Who had the best generals in the west?

Nobody mentioned Gen. Price and Van Doren. At Pea Ridge and Prairie Grove the Union won two important victories with less men then the CSA. Does that make Gens.Curtis and Herron military genius;s or where they fighting the "f" team so to speak?
Leftyhunter
 
you are taking the Ezra Warner route to define what a general is and using his numbers :smile:

That's ok. I am just thinking a bit more liberally than that...
Actually, it's Warner who was being liberal about it by including several men whose confirmations failed or who were promoted posthumously and never served at their rank; Wright and Eicher are both lower than him (around 554 Union & 401 Confederate). The only way to get over 2,000 is to count brevets, along with Confederate Kirby-Smithdom and state militia generals. The last two are certainly valid in many circumstances, but the Union brevet numbers are much less so, since of the 1,600 men brevetted as generals for Civil war service, only about 75 were brevetted during the Civil War. The others were all brevetted sometime between 1866 and 1869 and never served as generals. Heck, one of them only ever made first lieutenant.

neither cared what Van Don had to say.
The only person who seemed to care what Van Dorn had to say was a certain doctor with a pretty wife...
 
General Van Dorn was considered a bold and aggressive officer. He came up with a good attack plan at the Battle of Pea Ridge. Van Dorn could have paid a little more thought towards logistics. Once the battle began it would appear that Van Dorn was out fought by General Curtis. Van Dorn was not relieved of command so his superiors must have been satisfied with his performance.
 
General Van Dorn was considered a bold and aggressive officer. He came up with a good attack plan at the Battle of Pea Ridge. Van Dorn could have paid a little more thought towards logistics. Once the battle began it would appear that Van Dorn was out fought by General Curtis. Van Dorn was not relieved of command so his superiors must have been satisfied with his performance.
President Davis's older brother said of Van Doren "for want of a general a good captain was spoiled". I am not saying he is right but its food for thought.
Leftyhunter
 
That might qualify them for the "F"team. Has a general rule military leaders are supposed to work together for the common good.
Leftyhunter

Clearly someone forgot to tell the Army of Tennessee that. And Pope and McClellan. And Grant and Rosecrans. And to an extent Sherman and Hooker. And to another extent Hill and Jackson. Let's just say that working together for the common good sometimes seemed to come secondary to glory and personality conflicts for some folks. :whistling:
 
Here on CWT we seem to discuss which side had the best generals. Although both sides seem to have dumped some poor officers in to the Western Theater, over all did the Confederates have better generals in the Western Theater? Perhaps I should say which side had the least poor officers.
Lets not forget Gen.Hindmen. Gen.Hindman was a very effective general who understood the importance of irregular warfare and delayed the Union forces in Ark for a year or so. On the other hand many prominent Confedrate citizens did not like him for asking them to sacrafice for the common good. In the long term the Union did beat CSA irregulars largely using native Ark troops.
Leftyhunter
 
Clearly someone forgot to tell the Army of Tennessee that. And Pope and McClellan. And Grant and Rosecrans. And to an extent Sherman and Hooker. And to another extent Hill and Jackson. Let's just say that working together for the common good sometimes seemed to come secondary to glory and personality conflicts for some folks. :whistling:
That's a good point. I am nor super familiar with Grant not getting along with others. Any examples?
Leftyhunter
 
That's a good point. I am nor super familiar with Grant not getting along with others. Any examples?
Leftyhunter

Well- there's McClernand- who Grant pretty much under-mined and then took over command of the Vicksburg campaign himself. There's Rosecrans- Frank Varney goes into more detail in his book (General Grant and the Rewriting of History) about Grant possibly falsifying records to make himself look better and Rosecrans look worse- he effectively side-lined Rosecrans for the rest of the war after Chattanooga. There's Thomas who Grant threatened during Nashville I believe, to relieve of command several times for failure to attack, despite the fact that there was an ice storm preventing him from immediately attacking. There's Warren, who Grant arguably allowed Sheridan to do his dirty work for him in wrongfully sacking him after Five Forks.

All of these are controversial and perhaps justified (And don't get me wrong, I'm a Grant fan!) but it seems to me to be a top military officer, you got to do a lot of jockeying.
 
LIke I said at the outset, this is proving to be a very interesting thread. I wish I had more to contribute to it. My knowledge is too limited. However, I sure am enjoying reading all these opinions. Keep them coming!
 
LIke I said at the outset, this is proving to be a very interesting thread. I wish I had more to contribute to it. My knowledge is too limited. However, I sure am enjoying reading all these opinions. Keep them coming!

Me too! I agree with everything written here! Keep up the excellent work, guys. I'm learning a lot. :smile:
 
Last edited:
Would it be fair to say that the Union had such a large advantage in resources and river craft that an average Union general looked good, while an equally talented Confederate general look below average? I see it as in the west he Union in could afford a few poor generals and some in fighting among generals, but the South had such a small window of opportunity that very few errors could be made.
 
Would it be fair to say that the Union had such a large advantage in resources and river craft that an average Union general looked good, while an equally talented Confederate general look below average? I see it as in the west he Union in could afford a few poor generals and some in fighting among generals, but the South had such a small window of opportunity that very few errors could be made.
Certainly not in Ark. Union forces won two major battles (Pea Ridge and Prairie Grove) while being outnumbered. Gen.Curtis after winning at pea Ridge marched to Helena ,Ark and his forces lived of the land just has Sherman would two years later. One could argue Sherman's campaign in Ga was inspired by Curtis. Union forces in Ark where bedeviled in Ark by CSA irregulars and it took over two years to control CSA insurgents . Union forces where always short of men to fight CSA insurgents in Mo .
Leftyhunter
 
Would it be fair to say that the Union had such a large advantage in resources and river craft that an average Union general looked good, while an equally talented Confederate general look below average? I see it as in the west he Union in could afford a few poor generals and some in fighting among generals, but the South had such a small window of opportunity that very few errors could be made.

A poor general can make advantages in resources not matter one whit. See: McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Banks, Butler, Sickles. The Union had the same advantages in the East but the Confederates managed to shine there. I agree with the bolded part however: God is on the side of the largest battalions.
 
A poor general can make advantages in resources not matter one whit. See: McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Banks, Butler, Sickles. The Union had the same advantages in the East but the Confederates managed to shine there. I agree with the bolded part however: God is on the side of the largest battalions.
Hanna, I really like your insights. If you'll permit, I'll add a thought to this insight of yours. A good general can make disadvantages matter not one whit. ....well....at least once in a while.
 
Hanna, I really like your insights. If you'll permit, I'll add a thought to this insight of yours. A good general can make disadvantages matter not one whit. ....well....at least once in a while.

Oh, that insight's not mine. It's been said on this forum many a time. :smile: But I really like that bolded part. You read about Grant and Vicksburg, Jackson and his marches, Lee and Chancellorsville, and you really think that they just made it happen through the force of their determination and skill!
 
A good officer realizes his own advantages and his disadvantages. He then estimates the opponents advantages and disadvantages.They then developed a plan that minimizes their disadvantages and their opponents advantages while maximising their advantages and taking advantage of their opponents disadvantages.
 
Back
Top