David Ireland
Corporal
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2017
Is it true that McClelland was a bad commander?
That's the kind of question where if you ask 10 different people, you will get 10 different answers.
Do you mean McCellen ?Is it true that McClelland was a bad commander?
If you mean McCellen we have many existing threads on him. I forgot the author's name but perhaps our McCellen experts @Saphroneth and @67th Tigers knows recently a very well received book on the battle of Antietam was published tat is much kinder to McCellen then say Stephen Sears.Is it true that McClelland was a bad commander?
Is it true that McClelland was a bad commander?
This was the view of the members of the JCCW as well, and since the war in the East was essentially a stalemate that was a real problem for any commander.If you read some of the diaries of Lincoln's cabinet members then even in 1864 they are expecting a Waterloo style victory, and are appalled with what Grant delivered.
If that is true why did his men have a better kill ratio then under other AoP commanders?He utterly lacked one of the necessary qualities in a great battlefield commander - a killer instinct.
If that is true why did his men have a better kill ratio then under other AoP commanders?
We can't ever know that. I forgot the author's name who I believe @67th Tigers had a link to his lectures but McCellen led many green troops and getting them organized was difficult.That's not what I'm talking about. I am talking about the focus that an excellent battlefield commander has on the destruction of the opposing force. If Grant had been in command at Antietam, Lee's army would have been obliterated.
Also @1SGDanMy opinion is that he was very intelligent and capable, but once he was so adulated by the North, he was terrified of losing. As such, he had a tendency to avoid engaging. Better not to engage and have a plausible excuse than lose. Again, this is just my take on it.
Yet no commander of the AoP killed more Confederate troops and lost less Union troops doing so.I think the concensus is that he was great preparing the troops, good with logistics but average to poor as a battlefield Commander. However, Lee said, post war that Mac was by far his most difficult adversary. I dont know what Lee knew about behind the scene fiascos. Historians have not treated Mac kindly for his battlefield acumen.
Had Grant been in command, I do not think there would have been a battle at Sharpsburg. The entire campaign would have been different.That's not what I'm talking about. I am talking about the focus that an excellent battlefield commander has on the destruction of the opposing force. If Grant had been in command at Antietam, Lee's army would have been obliterated.
How so?Had Grant been in command, I do not think there would have been a battle at Sharpsburg. The entire campaign would have been different.
Lee would not have been operating against a thoughtful, deliberate opponent. The question revolves around how well the two opposing commanders thought they understood each other.How so?