Albert Sidney Johnston - A Rating Analysis

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Albert Sidney Johnston - A Rating Analysis

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Albert Sidney Johnston - A Rating Analysis - 10/6/2006 10:08:47 PM

lvaces

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline

According to Gil, Albert S. Johnston comes up for rating today. He is a tough one. Many who knew him saw him having the potential to be a top commanding general, but he was killed too early in the war to show much of it. Here is how I see Johnston's career. Sent to Tenn. at the start of the war, early on he did a good job bluffing the Federals out of trying any major offensives in Tennessee and also organizing an army that was trying to form almost from scratch.

Of course the bluff only worked until Grant showed up with the authority to act and moved on west Tenn. Here Johnston had a choice, he could fight Grant and the gunboats and try to stop them at Fort Donelson, or he could take his army and retreat from Nashville, playing for time and a better opportunity. Johnston made a serious error in trying to do both, sending many of his men to the fort but staying with the majority of them in Nashville. It turned out the men he sent to Donelson were too few to stop Grant, but too many for his army to lose when they were almost all captured.

To his credit, Johnston was not disheartened by his defeat, but instead quickly and aggressively moved to defeat Grant at Shiloh. While a brave and smart move, the battle itself was badly managed (on both sides). Johnston approved an attack plan by his 2nd in command Beauregard that was much too complicated for such an inexperienced army. This plan, with Johnston's corps attacking one behind the other instead of side by side, collapsed even before the battle started and a spur of the moment reorganization was required. This all lead to much unnecessary confusion.

Once the battle started, Johnston's leadership was brave and inspiring to his men. Of course it also lead to him getting killed. So here are the ratings.

Initiative - 6 (Great)
Leadership - 6 (Great)
Tactics - 3 (Average) The strategic decision to attack at Shiloh was inspired, the actual battle plan was no more than average.
Command - 4 (Fair) This is the toughest one. Johnston had the knack for making people see him as a man who would be a great commanding general. The decision to attack at Shiloh was also worthy of a top commander. Yet one can not help notice that at both of Johnston's major command moments (Donelson and Shiloh) he lost. I find it difficult to give better than a 3 to a man who never actually won anything. However, I give him half a point for almost winning at Shiloh and another half a point for the potential others saw in him at the time and so he gets the 4.

2 generals down ... 998 generals to go.

< Message edited by lvaces -- 10/6/2006 10:15:36 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Albert Sidney Johnston - A Rating Analysis - 10/6/2006 10:20:34 PM

andysomers

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

Lvaces - again, a very well spoken review. I think you are mostly on.

About AS Johnston's only ACW experience was, as you say, in the Shiloh/Donelson campaigns in early '62. I am fairly unimpressed with his ability to lead his army at Shiloh, and if we base AS Johnston's potential CW career solely on his sole ACW action, I would give him a very mediocre rating. That said, if I based Grant's ACW career on Shiloh (i.e. if we were KIA as was AS Johnston) I would give him even lower marks.

Johnston was slow in moving on Shiloh and would have devastated Grant if he had arrived on the field but a day or two earlier. In my mind this is largely due to his "hands-off" style of leadership. The Army of Mississippi went into battle with a very poor battle plan that led to a very quick loss of command and control. Although Beauregard developed it, Johnston ultimately approved it and was responsible for it.

Based on this information, I give Johnston fair ranks in intiative and tactics (both 4), and I agree with the 6 for leadership and the 4 for command. I think the key here is that AS Johnston gets better rankings than Bragg, his successor. I think we can all agree the AoT would have eventually been much better off with AS Johnston at the helm through the war.

AS

(in reply to lvaces)

Post #: 2

RE: Albert Sidney Johnston - A Rating Analysis - 10/7/2006 1:38:06 AM

lvaces

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline

Andy - I agree that A Johnston should be higher than Bragg (who did have some good points, tho mainly these served to make his bad points all the more irritating). I see I cut Johnston a little more slack than you for being late with such an inexperienced army. I don't think any general alive could have got that army to Shiloh on time. I guess I would say I give him the 6 initiative for having the gumption to go at all while you give him a 4 for getting their late.

I think my tactical rating of 3 does come from that "hands-off" style you mention. In fact, to me it is one of the more mind boggling facts of the civil war that A Johnston did not even make up his own battle plan for Shiloh. What is the commanding general there for if not to do that? It is one thing to make the plan up and then let your subordinates alone to carry it out (like Lee did), another thing entirely to even farm out making the plan. Based on that alone, I don't see giving him higher than a 3.

(in reply to andysomers)

Post #: 3

RE: Albert Sidney Johnston - A Rating Analysis - 10/7/2006 7:27:00 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

Your analysis have been outstanding lvaces. I hope Gil continues to make you aware of upcoming polls and I hope that you and others will continue to offer analysis and discussions here in advance of those votes. Nice job.

(in reply to lvaces)

Post #: 4

RE: Albert Sidney Johnston - A Rating Analysis - 10/7/2006 7:56:21 PM

RERomine

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lvaces

Once the battle started, Johnston's leadership was brave and inspiring to his men. Of course it also lead to him getting killed. So here are the ratings.

Initiative - 6 (Great)
Leadership - 6 (Great)
Tactics - 3 (Average) The strategic decision to attack at Shiloh was inspired, the actual battle plan was no more than average.
Command - 4 (Fair) This is the toughest one. Johnston had the knack for making people see him as a man who would be a great commanding general. The decision to attack at Shiloh was also worthy of a top commander. Yet one can not help notice that at both of Johnston's major command moments (Donelson and Shiloh) he lost. I find it difficult to give better than a 3 to a man who never actually won anything. However, I give him half a point for almost winning at Shiloh and another half a point for the potential others saw in him at the time and so he gets the 4.

2 generals down ... 998 generals to go.

Inititive - 5 - For me, he took a bit too long to move to the vicinity of Pittsburg Landing and start the attack. Just think how different things would have been if he had attacked one day earlier.

Tactics - 4 - I absolutely hated the idea of corps attacking in waves. That was a command and control nightmare for the corp commanders, especially in the woods around Shiloh.

Leadership - 6

Command - 6 - I didn't penalize him for Fort Donaldson because he wasn't there. Pillow should have left when they opened a path out. I'll kill Pillow's rating for that when he comes up. Also, when Johnstown was wounded, he stayed with the fight until he couldn't because of blood loss. The battle lulled for a while after his death, indicating his level of control over it. Now, if common sense was a rating...

(in reply to lvaces)

Post #: 5

RE: Albert Sidney Johnston - A Rating Analysis - 10/9/2006 7:01:41 PM

andysomers

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

lvaces - your counterpoint is well taken. Any way we analyze AS Johnston, to me he will always be one of the great "what ifs" of the war that make games like this so fun. There are many who would say he would have been great (I think this is mostly due however to his untried early war political praise), and you and I who would say he would be only "above average." Either way it is all conjecture, he and US general Nathaniel Lyon were perhaps the brightest generals who never lived to see their potentials realized. That said, I'll support any rating for AS Johnston, based on good judgment.

Again, the interesting question to ask is what ranking would we give US Grant if he had died on April 6 1862 instead of AS Johnston? I seriously doubt it would be anything good. Or, say Grant lives, as does Johnston, and the CS pushes their attack with a little more fervor, pinning the Army of Tennessee against the river?

"Although he quickly seized key highground along the upper Mississippi River, and led a decisive campaigns to control Forts Henry and Donelson, he allowed his army to be completely surprised and driven into the Tennessee River, only hours before Don Carlos Buell would have been available to reinforce him. Without a secure landing point on the west bank of the river, the Army of the Ohio remained separated from the Army of the Tennessee, devastating the Union cause in western Tennessee. Halleck, now with just reason, quickly removed his new political rival, and replaced him with General William Rosecrans, moving Grant to take charge of US operations in St. Louis."

(in reply to RERomine)

Post #: 6

RE: Albert Sidney Johnston - A Rating Analysis - 11/5/2006 1:39:24 PM

Jonathan Palfrey

Posts: 535
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
Status: offline

Grant says in his memoirs:

"I had known Johnston slightly in the Mexican war and later as an officer in the regular army. He was a man of high character and ability. His contemporaries at West Point, and officers generally who came to know him personally later and who remained on our side, expected him to prove the most formidable man to meet that the Confederacy would produce."

"I once wrote that nothing occurred in his brief command of an army to prove or disprove the high estimate that had been placed upon his military ability; but after studying the orders and dispatches of Johnston I am compelled to materially modify my views of that officer�s qualifications as a soldier. My judgment now is that he was vacillating and undecided in his actions."

(in reply to lvaces)

Post #: 7

RE: Albert Sidney Johnston - A Rating Analysis - 11/5/2006 11:22:17 PM

Gil R.

Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Interesting. Well, that makes me glad that we gave him two Greats and two Goods, rather than something higher.

(in reply to Jonathan Palfrey)

Post #: 8

RE: Albert Sidney Johnston - A Rating Analysis - 11/6/2006 6:22:35 PM

andysomers

Posts: 157
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

It's a tough call. I just happen to think that he was not going to live up to the hype, much like Beauregard. I'm glad to hear that another amateur general, US Grant, sees my point!!!

AS

(in reply to Gil R.)

Post #: 9

RE: Albert Sidney Johnston - A Rating Analysis - 12/3/2006 7:38:02 AM

Steely Glint

Posts: 580
Joined: 9/23/2003
Status: offline

Now do one of these for U.S. Grant. Pay special attention to Cold Harbor.

_____________________________

�It was a war of snap judgments and binary results�shoot or don�t, live or die.�

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.

(in reply to andysomers)

Post #: 10

Page: [1]

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

Page: [1]