Generals in Gray, Generals in Blue

[Willard]

All -

I created this thread as a semi-serious, semi-humorous attempt for us to compare the generalship of our MP players to a comparable historical CW general.

The only rule is that you can't post about yourself, but everyone else is fair game.

Enjoy but be modest in your praise and your criticism.

[Willard]

Alright, I will go first - X Navy Seal.

This one is easy. If there ever was a comparison dying to be made, it is X Navy Seal and Union General Dan Sickles. I almost wish that XNS would change his name officially to X Navy Sickles, because the comparisons are uncanny. At equal times, XNS can be brillant and reckless at the same time. A shameless self-promoter and blowhard (case in point "I win more times than I lose"), XNS is the player you love to hate and a wild card on the battlefield. One battle you have a the conscientious general fighting hard for victory, the next you have the column charging, gun crazy, one legged general out in front of the battle line by a good mile. Right at Chancellorsville and a speed bump at Gettysburg (minus the leg), you never know what you are going to get with XNS!

[SouthernSteel]

Ha! I've been saying that for months, obviously you couldn't have heard me say it, but perhaps I typed in chat a time or two as well. :laugh:

I can't think of any other solid matches offhand, not least of all because I'm not intimately familiar with too many generals' personalities on or off the battlefield. I cannot think of anyone who would match a Jackson or a Lee, offhand. I have some slight idea for myself, but as per your rules, that will have to be borne out in others' opinions. I can say we have several who qualify as Grant "The Butcher". Anyone else who was relentlessly reckless would also have some clones in our MP games

[Willard]

Ha! I've been saying that for months, obviously you couldn't have heard me say it, but perhaps I typed in chat a time or two as well. :laugh:

I can't think of any other solid matches offhand, not least of all because I'm not intimately familiar with too many generals' personalities on or off the battlefield. I cannot think of anyone who would match a Jackson or a Lee, offhand. I have some slight idea for myself, but as per your rules, that will have to be borne out in others' opinions. I can say we have several who qualify as Grant "The Butcher". Anyone else who was relentlessly reckless would also have some clones in our MP games

COPPERHEAD lies again!!! :laugh:

Lee actually suffered a higher percentage of casualties per army engaged on numerous occassions. If anyone were to qualify as a butcher, then it certainly would be R.E. Lee as well.

Gettysburg - 37% losses
Spotsylvania - 23% losses
Wilderness - 19% losses
Chancellorsville - 18% losses
Antietam - 20% losses
2nd Manassas - 18% losses

For the Overland Campaign he lost over 50% of his troops compared to Grant's 45%. During the 7 Days, Lee lost 5000 more men despite being outnumbered by 12,000 men and lost over 21& of his troops.

Lee is defended because his situation was desperate and his willingness to recklessly gamble on longshots because of necessity makes him a romantic and honorable figure. Conversely, Grant is never considered in this light, despite having enormous pressure on him to make something happen between May-October 1864 given the looming 1864 elections. He had to keep the pressure up on Lee so the ANV could not be in a position to reinforce Johnston ala a 2nd Chickamauga. By keeping constant pressure on both fronts, Grant was hoping for a strategic victory before the election and got it when Sherman took Atlanta.

The major difference between the two is that Grant could absorb the casualties and Lee could not.

[NY Cavalry]

Many consider Lee a butcher, I do not. He was a strategic genius that required good subordinate leaders. In the Overland Campaign his corp commanders failed him terribly. Longstreet could have won the Wilderness for him, but fell being shot by his own troops. Lee may not have fully appreciated how combat had become so deadly to the attacking party.


Parker I would say is a Longstreet himself

[ORourke]

.... well, I think the correlation between Willard and Gen. Henry J. Hunt is an obvious one. If there where anyone I could give the AOP artillery command to it would most definatly be Willard/Hunt ...

[NY Cavalry]

Yes, that maybe so.

And welcome back O'Rourke.

[SouthernSteel]

Lee may not have fully appreciated how combat had become so deadly to the attacking party.

I don't know, that would be hard to argue too given battles like Fredericksburg. Still, that could be offset by, say, Gettysburg. I think perhaps Lee's greatest appreciation was for the initiative.

Parker I would say is a Longstreet himself

I don't know the numbers offhand, but I think percentages matter less than actual numbers of casualties. As the Union almost always had numerical superiority and could replace their losses, obviously they were less damaging. There's no doubt the newspapers played up Grant's role as a butcher, but I would still think his losses were even or above what Lee suffered in the Overland Campaign. By unit, the "heavies" from DC suffered horrific casualties, viewed strictly by regiment. The older, saltier troops, suffered fewer, if only because they were, by that time, much less willing to expose themselves needlessly, as they viewed it.

[Willard]

Those heavy units got absolutely mauled but they were green combat units.
I seemed to remember reading about how Grant would try to work them slowly in on local attacks just to get them bled before using them in major asaults.

As for Parker being a Longstreet type?
Hmmm, interesting on that comparison.
I will contemplate that on the tree of woe.

[Kerflumoxed]

Ha! I've been saying that for months, obviously you couldn't have heard me say it, but perhaps I typed in chat a time or two as well. :laugh:

I can't think of any other solid matches offhand, not least of all because I'm not intimately familiar with too many generals' personalities on or off the battlefield. I cannot think of anyone who would match a Jackson or a Lee, offhand. I have some slight idea for myself, but as per your rules, that will have to be borne out in others' opinions. I can say we have several who qualify as Grant "The Butcher". Anyone else who was relentlessly reckless would also have some clones in our MP games

COPPERHEAD lies again!!! :laugh:

Lee actually suffered a higher percentage of casualties per army engaged on numerous occassions. If anyone were to qualify as a butcher, then it certainly would be R.E. Lee as well.

Gettysburg - 37% losses
Spotsylvania - 23% losses
Wilderness - 19% losses
Chancellorsville - 18% losses
Antietam - 20% losses
2nd Manassas - 18% losses

For the Overland Campaign he lost over 50% of his troops compared to Grant's 45%. During the 7 Days, Lee lost 5000 more men despite being outnumbered by 12,000 men and lost over 21& of his troops.

Lee is defended because his situation was desperate and his willingness to recklessly gamble on longshots because of necessity makes him a romantic and honorable figure. Conversely, Grant is never considered in this light, despite having enormous pressure on him to make something happen between May-October 1864 given the looming 1864 elections. He had to keep the pressure up on Lee so the ANV could not be in a position to reinforce Johnston ala a 2nd Chickamauga. By keeping constant pressure on both fronts, Grant was hoping for a strategic victory before the election and got it when Sherman took Atlanta.

The major difference between the two is that Grant could absorb the casualties and Lee could not.

Percentages are fine...but what was the size of the opposing armies? 20% of 50,000 is less than 15% of 100,000.

J