Jackson VS. Sherman

DaHound22

Banned
Simple question. Suppose Stonewall Jackson is never shot and finds himself leading the defense of Atlanta against William T. Sherman. Who would win? Wos the better general in your eyes? I peraonally see a very brutal fight that ends with Jackson as victorious. What do you think?
 
Jackson was very inconsistent on the tactical level, so unless he pulls off something spectacular on the operational level, things aren't likely to go much better than they did for Johnston.
 

ben0628

Banned
Jackson was very inconsistent on the tactical level, so unless he pulls off something spectacular on the operational level, things aren't likely to go much better than they did for Johnston.

Johnston actually did pretty well. It was Hood who fucked up the Confederate defense.
 
Sherman is by far the most underrated Union General, while Stonewall Jackson the most overrated Confederate general.

Sherman would break Stonewall into rubble.
 

DaHound22

Banned
I highly disagree. Honestly, Sherman was probably the best Union general, but Jackson might've been the best American general up until that point. He consistently whooped far better equiped and Union generals while being very much outnumbered. His only real failure came after he had just marched an army around like 1000 miles in a week! (Exaggerating, but im refering to the seven days battle after the vally campaign). I dont think hes overrated at all
 
I just find it hard to respect the damn fool who didn't alert his own men that he was going on patrol, and then soon after was killed by friendly fire. Plus, when the most talented opponent you face is Joseph Hooker, forgive me if I'm not too impressed.

Stick Stonewall against Sherman, Grant, Thomas, Sheridan, or even Meade, and he'd have been whipped like a frightened dog.
 
Jackson, Sherman, grant, and Lee are in my top 5 favorite generals. I honestly don't know who I think would win. Equal out the playing field for both of them and I think it would be a toss-up
 

ben0628

Banned
Jackson is good, but the wrong kind of general for beating Sherman. If you wanted to save Atlanta, Joe Johnston is your best bet.
 

Gaius Julius Magnus

Gone Fishin'
Despite his nickname, Jackson wasn't all that great at defensive warfare so I wouldn't say he'd be much help in holding Atlanta. Especially as Sherman was probably the best strategist of the war.
 

DaHound22

Banned
I dont think so. I mean Grant and Meade, i think, would be easy for Jackson, niether one of them did anything really impressive, and certainly not on the level that Jackson did. Sherman is the only Union general id put on par with him.

Johnston, IMO, did alot of damage in not putting up a fight. He essentially got out manuervered half way through georgia without even putting up a fight. If Jackson was in command, he'd fight like a pit bull, much like Sherman himself. If Sherman did win, hed be pretty well battered at least and in no position to march to Savannah
 
Let's not get too overboard singing Sherman's praises. He could maneuver against an exposed flank when he had numerical superiority and pillage supplies in lightly defended territory, but that hardly makes him a Great Captain. Particularly when he got a kick in the teeth from Cleburne at Billy Goat Hill.
 
I dont think so. I mean Grant and Meade, i think, would be easy for Jackson, niether one of them did anything really impressive, and certainly not on the level that Jackson did. Sherman is the only Union general id put on par with him.

Johnston, IMO, did alot of damage in not putting up a fight. He essentially got out manuervered half way through georgia without even putting up a fight. If Jackson was in command, he'd fight like a pit bull, much like Sherman himself. If Sherman did win, hed be pretty well battered at least and in no position to march to Savannah

Not a day went by in Georgia without fighting, Resaca was a battle every bit as big as any of Hood's battles around Atlanta, Johnston expertly laid a trap for Sherman at Cassville only to have Hood mess it up then conspire with Polk to convince Johnston to abandon the position, Sherman was halted at New Hopes Church and Picketts Mill and turned back a Confederate attack at Dallas, Kenessaw Mountain was about as clear cut a victory anyone ever achieved against Sherman, around half of the casualties inflicted and suffered in that Campaign - both Federal and Confederate - occured while Johnston was in command.

The argument can be made that the Confederates could have fought a more aggressive campaign in Georgia in 1864 than Johnston conducted, but the argument cannot be legitimately be made that they didn't "put up at fight" at all. That doesn't stand up. Fighting defensively in a reactionary way is still fighting.

Sherman's superior manpower gave him a distinct advantage over the Confederates, in that he could enage the entire AoT with just the Army of the Cumberland leaving the Army of the Tennessee and the Army of the Ohio free to maneuver around the Confederate's flanks, and, as Hood discovered, the Federals were far better equiped to handle heavy casualities and replace battle losses than were the Confederates.
 
Sherman is by far the most underrated Union General...

I wouldn't say that. Sherman's held up as one of the two best Federal Generals of the War alongside Ulysses S. Grant. George Henry Thomas is far more underrated that Sherman, to say nothing of A.J. Smith or Black Jack Logan or Samuel Curtis.
 
Jackson was a great Corps commander. But he had problems getting along with subordinates. He's either utterly reform the culture of the AoT by removing people like Pope and Hood or fall victim to the petty culture in the AoT generals.

On the other hand, Him with Forrest and Cleburne as a Corps commander might be awesome to see.

Of course, Jackson at Gettysburg might butterfly this.
 
Top