Jackson/Sheridan-- Hammer Time!!

[5fish]

Which one Jackson or Sheridan?

Who was the better bulldog?
Who was the true Hammer?
Who was the better right hand to their respective commanders?

I do not know the answer to my own question. I can not choose between the two. Their respective commanders always turn to them to acomplish important task. They were both tenacious and pugnacious in a fight and had the ear of their respective commanders. I throw out the question to you all on this respective broad to find the answer.

[cash]

Originally Posted by 5fish

Which one Jackson or Sheridan?

Who was the better bulldog?
Who was the true Hammer?
Who was the better right hand to their respective commanders?

I do not know the answer to my own question. I can not choose between the two. Their respective commanders always turn to them to acomplish important task. They were both tenacious and pugnacious in a fight and had the ear of their respective commanders. I throw out the question to you all on this respective broad to find the answer.

Each has his own pluses and each has his own problems, but I go with Jackson. He was smarter than Sheridan and a better strategist.

Regards,
Cash

[ole]

Had Jackson lived, your perception might have reached fruition. I figure that Jackson neither lived up to his rep nor did he deserve it. He had his moments. And he had his sluffs. The rest is guesswork.

ole

[cw1865]

My only problem with Jackson is that he keeps saying 'we must show them the bayonet' when its clearly not a bayonet war.

[johan_steele]

Jackson, hands down. I don't care too much for Sheriden. That said Jackson was overrated IMO. His men's opinion of him is all I need.

[5fish]

I come to a conclusion:

Sheridan was the better of the two. He put many of the final nails in Lee's AoNV coffin. He took out Stuart at Yellow tavern. He gave Lee his darkest day at Sailor Creek and cut off Lee's retreat so I going with short guy.

[formerYank]

Originally Posted by 5fish

I come to a conclusion:
Sheridan was the better of the two.

no way. jackson has chancellorsville, sheridan has nothing of the sort, and cedar creek doesn't count!

He put many of the final nails in Lee's AoNV coffin.

Nope, you've got to give george pickett the credit for that at saylor's creek.

He took out Stuart at Yellow tavern.

no. stuart was outnumbered at yellow tavern.

He gave Lee his darkest day at Sailor Creek and cut off Lee's retreat so I going with short guy.

no. overwhelming numbers and massive losses at saylor's creek and five forks and the failure of the final rations/supply train to arrive did all that. you give little phil too much credit. jackson was a brilliant loony genius, phil was at the right place at the right time, quite a difference. little phil was a great leader and a vicious fighter but he was no jackson.

everybody likes to trash jackson for the seven days battles, but he was a genious. chancellorsville is proof of that.

[formerYank]

Originally Posted by cw1865

My only problem with Jackson is that he keeps saying 'we must show them the bayonet' when its clearly not a bayonet war.

"use the bayonet" is jackson's short-hand for "attack/be aggressive". what i mean is when the troops got close enough to actually use the bayonet, well, it was incredibly effective. i am still mad at him for garnett's arrest at kernstown as garnett was in the right. but in the overall scheme of things i understand why jackson did it. but, in the end, ap hill still would have given jackson a good whuppin' at the right time. sad that he should be killed so close to the end. a great commander and too little discussed - ap hill.

[5fish]

Originally Posted by formerYank

no way. jackson has chancellorsville, sheridan has nothing of the sort, and cedar creek doesn't count!

Nope, you've got to give george pickett the credit for that at saylor's creek.

no. stuart was outnumbered at yellow tavern.

no. overwhelming numbers and massive losses at saylor's creek and five forks and the failure of the final rations/supply train to arrive did all that. you give little phil too much credit. jackson was a brilliant loony genius, phil was at the right place at the right time, quite a difference. little phil was a great leader and a vicious fighter but he was no jackson.

everybody likes to trash jackson for the seven days battles, but he was a genious. chancellorsville is proof of that.

Now lets revisit, do you give credit for Chancellorsville to Lee or to Jackson. I give credit to Lee.


Sailor creek was Ewell's failure not Pickette's. One can argue that flanking and capturing over a fourth of Lee's army is equal to Chancellorsville. At Sailors creek, Sheridan accomplished it.

Sheridan mission was to hunt down and destroy Stuart and he more then accomplished it.

Sheridan was the Hammer that drove in those final nails into Lee's AoNV coffin. In the last year, He clean out the Shenandoah Vally of rebel forces to cutting Lee off at Appomattox.

Jackson did fail terribly at the Seven days battle. He was loony!!

[gary]

Just a short response for now on the comment on Jackson's performance at the 7 Days' Battle. Jackson was exhausted after a forced march. Jackson was neither given good maps nor competent guides to direct him to his position on the battlefield. Little wonder his performance was sub-par.

What we should consider in weighing one commander against another are things like:

strategy (proficiency at planning strategies to defeat the foe?)
tactical ability (on the spot battlefield decisions)
battlefield leadership (does he have the Napoleonic touch?)
organizational ability (give good orders or conveys orders clearly to his men?)
Ability to work indepedently?
Ability to work with others?

Let's dwell on those factors for a while.