Emerging Civil War welcomes guest author John Roos Icons within the American Civil War can be found everywhere. Some loom larger than others, like Robert E. Lee, William Sherman, and “Stonewall” Ja…
Good point about the effect of being KIA/MW on a reputation. I also think that Reynolds gets full credit for the decision on July 1 when Buford should certainly share in it. I also think that too much weight is placed on deciding to defend higher ground/obviously good defensive ground. It's only a small exaggeration to say that a subaltern fresh out of West Point should have been able to see the positives of the ground at Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, or Malvern Hill. Speaking of Fredericksburg, that was Reynolds' only "full game" at this command level. He grades out at "C" - at best - IMHO. Had he acted more efficiently and decisively, the attack on the Union left may have completed its initial success. In hockey terms, he might have been another guy who "looks good getting off the bus". (It wasn't his fault that he had no real chance to prove himself at Chancellorsville)Getting killed in battle always helps ones reputation as a leader of men. Reynolds was good, made a critical key decision at Gettysburg and then got killed. Given some of the AoP commanders 1861-1863 it was easy to look good.
Yes captured after Gaines Mill. He fell asleep and his command left him there. When he woke up he was surrounded by ConfederatesReynolds reputation benefits from being killed. He was a solid commander in an overall average command team. Wasn’t he captured earlier in the war? His lure is sorta like other generals killed, based more on what coulda been than what was
Remember, don't start threads with just a link, that's a rule actually. You should be providing some commentary and your opinion to the question you asked. It's a discussion forum, this isn't Facebook.Emerging Civil War welcomes guest author John Roos Icons within the American Civil War can be found everywhere. Some loom larger than others, like Robert E. Lee, William Sherman, and “Stonewall” Ja…emergingcivilwar.com
Not necessarily - it's not the only thing that matters about a commander - but it actually is a point against them, depending on the circumstances.The list of corps commanders killed or wounded at the front reads like a who's who of the Civil War. Are we to assume Jackson, Longstreet, McPherson, Hancock, Sedgwick and a number of others were poor corps commanders because they were leading from the front? I have questions about the capabilities of some of these individuals, but the presence of a corps commander at the front seems to have been fairly common.
But what about Reynolds' duties at the time required him to be at the front?@Saphroneth I am not sure what to think about Reynolds. But as his being at the front, I do not agree. In my opinion it's a Corps commanders job to accomplish his orders and if that requires being at the front so be it. If he needs to be at the front to rally his men, or to get the picture of what's really going on, or to bust some a-- in order to accomplish his Corps goals then he would be remiss in his duties of he is not there.
Just an opinion of course.