Most and least effective generals at Gettysburg

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Elennsar

Colonel
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,823
Location
California
Basically, who accomplished the most with the resources they had to work with, and who accomplished the least (or the most harm)?

For purposes of this question, all brigade commanders merit being considered as generals whether they held that rank or not.

My nominations:

Most effective: Winfield S. Hancock. If he wasn't there, day 2 could easily have been a defeat for the Union.

Plenty of other generals who pulled their weight and then some, but he well and truly lived up to being "the Superb" that day.

Least effective: William Mahone (whose brigade did exactly what? Oh, right, nothing.)
 

dvrmte

Major
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
9,893
Location
South Carolina
I tend to agree with you on Hancock and Mahone.

Mahone's performance is unexplainable.

Mahone turned the Peter Principle upside down performing better at division command than brigade level. Toward the end of the war he was Lee's most conspicuous division leader.

dvrmte
 

prroh

Captain
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
5,569
Location
Maryland
A P Hill mailed his performance in during the battle.

So many Union officers did a fine job it is hard to single out anybody. Without question Hancock was the battle's MVP
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

judi

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
596
Location
East Earl PA
I also agree that Hancock, on the second, was "superb". If he had not been there to put fresh troops into the places they were needed at the times they were needed the day may have gone completely against the north.
Ewell has my vote for the least effective. 3 times I believe it was Lee asked him about moving to unite the Southern troops and he insisted on staying at the Culps farm area. Insisted that he could take Culps Hill. If he had united with Longstreet think how much stronger the confederates would have been on day 2 and 3.
 

K Hale

Colonel
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
16,530
Location
Texas
Ewell has my vote for the least effective. 3 times I believe it was Lee asked him about moving to unite the Southern troops and he insisted on staying at the Culps farm area. Insisted that he could take Culps Hill. If he had united with Longstreet think how much stronger the confederates would have been on day 2 and 3.
Porter Alexander pounded this point like a bass drum in his memoirs. Why did Ewell stay there? He never took the hill and never went anywhere else. (I understand why he did not take the hill on day 1.)

I agree that it's all about Hancock on the Union side. If we can nominate somebody else for effectiveness, how about Strong Vincent and David Gregg?

On the effective Confederate side, what about Rodes?
 

Philo

Cadet
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
14
Location
Vandalia, Ohio
Effective - George Sears Greene for his defense of Culps Hill on July 2/3

Ineffective - JEB Stuart for reasons well known.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

K Hale

Colonel
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
16,530
Location
Texas
Because he thinks Stuart was least effective. It stands to reason that Stuart's opponent, thus, was the most effective.

Nothing against Greene, I'm just curious about the parity.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

K Hale

Colonel
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
16,530
Location
Texas
Warning: Shots at Jeb Stuart will not be tolerated by some people here. Just warning you. :eek:
Well, I'm not an unreasonable person and I don't object to shots as long as they are not promoting untruths. Let's face it, Stuart did not get through Gregg on 7/3. That can fairly be called ineffective, but then you must also credit Gregg for his role in that.
 

Elennsar

Colonel
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,823
Location
California
Speaking of cavalrymen, I nominate Albert Jenkins for "ineffective". In fairness, he was wounded before his brigade could do what it was assigned to do on July 2, but it doesn't reflect well on him that his brigade didn't carry out its assignment anyway, and his presence such as it was on July 1 is forgetable.

On the subject of Gregg:

http://civilwarcavalry.com/?s=Lee's+Lost+Triumph Read Kidd's speech on the man.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

prroh

Captain
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
5,569
Location
Maryland
Because he thinks Stuart was least effective. It stands to reason that Stuart's opponent, thus, was the most effective.

Nothing against Greene, I'm just curious about the parity.
Having taken two logic courses, You can have the Greene/Stuart combination . Just because Stuart was ineffective could also mean had a somewhat less ineffective person beat him
 

prroh

Captain
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
5,569
Location
Maryland
Speaking of cavalrymen, I nominate Albert Jenkins for "ineffective". In fairness, he was wounded before his brigade could do what it was assigned to do on July 2, but it doesn't reflect well on him that his brigade didn't carry out its assignment anyway, and his presence such as it was on July 1 is forgetable.

On the subject of Gregg:

http://civilwarcavalry.com/?s=Lee's+Lost+Triumph Read Kidd's speech on the man.
Calling Jenkins wounded is generous but it so concerned his men that they all left the field to look after him.
 

Stonewall1982

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
1,160
Location
The Bluegrass State
Well, I'm not an unreasonable person and I don't object to shots as long as they are not promoting untruths. Let's face it, Stuart did not get through Gregg on 7/3. That can fairly be called ineffective, but then you must also credit Gregg for his role in that.
I know, I was just teasing you.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

K Hale

Colonel
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
16,530
Location
Texas
Was Jenkins drunk or something? What are you guys implying? :smile:
 

Elennsar

Colonel
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,823
Location
California
That sounds like what Prroh is implying. I just know he wasn't able to exercise command, and I though I'd read he was wounded. But my memory isn't clear enough to insist it was wounds rather than booze.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

K Hale

Colonel
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
16,530
Location
Texas
Maybe he was wounded by a bottle of whiskey?
 

Elennsar

Colonel
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,823
Location
California
"During the morning hours of July 2, Jenkins was summoned to Lee's tent on Seminary Ridge. His task would be the important one of guarding Ewell's (and the army's) open left flank east of town, a task at the moment being performed by two infantry brigades--Gordon's and Smith's--which, when relieved, could take part in Ewell's grand assault, planned to coincide with Longstreet's. Jenkins rode back to his command, and soon the 1,200-man brigade moved south. They had just crossed Rock Creek when Jenkins, for unknown reasons, stopped the column and gave orders to move into the nearby woods. There, his men huddled in the trees for hours waiting to play their role in an attack that had, unbeknownst to Jenkins, been postponed until late afternoon. Yet there was Jenkins, hiding miles from his true destination on Ewell's left flank . . . for reasons only he knew. After a while, when no attack came, Jenkins rode forward a short way to Blocher's Knoll where Barlow's division had been crushed by Gordon the day before. On the treeless mound he took out his fieldglasses and began to survey the Union positions on the hills south of town, about 2_ miles away. An army staff officer rode up with a map and began to trace for Jenkins the route to the position he was meant to occupy, when puffs of white smoke appeared on the enemy-held hills, followed by the whine of shells, then the blinding light and deafening crash of explosions on the knoll. Jenkins and his horse fell to the ground, the horse killed, the general's head and face covered with blood from a shrapnel wound. Jenkins was carried to the rear, and his part in the battle was over."

http://www.rocemabra.com/~roger/tagg/generals/general68.html
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top