Don't know about the hat thing, but I'm interested in how many major-generals were at the front of their troops in a battle. I've read about several brigadiers (like Armistead) who did that, but the only major general on the Union side I know of was Sumner. Don't know about the Confederate side.
Well, Lee tried to do similar a few times... but was stopped by his men.Don't know about the hat thing, but I'm interested in how many major-generals were at the front of their troops in a battle. I've read about several brigadiers (like Armistead) who did that, but the only major general on the Union side I know of was Sumner. Don't know about the Confederate side.
We have some corp commanders and division commanders who decided to be close to the action.
Hancock is one. But I do think what he did made some sense.
True, but i have never read that he led (as opposed to sent) his troops into battle.
@Saint Jude Wouldn't Reynolds fall into the same category as Sumner?
If a major general is in front of his troops, he's not doing his job. I don't imagine it happened all that often.
I have read that this is so. Schurz seems to have tried to lead a charge (three times) during the panic of the Eleventh Corps at Chancellorsville, but then he wasn't very bright.
Cleburne at FranklinDon't know about the hat thing, but I'm interested in how many major-generals were at the front of their troops in a battle. I've read about several brigadiers (like Armistead) who did that, but the only major general on the Union side I know of was Sumner. Don't know about the Confederate side.
I have read that this is so. Schurz seems to have tried to lead a charge (three times) during the panic of the Eleventh Corps at Chancellorsville, but then he wasn't very bright.
Cleburne at Franklin
Yes that is more accurate but still close enough to be killed by rifle fire.I would argue that he was right behind his troops, not in front of them but that's picking nits, in all honesty.
Ryan
Yes that is more accurate but still close enough to be killed by rifle fire.
I am particularly interested in generals who made a show of leading their men by putting their hat or cap onto their sword as Armistead did at Gettysburg. I was interested whether this was a unique event or did others do this before or after Gettysburg. I have not heard of any other examples similar to this in European battles, was Armistead the first to do this?I'm confused: was the original question about generals' leading their troops from in front or about
generals leading with their hats on their swords? I guess either one is interesting.
I don't know if I would go that far since he seems to have been quite bright. I would say in the example of Chancellorsville, he was desperate.
I meant bright about military matters, and that includes his performance at Chancellorsville.