnumbered. Someone tell Patton, Scipio Africanus, and Zhukov that they aren't great generals.

ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 10:27:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chris0827 quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright quote: ORIGINAL: dude ... I've mearly been pointing out that the Confederates did not have a monopoly on great generals... You've been claiming that; you haven't been 'pointing it out.' No argument has been posted that convincingly establishes the 'greatness' of any Union general. All that's been posted is a recitation of Union victories obtained with the aid of numerical superiority. As I've said, like me gaining three hundred yards in a Pee-Wee football game. Not proof of athletic prowess... Sounds like you can only be a great general if you are outnumbered. Someone tell Patton, Scipio Africanus, and Zhukov that they aren't great generals. Actually, I tend to see this as a query against a general like Patton -- who knows how he would have performed without the big battalions? As to Zhukov, he definitely had his limitations -- read Glantz's book on Operation Mars. Skippy I don't know enough to comment. It's possible one could be a great general and not be outnumbered. However, to convincingly demonstrate it, one pretty much has to be outnumbered. One way or another, your generalship has to produce a success radically greater than that to be expected from the numbers. Hence Lee, Jackson, Forrest all convincingly demonsrated a claim to greatness. Few Union generals had the opportunity to make a similar demonstration, and none made it.

ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 10:35:06 PM)
Actaully, there is a tale from another arena which has bearing on this. The New York Yankees, all through the thirties and into the early forties, were of course the dominant team in baseball. Now, one could employ logic similar to that employed by the Grant-lovers to see in this evidence of great management. So what if the Yankees had all the great players? They won, and so they must have had great management. In point of fact, come the war -- and the draft -- the Yankees did abysmally. They -- unlike the various erstwhile cellar-dwellers who had their chance during the war years -- turned out not to know how to win when they didn't have the big guns. So was Grant a great general? Absent any convincing track record of him gaining victory without the big battalions, one has to doubt it. Add that he certainly managed to fail to prevail against Lee for nearly a year even when he did have overwhelming superiority. Add his repeated penchant for launching disastrous assaults. Really, there's nil evidence for anything beyond undeniable determination. One could see Hood behaving in exactly the same way -- and given similar superiority, probably obtaining a similar level of success.

chris0827 -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 10:47:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright Actaully, there is a tale from another arena which has bearing on this. The New York Yankees, all through the thirties and into the early forties, were of course the dominant team in baseball. Now, one could employ logic similar to that employed by the Grant-lovers to see in this evidence of great management. So what if the Yankees had all the great players? They won, and so they must have had great management. In point of fact, come the war -- and the draft -- the Yankees did abysmally. They -- unlike the various erstwhile cellar-dwellers who had their chance during the war years -- turned out not to know how to win when they didn't have the big guns. So was Grant a great general? Absent any convincing track record of him gaining victory without the big battalions, one has to doubt it. Add that he certainly managed to fail to prevail against Lee for nearly a year even when he did have overwhelming superiority. Add his repeated penchant for launching disastrous assaults. Really, there's nil evidence for anything beyond undeniable determination. One could see Hood behaving in exactly the same way -- and given similar superiority, probably obtaining a similar level of success. You seem to ignore everything Grant did before 1864. He did ok at Forts Henry & Donelson, Vicksburg, and Chatanooga. And Lee launched a few disastrous assaults himself without having the numerical superiority to afford it.

dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 11:11:08 PM)
Thankfully the Union had a great general with determination. But determination will only get you so far. He had a great track record out west were he was on an equal footing with them so called great confederate genrals (just the confederate fan club hates to admit it or it would tarnish their perfect record.) Yea.. I guess the confederates never launched a disaterous assault.. <cough> Picketts Charge <cough> (and besides... the confederates were on the DEFENSIVE! Big difference in tactics and strategy used.) Grant at least admits to his two biggest mistakes (the last assualt at Cold Harbor and the assualt at Vicksburg) can't say that of any the Confederate generals. They were too busy making a name for themselves. Never claimed to be a Grant lover... I just happen to respect him and think he was every bit a general as Lee.

dude -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/18/2006 11:34:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ColinWright It's possible one could be a great general and not be outnumbered. However, to convincingly demonstrate it, one pretty much has to be outnumbered. whoa... is that a narrow view... I can say I've never heard that approach to judging a great general. That would rate right up there with someone who claims all losing generals suck since... well they lost. If that's your only argument for greatness... "must have been outnumbered" then there's really no point in disccusing this further. But if you look at it objectively ... and consider ALL the factors (not just shear numbers but things like quality of troops) then you’d have to admit that Grant did a great job early war with an inferior force. Again…where were those “great” confederate Generals that could win when “supposedly” outnumbered… oh yea… they were getting beat by a better general. Grant is also one of the few who looked at the war not just a seperate theaters of operation but in a larger picture and how those different area could support one another. His ability to see the larger picture far outshines anything any confederate General did. Most of whom could only look at their narrow front and see how to make a name for themselves.

General Quarters -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/19/2006 4:03:35 AM)
I don't know of the 4 traits are considered more or less equally important but, assuming they are, I looked at the overall results, simply adding the 4 ratings: Lee, Grant, Jackson 31 each; Forrest, Stuart, Cleburne 28; Sherman, Sheridan 27; Longstreet 26; Thomas, Buford 25; Wheeler 24, Hood, AP Hill, Reynolds, Chamberlain 23; AS Johnson, Armistead, Meade, Hancock 22, Hardee, Hampton, Rosecrans, Doubleday, Morgan, Anderson, Pender, Rodes 21; JE Johnston, Beauregard, DH Hill, Pickett, Custer 20, and so forth. I think it is important to have the total rankings make sense, not just to get the right tactical for one general and the right initiative for another. A specific concern: Some generals that never had high command (Chamberlain, Armistead, etc.) are ranked above some generals that performed somewhat well at the top. Yet we all know that some great corps commanders (Hood, and even Longstreet) performed less well at a higher level. And some who flunked as army commanders (Hooker, Pope) did well at a lower level. As the ratings stand now, it would be better to have Chamberlain commanding the Union army than Meade, and Hood, Armistead, Anderson, Pender, or Rodes instead of Johnston. To take another example: if Bragg (who receives a 15) had been a division commander, he might well have been better than Rodes, and if Rodes had commanded the Army of Tenn, he might well have been worse than Bragg. In short, some kind of credit should be added for generals who did show the ability to actually manage large masses of men, even if not always faultlessly.

ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/19/2006 10:00:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dude Thankfully the Union had a great general with determination. But determination will only get you so far. He had a great track record out west were he was on an equal footing with them so called great confederate genrals (just the confederate fan club hates to admit it or it would tarnish their perfect record.) You make this claim without any visible support. When did Grant whip an army twice the size of his own? When did he personally rally fleeing troops and lead them into a successful counterattack? He took on Lee in the Wilderness, outnumbering him 2-1. He barely avoids getting thrashed, and he's the equal of Lee? quote: ...Never claimed to be a Grant lover... I just happen to respect him and think he was every bit a general as Lee. I guess so. Remind me to go find the 2004 Olympic flyweight champion, pick a fight with him, and when I manage to fend him off, claim I'm every bit as good a boxer as he is.

ColinWright -> RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES (12/19/2006 10:05:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: General Quarters I don't know of the 4 traits are considered more or less equally important but, assuming they are, I looked at the overall results, simply adding the 4 ratings: Lee, Grant, Jackson 31 each; Forrest, Stuart, Cleburne 28; Sherman, Sheridan 27; Longstreet 26; Thomas, Buford 25; Wheeler 24, Hood, AP Hill, Reynolds, Chamberlain 23; AS Johnson, Armistead, Meade, Hancock 22, Hardee, Hampton, Rosecrans, Doubleday, Morgan, Anderson, Pender, Rodes 21; JE Johnston, Beauregard, DH Hill, Pickett, Custer 20, and so forth. I think it is important to have the total rankings make sense, not just to get the right tactical for one general and the right initiative for another. A specific concern: Some generals that never had high command (Chamberlain, Armistead, etc.) are ranked above some generals that performed somewhat well at the top. Yet we all know that some great corps commanders (Hood, and even Longstreet) performed less well at a higher level. And some who flunked as army commanders (Hooker, Pope) did well at a lower level. As the ratings stand now, it would be better to have Chamberlain commanding the Union army than Meade, and Hood, Armistead, Anderson, Pender, or Rodes instead of Johnston. To take another example: if Bragg (who receives a 15) had been a division commander, he might well have been better than Rodes, and if Rodes had commanded the Army of Tenn, he might well have been worse than Bragg. In short, some kind of credit should be added for generals who did show the ability to actually manage large masses of men, even if not always faultlessly. Personally -- and this discussion makes abundantly clear it would be a good idea -- I think it would be good if the players could modify the generals to their taste.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.080078