Was Braxton Bragg Really That Bad? - Page 5

nbforrest · #41 03-08-2006, 04:55 PM

I tend to think that Sherman is overrated. He was not incompetent, but overall I don't think he can be called more than a middling general at both the corps and army level. He had the right idea about outflanking Johnston, but his campaign in north GA wasn't exactly brilliant. I can't give him that many points for beating up Hood. And then there's the march...but I guess that doesn't really reflect on him as a general in the tactical sense. Could Grant have chosen a better commander for the Atlanta campaign. Probably (Thomas). But Sherman had the numbers, he used them, and got the job done. Not unlike Grant. And he did to some extent avoid Overland campaign-like bloodbaths. (Kennesaw, Pickett's Mill, and a couple others must be black marks on his record though)

Respectfully

r_moody · #42 03-09-2006, 01:42 AM

In war you only have to be better than the people that you face in combat. Regardless of Sherman’s imperfect campaigns he beat everyone he faced as an army commander. That’s why we can’t compare him against Lee because he didn’t face him.
If you use the same rules you have to rate Forrest because for the most part he whipped everyone he faced.

Rick

Admiral_Porter · #43 03-09-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

I tend to think that Sherman is overrated. He was not incompetent, but overall I don't think he can be called more than a middling general at both the corps and army level. He had the right idea about outflanking Johnston, but his campaign in north GA wasn't exactly brilliant. I can't give him that many points for beating up Hood. And then there's the march...but I guess that doesn't really reflect on him as a general in the tactical sense. Could Grant have chosen a better commander for the Atlanta campaign. Probably (Thomas). But Sherman had the numbers, he used them, and got the job done. Not unlike Grant. And he did to some extent avoid Overland campaign-like bloodbaths. (Kennesaw, Pickett's Mill, and a couple others must be black marks on his record though)

Is there any prominent Federal you don't think is overrated?

You don't like Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Rosecrans, Meade, Hancock, or Chamberlain. I'm sure there are others that I'm forgetting.

The only Federals I recall you actually liking are Custer, mainly because he killed Injuns, and Thomas. Every Lost Causer likes Thomas because he was a Virginian.

nbforrest · #44 03-09-2006, 07:27 PM

Give me a break Porter, if you can't play nice go back to Tom's site. That sort of stuff doesn't fly here.

Not that I should really dignify your post with a response, but you seem to forget the Union generals I have always said are underrated: Gregg, Merritt, Averell, Miles, Howard, etc.
Your Thomas and Custer comments have no truth and I resent the implication on both. I have settled on this site because I can find intelligent discussion here. Please don't ruin it.

Admiral_Porter · #45 03-09-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

You don't like Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Rosecrans, Meade, Hancock, or Chamberlain.

And yet there is not one person on this list which you deny ever having said they are overrated.

william42 · #46 03-09-2006, 08:30 PM

Porter, your anti-South prejudice is really obvious. Sort of taints your credibility a bit...so much so that I pass over most of your posts.

Terry

nbforrest · #47 03-09-2006, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral_Porter

And yet there is not one person on this list which you deny ever having said they are overrated.

Ummm...no, I don't deny most of those because I do think they are overrated (not really Rosecrans or Meade...they usually aren't rated very high are they?) Is it a crime to think that some generals are overrated? I'm pretty sure that most Civil War buffs have their own list of underrated/overrated generals.
Not sure why you want to start trouble.

Admiral_Porter · #48 03-09-2006, 08:40 PM

I am against the Confederacy and all that it stands for; that's not the same thing as anti-south.

nbforrest · #49 03-09-2006, 08:41 PM

Porter is from the South, I believe.

r_moody · #50 03-09-2006, 08:57 PM

Since I have been called prejudiced by both Northern and Southern sympathizers I must be doing something right.

The Union had no success until Grant hit the field. Everywhere he went victory came in time. Sherman, Sheridan and others learned how to command under his guidance. Chamberlain might have risen quicker had he started under Grant.

The south had no similar man in their camp. As good as Lee was he didn’t produce generals that could move on to take other commands. He may have had too much control and not allow much leeway? Never the less and for many reasons commanding a Confederate Army doomed the careers of many generals especially out west.

Since this thread is about Bragg I will say that he was a stern disciplinarian of a voluntary army and only Jackson seemed to get away with that. Bragg should have been put in charge of Strategy and Logistics in the west and JE Johnston and Longstreet in command of the fighting.

150 years of hindsight and we still can’t agree sometimes. However disagreement is good because it challenges our minds. If we can keep the personal stuff out then everyone will learn.

Rick