Help me rank these Generals.

[Kentucky Derby Cavalier.]

Help me rank these Generals by performance in the field, ready? John B. Hood, Braxton Bragg, William J. Hardee, Jubal Early, P.G.T. Beauregard, Leonidas Polk.

Rank them and tell me why you put them in that order.

 

[Saruman]

Help me rank these Generals by performance in the field, ready? John B. Hood, Braxton Bragg, William J. Hardee, Jubal Early, P.G.T. Beauregard, Leonidas Polk.

Rank them and tell me why you put them in that order.

As an autonomous commander or as a subordinate?

 

[James N.]

I recall reading a criticism of Beauregard to the effect that he was an able planner but one who could not readily adapt to changing battlefield conditions (as at Shiloh for example). The same could easily be said for Bragg, and possibly to a lesser extent Hood. All of them, except possibly Hardee, had personality problems that created difficulties aside from basic problems of command. The only situation where Hardee was in actual control of a battle, at Jonesboro, was a dismal failure and disaster, though not entirely of his own making. Of the lot, I believe Jubal Early may have been the best though his record doesn't exactly support it, due to his overwhelming disadvantages that late in the war.

 

[Saint Jude]

Is this a race to the bottom?

 

[jackt62]

My rankings from best to worse are based on their respective performances as Corps and/or Army commanders.

1. Hardee
2. Beauregard
3. Bragg
4. Hood
5. Polk

Hardee, known as "Old Reliable" was a solid, but not spectacular commander, who had the admiration of his troops. His tenure with the AoT cannot be separated from that army's generally unsuccessful record throughout the war, but Hardee's flank attack at Stones River almost brought the AoT a victory in that encounter.
Beauregard oversaw a number of high points in Confederate military operations, from the assault on Ft. Sumter, the routing of Union forces at 1st Bull Run, the defense of Charleston in 1863, and the successful attempt to prevent Petersburg from falling into Union hands in June 1864. At the same time, his personal difficulties with Jefferson Davis, and his often unrealistic strategic plans put a damper on his overall command abilities.
Bragg's irritable personality led to ongoing fractures with his senior command. His command of the AoT was marked by mostly defeat and withdrawal, and his inability to properly size up his opponent and understand battlefield conditions led to disappointing results at Perryville, Stones River, and Chattanooga.
Hood was a highly capable division commander but higher command was not his forte. His overly aggressive style was something of a rote approach to warfare, but that only led to disasters at Atlanta and Franklin. His habit of blaming subordinates and even his own rank and file for a perceived lack of "aggressiveness" did him no favors.
Without his friendship with Davis, Polk would likely not have attained army command. He practically lost the war for the Confederacy by his ill conceived occupation of Columbus, Kentucky in September 1861, which tilted that state away from neutrality. His disregard for effectuating Bragg's orders before and at Chickamauga harmed the AoT's opportunities for degrading the AotT in a meaningful way.

 

[jackt62]

I left out Jubal Early from my previous post. I would place him after Beauregard and before Bragg. His elevation to command of the Army of the Valley during the 1864 Shenandoah campaign was based on his mostly solid performance as a Division Commander and experience at most of the ANV's engagements in northern Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Early started strong in the Shenandoah Valley by successfully routing Union forces, threatening Washington City, and at least initially executing a strong assault at Cedar Creek, but eventually was overpowered by Sheridan's forces. Although Lee called Early his "bad old man," Lee ultimately relieved Early after the defeat in the Valley.

 

[Kentucky Derby Cavalier.]

As an autonomous commander or as a subordinate?

GREAT QUESTION! How about two lists, one for autonomous and one for subordinate? And please, give me a break down on why you chose who you chose, even if it's short.

 

[Kentucky Derby Cavalier.]

Is this a race to the bottom?

Lol kinda.

 

[Kentucky Derby Cavalier.]

My rankings from best to worse are based on their respective performances as Corps and/or Army commanders.

1. Hardee
2. Beauregard
3. Bragg
4. Hood
5. Polk

Hardee, known as "Old Reliable" was a solid, but not spectacular commander, who had the admiration of his troops. His tenure with the AoT cannot be separated from that army's generally unsuccessful record throughout the war, but Hardee's flank attack at Stones River almost brought the AoT a victory in that encounter.
Beauregard oversaw a number of high points in Confederate military operations, from the assault on Ft. Sumter, the routing of Union forces at 1st Bull Run, the defense of Charleston in 1863, and the successful attempt to prevent Petersburg from falling into Union hands in June 1864. At the same time, his personal difficulties with Jefferson Davis, and his often unrealistic strategic plans put a damper on his overall command abilities.
Bragg's irritable personality led to ongoing fractures with his senior command. His command of the AoT was marked by mostly defeat and withdrawal, and his inability to properly size up his opponent and understand battlefield conditions led to disappointing results at Perryville, Stones River, and Chattanooga.
Hood was a highly capable division commander but higher command was not his forte. His overly aggressive style was something of a rote approach to warfare, but that only led to disasters at Atlanta and Franklin. His habit of blaming subordinates and even his own rank and file for a perceived lack of "aggressiveness" did him no favors.
Without his friendship with Davis, Polk would likely not have attained army command. He practically lost the war for the Confederacy by his ill conceived occupation of Columbus, Kentucky in September 1861, which tilted that state away from neutrality. His disregard for effectuating Bragg's orders before and at Chickamauga harmed the AoT's opportunities for degrading the AotT in a meaningful way.

Awesome break down man.

 

[Kentucky Derby Cavalier.]

By the way I've done a post like this before if you want to check it out.

Help me rank these Generals. | Other Soldiers, Politicians, & Men

Help me rank these Generals from first to worst by performance. Sterling Price, Earl Van Dorn, Thomas C. Hindman, John G. Walker, M. Jeff Thompson, Edmund Kirby Smith, John Pemberton. I'll go first. 1. John Pemberton. 2. M. Jeff Thompson 3. Thomas C. Hindman 4. Earl Van Dorn. 5. John G. Walker...

civilwartalk.com

 

[rpkennedy]

IMO,

1. Hardee
2. Early
3. Bragg
4. Beauregard
5. Hood
6. Polk

Ryan

 

[jackt62]

IMO,

1. Hardee
2. Early
3. Bragg
4. Beauregard
5. Hood
6. Polk

Ryan

We both put Hardee 1st, and Hood and Polk at the bottom. But I gave Beauregard greater credit than Bragg.

 

[Jamieva]

Hardee
Beauregard
Hood
Bragg
Polk

 

[Kentucky Derby Cavalier.]

@Jamieva @jackt62 I'm stunned that you guys think so fondly of Hardee. Can I ask why?

 

[Jamieva]

@Jamieva @jackt62 I'm stunned that you guys think so fondly of Hardee. Can I ask why?

It's not fondly, but you're comparing some bad options, and he was never in army command so the amount of negative damage he could do was limited. Bragg won 1 battle as an army commander, due to luck, and spent his entire tenure in army command fighting with his corps and division commanders, notably Polk. Polk....i have a very low opinion of him as a corps commander. He was insubordinate multiple times in major battles, and spent way too much time and effort undermining Bragg to Richmond. Beauregard has these elaborate strategic plans that were complete pie in the sky stuff. I put Beauregard 2nd due to his good work in bottling up Butler and drawing the forces together to do so.

 

[Saruman]

As commander:

1st: Beauregard (performed adequately at Bull Run and the siege of Corinth, excellent defensive work in the 1863 Charleston and 1864 Petersburg Campaigns. His major flaws were his inability to get along with Davis and his grandiose plans).
2nd: Early (did a really good job in the Shenandoah Valley, defeating Hunter, Crook and Wallace. He almost defeated Sheridan when outnumbered 3:1. He failed to properly utilise some of his subordinates such as Mosby).
3rd: Polk (defeated Grant at Belmont, his fortress at Columbus blocked any Union advance down the Mississippi River for six months (Sept 1861 to March 1862), and he thwarted Sherman's desired advance on Selma or Mobile during the 1864 Meridian Campaign).
4th: Hardee (performed adequately during the battle of Averasboro, delaying Slocum's advance for as long as possible when outnumbered 3:1 in the dying stages of the war).
5th: Bragg (unable to manage subordinates or improve morale. Commanded from the rear and was unable to influence or control his units on the battlefield as required).
6th: Hood (had some interesting plans, but like Bragg, commanded from the rear and was unable to respond to battlefield events in real time. Blamed his subordinates for any reverses and was poor in terms of managing logistics).

As subordinate:

1st: Early (overall performed pretty well under Lee as a division and corps commander).
2nd: Hood (excellent brigade and division commander, but performed poorly as a corps commander under JE Johnston).
3rd: Beauregard (poor performance at Shiloh but probably more due to his state of health).
4th: Bragg (excellent disciplinarian but unimaginative at Shiloh with his repeated frontal assaults).
5th: Hardee (had his ups and downs, but his dysfunctional relationship with Bragg and Hood ruined his effectiveness).
6th: Polk (didn't really like to take orders. Got along with both Johnstons but his toxic relationship with Bragg had a detrimental effect on the whole army).

 

[OpnCoronet]

1, Bragg. Probably the best confederate Army Commander in the West, by perormance, IMO. He got the most out of the Army of Tennessee,

2. Hood, Excellent Div. commander and good Corps Commander, got his Army Command after it was too late to really judge him. Ib his ill fated invasion of Tn. came closer to disrupting Shermans defensive plans, than is generally realized then, or now.

3. Jubal Early, Got the most out of his inadequate army in the Valley.

4. Beauregard, IMO never really got chance to show any true talents as Army Commander,

5. Hardee, like Beauregard, never quite got a chance to show his true colors, he remains somewhat of a unknown quantity to me.

6. Polk, a very loose cannon, guaranteed to wreck the reputations and/or the careers of any commander who had the misfortune to have him under their command.

 

[dgfred]

1- Early
2- Hood
3- Beauregard
4- Hardee
5- Bragg
6- Polk

 

[James N.]

I left out Jubal Early from my previous post. I would place him after Beauregard and before Bragg. His elevation to command of the Army of the Valley during the 1864 Shenandoah campaign was based on his mostly solid performance as a Division Commander and experience at most of the ANV's engagements in northern Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Early started strong in the Shenandoah Valley by successfully routing Union forces, threatening Washington City, and at least initially executing a strong assault at Cedar Creek, but eventually was overpowered by Sheridan's forces. Although Lee called Early his "bad old man," Lee ultimately relieved Early after the defeat in the Valley.

As pointed out in an older biography of him I posted a while back, a significant fact was that Lee never criticized him for his failings, even though the Southern press lambasted him at the same time. The reason largely had to do with the suppression of actual opposing numbers for reasons of security, whereas Lee knowing the truth could hardly blame Early for failing to do something with nothing.

 

[Kentucky Derby Cavalier.]

As pointed out in an older biography of him I posted a while back, a significant fact was that Lee never criticized him for his failings, even though the Southern press lambasted him at the same time. The reason largely had to do with the suppression of actual opposing numbers for reasons of security, whereas Lee knowing the truth could hardly blame Early for failing to do something with nothing.

I'm curious, did anyone of these generals try to copy Lee? As if to say "What would Lee do?"