most effective for the US: Meade, Hancock, RE Lee
Even though not a General YET, I also give honorable mention to J. Chamberlain.
Shame, shame on you. Taking in the entire campaign Lee inflicted over 31,000 casualties on the AOP. That's hardly anything to be thankful for. How often does the offense inflict more casualties than they sustain?
Lee made some bad decisions and lost the battle but the AOP felt the sting. They were able to drive the invader from their soil, only.
dvrmte
Quit pickin on me, man! he he he......................yeah I'll give ya that. they felt the sting alright. But the Union Army on the third day had to be saying "theres no f'ing way they're gonna!!!....." But they did
Shame, shame on you. Taking in the entire campaign Lee inflicted over 31,000 casualties on the AOP. That's hardly anything to be thankful for. How often does the offense inflict more casualties than they sustain?
Lee made some bad decisions and lost the battle but the AOP felt the sting. They were able to drive the invader from their soil, only.
dvrmte
I'm assuming the campaign begins at Brandy Station (if you're not, please tell me) - but I wouldn't count Second Winchester as a loss to the AotP.
I don't mean this as a nitpick, either. 8th Corps/the Middle Department is easier prey than the AotP, for multiple reasons (inexperienced troops, poor commanders, deployment...)
So that leaves Lee at what, 25-27,000 inflicted to 28,000+ suffered (counting prisoners as casualties)?
Still commendable, I suppose, until you realize that's more than a third of his army versus somewhere less than a third of Meade's.
In my opinion, Lee was not at his best, but he still gave several good blows.
On that note, if we're counting the whole campaign, I nominate Beverly Robertson for ineffective.
One of the five worst cavalry commanders of the war (Kill Cavalry, Ashby, Sheridan, and Tolbert being the other four, if you want the first that come to mind - Ashby simply not being brigade command material. If he had a company, he'd be one of the best. A regiment, maybe he could do it. But a brigade cannot be lead without more organization and discipline.).
I considered prisoners as casualties. I should have said casualties inflicted and not specified the AOP. I consider Second Winchester and the 4,443 casualties part of the campaign.
I started at Brandy Station and stopped at Falling Waters. I left out some of the engagements that number less than 100 casualties and some that didn't have accurate estimates such as 400 combined Union and Confederate. It's fairly close, though.
On the Union side I nominate Meade for not tucking tail and Hancock for his job on day 2 for best performance.
On the Confederate side I reluctantly nominate Longstreet, only for the actual assault on day 2, not on his actions leading up to it though.
For worst performance, I will hold off on that for now. There are just too many to consider.
dvrmte
Agreed, as long as Ewell gets the credit and not Lee (as in, its no sign of generalship on Lee's part at all. Main reason for nitpicking there is that Ewell needs the praise for it more than Lee does.)
Ewell did an amazing job, I don't know what happened to him once he got to Gettysburg though. My dad's relatives were with him in Gordon's Georgia Brigade. They performed well on day one but due to Jenkins wounding or whatever, they were out of the fight on day 2. Gordon isn't my favorite charactor but he was a hellova fighting general. The two or three brigades that were out of the fight, due to Jenkin's, could have changed the result of day 2.
dvrmte
http://www.robertmlay.com/index.php..._user_op=view_printable&PAGE_id=3&lay_quiet=1One thing that surprised me when I looked at an OOB listing its strength on entering the battle (about 1800 men) was how many it lost - about a third. So much for the Almighty shielding Gordon's men with "His shield and buckler"
http://www.robertmlay.com/index.php..._user_op=view_printable&PAGE_id=3&lay_quiet=1
In the afternoon the first day's fighting at Gettsyburg, General Gordon led his newly arrived Brigade in a devastating charge that rolled over the right flank of the Union line, causing the collapse of the Union XI Corps. Closely pressing the disintegrating Union forces, Gordon's Brigade killed or wounded nearly 1500 Union troops and captured another 1800, against a loss of approximately 400. After the war, General Richard Ewell recalled that "Gordon's Brigade that evening put hors de combat a greater number of the enemy in proportion to its own numbers than any other command on either side ever did, from the beginning to the end of the war." Gordon was chagrined that his advance was halted and that Ewell later declined his entreaties to attack the confused Federal forces on Cemetary Hill before they could rally and entrench. The Brigade saw little action in the balance of that great battle and served as part of the rear guard in Lee's retreat.
Sounds more or less like what I've read.
According to Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage, Gordon lost 537 men as casualties out of a starting strength of 1813.
XI Corps lost a total of about 3,800 men. Sadly this is not broken down by day, but that account (if fully accurate) would mean Gordon inflicted 87% of the corps's losses.
All I can say is: What about Hays? What about Avery? What about the artillery? What about Doles and anyone else who pitched in? What about what happened on day 2 (well, the evening of the same)? There has to be more than 500 men lost to divide up amongst those.
Gordon's brigade was splendid, however. Not sure how much of that was Gordon personally (not to say he doesn't deserve credit, just wondering how much his subordinates were also talented men who got the most out of their men), but even half the figures you quote is a very credible performance. No one could ask for more.
Except maybe Stonewall Jackson. Maybe.
The Georgia Brigade performed the same under Lawton, Gordon and Evans. They joined Stonewall just after his Valley Campaign and saw action first at Gaine's Mill.
At Third Winchester they were routed, however. I believe they were caught on their flanks, IIRC.
dvrmte
I nominate Armistead as both most AND least effective - got his men over the Angle, a miracle in leadership IMO, but that pretty much destroyed his brigade. He did his job, tho.
In my opinion:
Least Effective Confederate General:
Lt. General Richard Ewell - failure to take the Round Tops.
I'm not sure that Armistead's casualties were entirely his fault - he didn't choose to put his men in the position that lead to them falling like that.
I suppose we could argue that he could have pulled back when he saw how few would make it (IF he saw how few would make it - probably not likely in all that smoke) but that wasn't his job, and Armistead never was one to pull back easily. He performed his job with the last full measure of devotion, not to mention flare.