Jacksons -1 army mod

[Texican]

I think Matrix Games answers the historical debate of the generals' quality with the semi-random option. If the historical numbers are a base, from which slight variation up or down will result in some slight but pertinent modification of leader abilites from game-to-game, then we all are right in all our guesses. At least, some of the time...

But it's the age old question. Who the heck knows. Was Patton overrated in WW2? Maybe. Lee in the Civil War? Possibly. I do know that from my first readings in detail on Civil War history (I was a WW2 buff who decided to dive into the Civil War in these last few years), I came to two immediate and initial conclusions:

1) The South "F-ed up" in the West.
2) The Army of Northern Virginia stopped winning after Jackson got killed.

And that's just an unbiased first take.

[mikeCK]

Well, I kind of disagree with number 2.

After Chancellorsville, The Confederates inflicted a tactical defeat on the Grant/meade led AoP in the Wilderness. This was followed by another, and more clear, tactical victory for the Confederates at Spotslyvania courthouse. Finally, at cold harbor, Lee mauled the charging AoP so quickly that in mere minutes, the Union had suffered 12000 thousand men to Lee's 2500. This was, next to Fredericksburg, the most lopsided victory of the war. Although the campaign was a victory for Grant, this was due to his determination to continue the attack. The succession of tactical defeates for grant however, very nearly led to his demise. By the time he reached Petersburg, he had lost 48,000 casualities compared to Lee's 25,000.

Lee's army was never the same after the casualties suffered at Wilderness but still was still superb and scored several victories. jackson, Sheridan and Sherman were, in my opinion, the fathers of modern maneuver warfare.

[madgamer2]

There was an incident early in the war where Jackson Had a small Division in the valley. He was confronted by a large Union Corps and instead of going into a defensive posture or retreating he put his division in battle order and attacked the Union Corps. Now the Union commander saw his large force being attacked by a smaller force and thought that it was a holding action while the Rebs were bringing up the main body of an army so he retreated.
Jackson was not the the only leader in the war who functioned well at a certain level. A.P. Hill led the Light Division (6 large Brigades) quite well but when placed in command of a large corps did not do as well. Longstreet when sent west had an independent command but did not do well. The civil war, on both sides, is full of leaders doing better than or worse than what was expected of them.

Madgame

[madgamer2]

you might consider reading the "Battles and Leaders of the Civil War" It is of interest because it is firt person accounts. The comments vary depending on the battle and the side. The South writer at First Bull Run say that the Bull Run creak was not a formidable stream but could be crossed in many places. The writers for the north were just the opposite saying it was a good defensive position.
The series is a fun read because it often gets down to the individual person level rather than the strategic leadership level. ZDo note it is in 5 volumes but worth a look.

Madgamer

[mikeCK]

ORIGINAL: madgamer

There was an incident early in the war where Jackson Had a small Division in the valley. He was confronted by a large Union Corps and instead of going into a defensive posture or retreating he put his division in battle order and attacked the Union Corps. Now the Union commander saw his large force being attacked by a smaller force and thought that it was a holding action while the Rebs were bringing up the main body of an army so he retreated.
Jackson was not the the only leader in the war who functioned well at a certain level. A.P. Hill led the Light Division (6 large Brigades) quite well but when placed in command of a large corps did not do as well. Longstreet when sent west had an independent command but did not do well. The civil war, on both sides, is full of leaders doing better than or worse than what was expected of them.

Madgame

I understand what you guys are saying about the size of a division vs. army. My point is that, in some cases, it isnt really an issue. The reason excellent division commanders like AP Hill, Hooker and JB Hood perfromed poorly as Corps or Army commanders is because they were unable to control an independent force (or quasi independent in the case of a corps). Its one thing to be able to simply attack when told to do so, or manuever left when told to do so...and do so competently and vigourously. It is quite another to be able to understand WHEN to engage the enemy, to be able to supply a force and worry about logistics train, to be able to see the battle develope and deploy your forces accordingly. These characteristics of an Army commander are not impacted by the size of the force. Whether there are 80,000 or 30,000, if they are independent, the Army commander must insure they are fed, clothed and maneuvered properly prior to and during the battle.

There is nothing to indicate that, as competent as Jackson was maneuvering and fighting his independent command in the valley (and at 2nd Manassas really) that he was only able to do so becuase of the small numbers. The contrast to this would be generals like Burnside who clearly understood the concepts of Army command, but were quiet unable to manage the amount of men involved. Burnside was unable to coordinate attacks from so many different commands. When he commanded a smaller force, like in Knoxville, he behaved competently.

There is no "right answer" here, I just wonder what it is about Jackson that made the developers think that he would not be as good of an Army commander as he was a Corps commander. There is a reason for Hood's -1 army mod as evidenced by his performance commanding the Army of Tennessee in the defense of Atlanta. There is evidence for Early's -1 army mod based on his inablility to reach Washington DC prior to Grant's dispatched corps in 1864. There is however, no evidence of Jackson's inablility and, to the contrary, as an army commander, he had perhaps the most successfull command in the war. Lets remember that his Valley campign is still studied in both Military academies and NCO academies as the archtype for modern maneuver warfare.

Although Lee won some battles after Jackson's demise, he never won them by maneuver...only by the sheer stupidity of frontal assaults on fortified defensive positions. Lee's two greates victories at Chancelorsville and 2nd Manassas would have been impossible without Jackson and his understanding of maneuver.

[herwin]

Jackson's poor performance at the Seven Days Battles is believed to be due to fatigue. Lee could give him missions and trust him to carry them out, unlike some of his other corps commanders. His performance in the Valley showed that he was competent in independent operations with an army. His 'weakness' was leading from the front (like Rommel), and I think his army mod should be 0.

[madgamer2]

Well said and true. In the 70's when I was in the army I was a platoon guide and moving my platoon in company formation was a easy but the Drill sargent wou let each of the 4 guides march the whole company. Which was a totally different thing. Perhaps you could say that the 2 corps ANV under Lee was the best of its kind during the period that the Civil War was fought. In many ways it was the ideal force.

Madgamer