American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Overrated Civil War Officers

http://www.historynet.com/the-war-list-five-overrated-civil-war-officers.htm

Always good for a comment or two.

BG Elkin

3rd Div (2nd Cav)/XVIth Corp AotT

_________________
I have come to you from the West, where we have always seen the backs of our enemies. . . . Let us look before us, and not behind

This guy is off the mark when he includes Joshua Chamberlain. Chamberlain was a true Union hero, not a great general, although he was a good general. Even Sheridan recognized him as a good leader. He was a hero at LRT as a colonel , not a general. He was wounded severely, twice, and still came back for more. At the surrender at Appommatox, he was the general chosen to receive the rebel laying down of arms and honored them with a division salute. If the war had gone on longer or had he joined sooner , perhaps he could have done great things.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

Wow,
Although there are multitudes of overrated
Civil War Generals they were a mile off the mark
with each selection. I guess a bid to spark controversy
(and sells) from a very overrated and mediocre publication,
not worth the price, not worth reading, an emabarrassing attempt
to sell the rag.

Refutation of such non-history and rewriting and revisionism of history can be refuted at my own personal library, it's always interesting to challenge history as an armchair general, analyist, and sometimes former modern commander but their documented deeds are not lessened by perceived foibles of today.
Real Historians, as Shelby Foote, Stephen W. Sears, John Keegan, Douglas S. Freeman, Bruce Catton,
James M. McPherson, Noah Andre Trudeau. We have all read (or you should) the many biographies
of Gen Custer (Sun of the Morning Star) and now there many new ones, but no one can deny the impact
he had on the Civil War, as did all the Generals mentioned in the MHQ article. It's always good to examine
historical commanders and their impact on their particular war and history, but controversy for the sake of it,
which this obviously this is, is garbage. "Little Big Man" was a movie, not an historical document, neither is MHQ, but they can have their opinions as long as they are based somewhere in the stratosphere of fact.

One last PS,
" If it looks like crap, smells like crap, then it's crap"
Cheech and Chong (1970's sometime whatever)
And no I don't smoke as a veteran of 20 years and 4 deployments.

Including N B Forrest is the one I find to be an odd choice. I think he'd have gone at things in a very different way if he had been landed with a larger command responsibility. I don't think the Reb command ever realised the possibilities of his potential.

I think he'd have quickly put his energies towards making it a different kind of war altogether, that being reliant on getting the backing to do so? More of an insurgency and guerilla campaign with limited numbers of men making better use of the available resources. The cost and effort involved in dealing with the various raids was often way out of proportion to the size of the forces conducting them and I think Forrest might have turned the Civil War into an irregular war lasting 20 years or more to frustrate the ability of the Federal Government to maintain the Union, rather than trying to beat them outright through military force.

There's no doubt that the man himself must be viewed as a military great. Unfortunately I doubt he would have been able to inspire and motivate others to effectively recreate his own methods? Too unique to be imitated?

_________________
Brigadier-General Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.

I agree with MHQ's assessment of the leaders listed but don't agree with some of their selections as being important enough to list. Mosby wasn't a general, he was a raider and scout. Chamberlain wasn't a major figure in the Civil War. Probably chosen more because he is well known now.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)