Barlow (Full Version)

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



Message

General Quarters -> Barlow (4/4/2007 3:03:36 AM)

Since this is a special concern of mine, I'll keep suggesting new ratings for those generals who got overly high random ratings. Barlow is currently 5-5-6-6. He was pretty ordinary, maybe 2-3-4-2 (init, ldr, tac, com).

James Craig is another random guy with high ratings who was pretty ordinary. 2-3-3-2 perhaps.

Since it will be a long time before all generals have bios and revised ratings, it might make sense to arbitarily adjust the random ratings guys down so that none of their ratings is higher than a 4. When they get bios, the ratings for the deserving ones could be raised.



Gil R. -> RE: Barlow (4/4/2007 3:09:36 AM)

Actually, Barlow's ratings aren't random -- they're based on this bio:

Maj. Gen. Francis Channing Barlow (b. 1834, d. 1896). A graduate of Harvard, Barlow practiced law in New York prior to the outbreak of the war when he enlisted as a private in the 12th New York. By the Peninsula Campaign, he had risen to the rank of Colonel and was later seriously wounded at Antietam. Appointed a Brigadier General two days after the battle, his brigade was routed by a Stonewall Jackson’s troops at Chancellorsville. He was captured at Gettysburg after being wounded, temporarily paralyzed and left for dead by his own troops. Confederate Brig. Gen. John B. Gordon took care of Barlow until he recovered, at which point Barlow returned to service in the Union Army. One of Barlow's major accomplishments was to lead his troops in a charge of the "Mule Shoe" at Spotsylvania. They succeeded in capturing 3,000 Confederates, 2 generals, 20 guns and 30 regimental colors. Barlow was called one of the "boy generals" because he kept himself clean-shaven, unlike the predominant practice of sporting a beard or mustache. (One Union officer described him as looking "like a highly independent mounted newsboy.") Although he was frail-looking and pale, he was an intense fighter and strict disciplinarian. After the siege of Petersburg, Barlow's heath failed, although he returned to the army to lead a division at Sayler's Creek and Farmville. He was commissioned a major general on May 25, 1865. After the war, Barlow returned to his law practice, was one of the founders of the American Bar Association, and served as New York State attorney general. (Bio by Scott Rowan)

I can't say I know much about him -- why do you think he should be lowered?



General Quarters -> RE: Barlow (4/4/2007 3:19:54 AM)

I did not recall that amazing episode -- so it is certainly right to give him credit for that. However, 5-5-6-6 (equals 22) puts him up with or close to guys like Reynolds and Hancock. The next tier of generals contains guys like Rosecrans, who totals 18. I would hesitate to put someone who never commanded more than a division on a level with some of the most capable army and division commanders. A very solid rating would be 4-4-5-4 (=17), with some very nice teachable qualities that reflect that one very impressive accomplishment.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Barlow (4/4/2007 3:24:29 AM)

I could see reducing his ratings a bit, perhaps a point across the board. Perhaps keep Command high and give him Chargers/Brave for his role at Spotsylvania. I don't think he was below average, but I agree that he didn't quite do enough to warrant being in the upper tier.



Gil R. -> RE: Barlow (4/4/2007 3:51:35 AM)

I see your points, but I don't want to have a blanket policy that if a guy never rose above division command he can't have ratings above a certain level. There were some very good generals who, for one reason or another, never got the opportunity. Barlow began as a private and rose to general -- a very unusual path, since most generals started as officers (often because of political connections). Not having been a West Pointer, he might not have gained a promotion he deserved. So, I'd prefer to give him ratings based on his deeds, rather than the position(s) he held.

That said, I can go with GQ's suggested ratings if you two think those are best.



jkBluesman -> RE: Barlow (4/4/2007 11:28:32 AM)

The muleshoe was a salient that was very hard to defend. But as there were several good spots for artillery that would go to the Federals, Ewell kept the salient. The Confederates defended it one day. In the evening Lee guessed that Grant was on the move again and would not make another attack next morning. Thus Ewell send the artillery to the rear to prepare his corps's move. When it became obvious in the morning that Grant was not on the move, the artillery was ordered back but the order came too late, so that the guns arrived about ten minutes too late. Without defending artillery it was pretty easy to capture the muleshoe. So Barlow did a good job, but it was no masterpiece.



General Quarters -> RE: Barlow (4/4/2007 7:10:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

I see your points, but I don't want to have a blanket policy that if a guy never rose above division command he can't have ratings above a certain level. There were some very good generals who, for one reason or another, never got the opportunity. Barlow began as a private and rose to general -- a very unusual path, since most generals started as officers (often because of political connections). Not having been a West Pointer, he might not have gained a promotion he deserved. So, I'd prefer to give him ratings based on his deeds, rather than the position(s) he held.


A good point, and I would make an exception for cases like this. Some promising guys died early -- who knows how Lyon would have turned out, for example?

But there is a tendency to compare everybody at their top ranks -- so that a really good division commander ends up looking better than an almost good army commander. The more correct comparison would be to compare the good division commander to how Hooker, Meade, Hood, Rosecrans, Pope, etc., performed when they were at that level. There is a reason those guys got promoted -- their previous performance was usually quite impressive.

To say that X was a really good divison commander so give him 5-5-5-5 (better ratings than Hooker, for example) means, in the context of the game, that he would be a better army commander than Hooker, even though Hooker's record at the same level of command may have been far superior.

So it makes sense to me to be a bit reserved in giving high ratings to generals who held only lower commands, except when there is a special reason to do so.



General Quarters -> RE: Barlow (4/7/2007 1:26:06 AM)

There's a really nice article on Barlow's achievements in the Civil War Talk section at the MadMinutes Games Forum.



Gil R. -> RE: Barlow (5/4/2007 6:57:57 AM)

Okay, finally getting back to this, I've gone with Erik's suggestion of lowering Barlow one point in each area, to 4-5-4-5. Thanks for the input.



jkBluesman -> RE: Barlow (10/29/2007 10:42:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Actually, Barlow's ratings aren't random -- they're based on this bio:

Maj. Gen. Francis Channing Barlow (b. 1834, d. 1896). A graduate of Harvard, Barlow practiced law in New York prior to the outbreak of the war when he enlisted as a private in the 12th New York. By the Peninsula Campaign, he had risen to the rank of Colonel and was later seriously wounded at Antietam. Appointed a Brigadier General two days after the battle, his brigade was routed by a Stonewall Jackson’s troops at Chancellorsville. He was captured at Gettysburg after being wounded, temporarily paralyzed and left for dead by his own troops. Confederate Brig. Gen. John B. Gordon took care of Barlow until he recovered, at which point Barlow returned to service in the Union Army. One of Barlow's major accomplishments was to lead his troops in a charge of the "Mule Shoe" at Spotsylvania. They succeeded in capturing 3,000 Confederates, 2 generals, 20 guns and 30 regimental colors. Barlow was called one of the "boy generals" because he kept himself clean-shaven, unlike the predominant practice of sporting a beard or mustache. (One Union officer described him as looking "like a highly independent mounted newsboy.") Although he was frail-looking and pale, he was an intense fighter and strict disciplinarian. After the siege of Petersburg, Barlow's heath failed, although he returned to the army to lead a division at Sayler's Creek and Farmville. He was commissioned a major general on May 25, 1865. After the war, Barlow returned to his law practice, was one of the founders of the American Bar Association, and served as New York State attorney general. (Bio by Scott Rowan)

I can't say I know much about him -- why do you think he should be lowered?



While reading "The Warrior Generals" by Thomas B. Buell (no relation to Don Carlos) I have learned a lot about Barlow. One thing is that Barlow's brigade was not routed at Chancelorsville as it had been detached (a second source for this is wikipedia) to another corps. The second is that only Gordon claims in his memoires that he took care of Barlow at Gettysburg, but according to Buell there is no other source for that.
By the way, Gordon seems to have been an interesting fellow. I would like to do his bio.



Gil R. -> RE: Barlow (10/30/2007 12:44:06 AM)

Huh. I just found that the generals file has two Confederate generals named "Gordon, J.B." and this was never caught before. One was a cavalry commander. Which one is yours?

Thanks for the Barlow info. I'll rework that bio.



Drex -> RE: Barlow (10/30/2007 5:32:57 AM)

Sears deals with Barlow on the first day of Gettysburg and mentions he was given charge of the division because of his leadership qualities. Unfortunately he couldn't keep his German brigades from panicking. I think his leaderhip rating should stay as it was.



jkBluesman -> RE: Barlow (10/30/2007 12:03:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Huh. I just found that the generals file has two Confederate generals named "Gordon, J.B." and this was never caught before. One was a cavalry commander. Which one is yours?



The cavalry commander should be James. Mine is the chevalier, John, one of the best regimental commanders of the Confederacy.



jkBluesman -> RE: Barlow (11/6/2007 9:41:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

Thanks for the Barlow info. I'll rework that bio.



If you like, you might as well add that Barlow's division was the only one at Cold Harbor to capture part of the Confederate lines but had to fall back as the other Union troops had been repulsed with heavy losses.



Gil R. -> RE: Barlow (11/10/2007 6:47:18 AM)

Right-o. Will do.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625