On a Scale of 1 To 10, Rate Jubal Early's Generalship

On a Scale of 1 To 10, Rate Jubal Early's Generalship

  • 1

    Votes: 3 5.1%
  • 2

    Votes: 2 3.4%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • 5

    Votes: 5 8.5%
  • 6

    Votes: 10 16.9%
  • 7

    Votes: 18 30.5%
  • 8

    Votes: 16 27.1%
  • 9

    Votes: 3 5.1%
  • 10

    Votes: 1 1.7%

  • Total voters
    59

JeffBrooks

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Location
Hutto, TX
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the worst and 10 being the best, rate Jubal Early's generalship.

Why did you rate him at the level you choose?
 
Last edited:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the worst and 10 being the best, rate Jubal Early's generalship.

Why did you rate him at the level you choose?

I hate to rate generals, as it's much like rating presidents, but I'd have to give Early an 9/10. He performed well, performed aggressively, and took the initiative in battle, often acting independently. There were speckles here and there, but otherwise he was definitely a great general. He achieved the trust and respect of Lee, which means something.
 
A strong 6. I think 8 and over should be reserved for the stand out generals of the war and Early just doesn't push it there for me. He had some great moments such as when he was facing against Sheridan (I'll stand that his campaign in the Valley was pretty brilliant there: Sheridan with his advantages, should have triumphed much sooner), but he definitely could be over-aggressive, and he was certainly cantankerous. I just don't think he distinguished himself enough to be rated with the great generals, but I do think when added up to the Valley Campaign and some of his other actions earlier in the war, that he can be counted as a pretty durn solid one.
 
As a brigade commander: 10
As a division commander: 10
As a corps commander: ? His time in this role was too short to judge, IMO.
As commander of the Valley: 9

He showed the rare audacity that is required to win while being severely outnumbered and under-equipped. He was a self starter and a go getter. He moved on his own initiative, not having to be begged to move like some others.
He did not allow himself to be cowed by defeat. He fought hard until he had nothing left.

I think he should have been elevated to corps command over the head of Hill and Ewell, that is certain.
 
I think he was a fairly good general, aggressive and good at following orders, but just missing that spark of brilliance that is seen in others. He is sort of like George Thomas, give him a task and he it gets it done, and done well for the most part. if he hadn't had such an irascible personality, and hadn't indulged in his post war apologia, we probably would not have heard a lot of him. I gave him a 7.
 
I really don't feel I'm qualified to rate Early as a general. IMHO, in the 1864 campaign, he did quite well considering his resources. He certainly caused a panic in Washington which did cause Grant to divert troops from Petersburg; however, that didn't make any difference at Petersburg, which was Lee's hope. The one possible failure was Early's mid-morning "pause" at Cedar Creek. His toops were disorganized, though, due to much looting of the Union camp (they were hungry!), It's hard to imagine what would have happened if he didn't pause--more likely that Sheridan would have had a shorter ride from Winchester but still would have won, again due to superior resources.

Early's after-war activities were a different story, but not part of this rating attempt.
 
I think he was a fairly good general, aggressive and good at following orders, but just missing that spark of brilliance that is seen in others. He is sort of like George Thomas, give him a task and he it gets it done, and done well for the most part. if he hadn't had such an irascible personality, and hadn't indulged in his post war apologia, we probably would not have heard a lot of him. I gave him a 7.
Thomas had to be begged to move. He followed his orders exactly, but very slowly. That's why he found himself in Nashville with a scant of an army in the first place, instead of marching to the sea and then up thru the Carolinas. Even then, his slow, methodical movement almost coast him his job. He literally escaped Rosecrans' fate by a day or two.
 
He certainly caused a panic in Washington which did cause Grant to divert troops from Petersburg; however, that didn't make any difference at Petersburg, which was Lee's hope.

Why do you think it made no difference at Petersburg? If the two corps of infantry and all the cavalry units that were sent north to deal with Early had been present with Grant at Petersburg for the summer and autumn offensives in 1864, Petersburg might have fallen months before it actually did so.
 
Thomas had to be begged to move. He followed his orders exactly, but very slowly. That's why he found himself in Nashville with a scant of an army in the first place, instead of marching to the sea and then up thru the Carolinas. Even then, his slow, methodical movement almost coast him his job. He literally escaped Rosecrans' fate by a day or two.
I realize this, but my point was that he was more like Thomas than in being competent, but not flashy like Stuart or relentlessly determined like Jackson or Sherman.
 
7, my initial thought was a 6 but some of the comments regarding his performance in the Valley caused me to reconsider. I consider personality and ability to work well with others to be a big part of judging a general who spent much of the war as someone's direct subordinate- I can't help but wonder how much (if at all) Early's noted bad temperament may have affected the performance of those who had to work with him.
 
Back
Top