Ranking Civil War Army Commanders

[trice]

Just a list of how I would see the commanders of the major armies of each side in terms of how I'd pick them to command a large army (or the entire Army of either side).

1. Grant
2. Lee
3. "Stonewall" Jackson
4. Sherman
5. George Thomas
6. J. E. Johnston
7. Meade
8. Rosecrans
9. Beauregard
10. Hooker
11. Hood
12. McClellan
13. Bragg
14. Pope
15. Pemberton
16. Burnside

Incompletes (I don't really know how to rank them):
A. S. Johnston
Price
Van Dorn
Buell
McDowell
Banks
Butler
E. Kirby Smith

Tim

 

[OpnDownfall]

Such rankings are more or less 'Beauty in the eye of the beholder' decision making. But, the above list is very defensible. (Except maybe, Jackson and Sherman being ahead of Thomas OR McClellan being on the list, at all)

 

[trice]

Such rankings are more or less 'Beauty in the eye of the beholder' decision making.

Yep, that's always true.

But, the above list is very defensible. (Except maybe, Jackson and Sherman being ahead of Thomas OR McClellan being on the list, at all)

The problem with Jackson is he died at just the wrong time. I suspect he would have had difficulty running an Army of 30,000 plus because of his emphasis on security (i.e., not telling his commanders what was going on) and some personality quirks. That would have been the next logical command for him after Chancellorsville, an independent command of a large force. I certainly think Lee would have sent him into PA instead of Ewell, even if he had broken the Army into three Corps, and it would have been interesting to see how he would do up there.
But he died, and so we'll never know how he would have done if, for example, he'd been sent out to TN to replace Bragg after the Tullahoma mess.

Sherman is another with some quirks and traits that have to be watched. If this list was about tactical ability, particularly offensive tactical ability, Sherman would drop like a stone. He was a rare talent for strategic and operational movement; he understood the impact of home-front morale, he managed large forces scattered across wide distances very well. But if you needed someone to win one battle for you, and they had to attack, you'd never pick Sherman.

Thomas was a consumate pro as a soldier, a man who can be held up to emulation. I like him a lot. I'd take Sherman ahead of him for some things (like the March to the Sea and the March through the Carolinas), but I would prefer Thomas for any offensive tactical combat action. For that matter, I think he was better at defensive tactical combat, but Sherman could make up for that with his grim resolve to some extent.

All three of those, however, are clearly better than everyone below them, IMHO.

Probably I should have put this differently, more like this:

• Top of the heap:
  1. Grant
  2. Lee
• Top-notch, winning commanders
  1. "Stonewall" Jackson
  2. Sherman
  3. George Thomas
• Good, but not great
  1. J. E. Johnston
  2. Meade
• Talented but flawed
  1. Rosecrans
  2. Beauregard
  3. Hooker
  4. Hood
  5. McClellan
• Born to lose
  1. Bragg
  2. Pope
  3. Pemberton
  4. Burnside

Tim

 

[CChartreux]

I'm not as well-versed on the Southern side, so don't feel quite qualified or confident to comment on those.


My list would be:

1. Grant
2. Grant
3. Grant


Oh...wait....sorry.....okay......



1. Grant
2. Sherman
3. Thomas
4. Meade
5. Hooker
6. McClellan
7. Rosecrans

8. McDowell, Pope & Burnside with some latitude given to being in not so great predicaments...so who knows if circumstances doomed them or they weren't the sharpest tools in the shed to begin with. I can't help feeling bad for both McDowell and poor Burn. I don't know about Pope...whether he was misunderstood (and not really as bad as they say)...or whether he really is that bad.


Always fun to periodically play: Survey Says



CC

 

[Glorybound]

Interesting Tim. I probably would not rate Burnside at the bottom. I think I'd put him above Pope. Burnside's most well-known for the Federal debacle at Fredericksburg. The Mud March, following that didn't help him much either.

But at Fredericksburg I thought he had a very well thought-out plan, do-able. But the delay resulting in some sort of logistic snafu with the pontoons allowed Lee time to come up to Fredericksburg, as soon as he learned of the AOP's presence there, and disperse his army as he did. At that point Burnside knew he could not successfully take Fredericksburg without heavy casualties. He tried, in a roundabout sort of way, to tell Lincoln this, but Lincoln needed action by this time, right after Antietam Creek, and wanted Burnside to fight the enemy as best he could. Building the 3 pontoon bridges across the Rappahannock, literally under Lee's nose practically, who's now there in person w/ his entire army, was virtually impossible, and everything after that was downhill.

Union assault on Marye's Heights was not much different than Grant's at Cold Harbor. Pretty much throwing blue-clad soldiers in front of a thousand rifle barrels on open terrain, with pretty much the same result.

Just some observations.

Source (U.S. Library of Congress): http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cph/3g00000/3g01000/3g01700/3g01757v.jpg .




Lee

 

[CChartreux]

Lee -

I agree with you vis-a-vis Burnside. Moving the Army...how did Burnside know it was going to rain as much as it did. IMHO, the Mud March, while unfortunate, was circumstantial.

Fredericksburg has a number of dominos that have to fall in sequence. Not the best battle plan ever, but had it been executed properly...might not have been so bad. I feel bad for Burnside because he was under so much pressure to act. It's obviously a political reality for Lincoln; but...lends credence to the adage: 'You want bad? You'll get it bad'.






CC

 

[Glorybound]

Good to see you back with us, CC.



Lee

 

[trice]

Union assault on Marye's Heights was not much different than Grant's at Cold Harbor. Pretty much throwing blue-clad soldiers in front of a thousand rifle barrels on open terrain, with pretty much the same result.

Cold Harbor's a little more complex that what everyone sees. The operation came close to taking Richmond -- but you have to look at several days of combat (from Sheridan's arrival through Meade's reinforcement and the arrival of Smith to the final assault) to see it. Even that final assault should have worked if carried out as it was supposed to be. But that didn't happen and, as Grant said, he should have cancelled it. The attack went in a day later than plan, and Lee had shifted enough troops into place to blow it away in 20 minutes (after which most of the troops remained pinned down under fire until night.)

The plan, BTW, was Meade's (using Sheridan and Smith's Corps to get around Lee's left). Grant let him run the operation, although Grant was obviously present and had a final say.

Tim

 

[Elennsar]

Why is Johnston above Meade? I'm trying to think of something Johnston did better than Meade and it isn't working.

Even considering he was in some bad spots, his record is...disappointing.

 

[ole]

I also believe that Burnside gets a bad rap. True, he was not "up there," but he gets weighed with Fredericksburg on the other side of the balance.

And it appears that Bishop Polk hasn't enough clout to get a mention. And Pemberton might have been competent, but he is hamstrung with Vicksburg and the rampant confusion of orders from Bragg, Johnston and Davis.

The plot sickens.

Ole

 

[larry_cockerham]

Why is Johnston above Meade? I'm trying to think of something Johnston did better than Meade and it isn't working.

Even considering he was in some bad spots, his record is...disappointing.

The man put up a helluva fight at Bentonville, albeit his last.

 

[Elennsar]

The man put up a helluva fight at Bentonville, albeit his last.

Not enough of a reason to rate him well overall, in my opinion.

As for Burnside: Burnside seems to have been about equal to a corps sized force.

 

[larry_cockerham]

Not enough of a reason to rate him well overall, in my opinion.

As for Burnside: Burnside seems to have been about equal to a corps sized force.

Johnston was a leader of men, as evidenced by their expressions of respect for him. That's something money or politics couldn't have bought. Several hundred thousand Confederates at least knew their leaders, good and bad.

 

[Elennsar]

McClellan's men also loved him. No, I don't think Johnston was as bad as McClellan - but I cannot honestly say I am not disappointed in Johnston.

 

[Nytram01]

Why is Johnston above Meade? I'm trying to think of something Johnston did better than Meade and it isn't working.

Even considering he was in some bad spots, his record is...disappointing.

Well, Meade's record is hardly brilliant either is it? Victory at Gettysburg is his finest hour and that could arguably be put down to poor generalship from Lee and the Confederates as much as good generalship from him.

Joe Johnston's finest hours was probably either skillfully moving his force from the Valley to Manasas Junction, Kennesaw Mountain or Bentonville.

In all I think on their records they would be about equal.

 

[Elennsar]

Well, Meade's record is hardly brilliant either is it? Victory at Gettysburg is his finest hour and that could arguably be put down to poor generalship from Lee and the Confederates as much as good generalship from him.

Meade has a generally solid record. Johnston has a generally...retreat and whine record.

Moving from the Valley to Manassas was hardly the work of genius (it was a good move, but its not like it would take someone amazing to notice it)...and Kennesaw Mountain is Sherman bungling by attacking at all.

 

[coltshooter1]

Army commander--Lee
Corp commanders--Jackson, Grant and Sherman
Training and Organization--McClellan
Cavalry--Stuart and Sheridan
Troops--Army of Northern Virginia

Could you imagine programming a computer with this kind of idea and seeing how a battle could be fought.

 

[footeghost]

McClellan was also loved by his army and great.....at what he was great at doing. I believe many of these Generals were to worried about their reputations and yes sending men to death or anyone in the way. Funny two men considered kooks before the war with nothing to lose had no problem. Sam and Billy. They were great at what they did. "war is hell." Or "war means fightin and fightin means killing" Nathen Bedford Forrest The End

 

[trice]

Why is Johnston above Meade? I'm trying to think of something Johnston did better than Meade and it isn't working.

Even considering he was in some bad spots, his record is...disappointing.

Well, I think maybe my second list is a better one. I'd rank them very close together, but they are very different types.

J. E. Johnston
I think Joe Johnston was a much more flexible leader on the battlefield, able to react quickly, unflappable in a crisis. But I think some quality in Johnston's personality kept him from making the best use of his talent.

From my POV, Johnston had three big drawbacks.

First, he was lazy. When he could have been doing more to prepare for a coming campaign, he didn't do it. The pattern is the same in Virginia in 1861-62 as it is in Georgia before Sherman's Campaign in 1864.

Second, he allowed personal conflicts that should have been minor to color his entire relationship within the Confederacy. The feud with Davis, the alligning with the opposition, the lack of communication with superiors, Johnston's clear distrust of Davis and his motives -- these disrupted and handicapped his contributions to the war.

Third, he seemed to have a problem actually pulling the trigger. Too much attention to making things perfect, not enough attention to climbing over the bumps that always interfere with plans. Whether it was him, or the failings of his subordinates, Johnston did not provide the decisive leadership needed at the crucial points of battles.

Meade
Meade probably doesn't have the talent of Johnston. He has personality problems of his own that limit what he can do. Grant's description of him in his memoirs is a good one to look at with Lee's "He will make no errors on our front" comment.

I think Meade was very solid, very competent, very good and knowledgeable. he was a little too deliberate, too concerned with terrain and proper details of his profession to throw caution to the winds. He was more of a grim fighter than Johnston, IMHO. I think he was missing something, a spark, an insight, an indefinable quality that could have pushed him into the group above.

As a result, I think these two men come out about the same. Put either one in charge of an army and you'll do OK. They would beat most people below them easily. The problem for me is that they aren't superb.

Tim

I think each of these men