General Butterfield
Sergeant
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2017
- Location
- Philadelphia
Is Franz Sigel an Underrated Commander?
Adam Muenzenberger 26th Wisconsin: " The fault is this: Sigel isn't with us any more, and the others are merely humbug generals."
I have never thought much of Franz Sigel and always deemed him a very poor commander. Recently however I have been reading Chancellorsville by Stephan Sears and it has me rethinking Sigel. Sigel commanded the 11th Corps in 1862 and was known to be very popular. The corps was made up of many German immigrants who liked Sigel and viewed him as a fatherly figure. As commander his performance was nothing outstanding but he did managed to keep the units morale together during the depressing Fredericksburg period.
In early 1863, Sigel was succeeded by Gen O.O. Howard. Howard led the 11th Corps to a spectacular defeat at Chancellorsville. The reason for Howard's defeat rests heavily on the morale of the 11th Corps. Since Sigel's dismissal morale had sunk extremely low, many disliked the new commander. Howard was well aware of his corps feelings and during the campaign was hesitant because of it. Howard failed to heed Hooker's advice to readjust his line to protect his flank. He feared that this move would make morale sunk even lower and the men would perceive any pull back as a retreat. When Jackson's flank attack finally came many men in the 11th Corps chose to simply throw down their weapons and run away.
Looking into the above, I have a new respect for Sigel's abilities. I still don't think he was a good battlefield commander but he seems to have had an ability to maintain his corps well enough. Had he still been in command at Chancellorsville perhaps the rout would not have been as bad....
Adam Muenzenberger 26th Wisconsin: " The fault is this: Sigel isn't with us any more, and the others are merely humbug generals."
I have never thought much of Franz Sigel and always deemed him a very poor commander. Recently however I have been reading Chancellorsville by Stephan Sears and it has me rethinking Sigel. Sigel commanded the 11th Corps in 1862 and was known to be very popular. The corps was made up of many German immigrants who liked Sigel and viewed him as a fatherly figure. As commander his performance was nothing outstanding but he did managed to keep the units morale together during the depressing Fredericksburg period.
In early 1863, Sigel was succeeded by Gen O.O. Howard. Howard led the 11th Corps to a spectacular defeat at Chancellorsville. The reason for Howard's defeat rests heavily on the morale of the 11th Corps. Since Sigel's dismissal morale had sunk extremely low, many disliked the new commander. Howard was well aware of his corps feelings and during the campaign was hesitant because of it. Howard failed to heed Hooker's advice to readjust his line to protect his flank. He feared that this move would make morale sunk even lower and the men would perceive any pull back as a retreat. When Jackson's flank attack finally came many men in the 11th Corps chose to simply throw down their weapons and run away.
Looking into the above, I have a new respect for Sigel's abilities. I still don't think he was a good battlefield commander but he seems to have had an ability to maintain his corps well enough. Had he still been in command at Chancellorsville perhaps the rout would not have been as bad....
Last edited: