Leadership Ratings for Civil War Generals

[bschulte1978]

I've recently been involved in a project where I need to rank Civil War generals at a certain battle on a scale of 0 (worst) to 6 (best) in several important features, including:

1) the ability to rally troops who are disrupted or routed
2) the radius of command a leader has to effectively control his men
3) the ability to keep unit cohesion high (i.e. keep men in their units and fighting
4) leadership (the ability to give units in the vicinity a boost to their morale)
5) leader style (i.e. aggressive, normal, George McClellan)
6) combat experience.

In addition to reading about the performance of each leader (brigade and above) at the battle in question, I've come up with several other factors to use when calculating these ratings. These include:

1) age at the battle: I thought a particularly old or young leader might be marked down in some areas for physical disability or inexperience.

2) West Point (or equivalent) graduate or attendee: I realize that many West Pointers turned out to be dismal generals and that some civilians turned into excellent combat officers, but this is one that could be used as a general guideline.

3) number of battles leading his current type of formation (brigade, division, corps, army): The idea here is to see how much practical battle experience the leader has at commanding this number of men. A leader recently promoted to a higher level might struggle a bit with cohesion until he gets used to handling a larger number of men.

4) number of battles the leader has been with his current unit (or a lower subunit of the current unit): This is basically familiarity. How well do the men know this commander. A long term leader is probably going to function more efficiently leading a unit rather than someone just placed in command of a new unit.

5) wounds prior to the battle and possible adverse affects on the leader in question: This is what I'll call the "Hood rule". The laudanum usage has proven to be a myth, but losing a leg and losing most of the use of one arm has to affect you in some large ways. Another example is Winfield Scott Hancock after his Gettysburg wound. He was never the same and was ultimately forced from command of the II Corps by this wound.


Does anyone else have any ideas on factors to consider and how they would apply them to the six features listed at the top of this post? I find this sort of research fascinating and I'd love to hear from those of you who have any opinions on this one.

[Gil R.]

How about ability to assess enemy fortifications (or position in general)? I'm thinking of something like Mine Run, where the battle DIDN'T happen because of this ability. Also, don't forget the ability to command one's officers -- think of Braxton Bragg at Chickamauga being essentially ignored by some subordinates, which sure didn't help.

(You might want to update your "signature," since Tredegar Iron Works is down.)

[bschulte1978]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

How about ability to assess enemy fortifications (or position in general)? I'm thinking of something like Mine Run, where the battle DIDN'T happen because of this ability. Also, don't forget the ability to command one's officers -- think of Braxton Bragg at Chickamauga being essentially ignored by some subordinates, which sure didn't help.

(You might want to update your "signature," since Tredegar Iron Works is down.)

Gil,

Both good points, and thanks for alerting me to the signature issue. I belong to so many Civil War forums that I struggle to keep track of my signature in many cases.

[jkBluesman]

Gordon is one of the examples for great leadership. This was in part due to his oratory skills. He could get his men ready for action and he was not the only one. There were lots of lawyers in the officer corps.
For early battles behaviour under fire comes to my mind.
For higher ranking generals their staff and their ability to use it is important for radius of command. Longstreet was a master of it, Jackson had problems with it as he withheld important information.