Civil War Dream Team Armies

IrishBrigadeLadd · #1 12-17-2005, 01:44 PM

Of all the good commanders in both the Northern and Southern Armies, it is a shame that many of them did not have the chance to work together, either because of assignment, or becoming a casualty. However, what if you could somehow construct the perfect Civil War Armies for each side? Imagine how different the war would have been! Here is your chance to see if you can come up with the ultimate army from the War of the Rebellion Era. Here are my restrictions that my friend and I came up with:
I was thinking most likely no lower than brigade level, though a friend and I have tried to make our own using regimental commanders too, but that is proving very difficult.
We decided on a format: The armed forces of each country will have a general-in-cheif, 2 or 3 army commanders (depends on how in depth you want to go), 7 corps per army, 3 divisions per corps, and 5 brigades per division (we also said 5 regiments per brigade, but, like i said, it isn't easy to remember that many colonels.) We are also having separate cavalry and artillery sections.

If you have any suggestions, It would be greatly appreciated. Just give me any generals, north or south, and where you think they would serve best in the chain of command, and, if possible, who you think would serve well under them as lesser commanders. You do not have to give me a full run down f every position you think should be filled, for that is extremely time consuming. But if you think you know of a couple men who would be best suited for a certain job, just let me know and I'll be sure to take it under heavy consideration.
Thanks for the help.
Respectfully,
-Andrew

milhistbuff1 · #2 12-17-2005, 04:33 PM

Union
Lt General Grant
AOP/Gen. in Chief
Army of the Potomac utilizing the grand division set up of burnside's command
Two GD's 3 infantry corp each, Hancock and Sedgewick in command of the two
1st Corp-Reynolds, Division cmdrs Doubleday, Meradith, and Wadsworth
2nd Corp-Warren- Gibbons, Kelly, Israel Richardson
5th Corp Griffen- Chamberlain, Rice,
6th Corp-Wright- Upton, Ferraro Ricketts
11th Corp-Howard- Barlow, Schurz, Ames
12th Corp- G.S Greene- Williams, Geary, Slocum
Cavalry Corp-Sheridan- Buford, Gamble, Devin
Arty- Huntington

Will post western US forces and CSA in separate posts. need to research original OOB's first and check reputations

Matt

Admiral_Porter · #3 12-17-2005, 04:53 PM

Union:
General in Chief: Grant
Army Commander: Sherman
1st Corps: Thomas
2nd Corps: Hancock
3rd Corps: Black Jack Logan
4th Corps: Hazen
5th Corps: Gibbon
6th Corps: Hooker
7th Corps: Sheridan
Cavalry Corps: Wilson
Artillery: Henry Hunt

Confederate:
General in Chief: Joe Johnston
Army Commander: Lee
1st Corps: Longstreet
2nd Corps: Cleburne
3rd Corps: Hardee
4th Corps: AP Stewart
5th Corps: Jackson
6th Corps: Harvey Hill
7th Corps: Bowen
Cavalry Corps: Forrest
Artillery: EP Alexander

IrishBrigadeLadd · #4 12-17-2005, 05:07 PM

I like both of your suggestions, and I will most definetly use aspects, if not most, of them. I especially like the Grand Division Idea that Matt thougt of; just because it failed at Fredericksburg doesn't mean it can't work. I also like alot of Admiral_Porter's suggestions, especially with the use of the Western men as well. Though I have one question: It seems to me that Davis had little faith in Johnston as a commander, and that is why he was releived against McClellan (though Little Mac wasnt all that great himself). I am open to this decision, but I was wondering why do you think he would be more suited for this job than say a Lee or a A.S. Johnston? Just Curious.
But, please keep all of your suggestions coming. THey are greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
Andrew

milhistbuff1 · #5 12-17-2005, 05:08 PM

CSA
General in Chief- DH Hill- although abrasive and annoying at times served in multiple theatres. Consequently he was aware of things Lee and Bragg were blind to.
AOT- Johnston
1st Corp A P Stewart,Trabue, Bushrod Johnson
2nd Corp Hardee
Indep.3rd Corp DH Hill- AP hill, Hood
4th Corp Breckinridge
5th Corp Bowen
6th Corp Cleburne
Cavalry Corp- Forrest- Ector, Wheeler, Buford
Arty, Morton

ANV- Longstreet
1st Corp Lee- Hood, Kershaw Pickett
2nd Corp JB Gordon-Early, Extra Billy, Steuart
3rd Corp Wilcox- Pettigrew, Pender Mahone
4th Corp Trimble- Anderson, Heth, Daniel
5th Corp- Rodes
Cavalry-Stuart- Fitz Lee, Robertson, Imboden
Arty- EP Alexander

More to be added later

Admiral_Porter · #6 12-17-2005, 05:17 PM

Johnston was replaced by GW Smith after being wounded at Seven Pines. But Davis had no faith in Smith so he appointed Lee instead.

Since I decided to have only one army per side, I felt Johnston would have better served the Confederacy in a staff role rather than as a field commander. I think Johnston had good strategic sense where he could look beyond his own little corner of the conflict and understand the war as a whole.

Lee's boldness and tactical skills are just too great for me to toss those advantages away by assigning him to a desk.

I have yet to form a conclusive opinion regarding AS Johnston's leadership because his actions are so mixed.

IrishBrigadeLadd · #7 12-17-2005, 05:25 PM

I See what you mean, but you have to take into consideration that even if you have someone back in Richmond as the General-in-Cheif, they need to be a VERY able commander. I think that maybe Lee could do that, and do what he AND Grant did, which was take command of all the armies, but attach themselves to the most important one: the one guarding the capitals. I know that Grant did a great job as General-In-Chief even though he was just attached to the AOP. He still commmanded the rest of the field armies extraordinarily well all over the country. Whether you think Lee had that capability is up to you, but I dont think that just because you want Lee on the field instead of behind a desk is not necessarily the right reasoning to keep him just as army command.
As for A.S. Johnston, it is hard to assess his capability during the Civil war, considering his rather early death at Shiloh. However, i have read that both Lincoln and Davis had extreme faith in him, for pre-war he was a very able Indian fighter and had served nobly throughout the various engagements of the united states (Mexico, etc). For him, you must look at the very big picture as to his command ability.
Respectfully,
Andrew

milhistbuff1 · #8 12-17-2005, 05:34 PM

JE Johnston was a poor choice for Gen. in C. His legendary lack of communication would defeat the purpose of his appointment. I've got to think of who to put there. Hancock had a lot of respect for him as well, since AS Johnston was his CO out in California. Be Interesting to see what wouldve happened if Lo and Hancock served together eh?
Matt

Admiral_Porter · #9 12-17-2005, 05:38 PM

Quote:

I think that maybe Lee could do that, and do what he AND Grant did, which was take command of all the armies, but attach themselves to the most important one: the one guarding the capitals.

Having the General in Chief also be an army commander did not cross my mind since it didn't fit in with the parameters you gave us.

Lee got command of all the confederate armies when it was too late.

Quote:

I dont think that just because you want Lee on the field instead of behind a desk is not necessarily the right reasoning to keep him just as army command.

Each general has certain skills that makes them better suited to certain roles. I feel that Johnston had better strategic sense than Lee but Lee had better tactical skill. This is why I assigned them to General in Chief and army commander respectively.

Quote:

However, i have read that both Lincoln and Davis had extreme faith in him, for pre-war he was a very able Indian fighter and had served nobly throughout the various engagements of the united states (Mexico, etc). For him, you must look at the very big picture as to his command ability.

There is a thread on the western theater forum where I discussed my thoughts relating to Sidney Johnston.

Admiral_Porter · #10 12-17-2005, 05:43 PM

Quote:

JE Johnston was a poor choice for Gen. in C.

Some of your choices I would consider to be poor too.

Quote:

His legendary lack of communication would defeat the purpose of his appointment.

His communications issues only arose when he personally commanded an army. He felt that his plans would be in the newspapers the next day. When he was a department commander during Vicksburg communications with Richmond were not an issue.

Stonewall was notorious for not communicating his plans either but he is held in high regard my most.