GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

This subforum is devoted to discussing and establishing proper ratings for the database of 1000 Civil War generals and preparing brief bios of them.

Moderator: Gil R.

ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: ezz

There are NO serious history books on the civil war that do not accord almost equal status to the great skills of Lee and Grant.

If they weren't any good surely Foote or McPherson or Catton would have noticed.

Enough already, they were both very good.....

Next we'll be arguing Rommel was only defeated by superior numbers and could have got to Delhi with Monty's resources.....

Dunno about New Delhi -- Basra sounds reasonable. Anyway, I'll certainly grant that Grant was right up there with Montgomery. It's a good question, actually: who was the more inspired military genius? Grant or Montgomery? Any Haig fans around?
I am not Charlie Hebdo
Conhugeco
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:53 pm

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by Conhugeco »

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

You're not the only one posting here. Specifically, 'Conhugeco' approvingly quotes Sherman's assessment of Grant as 'the greatest soldier of our time if not all time.'

Yes, that was me, and yes, I agree with Sherman, at least on the "greatest soldier of our time" part.

DickH
In response to a critic: "General Lee surrendered to me. He did not surrender to any other Union General, although I believe there were several efforts made in that direction before I assumed command of the armies in Virginia."
User avatar
Feltan
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:47 am
Location: Kansas

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by Feltan »

Lee.

A great tactician, and the one most often compared to Grant (of whom I have mixed thoughts previously posted).

However, Lee lost the war for the South. By committing so many resources for so long to the defense of Virginia, the rest of the Confederacy was relegated to begging.

Sure, Virginia was critical to the Confederacy and deserved more resources in its defense than, say, Arkansas. But any rational overall commander would have redeployed forces to defend Atlanta, or to liberate New Orleans -- the gateway to the Mississippi.

Lee was a general not of the Confederacy, but a general of Virginia -- first, last and always. In doing so, and being blinded by state patriotism, he doomed the Confederacy (and by association Virginia) to defeat.

In modern parlance, Lee never got the big picture. Any comparison of Lee against Grant needs to take this into account -- and by my reckoning a high ranking general who fails the grand strategy test fails as a high ranking general. Lee would have made a damn fine corps commander -- but he exerted influence on the Confederate approach to the war far in excess of his capabilites.

Regards,
Feltan
User avatar
jkBluesman
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:48 pm

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by jkBluesman »

In the whole ratings, how is the level of command considered? There was a big discussion on Hood. He was a great division commander but a bad army commander. A.P. Hill lacked the health and the skill for keeping the bigger picture together but he did a great job as commander of the "Light Division".
There are examples on the Union side too though there (at least in the ARmy of the Potomac) the problem of "political" generals was bigger than in the AoNV.
"War is the field of chance."
Carl von Clausewitz
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by Gil R. »

One of our new features for the patch is the chance for a general's ratings to drop when promoted, which should simulate that to some extent.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
User avatar
jkBluesman
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:48 pm

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by jkBluesman »

In your judgement of Lee you have to keep on thing in mind that was very different between Union and Confederacy. The South had with Davis a president, who had been Secretary of War of the United States and was a graduate of West Point. So while he considered Lee to be the best choice for the Eastern theater, he supported Bragg in the West, being himself in overall command. When Longstreet and others favoured a shift of units from East to West for another attempt to invade Kentucky, Lee argued that he would be weakened too much by this move in Virginia. Here you can critizise Lee for not looking at the big picture however, in this discussion he was defending his command and did not want to loose veteran troops to commanders in the West (where he had sent commanders whom Lee considered as bad).
The Union in contrast had a president who did not know much about warfare. Lincoln learned a lot over the years, but depended on Halleck and his commanders in the field.
"War is the field of chance."
Carl von Clausewitz
User avatar
christof139
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:43 am

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by christof139 »

Davis also pulled Stevenson's large Division from Bragg's army and sent it to Vicksburg, thus depriving Bragg of this Division when he needed it at Murfreesboro.

Davis was in a tough spot all the way around, and made some errors, such as not canning Bragg etc. However, not anyone or anything is perfect.

Lincoln did have knowledge of military affairs, but did rely on his military advisors more so than davis, but Lincoln did make final decisions based on his final analysis and determination of the matters at hand.

Chris
'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
bubbak
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:18 pm

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by bubbak »

Felton
The debate between Lee and Grant is not a proper debate. Lee was not in command of all Confederate forces until the end of the war when it was to late to do anything, he was only in command of the ANV. Grant was in command of all Union forces and attached himself to the AOP. The only reason a debate is made between Lee and Grant is because of Grants attachment to AOP, Mead was in command of the AOP so the debate should be between Meade and Lee. Of course Lee was not going to release any of his forces to other commands because once he did he had no way to call them back, where as Grant could transfer units at his descreation and if he wanted them back he just had to order them back and he could give orders to the other armies opperating in the west, Lee could not. At the end of the Civil war Lee could only surrender the ANV and not the other armies.
chris0827
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:45 am

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by chris0827 »

ORIGINAL: bubbak

Felton
The debate between Lee and Grant is not a proper debate. Lee was not in command of all Confederate forces until the end of the war when it was to late to do anything, he was only in command of the ANV. Grant was in command of all Union forces and attached himself to the AOP. The only reason a debate is made between Lee and Grant is because of Grants attachment to AOP, Mead was in command of the AOP so the debate should be between Meade and Lee. Of course Lee was not going to release any of his forces to other commands because once he did he had no way to call them back, where as Grant could transfer units at his descreation and if he wanted them back he just had to order them back and he could give orders to the other armies opperating in the west, Lee could not. At the end of the Civil war Lee could only surrender the ANV and not the other armies.

Lee became Commander in Chief of the Confederate army on Jan 23rd 1865 He had the authority to surrender the entire confederate army.
bubbak
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:18 pm

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by bubbak »

Sorry, your right chris0827, like with some other things in the Civil war when I wrote that statement I was thinking about the surrender of the western armies after Lee surrendered. Am I wrong or didn't they consider carring on the fight, I know it was suggested to go gorilla which Lee did not want to do.
User avatar
christof139
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:43 am

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by christof139 »

In the Trans Miss. the war went on until around June, 1865. Palmitto Ranch, TX was the last battle, officially that is.
 
Chris
 
'What is more amazing, is that amongst all those approaching enemies there is not one named Gisgo.' Hannibal Barcid (or Barca) to Gisgo, a Greek staff officer, Cannae.
That's the CSS North Carolina BB-55
Boris Badanov, looking for Natasha Goodenov
ColinWright
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:28 pm

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by ColinWright »

ORIGINAL: chris0827

ORIGINAL: bubbak

Felton
The debate between Lee and Grant is not a proper debate. Lee was not in command of all Confederate forces until the end of the war when it was to late to do anything, he was only in command of the ANV. Grant was in command of all Union forces and attached himself to the AOP. The only reason a debate is made between Lee and Grant is because of Grants attachment to AOP, Mead was in command of the AOP so the debate should be between Meade and Lee. Of course Lee was not going to release any of his forces to other commands because once he did he had no way to call them back, where as Grant could transfer units at his descreation and if he wanted them back he just had to order them back and he could give orders to the other armies opperating in the west, Lee could not. At the end of the Civil war Lee could only surrender the ANV and not the other armies.

Lee became Commander in Chief of the Confederate army on Jan 23rd 1865 He had the authority to surrender the entire confederate army.

That Lee had the authority to surrender all Confederate armies might be a theoretically defensible view -- but the fact is that he did not. Lee and Johnston each surrendered separately and on behalf of their armies only. I think Forrest et al did the same thing: the legalities were secondary to the obvious physical fact that the war was finally lost.

I don't believe the South ever surrendered as a whole, per se. Rather, I think each individual military command threw in the towel as Jefferson Davis fled southwards, continuing to insist that he was head of an (increasingly fictional) Confederacy. For its part, the North tended to take the view that the Confederacy never had had any legal existence in the first place, so it wasn't interested in legitimizing it by negotiating terms either.
I am not Charlie Hebdo
User avatar
marcbarker
Posts: 1213
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by marcbarker »

You know I take general leadership in 3 ways, revisionist history (the winner's point of view on battle history) or the general's biography (sometimes a self bloated ego trip) and the third I take to heart. Eyewitness accounts of leadership quality. For example: General Roddey 4th Alabama Cavalry. He rode with forrest and Wheeler but his men would follow him to the gates of hell. He froze with them, ate with them, fought with them. He endured the hardships as the men. Another Example Joe Wheeler, after the war he volunteered for the Spanish American war, was instrumental in the surrender. AS Johnston, A general that stood above all generals, was cut down short from a leg wound. Grants fame came from the Battle of Fort Henry and Donelson. The reason for grants win was that alot of the confederate men were sick and in the hospital, the 27th alabama was below half strength and no ammunition but they fought on. Even though the upper generals could not lead, the immediate leadership could and most often did. Grant was Grant. He had luck that fateful Feb. He tried to take fort henry with gun boats but they turned them back, supply was non existent so they went to dover. If you are a general and had the fate of your men and others, with no food or ammunition with no chance of supply....what would ou do?

By the way Forrest was one of the last generals to accept a pardon.
games:
1. AGEOD Blue and Gray
2. John Tiller's Battleground Series
3. Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
4. Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
5. V for Victory Games
6. Silent Hunter III
7. Silent Hunter IV
8. Rise and Fall of the Third Re
jakethesnake
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:13 pm

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by jakethesnake »

When are these values going to be reflected in the Game?? In the 10.10.12 or whatever Patch? P.T. Beauregard seems to have come up short on votes for the the guy who was know as the "American Napoleon".  He pay be accused of dropping the ball at Shiloh but few recall that the day one battle plan was his and he was faced with overwhelming odds on day two.  He Commanded the field and rallied the CSA line at First Manasses, succeeded in preserving his army at Corith Juction.  Defended Charlston Harbor for 18 months while other CSA ports caved in a day.  And he prevented Petersburg from falling in 64 while outnumbered 5 to 1. I believe he should rate a 6 in both Initiative and Leadership. P.T. Beauregard would have had more notable commands if he hadnt become an enemy of the CSA President in 61 because of his open criticism of the CSA goverments "war efforts"
Jake the Snake
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by Gil R. »

I'm not sure what your question means -- the ratings voted on in this forum have been in the game since release, though I did lower his "Command" rating following discussion in the thread devoted to his bio. Since no one checks this sub-forum anymore, you might want to post your thoughts in that thread to see what others think. I'm not opposed to changing his ratings slightly if there's a consensus to do so.

Here's the thread: tm.asp?m=1412430&mpage=1&key=beauregard&#1412430
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
frederick II
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:11 pm

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by frederick II »

I just saw your general ratings. It looks like you have read toomany grant/sherman kool-aid. I have just read Master of war by Benson Bobrick. I also googled George henry Thomas. It was their opinion that General Geo Henry Thomas was the formost Union general of the war. Their opinion was that he was even greater then Lee.
His problem was he was from virginia and had no political backing and the political people didn't trust him. He won the 1st big battle of civil war for the north at Mill springs which destoyed the south right flank. He wanted to take eastern Tennessee but leaders over him dithered. It was his idea to go through snake river gap with the army of cumberland but Sherman didn't want him to get credit and sent Mcpherson's army of tennessee tnto the gap. Grant didn't like him because Thomas was assigned his army after Shioh. James Garfield, Rosecrans chief of staff and future president ahen asked by Lincoln who should be the next general of the Potomac after Gettysburg said only 1 man can operate that army and he said that it was Thomas. He was known as the Rock of Chicamauga and the sledgehammer of Nashville. He had the 1st modern army staff and was beloved by his Northern troops.It was his cavalry which destroyed Forrest.Wilson, a grant cav comdr said noome was better. The common word when asked about Thomas was that Thomas reminded them of Washington. Grant and Sherman lied in their reports and in their memoirs about Thomas.
frederick w. whittaker
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by Gil R. »

Thomas was certainly outstanding, and as I recall we gave him quite good ratings. But remember, it's not just a general's ratings that matter, but also the number and quality of special abilities he can teach, and Thomas certainly does well in that area.

Good to see someone still paying attention to generals! I do hope to return to the bios/ratings project, but it's going to have to wait a bit longer, as there are several higher priorities. Most of them not as fun, though.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
frederick II
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:11 pm

RE: GENERALS: FINAL RATINGS VALUES

Post by frederick II »

There are a coup;e more books out on General George Thomas. He is finally getting his due. Bruce Catton on one of his last interview thought that Thomas was the best general. He had the best modern staff, Hired the 1st woman doctor, 1st one to use railruad caes as hospitals. Broke the confederate flag codes. Created the cavalry force (fights on foot road to battle) and armed them with spenser repeating rifles. He directed Wilson in destroying Forrest and destroying the war material capability of Selma and Montgomery. Stanton, Hooker and other generals remarked that he was only general who matched up with Washington.As Mr Bobrick stated he was the master of war.
frederick w. whittaker
Post Reply

Return to “Generals' Ratings”