AHC: Make George McClellan a "Napoleon"

Thanks for the info. In camp, I'd expect that temporary to be very temporary.

Barring hoof and mouth epidemics that result in cavalry being converted to infantry.

Agreed. Might be something that takes long enough to resolve for it to be the case here (Antietam), however.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Agreed. Might be something that takes long enough to resolve for it to be the case here (Antietam), however.

A little after Antietam the Cavalry Division could only mount 800 men to counter Stuart.

It's surprisingly common, Sherman killed virtually all his cavalry and artillery horses in the march to the sea...
 
A little after Antietam the Cavalry Division could only mount 800 men to counter Stuart.

It's surprisingly common, Sherman killed virtually all his cavalry and artillery horses in the march to the sea...

Source? (on both, ideally)

That seems fairly low, unless you mean right after the epidemic that inconveniently broke out in time to give McClellan "my cavalry needs horses" to his list of reasons why his army couldn't pursue an army in even worse shape than the AotP could possibly be described as being - and that's giving all due credit for this not being anywhere near its best.

Though, I'd give a great deal while asking to know if that was "only 800 men had mounts" or "only 800 men with mounts were available" - because given McClellan's poor use of cavalry (seriously, regiments attached to divisions or corps in piecemeal fashion, with an army reserve of barely a large brigade?), it wouldn't surprise me if it was the latter even allowing for a severe horseflesh shortage.

As for Sherman...that I find harder to believe.

And this interesting:

http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/recordview.cfm?content=/027/0067

Note the strength of the Cavalry Division vs. the "strength in action" as the 4,320.

And the total army strength.

Since this is from McClellan, who is not likely to have overcounted his strength to any great extent, particularly when trying to argue that he's facing superior forces.

Very interesting.
 
Last edited:
As for Sherman...that I find harder to believe.

Well, if I recall correctly, Sherman's Cavarly chief during the march to the sea was old Kill-Cavalry so its not completely unbelievable that the Federal Cavalry would be badly damaged by poor command during the final campaigns of the war. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Wade Hampton gave Kill-Cavarly a right drubbing when the two fought.
 
Well, if I recall correctly, Sherman's Cavarly chief during the march to the sea was old Kill-Cavalry so its not completely unbelievable that the Federal Cavalry would be badly damaged by poor command during the final campaigns of the war. I wouldn't be surprised to find that Wade Hampton gave Kill-Cavarly a right drubbing when the two fought.

You do recall correctly.

Agreed on the last, but even Kill-Cavalry wouldn't be enough unless he was having a particularly good (for a given definition of good) day.

Not to mention that leaves the artillery horses alone.
 
What If by Bruce Catton

When i saw the OP calling for McC =Napoleon I thought of
page 55-56 of Bruce Catton's Mr. Lincoln's Army

"It is interesting to speculate about the difference there would have been in McC's career had he gone on to Harrisburg and taken command of the Pennsylvania troops instead of staying in Ohio. Fame would have come much more slowly, and he would have had a chance to adjust himself to it. PA sent a solid division down to Washington shortly after Bull Run. .... it was just the right organization to build a solid reputation for its commanding general-it brought George G Meade up to the command of the Army of the Potomac in 1863, after giving him plenty of time to prove himself and to find himself in battle. What would McClellan's luck have been with that division? No immediate limelight...."

It is hard to make a Nap from a McC, but perhaps a later rise to top command would have helped. No Pinkerton reports to inflate Reb #s are effecting "Div commander" McClellan of the Penn Reserves in 1861-62. Maybe Mac rises to the top of the AoP during a later period when all in Union blue are certain that the ANV has less men than AoP.

I loved this Catton what if and on the following page Catton "might-have-beens" Grant's stop in Ohio to get a posting from McC. But McC was away that day and so Grant went on his OTL trip West for command in Illinois.
 
Top