American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

LOL, the Union officers emerge from their hidey-holes to defend the butcher Grant while concurring that he is no gentleman.

I think I'll stick with rating the honourable and skillful generals from the South above Grant with his bludgeon aided by supporting generals who like to attack civilian targets.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

And we go with:

_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac

"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."

"That we are BEATEN is a self-evident fact, and any further resistance on our part would justly be regarded as the very height of folly and rashness."

Name the author.


When you're beaten and you know it raise your flag

_________________
Gen. Mitch Johnson
GENERAL IN CHIEF
ARMY OF THE TENNESSEE COMMANDER

Whoever said it, he must have been a decent man who would not callously sacrifice his own men. Probably a man of personal bravery and a great general. Probably not unlike Nathan Bedford Forrest who, US Brigadier General E. J. McClernand (Medal of Honor recipient and son of a Union Civil War Major General), described in the following terms:
"The fact remains, however, that nothing short of positive military genius would have enabled Forrest to gain the succession of brilliant victories he did , often against considerable odds.";
"He was great, not only in strategy, but in battle tactics as well. A good illustration of his grasp of the latter was shown at Brice's Crossroads, and it is strikingly evident in most of his engagements."
"Vigilant, brave, tremendously industrious, and filled with audacity, he was ever ready to strike and dare, and he possessed the rare quality of transmitting to his followers his own spirit of battle. He never underestimated himself, or overrated his enemy; he never thought the foe less wearied than his own men by like exertions, and these qualities have gained most of the victories recorded in history.";
"His services were brilliant, but it may be doubted if he was serving his cause to the best advantage in those bold and lightning like strokes in West Tennessee while the fate of the Confederacy was being decided on other fields by the main armies of the North and South.
His advice to his soldiers on their surrender at the end of the war was patriotic and noble, and worthy of his greatness.
His campaigns are a marvel of thought, rapidity and dash that may well be studied by every officer of the United States Cavalry."

It'll be interesting to see what rating the 'historian' gives to Forrest.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

I unfortunately don't have a good answer on this one. I'll enquire at the NWC, but Karl and Paul probably have the right answer on it.

He certainly had generals who were both and others who were one or the other. Lucky is good, but a good general of helpful. Joachim Murat counter to Eugène de Beauharnais as an example.

_________________
General Scott Ludwig
4/II/ANV

Totally concur Paul! Both of them with Clausewitz are still a pinnacle part in the Bundeswehr principles.

Concerned that the author probably thinks Wellington won Waterloo. [Start the bar room brawls now! ]

_________________
General Scott Ludwig
4/II/ANV

Wellingtons won Waterloo? Thats silly Scott, everyone knows that a pair of boots cant win a battle, sheesh. I guess they cant lose one either…. I will get back to you on this. Science.

_________________
Lt. Colonel JJ Jansen
3rd Calvary Brigade, 4th Calvary Division
Army of Tennessee
CSA

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

My issue with the statement that raiders such as Morgan having little strategic success is that it presumes it is their fault they lacked the strategic success. The problem is that--especially for the Confederacy-- their leadership failed to replicate the tactical success of raiders such as Morgan, Forrest, etc to a degree that it would have strategic impacts. Part of this could be because of the South's failure to embrace unconventional warfare to the extent that it should. If the tactics used by Morgan were applied on a much larger and constant scale, the amount of time, money, men, resources, and effort to defeat the Confederacy would have been way more immense. Raiders such as Morgan were ahead of their time; however, that is not to say they were perfect by any means. Considering Morgan especially had some bad defeats, I can understand why he is rated lower.

Thoughts?

_________________
Gen Treuting

William Sherman

A doctrinal and strategic visionary, William Sherman was also a charismatic leader of troops, but he did suffer tactical lapses that on occasion proved costly, as at the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain (June 27, 1864). His profound understanding of the essential brutality of war may have contributed to mental collapse early in the Civil War, but it also drove his strategic and tactical thinking, which were unhampered by illusions of martial glory. Although there is no evidence that Sherman was influenced by the work of the European military theorist Carl von Clausewitz (1780 - 1831), he may be regarded as the first important American practitioner of what Clausewitz called "total war," combat practices directed against the enemy civilian population as well as enemy military formations. With Winfield Scott and Ulysses S. Grant on the Union side and Confederate Robert E. Lee, Sherman was one of the key shapers of Civil War combat.

HISTORIANS RATING: THREE STARS


I was expecting a higher rating for Sherman. But the more I thought about it... Sherman really stumbled in a number of battles (Shiloh, Chickasaw Bluffs, Kennesaw Mountain). But his ability to keep driving forward and to maintain the fighting served him well.

Now I wait for Paul Swanson to tell us all about the evil and horror that is Sherman

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Surely that is not necessary. As you point out, when he had battles against military forces of comparable strength to his he didn't fair so well. Making war on civilians with military might is hardly deserving of any combat stars (certainly not "3 Stars = A winning commander"). [Those who honour Sherman should also be praising the current excellence of the Russian army in waging war on the Ukrainian civilians but are not faring so well against the, vastly outnumbered, Ukrainian military force.]

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

Hahaha! Test your theory at a bar on ladies night during rainy spring!

It's like the charge of the Ponsonby's Union Brigade but with rail liquor!

_________________
General Scott Ludwig
4/II/ANV

_________________
Gen. Mitch Johnson
GENERAL IN CHIEF
ARMY OF THE TENNESSEE COMMANDER

While I agree with you Paul that Sherman was wrong for attacking civilians, it’s difficult to compare him to the Russians or any modern combat situation. Warfare has changed. As a veteran of the Iraq war I have the experience to tell you that in modern times a civilian may pick up a weapon, shoot at you and then drop it and run… does this make him a combatant? People not there really don’t understand wgat goes on in real warfare. In the American Civil War men were uniformed. You knew who your enemy was most if not all of the time. These days its almost never the case. Im not letting the Russians or the Ukrainians off the hook, especially if they are in the wrong. Im just saying be careful to pass judgement based off news reports that in themselves claim to be an “entertainment industry” material.

Sherman was an average general with good resources that made a number of moral mistakes… but we weren’t there, and its hard to say if the Union wins without him.

_________________
Lt. Colonel JJ Jansen
3rd Calvary Brigade, 4th Calvary Division
Army of Tennessee
CSA

If you use a weapon (gun, Molotov cocktail, whatever) in a war then you are a combatant.

If you are in a hospital, taking cover in a theatre/shopping centre/non-militarised residential area/etc or fleeing a city via an agreed evacuation corridor then you are a civilian. [Some documented war crimes are listed here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.]

There was no official 'rules of war' in the 19th century but you can rely on Sherman's own words to show his intentions and actions:
[he proposes the] "utter destruction of its [Georgia's] roads, houses and people";
"I can make the march, and make Georgia howl";
"prefer to ... move through Georgia, smashing things to the sea";
"we ... must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies";
we left Atlanta "smouldering and in ruins";
"the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance";
"she [South Carolina] deserves all that seems in store for her";
"I doubt if we will spare the public buildings there [Columbia] as we did at Milledgeville"; and last, but not least
"We quietly and deliberately destroyed Atlanta".

It's quite clear what Sherman was targeting. It wasn't the Confederate armies and you shouldn't get 'stars' for beating civilians.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia