CivilWarTalk.com - A free and friendly Civil War community.
CivilWarTalk.com
The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk  

Go Back   The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk > The Backpack - Essential Discussions > Civil War History - General Discussion

Civil War History - General Discussion For Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-09-2008, 08:29 PM
Private (25+ posts)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 139
Default Leadership Ratings for Civil War Generals

I've recently been involved in a project where I need to rank Civil War generals at a certain battle on a scale of 0 (worst) to 6 (best) in several important features, including:

1) the ability to rally troops who are disrupted or routed
2) the radius of command a leader has to effectively control his men
3) the ability to keep unit cohesion high (i.e. keep men in their units and fighting
4) leadership (the ability to give units in the vicinity a boost to their morale)
5) leader style (i.e. aggressive, normal, George McClellan)
6) combat experience.

In addition to reading about the performance of each leader (brigade and above) at the battle in question, I've come up with several other factors to use when calculating these ratings. These include:

1) age at the battle: I thought a particularly old or young leader might be marked down in some areas for physical disability or inexperience.

2) West Point (or equivalent) graduate or attendee: I realize that many West Pointers turned out to be dismal generals and that some civilians turned into excellent combat officers, but this is one that could be used as a general guideline.

3) number of battles leading his current type of formation (brigade, division, corps, army): The idea here is to see how much practical battle experience the leader has at commanding this number of men. A leader recently promoted to a higher level might struggle a bit with cohesion until he gets used to handling a larger number of men.

4) number of battles the leader has been with his current unit (or a lower subunit of the current unit): This is basically familiarity. How well do the men know this commander. A long term leader is probably going to function more efficiently leading a unit rather than someone just placed in command of a new unit.

5) wounds prior to the battle and possible adverse affects on the leader in question: This is what I'll call the "Hood rule". The laudanum usage has proven to be a myth, but losing a leg and losing most of the use of one arm has to affect you in some large ways. Another example is Winfield Scott Hancock after his Gettysburg wound. He was never the same and was ultimately forced from command of the II Corps by this wound.


Does anyone else have any ideas on factors to consider and how they would apply them to the six features listed at the top of this post? I find this sort of research fascinating and I'd love to hear from those of you who have any opinions on this one.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-09-2008, 10:06 PM
gary's Avatar
Sergeant Major (1750+ posts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,405
Default

Charisma.
Fingerspitzengefeul. Rommel had it and so did Patton. Forrest certainly had it as did Benedict Arnold (at Saratoga).

BTW, from what you've listed, Howard would do pretty poorly considering what happened at Chancellorsville. So would Floyd & Pillow.

Are you designing a conflict-simulation (wargame)?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-09-2008, 10:20 PM
Private (25+ posts)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Charisma.
Fingerspitzengefeul. Rommel had it and so did Patton. Forrest certainly had it as did Benedict Arnold (at Saratoga).

BTW, from what you've listed, Howard would do pretty poorly considering what happened at Chancellorsville. So would Floyd & Pillow.

Are you designing a conflict-simulation (wargame)?
Gary,

Thanks for the idea. Charisma should certainly be considered. Some leaders just had a certain "something" that others didn't. To answer your question, yes, this project is in part for a future wargame, but not one designed by me. Sorry I can't be more specific than that. I do plan to discuss this and other game design topics on the game in question on my blog after it has been released.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-09-2008, 11:37 PM
gary's Avatar
Sergeant Major (1750+ posts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,405
Default

Strategy & Tactics magazine use to have ratings of generals for both strategic thinking and tactical leadership. You might want to find an old board wargamer and see if he still has any of his old magazines. That was a terrific magazine for its time but the computer killed it.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-10-2008, 08:25 AM
johan_steele's Avatar
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South of the North 40
Posts: 3,853
Default

Avalon Hill, Talonsoft and other gaming systems usually had a A-F rating. I have a couple books floating around that rate the various Generals at Gettysburg. When I get home next week I'll take a look see and try to find them for you.
__________________
Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-10-2008, 01:40 PM
Private (25+ posts)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 38
Default

ISTR A-H rates troops not Generals, with most Union troops being rated D....

I had to come up with ratings for Generals for a PBeM game I never ran, and used "The Civil War". It rates most of the DCs and above...
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Civil War Generals & Brevet Generals Listing M E Wolf Campfire Chat - General Discussions 2 03-27-2008 10:28 PM
Warrior Generals, Combat leadership in the Civil War clara_barton Civil War History - Secession and Politics 22 11-26-2007 12:04 AM
The Warrior Generals - Combat Leadership in the Civil War samgrant Book & Movie Review Tent 10 09-20-2007 08:08 AM
Sons of Confederate Veterans split over leadership aphillbilly The Mason-Dixon Gazette 79 06-02-2005 01:24 AM
"Questioning Leadership" - Worth reading wil_clark_iii Campfire Chat - General Discussions 6 04-12-2004 09:54 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Back to top
Bringing the American Civil War to Life. Copyright © 1999 - 2008, CivilWarTalk.com. Site Version 4.3
The American Civil War | Forum | Resource Center | Image Gallery | Links | Site Map | XML | Donations