| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > What Qualities made a Civil War General great |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > What Qualities made a Civil War General great |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
|||||||||||||
| What Qualities made a Civil War General great | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 02:49 pm |
|
21st Post |
|
20th_Mass Member 
|
I think that adjusting during battle is important. Burnside learned that at Fredericksburg didn't he. I always wondered if McClellan wondered that Lee's Lost Order 191 was a trap. If I was a general and I was handed a battle plan from an opposing general my first thought would be that this was too easy. Coly http://groups.yahoo.com/group/20thMass Last edited on Wed Mar 19th, 2008 02:51 pm by 20th_Mass |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 03:56 pm |
|
22nd Post |
|
ole Member 
|
I always wondered if McClellan wondered that Lee's Lost Order 191 was a trap. If I was a general and I was handed a battle plan from an opposing general my first thought would be that this was too easy. Probably, but he had it verified by an officer who was familiar with the handwriting of Lee's adjutant. (Thomas?) He then said something like, "With this paper I can whip Bobby Lee!" Then, in a remarkable burst of speed, he only dawdled. ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 04:11 pm |
|
23rd Post |
|
Rebel Yell Belle,Bourbon,Battlefields 
|
Actually I think that the "Lost Order" was written by R.H. Chilton, Ass't Adj-Gen...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 04:13 pm |
|
24th Post |
|
PvtClewell Member 
|
'Then, in a remarkable burst of speed, he only dawdled.' Bwahahaha. Spectacular, Ole. Thanks for today's smile. 
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 07:53 pm |
|
25th Post |
|
ole Member
|
Thank you, Enlisted Man Clewell. Am gratified that you caught the obscure refernce. Not surprised. Gratified. ole
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 11:35 pm |
|
26th Post |
|
JoanieReb Member
|
"Grant, Sherman, Lee, Cleburne, Jackson, Forrest immediately come to mind. I might reserve judgment on Longstreet, Meade, Thomas and Sheridan, who I think could be borderline great. That's off the top of my bald head and I'll hate myself later for neglecting others." Hmmmm....I would like to hear your justification for the Sheridan inclusion. And, how do you rate JEB Stuart? Good point about Grant being able to travel expediously and light, forgot how you phrased it, I will give you both points for that.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 11:42 pm |
|
27th Post |
|
JoanieReb Member
|
"Today's wars break down into two major areas (according to Cleburne Fan's Theory of Modern Warfare). One type is the massively technological war in which vast superiority in modern weapon systems makes demands for a certain type of leadership unknown in past history. But in stark contrast, guerrilla warfare (ex: FARK, Colombia and Abu Sayaf, The Phillipines) and terroristic tactics (ex: Basque seperatists, Spain and Al Queda, various countries) fought anywhere and everywhere demand a totally different kind of leadership philosophy and expertise." Excellent points, where I am concerned. I agree with your accessment of Sherman, cain't help but think that he is a general for the ages, would be effective thoughout time, space and circumstance. Unlike his little buddy, U.S. Grant,  .
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 11:49 pm |
|
28th Post |
|
Don Member 
|
Albert Sailhorst wrote: Part of what makes a great General are the mistakes made by his adversary. Albert, I would submit that what a general does with the mistakes made by his adversary help make him a great general. Jackson has a great Shenandoah Valey campign in 1862 because he capitalizes on the mistakes of his opponents. McClellan doesn't have a great Antietam campaign because he doesn't capitalize on Lee's.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 11:59 pm |
|
29th Post |
|
Don Member
|
When one tries to compare different leaders over time, it's important to remember that they would receive the benefits of the new time as well. Sherman in Iraq, to use an example mentioned, would have access to the same education and assignments that modern leaders have. IMO, that would make him even more likely to be very effective, and I'm not a particular fan or detractor of his. It seems to me that we may have drifted off the intent of the original question a bit (not that this isn't a fantastic discussion that I've really been enjoying). The issue is supposed to be what qualities or characteristics make a Civil War general great. So we're really talking about personal qualities. Perhaps we could attempt to come up with a communal list that we can agree on? Maybe take one of the first ones listed (I recall a couple of good ones) and debate whether or not some should be eliminated. I'd suggest that we decide ona cap first, though. More than 20 I would think to be unmanageable. We currently use 16 leadership in the dimensions to evaluate leadership in the Army, but to list those would be cheating! 8^P There has been great thought put into the ideas posted thus far, and I for one am extremely curious as to where this might lead us.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 12:12 am |
|
30th Post |
|
CleburneFan Member 
|
Thanks, Joannie Reb. This discussion spurred me to think of another aspect of leadership that influenced the Civil War that does not play out so much today in the professional, all volunteer army with strict guidelines for how rank is assigned or earned. What I refer to is the leadership of professionally trained military officers (USMA, VMI) as opposed to "politcal" officers and men such as Nathan Bedford Forrest who had virtually no military training or Patrick Cleburne who had military training but only as a "lowly" enlisted man in the British army, yet he became so respected that he earned the title "Stonewall of the West." It also plays out in the officer rebellion against Braxton Bragg who might stand out as an example of a poor leader even though he trained at the USMA. His leadership was so inept that Forrest even refused to serve with him though Bragg had a vastly superior education. Folks who know much more than I do can add additional information to this facet of leadership...what I guess is an innate ability to lead in combat regardless of education or previous experience. It would be instructive to list the ablest CW generals who had little or no military experience. Of course we have to start off with Nathan Bedford Forrest. Also there is another interesting, but untrained leader, John Singleton Mosby, whose effective partisan raids earned him the title "Gray Ghost." There are many others in both North and South, born leaders, as it were. They didn't need the USMA to draw out their leadership qualities.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 12:13 am |
|
31st Post |
|
JoanieReb Member
|
Kudos, Don. Ah, I see exception organizational skills here. Also, creativity and the ability to come up with a quick game plan and hone in on an objective. Might you secretly be a Great General taking time off from his duties?  We currently use 16 leadership in the dimensions to evaluate leadership in the Army, but to list those would be cheating! 8^P Oh, you tease! Now you have to share what they are! Enquiring minds want to know! Remember the oft told story of the general whom promoted by dividing his potentials into four catagories: Intelligent, not bright, industrious, and lazy? He'd promote the intelligent, lazy one first, because he'd get the most done with least red-tape, and the not-bight, industrious last, because he'd cause the most trouble.....
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 12:14 am |
|
32nd Post |
|
PvtClewell Member
|
And, how do you rate JEB Stuart? There, you see. I knew I'd forget somebody. I'd say Stuart was great early in the war, but from the Gettysburg campaign on, fell to borderline great, or less. He just wasn't as effective. Time, desperation and attrition were passing him by. Sheridan was great chasing Early through the valley in '64 and working with Grant around Petersburg. But you also asked how they'd be considered in other times, and in my mind he falls steeply in his handling of Native Americans in the postwar era. Could also take points away from Sherman for that. Unlike his little buddy, U.S. Grant,. You're just egging me on with that one, right? Last edited on Thu Mar 20th, 2008 01:12 pm by PvtClewell |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 12:16 am |
|
33rd Post |
|
JoanieReb Member
|
"There are many others in both North and South, born leaders, as it were. They didn't need the USMA to draw out their leadership qualities." I always think of Joshua Chamberlain and John Gordon Brown as Northern and Southern counterparts in that catagory....they each make very interesting studies. Last edited on Thu Mar 20th, 2008 12:20 am by JoanieReb |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 12:19 am |
|
34th Post |
|
JoanieReb Member
|
" He just wasn't as effective." You know, I think this was especailly true after he was killed.... "You're just egging me on with that one, right?" Who, me? (bats eyelashes innocently, then slips on shades)...  Last edited on Thu Mar 20th, 2008 12:19 am by JoanieReb |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 12:32 am |
|
35th Post |
|
CleburneFan Member
|
JoanieReb wrote: "There are many others in both North and South, born leaders, as it were. They didn't need the USMA to draw out their leadership qualities." Good choices!
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 03:28 am |
|
36th Post |
|
JoanieReb Member
|
Shall we spin off a new thread from this one? Don had what I thought was a pretty cool suggestion: "It seems to me that we may have drifted off the intent of the original question a bit (not that this isn't a fantastic discussion that I've really been enjoying). The issue is supposed to be what qualities or characteristics make a Civil War general great. So we're really talking about personal qualities. Perhaps we could attempt to come up with a communal list that we can agree on? Maybe take one of the first ones listed (I recall a couple of good ones) and debate whether or not some should be eliminated. I'd suggest that we decide ona cap first, though. More than 20 I would think to be unmanageable. We currently use 16 leadership in the dimensions to evaluate leadership in the Army, but to list those would be cheating! 8^P There has been great thought put into the ideas posted thus far, and I for one am extremely curious as to where this might lead us." Shall we start a "Genenal's qualities #2" thread and follow Don's game plan, while keeping this thread open for general discussion (get the pun, General discussion, hee-hee? OK, sometimes I'm just a dork. Actually, I'm just imitating one ....)If anyone cares to start it, I shall follow.... Last edited on Thu Mar 20th, 2008 03:29 am by JoanieReb |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 03:58 am |
|
37th Post |
|
ole Member
|
And now, for something totally different: a dork is the phallus of a sperm whale. I will insist that you explain the relevance of your suggestion that you are one. ole 
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 04:07 am |
|
38th Post |
|
ole Member
|
Actually I think that the "Lost Order" was written by R.H. Chilton, Ass't Adj-Gen... Thanks rebel yell. I got the important parts right but couldn't remember all the details. Appreciate the clarification. ole
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 04:37 am |
|
39th Post |
|
PvtClewell Member
|
Watch out, Ole. The devil is in the details.  Joanie might agree...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Mar 20th, 2008 05:31 am |
|
40th Post |
|
JoanieReb Member
|
"Watch out, Ole. The devil is in the details. Joanie might agree..." Yes I do. Take for example, this statement: "And now, for something totally different: a dork is the phallus of a sperm whale. I will insist that you explain the relevance of your suggestion that you are one. ole "If you will read CAREFULLY, I said that I was imitating a dork. This is done by spreading the feet about six inches apart, toes pointed outward, and bowing the legs out, like a ballet plie', and.... oh well, never mind. The relevance? In order to better understand the great generals, I was trying to get in touch with my masculine side.... (Are you sure that "dork" doesn't refer to the sperm of the phallus whale?) Joanie Last edited on Thu Mar 20th, 2008 05:46 am by JoanieReb |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 12:33 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > Other Civil War Talk > What Qualities made a Civil War General great | Top |
