Most average ACW general.

[Jasen777]

So which general in the ACW accomplished the most amazing feats of averageness?

[benjamin]

McClellan. He neither lost big nor won big. A good administrator but a wholey mediocre field commander.

[Falconier111]

Naw, McClellan lost pretty big in his battles against Lee, who actually wasn't that great a general (he was good, but no genius).

[Rex Britanniae]

I think McClellan was one of the best generals of the war on both sides, but that is another argument altogether.

The problem in classifying is, most of the war's generals were either spectacularly good or spectacularly bad.

[USGrant]

As far as corps commanders go, John Sedgwick managed to be very middle of the road. He was good, yes, but pretty unspectacular.

For the Confederates, John C. Pemberton was fairly average. In the course of losing at Vicksburg, he didn't take the daring and needed step of cutting ties with his base, but he also didn't make any real blunders once he had chosen to stay between Grant and the city.

[burmafrd]

Rex you and 67th keep claiming McClellan was good. So what do you have to back that up against all the professional military officers who for the last 100+ years have called him a great failure?

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Rex Britanniae

I think McClellan was one of the best generals of the war on both sides, but that is another argument altogether.

The problem in classifying is, most of the war's generals were either spectacularly good or spectacularly bad.

True, if you start working out CEV modifiers, then most fall in a reasonably narrow range. Meade and Lee can be taken as "representative", both being roughly in the central range.

In fact, Army Commanders often had less of an impact on the tactical battle than Corps Commanders. The question for Lee, for example, is how good his Corps Commanders were.

Lee typically had 5 or 6 senior commanders. At Antietam for example he had 3 corps commanders (Longstreet, Jackson and DH Hill), 1 reserve infantry commander (RH Anderson), an artillery commander (Pendleton) and a cavalry commander (Stuart). Lee himself had very little influence on the battle, and it was these six who did the actual commanding.

[burmafrd]

Not again with this bizzare formula.....

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by burmafrd

Not again with this bizzare formula.....

So sorry that anything you don't understand is "bizarre" [sic]...

[Nytram01]

As much as I hate to admit it Joe Johnston falls into this category.

He never won a campaign and he never lost a campaign being removed from command before he actually finished a campaign. He fought a wise defensive war against an enemy who outnumbered him in men and had the superior position in material and supply capabilities but because the way he fought the war was not popular with the people or the President and because he and Davis had too many personal problem with each other he was prevented from influencing the war heavily beyond the brief stay in the Atlanta campaign where his stint as commander of the Army of Tennessee was like Ceaser himself had commanded it when compared to his predecessor Bragg and his successor Hood.

[Grey Wolf]

Who was that bloke who led the Confederate campaign in the West but never pressed his advantages ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Zyzzyva]

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

Who was that bloke who led the Confederate campaign in the West but never pressed his advantages ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

If you mean the guy at Vicksburg, it was Pemberton, who gets my vote for "Average". The guy at Tennessee, other than Johnson? I've got no clue.

And McClellan sucked. He was a better-than average organizer, and a passable leader, but as a general (compared to, say, quartermaster-general) he was a almost unmitigated failure. You do need to occasionally attack the enemy you outnumber 3-1.

EDIT: Yes, there was Antietam. He still should have won better.

[Nytram01]

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

Who was that bloke who led the Confederate campaign in the West but never pressed his advantages ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

You mean Braxton Bragg. He spent far too much time alienating his subordinates to really take care about pressing his advantage home.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally Posted by Zyzzyva

If you mean the guy at Vicksburg, it was Pemberton, who gets my vote for "Average". The guy at Tennessee, other than Johnson? I've got no clue.

And McClellan sucked. He was a better-than average organizer, and a passable leader, but as a general (compared to, say, quartermaster-general) he was an unmitigated failure. You do need to occasionally attack the enemy you outnumber 3-1.

I might mean McCulloch who didn't press his advantage after Wilson's Creek - I would need to check the book I have at home, to see if that was the example I had in mind

Memory is another world...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

Originally Posted by Nytram01

You mean Braxton Bragg. He spent far too much time alienating his subordinates to really take care about pressing his advantage home.

Its possible...

Its a pain when I can only half-remember something !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Trotsky]

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

Who was that bloke who led the Confederate campaign in the West but never pressed his advantages ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Braxton Bragg, the one whose best battles were always fought against those on his own side, including himself? The one who ordered retreats after declaring victory? That guy?

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Zyzzyva

And McClellan sucked. He was a better-than average organizer, and a passable leader, but as a general (compared to, say, quartermaster-general) he was a almost unmitigated failure. You do need to occasionally attack the enemy you outnumber 3-1.

EDIT: Yes, there was Antietam. He still should have won better.

When did McClellan ever have a 3:1 advantage?

[Zyzzyva]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

When did McClellan ever have a 3:1 advantage?

That'd be Yorktown, I believe.

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by Zyzzyva

That'd be Yorktown, I believe.

And Antietam, if he hadn't give Lee a full day to consolidate his forces.

[burmafrd]

I keep asking 67th to show me a respectable historian that agrees with him and I never get an answer. What a surprise.

He comes up with this strange formula that means nothing and expects us to swallow it whole.

He claims it proves McClellan was as good as Lee when every single respectable military historian laughs hysterically at the idea.

He claims McClellan had less then half the troops he was supposed to have and then pouts when we laugh at him.

He is good for a laugh at least.

But I would prefer a competent historian to talk to.