ReveaZapcre
Private
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2020
A big question I always have is why the loser of Chancellorsville is rated as highly as he is (often higher than Meade, which is really sad tbh). People talk about him being an excellent Corp commander, but he only fought at Antietam and Fredericksburg, the latter was a bungle-up that no one can judge his skill on, and he performed capably in the former but in the end not exceptionally; his corp still got shot-up in the cornfields in the end. Then after the bizarre series of bungle-ups that was Chancellorsville, he is sent west where he helps open the cracker line but is caught completely by surprise and gives contradictory orders to his subordinates and then blames them at Wauhatchie (Schurz, Steinwehr and Geary were not incompetents) and nearly loses an incredibly one-sided battle. He ascends Lookout Mountain, which is great, but you still have to account for his subordinates (Osterhaus and Geary, both at their best) who were excellent, and then completely screws up at Ringgold's gap, where he mismanages a flanking maneuver and fails to break through (yes, good defensive works but he had 3 or 4 to 1 numerical advantage). He was competent during the Atlanta campaign, bloodying Hood but then again every single Union commander did that too, and his most notable move was his repulse at New Hope Church. Add his intrigue and his inability to work with others, and I really don't get why people continue to think of him quite highly.