User avatar
gchristie
Brigadier General
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:31 pm
Location: On the way to the forum

Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:01 pm

Recently reading Grant's memoirs and came across this funny story of Bragg. Though it doesn't contribute to this thread, it may brighten your day.

Grant recalled a story about Bragg when he was both company commander and quartermaster. “As commander of the company he made a requisition upon the quartermaster-himself-for something he wanted. As quartermaster he declined to fill the requisition, and endorsed on the back of it his reasons for so doing. As company commander he responded to this, urging that his requisition called for nothing but what he was entitled to, and that it was the duty of the quartermaster to fill it. As quartermaster he still persisted that he was right. Bragg finally went to the post commander for resolution of the problem who declared “My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself." :mdr:
"Now, back to Rome for a quick wedding - and some slow executions!"- Miles Gloriosus

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5530
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:32 pm

B0rn_C0nfused wrote:Does Bragg have the trait quickly angered? I thought he didn't.

I thought he had:
Training Master
Dispirited leader

and that was it.


Oh, SNAP! You are right. With all the arguing about the Forrest-Bragg incident I got that mixed up. Dispirited Leader = Pisses Everybody Off All of the Time, and is Ugly to Boot ;)

User avatar
Metatron
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Potsdam (Germany)

Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:03 am

Chamberlain could be a nice fun addition for late 1865 Union, at that point most divisions would have been formed so no harm done adding him.

For CSA:

William H. Walker is in the game as a generic 3 1 1 leader, I don't know if he is supposed to be William H.T. Walker which would deserve a little better than 3 1 1 since Johnston said the was "the only officer in his command competent to lead a division." Or maybe all the others in the command were very bad, that can be true too ^^ I would make him at least a 4 1 1 and since he was in service of the Georgian militia from 61 to 63 a Militiamen trait would not be absurd (although lack of militia after 61 makes that trait not really appealing ^^), making him entering in May 63 in stead of January 1964 would also be nice.

Martin Luther Smith, don't think he's in the game, could be a 3 1 1 with defensive engineer trait. In terms of game play a leader you don't necessarily want as division commander but is nice to have in a stack.

Thomas L. Rosser, don't think he is in the game too, brigadier general in 63 major general in november 64, he participated in almost all the major battles in the east, was a favourite of Stuart and was an excellent troop commander (would probably not have been a good corps commander though like many battlefield officers) probably a interesting 4 2 2 general could even get a trait or two like cavalrymen and Adept Raider or good commander

Camille Armand Jules Marie, Prince de Polignac a.k.a Polecat another general for fun and maybe a "clin d'oeil" for our French players ;) , brigadier general in 63, major general in 64, probably not a great general but with European officer training (although French officer training at that time wasn't that great compared to prussian one) and experience from Crimean war I would say definitely a 3 2 2. Could even get an option, "send de Polignac to france to convince Napoleon III to intervene" removing him from game and giving some foreign intervention points (he was historically sent in 65 to France but that was way to late) edit: he is actually a an anonymous 3 1 1 commander of 63' general pol

Howell Cobb, one of the political commanders of the CSA the union has plenty of, brigadier general in february 62 and major general in september 63, a 3 1 1 general, could have hated occupier trait or patriot trait

Arnold Elzey after beeing wounded was promoted major general in december 62, wasn't fit for battle after that but was used for administrative duties and he worked forming virginia defense and miltiia troops, could be a 2 1 1 or even 1 1 1 with recruting officier and/or training officier

Gen. Monkey-Bear
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:35 am
Location: The San Francisco Bay Area

Sat Feb 23, 2013 1:00 am

How about W.H.F. "Rooney" Lee, Robert E. Lee's other son? He is already in the game and ranked at 3-1-1. I think he at least deserves the "Cavalryman" trait. After all, he was second in command of Confederate cavalry at the end of the war. He fought in most of the campaigns in the east and he led competently, though he was injured in battle several times.

Gen. Monkey-Bear
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:35 am
Location: The San Francisco Bay Area

Sat Feb 23, 2013 1:08 am

And what about Emory Upton, that famous tactician?

User avatar
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
General of the Army
Posts: 639
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:46 pm
Location: Kentucky

Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:28 am

Why does Forest not deserve a CP penalty? He rarely commanded large forces iirc. He was a raider and did his own thing more than most. He deserves lots of positive stats and traits, but a CP penalty would be within reason.

Bragg commanded large forces, but did so very poorly for the most part. He attained a few pyrhic victories, but his casualty rates were exceptionally high and the victories weren't followed up. His subordinates were afraid of being thrown under the bus by him, and didn't operate with a sense of freedom and purpose like Lee's army did. 5-3-1 with 1 good and 1 bad trait is too good for him. Also, he never gets auto promoted to 3 or even 2 star commander. I think he should be auto promoted to 3 star with high politic value. Davis loved the guy and the player should have a choice whether to use the sub-par commander or pay a price and ignore him. I always wonder how the war in the west would've gone if Davis had listened to Edmund Kirby Smith (or anyone else for that matter).

I also second the nomination of JS Bowen to be included. Probably would've done great things if he hadn't have died during Vicksburg.

And I wouldn't want Joshua Chamberlain added until mid 1864 at the earliest. He has a great story, but never commanded a division.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5530
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Sun Feb 24, 2013 2:20 pm

Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:Why does Forest not deserve a CP penalty? He rarely commanded large forces iirc. He was a raider and did his own thing more than most. He deserves lots of positive stats and traits, but a CP penalty would be within reason.
8<
That's what I was saying. Forrest was very adept at leading raids and superb cavalry commander, but he was not a line commander and had no military training to fall back on for leading larger formations. In his situation, passionate ("hotheaded") as he was, he had enough influence to pick and choose his subordinates. When he didn't get along with Wheeler, I think it was, Wheeler was shifted to another area thus eliminating the situation. It's simply unfortunate that the only "ability" that reflects this is "Quickly Angered". A more fitting description would be -Small Force Commander- or something of the the such.

It would be interesting were Forrest to be promoted to Lt.General per event if he were already Maj.General and gained a certain amount of experience. Forrest was promoted to Lt.General after conducting the retreat of the Army of Tennessee after the Battle of Nashville. This would pose the CS player with the issue of having a high ranking leader who could not effectively lead a large force, but might outrank division and corp commanders in his region; one of those issues that time and again raised its ugly head during the war.
Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne wrote:And I wouldn't want Joshua Chamberlain added until mid 1864 at the earliest. He has a great story, but never commanded a division.

My long and drawn out thoughts on Chamberlain in specific and the introduction of leaders in general. You can skip to the last paragraph if you don't want to bore yourself with my meanderings Image

It comes down to a question of concepts. The game generally you leaders shortly before the time they started to make a considerable influence on the war. Chamberlain's first historical influence was his defense of Little Round Top at Gettysburg Chamberlain, but this action is at a scale that the game does not represent directly.

After Gettysburg Chamberlain was away recovering from wounds and illness until April '64. In June '64 he was severely wounded during the assault on Petersburg and was out of action until November '64. And at the end of March '65 he was wounded again, but stayed in the field and took part in the surrender ceremony of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. I guess by this time having a bullet rip around your chest under the skin but not hitting anything important just didn't warrant leaving the troops :blink: . It's no wonder he got the sobriquet "Bloody Chamberlain".

If you discount the time Chamberlain was away recovering from illness and wounds it is likely he would have gotten a brigade command shortly after Gettysburg and from there, with his historical record it is possible, or even probable, he would have been advanced to brigadier some time between early and mid '64. I think advancement beyond a division command would be difficult to advocate. Late in the war there were already so many competent generals with military training that it would be difficult to imagine him being promoted to such a position among such competition regardless of his excellent record.

User avatar
Ethan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1923
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Location: Gádir

Sun Feb 24, 2013 2:52 pm

I agree with my friend Captain_Orso and I think Chamberlain should appear in late 63 or early 64 with the rank of brigadier general.

He had a decisive role in the Battle of Gettysburg, as well as a very important role in Fredericksburg and the siege of Petersburg. It is fair that he appears in the game, although on those dates.

IMHO, there are probably less influential generals in the conflict which have appeared in AACW1.
[color="Navy"][font="Georgia"]"Mi grandeza no reside en no haber caído nunca, sino en haberme levantado siempre". Napoleón Bonaparte.[/font][/color]

[color="Blue"]Same Land. Different Dreams. - Photobook[/color]

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:06 pm

I think you guys are missing some things.

As you go up in command, dealing with subordinates never gets more difficult. What gets more difficult is the planning and execution. Logistics and their proper handling is the hallmark of men who can lead large bodies of troops.

Forrest showed himself an able field commander in any number of situations. His handling of the evacuation of Nashville and the subsequent retreat were views as miracles. Forrest even managed to evacuate factories and heavy equipment with very limited resources. Something they told him to ignore. It was not a one-man operation. It was complex and many people had to be involved. It was in many respects much more difficult than any battlefield victory and was orchestrated without a flaw. That operation more than any act of bravery or victory stamped paid to his title as a military genius.

It more than exceeded anything that had been asked of him. It shocked and startled them. That was when they realized that they had ignored his full potential.

Difficult situations have a way of bringing out the worst of people in a military operation. Any flaw in the man would have been revealed glaringly in such a situation.

That is how he got his last star.

wsatterwhite
Lieutenant
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:52 pm

Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:34 pm

Ethan wrote:I agree with my friend Captain_Orso and I think Chamberlain should appear in late 63 or early 64 with the rank of brigadier general.

He had a decisive role in the Battle of Gettysburg, as well as a very important role in Fredericksburg and the siege of Petersburg. It is fair that he appears in the game, although on those dates.

IMHO, there are probably less influential generals in the conflict which have appeared in AACW1.


To me, Chamberlain's arguable "influence" (no respect intended to Chamberlain here, rather an appreciation that he didn't really accomplish anything that many of his contemporaries wouldn't/couldn't have) on the war as a regiment and brigade commander doesn't matter when the game has no way to restrict an officer to those roles. If Chamberlain appears in the game with ratings worthy of his reputation, players will be encouraged to give him a divisional command and try to advance him through the ranks beyond that- a completely ahistorical result given his relatively late entry into the war. Chamberlain appearing at any point before April 1865 would be bad but with that said, since I assume the new game will continue to allow play through to at least the end of 1865, a "bonus" 1865 pack of generals including the likes of Chamberlain and maybe some others like Nelson Miles would be a workable solution.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5530
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:40 pm

It might be that other commanders might have done as well as Chamberlain on Little Round Top. Many may have not done as well. Some may have not inspired their troops to stay and fight, let them run or lead the way to the rear. The fact is that Chamberlain did stay and his men stayed with him. And with their ammunition nearly spent Chamberlain had the courage to use that last form of resistance that he had at his disposal and lead that renowned bayonet charge that broke the Confederate advance on his position. Chamberlain proved his mettle time and again in battle, inspired his men to continue to fight when they might have run and nearly paid for his courage and dedication with his life. To say that he might not have excelled at higher responsibility because he didn't have the opportunity to prove it is to do an injustice to the man and his memory.

Historically Chamberlain never commanded a division and I speculate that this is mainly because of the illnesses and wounds he sustained in service to his men and country. Historically Kearney was killed in September '62, Jackson in May '63, Reynolds in July '63 and Buford died in December '63 of illness. Nobody argues that they should be removed from the game on or near those dates because it is historical.

I am saying that Chamberlain could have, and probably would have, ascended to a position which could be represented in the game were it not for his illness and wounds. Probably not earlier than mid '64 and maybe not before early '65. His inclusion would do little to influence the outcome of a campaign game so late in its run and would be more of a position of honor to respect a man who many argue played a great role in turning the tides of the war; far greater than the humble man himself.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5530
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:08 pm

Ol' Choctaw wrote:I think you guys are missing some things.

As you go up in command, dealing with subordinates never gets more difficult. What gets more difficult is the planning and execution. Logistics and their proper handling is the hallmark of men who can lead large bodies of troops.

I have to disagree with you here Ol' Choctaw. Replacing one company commander for another is easy. What is expected of them is relatively uniform and simple compared with higher ranking officers who have more responsibility. The higher you go, the more people and material are who are dependent on the right decisions.

Lee had a hell of a time keeping his high-strung generals working together as corps and an army.

Ol' Choctaw wrote:Forrest showed himself an able field commander in any number of situations. His handling of the evacuation of Nashville and the subsequent retreat were views as miracles. Forrest even managed to evacuate factories and heavy equipment with very limited resources. Something they told him to ignore. It was not a one-man operation. It was complex and many people had to be involved. It was in many respects much more difficult than any battlefield victory and was orchestrated without a flaw. That operation more than any act of bravery or victory stamped paid to his title as a military genius.

This is true, but they don't show his military qualities, but his organizational, which actually should be no surprise, as he was a very successful businessman before the war.

Maybe he would have been as great leading a division or corp as Jackson was; maybe even an army. Going from leading a few hundred to a couple thousand men on a raid to leading tens of thousands on a campaign is a big jump.

But as passionate as the man was I would say that he would have run into the same situation as Jackson did in starting feuds with his subordinates, who then could not be replaced so easily without having to do without their talents.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:It more than exceeded anything that had been asked of him. It shocked and startled them. That was when they realized that they had ignored his full potential.

Difficult situations have a way of bringing out the worst of people in a military operation. Any flaw in the man would have been revealed glaringly in such a situation.

They also have a way of bringing out the best in some men.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:That is how he got his last star.

I think you got things mixed up here. The evacuation of Nashville was after the fall of Fort Donelson in February '62. The retreat from Nashville was after Hood's attack on it in November/December '64. That is for what he earned Lt.General.

User avatar
Ethan
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1923
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Location: Gádir

Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:16 am

Captain_Orso wrote:It might be that other commanders might have done as well as Chamberlain on Little Round Top. Many may have not done as well. Some may have not inspired their troops to stay and fight, let them run or lead the way to the rear. The fact is that Chamberlain did stay and his men stayed with him. And with their ammunition nearly spent Chamberlain had the courage to use that last form of resistance that he had at his disposal and lead that renowned bayonet charge that broke the Confederate advance on his position. Chamberlain proved his mettle time and again in battle, inspired his men to continue to fight when they might have run and nearly paid for his courage and dedication with his life. To say that he might not have excelled at higher responsibility because he didn't have the opportunity to prove it is to do an injustice to the man and his memory.

Historically Chamberlain never commanded a division and I speculate that this is mainly because of the illnesses and wounds he sustained in service to his men and country. Historically Kearney was killed in September '62, Jackson in May '63, Reynolds in July '63 and Buford died in December '63 of illness. Nobody argues that they should be removed from the game on or near those dates because it is historical.

I am saying that Chamberlain could have, and probably would have, ascended to a position which could be represented in the game were it not for his illness and wounds. Probably not earlier than mid '64 and maybe not before early '65. His inclusion would do little to influence the outcome of a campaign game so late in its run and would be more of a position of honor to respect a man who many argue played a great role in turning the tides of the war; far greater than the humble man himself.


Exactly, my friend. In fact, I could not agree more with your words and with your argument, especially regarding generals who died early in the war and who have not been removed from the game.

You have described my thoughts, dear Thommy. :love: :thumbsup:

Mit freundlichen Grüßen. :wavey:
[color="Navy"][font="Georgia"]"Mi grandeza no reside en no haber caído nunca, sino en haberme levantado siempre". Napoleón Bonaparte.[/font][/color]



[color="Blue"]Same Land. Different Dreams. - Photobook[/color]



[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

wsatterwhite
Lieutenant
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:52 pm

Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:21 am

While the likes of Jackson, Kearny, Reynolds and Buford are not automatically removed from the game on their death dates, the possibility that they can meet their historical fates exists so there is nothing unhistorical about their cases. The game also allows for a Grant, Sherman, Meade or Sheridan to fall in battle well before they rose to the top of the ranks, from a historical pov there is nothing wrong with that because those officers were actually in positions where they could have fallen but at the same time, they can also still rise to their historical ranks.

Regarding the possibility of Chamberlain rising to divisional command if not for his wounds, it's important to note that the war didn't actually stand still while Chamberlain recovered from his wounds- battles were still fought in his absence (as they had also been fought before he joined the service halfway through the war's second year), Chamberlain's contemporaries still served and performed their duties while he recovered and promotions were still earned while he was away. Chamberlain's record, with no disrespect intended to the man, was what it was just as the records of his contemporaries who did earn promotions before him were what they were.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5530
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:48 am

Hi Julio :wavey:

we always seem to understand each other Image

Hi Wsatterwhite :wavey:

I understand what you mean, but.... Image let me put it this way, were it to be about any other general, I would probably agree with you whole-heartedly; didn't happen, fate, karma, bad-luck, What-Ever™, let's move on. With Chamberlain it's a special case in that he has ascertained a kind of celebrity status among Civil War buffs. His inclusion would not be so much the filling-in of an historical niche, but a kind of feel-good inclusion where the player when they recognize him can say, "wow, Chamberlain, coooool" and get that warm-fuzzy feeling Image :D .

His inclusion, or exclusion, will not change the game in any way, really. But it is a small way to make the game just a Tad-Bit™ more fun and it would be a fine way to honor his memory on the 150 anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg Image

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:22 pm

I brought up Forrest’s command penalty because it was based on speculation. Not to promote him as the greatest man who ever lived. It is still based on speculation and some selected history and misconceptions. Getting a clear view of history is complex and often difficult. We all have much to learn and misconceptions to put aside.


Okay, we heard of what a grump Forrest was from a relative or something of a dead Lieutenant , now here is an adjutant’s report on his behavior in the retreat from Columbia:

At no time in his whole career was the fortitude of General Forrest in adversity and his power of infusing his own cheerfulness into those under his command, more strikingly exhibited than at this crisis. Broken and defeated, as we were, there were not wanting many others as determined as he to do their duty to the last, and who stood out faithfully to the end; but their conversation was that of men who, though determined, were without hope, and who felt that they must gather strength from despair; but he alone, whatever he may have felt (and he was not blind to the danger of our position), spoke in his usual cheerful and defiant tone, and talked of meeting the enemy with as much assurance of success as he did when driving them before him a month before. Such a spirit is sympathetic; and not a man was brought in contact with him who did not feel strengthened and invigorated, as if he had heard of a reinforcement coming to our relief." General Forrest was by unanimous consent selected to cover the retreat from Columbia, and to assist his cavalry, now reduced to three thousand, he was assigned a division of selected infantry, numbering only fifteen hundred…


http://www.civilwarhome.com/forrestcampaigns.htm

Most people think that Forrest never commanded infantry troops in battle and that his great claim to fame is in commanding cavalry. Yet we all know that he often deployed his men as infantry. He also commanded infantry units. During one operation he mounted Buford‘s Brigade of Kentucky Infantry and took them on one of the Tennessee raids. He also commanded infantry in a planed attack to retake Nashville. The troops were in place but his superiors lost their nerve and ordered him to withdraw.

Some of you are under the impression that his argument with Bragg was over the pursuit of the Union troops. It is not the case. After Chickamauga Bragg ordered him to turn over all of his troops with the exception of one battalion to Wheeler and go on another raid into Tennessee. Both he and Wheeler objected to this idea. At this point Forrest resigned his commission. Davis refused to except the resignation and promoted him to Major General but left Bragg in command. Forrest was left with about 300 men and a battery of artillery (the guns of which he had captured).

Four times during the war (38 months or just over 3 years) Forrest had to raise, train and equip new commands.
He was able to raise as many as 6000 men in a fortnight. He had no formal military training and had to rely heavily on subordinates for their expertise. It also means that most of his victories were accomplished with green, poorly armed troops. The raids which Bragg sent him on were little short of suicide missions. On his raid into Kentucky he returned with 700 new recruits. Men who left their homes and families far behind to fallow a man to an uncertain future.
His last command was a Corps. At that late stage manpower was at a premium, but his command was something over 10,000 troops and consisted of all arms (infantry, cavalry, artillery)

I am a bit baffled by the idea of a command penalty for this General.
If he was so able to draw men to him and weld them into a cohesive and effective combat force, please share with me how he did so when he was always arguing with subordinates, whom he had to depend on?

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:27 pm

Ol' Choctaw wrote:I brought up Forrest’s command penalty because it was based on speculation. Not to promote him as the greatest man who ever lived. It is still based on speculation and some selected history and misconceptions. Getting a clear view of history is complex and often difficult. We all have much to learn and misconceptions to put aside.


Okay, we heard of what a grump Forrest was from a relative or something of a dead Lieutenant , now here is an adjutant’s report on his behavior in the retreat from Columbia:



http://www.civilwarhome.com/forrestcampaigns.htm

Most people think that Forrest never commanded infantry troops in battle and that his great claim to fame is in commanding cavalry. Yet we all know that he often deployed his men as infantry. He also commanded infantry units. During one operation he mounted Buford‘s Brigade of Kentucky Infantry and took them on one of the Tennessee raids. He also commanded infantry in a planed attack to retake Nashville. The troops were in place but his superiors lost their nerve and ordered him to withdraw.

Some of you are under the impression that his argument with Bragg was over the pursuit of the Union troops. It is not the case. After Chickamauga Bragg ordered him to turn over all of his troops with the exception of one battalion to Wheeler and go on another raid into Tennessee. Both he and Wheeler objected to this idea. At this point Forrest resigned his commission. Davis refused to except the resignation and promoted him to Major General but left Bragg in command. Forrest was left with about 300 men and a battery of artillery (the guns of which he had captured).

Four times during the war (38 months or just over 3 years) Forrest had to raise, train and equip new commands.
He was able to raise as many as 6000 men in a fortnight. He had no formal military training and had to rely heavily on subordinates for their expertise. It also means that most of his victories were accomplished with green, poorly armed troops. The raids which Bragg sent him on were little short of suicide missions. On his raid into Kentucky he returned with 700 new recruits. Men who left their homes and families far behind to fallow a man to an uncertain future.
His last command was a Corps. At that late stage manpower was at a premium, but his command was something over 10,000 troops and consisted of all arms (infantry, cavalry, artillery)

I am a bit baffled by the idea of a command penalty for this General.
If he was so able to draw men to him and weld them into a cohesive and effective combat force, please share with me how he did so when he was always arguing with subordinates, whom he had to depend on?


Throughout all your posts you seem to highlight the good and great parts of Forrest without acknowledging any of his faults or short comings. He made death threats against Bragg, blamed a subordinate for something that wasn't his fault and transferred him as a reprimand, when none should have been given, which lead the subordinate to outright attack him, and he argued with John Bell Hood about the maneuver he wanted to make. Forrest was a quickly angered man. When he thought his opinion was "right" and he was not given his way he quickly became angry.

As a contrast, IMO when other Civil War officers advised their superiors they did it in a much different way, instead of becoming combative. I believe before Picket's charge Longstreet said something to the effect of "In my opinion, or I don't believe that any 15,000 men can take that position/ridge". He didn't even use forceful language, and Longstreet knew that was going to be a mistake that would essentially end the war. Based on what I have ascertained Forrest would have gotten into a long drawn out argument with Lee. Forrest had a hot temper and was quickly angered, the article I posted earlier really captured this with how events transpired with Gould, or whatever his name was. I know you have an acute fondness for Forrest. But I can't get behind your argument.

As a side note I can only imagine what would have happened if Forrest was an army commander and one of his subordinates didn't carry out his order exactly like he wanted, or his army was routed. I can only imagine heads would roll whether they were responsible or not, that is the kind of man Forrest was.

One more food for thought. Have you ever thought about the possibility that he wasn't promoted to bigger commands as quickly because those in charge saw his "quickly angered" demeanor?

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:33 pm

Ol' Choctaw wrote:I brought up Forrest’s command penalty because it was based on speculation. Not to promote him as the greatest man who ever lived. It is still based on speculation and some selected history and misconceptions. Getting a clear view of history is complex and often difficult. We all have much to learn and misconceptions to put aside.


Okay, we heard of what a grump Forrest was from a relative or something of a dead Lieutenant , now here is an adjutant’s report on his behavior in the retreat from Columbia:



http://www.civilwarhome.com/forrestcampaigns.htm

Most people think that Forrest never commanded infantry troops in battle and that his great claim to fame is in commanding cavalry. Yet we all know that he often deployed his men as infantry. He also commanded infantry units. During one operation he mounted Buford‘s Brigade of Kentucky Infantry and took them on one of the Tennessee raids. He also commanded infantry in a planed attack to retake Nashville. The troops were in place but his superiors lost their nerve and ordered him to withdraw.

Some of you are under the impression that his argument with Bragg was over the pursuit of the Union troops. It is not the case. After Chickamauga Bragg ordered him to turn over all of his troops with the exception of one battalion to Wheeler and go on another raid into Tennessee. Both he and Wheeler objected to this idea. At this point Forrest resigned his commission. Davis refused to except the resignation and promoted him to Major General but left Bragg in command. Forrest was left with about 300 men and a battery of artillery (the guns of which he had captured).

Four times during the war (38 months or just over 3 years) Forrest had to raise, train and equip new commands.
He was able to raise as many as 6000 men in a fortnight. He had no formal military training and had to rely heavily on subordinates for their expertise. It also means that most of his victories were accomplished with green, poorly armed troops. The raids which Bragg sent him on were little short of suicide missions. On his raid into Kentucky he returned with 700 new recruits. Men who left their homes and families far behind to fallow a man to an uncertain future.
His last command was a Corps. At that late stage manpower was at a premium, but his command was something over 10,000 troops and consisted of all arms (infantry, cavalry, artillery)

I am a bit baffled by the idea of a command penalty for this General.
If he was so able to draw men to him and weld them into a cohesive and effective combat force, please share with me how he did so when he was always arguing with subordinates, whom he had to depend on?


I see you haven't done much research. Bragg angered Forrest with the wheeler promotion/ordering him to raid into Western Tennessee. The death threats only came after the battle of Chickamauga when Forrest wanted Bragg to follow up his victory with an assault on the city, instead of a siege. He confronted Bragg and made death threats against him at this point. Then Bragg reassigned him to Mississippi and he got a promotion.

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:35 pm

I should note though that Forrest wasn't the only one of Bragg's subordinates who wanted Bragg to assault Chattanooga.

Canon
Sergeant
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:58 pm

Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:32 pm

If you include Chamberlain by the argument that he would have risen to Division command, wouldn't you also have to include numerous Brigadiers who definitely had potential for command (eg: Armistead, Pettigrew)? I say leave out the Brigade commanders unless they actually advanced up to Division. I personally feel Chamberlain is somewhat trumped up by popular books like the Killer Angels, and I am not positive he would have become a successful General had he continued...

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:08 pm

B0rn_C0nfused wrote:I see you haven't done much research. Bragg angered Forrest with the wheeler promotion/ordering him to raid into Western Tennessee. The death threats only came after the battle of Chickamauga when Forrest wanted Bragg to follow up his victory with an assault on the city, instead of a siege. He confronted Bragg and made death threats against him at this point. Then Bragg reassigned him to Mississippi and he got a promotion.


You still don’t have the story straight. Further, your view of the situation is much too narrow. Generals regularly blame Lieutenants for things beyond their control and have done much worse than transfer them. It is just not every Lt that tries to shoot a General. You also neglect that Forrest recognized he was in error and tried to save the man. Most would have let him just die or if he recovered, hang him. Bragg was known for summery executions, the Lt might never have gotten his chance with him. There were two attempts on his life in the Mexican war, by his own troops.


Forrest’s difficulties with Bragg go back to when Bragg took command. Forrest covered his retreat from Shiloh. He had exceeded orders when evacuating Nashville, when Bragg was Chief of Staff to Johnston. He openly resented Forrest and wanted to see him fail. The first raid into Tennessee when Bragg took Forrest’s command away, had him recruit a new one and ordered him to depart before his men were even properly armed and Forrest was still recovering from wounds. It was my understanding that Walker was serving with and under Forrest. Bragg promoted Walker and gave Forrest’s command to him. If you would read the actual argument it would become clear that it had nothing to do with the pursuit of Union forces. This is also when he (Forrest) resigned.

At this point none of Braggs offices would have followed him across the street and Davis had to intervene. Davis had a very high regard for Bragg going back to the Mexican war and Davis felt Bragg had saved him. Despite this he still refused Forrest’s resignation and instead promoted him and transferred him to a different command. This was the fourth or fifth time Forrest , depending on whether you consider expanding a battalion to a Regiment is raising a new command, had to do so. Davis made the transfer and promotion, Bragg was lucky to keep his command for a few months more. Even then Davis didn’t sack him but made him an advisor where he made more mischief.

Unlike the other Confederates, rather than urge Bragg to pursue the enemy when Bragg flatly refused to believe it, Forrest did pursue them to the outskirts of Chattanooga, at which he was ordered to withdraw. Then Bragg ordered him to relinquish his command to Walker.

Tell me, is that quickly angered?

Your argument from two instances does not hold up. You take no consideration of wider events and try to pin it on those two incidents. And then you tell me I have not researched?

You seem highly unforgiving of any perceived flaw and more of the notion that Forrest deserves some penalty than looking at matter objectively.

Have you held command? Have you led troops? Do you know the complexities? It would seem to me that those who have would be more understanding of the situations you present. While few make death threats it is not as though they wouldn’t understand the feelings of the man who did.

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:33 pm

Ol' Choctaw wrote:You still don’t have the story straight. Further, your view of the situation is much too narrow. Generals regularly blame Lieutenants for things beyond their control and have done much worse than transfer them. It is just not every Lt that tries to shoot a General. You also neglect that Forrest recognized he was in error and tried to save the man. Most would have let him just die or if he recovered, hang him. Bragg was known for summery executions, the Lt might never have gotten his chance with him. There were two attempts on his life in the Mexican war, by his own troops.


Forrest’s difficulties with Bragg go back to when Bragg took command. Forrest covered his retreat from Shiloh. He had exceeded orders when evacuating Nashville, when Bragg was Chief of Staff to Johnston. He openly resented Forrest and wanted to see him fail. The first raid into Tennessee when Bragg took Forrest’s command away, had him recruit a new one and ordered him to depart before his men were even properly armed and Forrest was still recovering from wounds. It was my understanding that Walker was serving with and under Forrest. Bragg promoted Walker and gave Forrest’s command to him. If you would read the actual argument it would become clear that it had nothing to do with the pursuit of Union forces. This is also when he (Forrest) resigned.

At this point none of Braggs offices would have followed him across the street and Davis had to intervene. Davis had a very high regard for Bragg going back to the Mexican war and Davis felt Bragg had saved him. Despite this he still refused Forrest’s resignation and instead promoted him and transferred him to a different command. This was the fourth or fifth time Forrest , depending on whether you consider expanding a battalion to a Regiment is raising a new command, had to do so. Davis made the transfer and promotion, Bragg was lucky to keep his command for a few months more. Even then Davis didn’t sack him but made him an advisor where he made more mischief.

Unlike the other Confederates, rather than urge Bragg to pursue the enemy when Bragg flatly refused to believe it, Forrest did pursue them to the outskirts of Chattanooga, at which he was ordered to withdraw. Then Bragg ordered him to relinquish his command to Walker.

Tell me, is that quickly angered?

Your argument from two instances does not hold up. You take no consideration of wider events and try to pin it on those two incidents. And then you tell me I have not researched?

You seem highly unforgiving of any perceived flaw and more of the notion that Forrest deserves some penalty than looking at matter objectively.

Have you held command? Have you led troops? Do you know the complexities? It would seem to me that those who have would be more understanding of the situations you present. While few make death threats it is not as though they wouldn’t understand the feelings of the man who did.


I can not think of one man more deserving of the quickly angered trait than Forrest.

I will find some sources for you.

Forrest enters Bragg's tent and repeatedly tries to convince Bragg to attack. Eventually Forrest storms out of the tent. After this Bragg asked him to turn his men over and report to Wheeler (this would be the second time he did this). Forrest then berates his superior and issues a death threat. Bragg then assigns him to an independent command, any source worth its salt will tell the story something like that.

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:39 pm

This is about painting a story, if you look throughout Forrest's career he was quick to anger. Look at how he treated his superiors. People you are supposed to respect, and obey and toe the line with. How do you think this "anger" would have manifested with his subordinates. The Gould story tells that side of the story. I'm a very objective person, I am a pretty middle of the road person. I was born in Cincinnati Ohio (the North) and drive to school five days a week in Kentucky (the South). I have one toe in each every day. My dad is ultra conservative and his side of the family was raised on farms in Kentucky. My mom is a liberal born and raised in NYC. I'm very impartial and have no dog in this fight. Over and over again based on the history I've read the "quickly angered" trait fits Forrest to a "t" if you ask me.

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:47 pm

Here are a few sources for you.
http://www.freeinfosociety.com/article.php?id=184
"At the Battle of Chickamauga, once again, Forrest saw a defeated and demoralized Union army before him (and he was once again correct), and advised an all-out attack. The next night, after the Union army had retreated into Chattanooga, he went to Bragg's headquarters, beside himself of the fact that the army had not moved against the enemy, and tried to impress on General Braxton Bragg the poor state of the enemy. Bragg (who always had some kind of excuse why not to follow up a near victory) asked Forrest how they could move against the enemy without supplies, and refused to order an attack. Forrest replied "General Bragg, we can get all of the supplies we need in Chattanooga." Bragg didn't answer, and Forrest stormed from the tent. Later, when Bragg ordered Forrest to turn over his troops, (the second time, he had also done it about a year before) and report to Gen Joseph Wheeler, a man that Bragg knew that Forrest hated, Forrest said to Bragg:

"You commenced your cowardly and contemptible persecution of me soon after the battle of Shiloh, and you have kept it up ever since. You did it because I reported to Richmond facts, while you reported damned lies. You robbed me of my command in Kentucky, and gave it to one of your personal favorites -- men that I armed and equipped from the enemies of our country. In a spirit of revenge and spite, because I would not fawn upon you as others did, you drove me into West Tennessee in the winter of 1862, with a second brigade I had organized, with improper arms and without sufficient ammunition, although I had made repeated applications for the same. You did it to ruin me and my career.

"When in spite of all this I returned with my command, well equipped by captures, you began your work of spite and persecution, and have kept it up. And now this second brigade, organized and equipped without thanks to you or the government, a brigade which has won a reputation for successful fighting second to none in the army, taking advantage of your position as the commanding general in order to further humiliate me, you have taken these brave men from me.

"I have stood your meanness as long as I intend to. You have played the part of a damned scoundrel, and are a coward, and if you were any part of a man I would slap your jaws and force you to resent it.

"You have threatened to arrest me for not obeying you orders promptly. I dare you to do it, and I say that if you ever again try to interfere with me or cross my path, it will be at the peril of your life."

(This quote was told after the war by Forrest's chief surgeon, Dr. J. B. Cowan. Cowan was the only person besides Bragg and Forrest that heard this exchange. Afterwards, Cowan exclaimed to Forrest, "Well, you're in for it now." Forrest replied, "He'll never open his mouth. Unless you or I mention it, this will never be known.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest
"Forrest served with the main army at the Battle of Chickamauga (September 18 to September 20, 1863). He pursued the retreating Union army and took hundreds of prisoners.[26] Like several others under Bragg's command, he urged an immediate follow-up attack to recapture Chattanooga, which had fallen a few weeks before. Bragg failed to do so, upon which Forrest was quoted as saying, "What does he fight battles for?" [27] After Forrest made death threats against Bragg during a confrontation,[28] Bragg reassigned him to an independent command in Mississippi."

http://www.tennessee-scv.org/fg.htm
"Nathan Bedford Forrest was noted for his hot temper"
"Forrest was just as angry at being successfully surprised by the Federals and young Gould bore the brunt of his anger."

Those are just a few, I can provide more.

Also, Bragg has the trait dispirited leader, this is a trait much worse than quickly angered. Bragg deserves every bit of that trait. I'm not debating that.

wsatterwhite
Lieutenant
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:52 pm

Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:08 am

Captain_Orso wrote:
Hi Wsatterwhite :wavey:

I understand what you mean, but.... Image let me put it this way, were it to be about any other general, I would probably agree with you whole-heartedly; didn't happen, fate, karma, bad-luck, What-Ever™, let's move on. With Chamberlain it's a special case in that he has ascertained a kind of celebrity status among Civil War buffs. His inclusion would not be so much the filling-in of an historical niche, but a kind of feel-good inclusion where the player when they recognize him can say, "wow, Chamberlain, coooool" and get that warm-fuzzy feeling Image :D .

His inclusion, or exclusion, will not change the game in any way, really. But it is a small way to make the game just a Tad-Bit™ more fun and it would be a fine way to honor his memory on the 150 anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg Image


I'll be perfectly honest, the "celebrity" status Chamberlain holds is part of the reason why I'm so adamant against his inclusion, in my opinion as a lifelong and diehard Civil War buff Chamberlain wasn't really anything special compared to the countless relatively anonymous officers who were his contemporaries (this statement should not be taken as a slight to Chamberlain, it is more praise for those anonymous officers). I have no absolutely problem celebrating Chamberlain because he deserves it, the thing is I don't think he deserves celebrating anymore than a Strong Vincent, James C. Rice, Edward Cross, Samuel Zook or any of the countless other brave men who whom what-if scenarios could be played. I can understand though why others would want him included, that doesn't mean I won't argue against it until I'm Union blue in the face :cool:

wsatterwhite
Lieutenant
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:52 pm

Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:55 am

A few suggestions regarding existing generals-

William Hardee and Braxton Bragg need to arrive at 2-star rank instead of as 1-stars. Along with Bishop Polk these were the major leaders in the west for most of the war on the Confederate side and it is too easy for them to be cast to the side as 1-stars (having always played against the AI with my own variation of the old leader mod I was shocked to see Hardee end the war as a 1-star commanding a division in a recent pbem game using all default game files). This is defensible as both officers started off the war commanding what amounted to corps-equivalent organizations.

This is my own expansion of an idea proposed to me by Stauffenberg as we've been playing some pbems using a few personal mods- officers like Jackson and Longstreet on the CSA side and Sumner, Heintzleman, Keyes, etc... on the Union side who were historically pushed into higher commands early on should have one of the training/drilling traits attached to them in order to encourage players to employ these officers in those higher command roles (less a concern on the CSA side obviously all things considered). This would help make those officers a bit more notable and for what it's worth, wouldn't be too out of place- most histories I've read that really detail the building of the armies acknowledge that for all Bull Sumner and Heintzleman lacked as battlefield leaders they at least played a key role in training their troops and building them into effective fighting forces.

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:25 am

@ BOrn_COnfused

Look, Forrest had been enduring this treatment since Bragg took command. There is nothing quick about it. The man was leading troops into the heart of battle and having a second command taken.

All Braggs commanders urged him to Chattanooga but Bragg refused to accept it as fact no matter what.

They brought a solider who had been taken prisoner and escaped who also reported the Union was retreating.

Bragg scoffed at the solider and said: “Do you even know what retreat looks like”. The man replied “I should think so General, I have been in this army since you took command”.

Polk had flatly refused to obey any order from Bragg, to the serious determent to their cause, on more than one occasion. And he was not alone.

Bragg was a strict and unbending disciplinarian on the one hand, but on the other when faced with changes of situation or when under pressure he refused to take any action and refused to accept the facts of the situation.

There is nothing more frustrating than someone who will not accept provable fact. To become angry with them is understandable, particularly when lives and armies are the stakes. It is a miracle that no one took an ax handle to his head.

Your Gould story is written by someone presenting a point of view, not the simple facts. It starts off by saying what an evil temper Forrest had. That is a tactic in presenting the story to elicit sympathy for Gould and paint Forrest as a tyrant. It is not a simple fact and I have seen it repeated, no where. Newspaper articles of the time sensationalized. I don’t think we have any other evidence of a ranting hot temper from other sources.

My story was from a military adjutant presenting the facts. I would not say it contains no embellishments, it very well could but the facts were that he was cheering the men on and it was typical Forrest, even if the men did not wish to hear it. It is the reverse demeanor from the Gould story.

The story from Cowan only proves further that it was not a spur of the moment act. That Bragg had it in for Forrest is beyond doubt.

You can say it is a lack of discipline, however, from another point of view, Forrest had tendered his resignation and was technically a civilian. So he could view it as telling off the boss and one who had been trying to get him and his men killed for over a year.

I don’t think there was anything QUICK about the whole thing.


The issue of traits do not start or end with Forrest however. There are some others who have traits they do not deserve, good and bad.

Some of these others need to be looked at too. One example would be Ben McCulloch who was given command of the Indian Territory but never commanded or led Indians at all.

B0rn_C0nfused
Sergeant
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:59 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:43 pm

was not able to post a reply, because my message was "too short" so I sent you a pm.

User avatar
Ol' Choctaw
Posts: 1642
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm

Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:50 pm

David D. Porter Admiral (already in game)

Pillager

Someone missed the part about him being unscrupulous. The Navy paid prize money for captured goods and Porter was not about to miss out on opportunities to make money. He stole and looted Army warehouses looking for saleable goods, particularly cotton. He stole army transport and livestock so he could send his sailors out into the countryside to bring back what they could find and it made little difference where they found it. They would loot Union or Confederate alike.

He was not even the highest ranking officer but the senior naval officer. His actions cause the Army to do much the same in a bid to stay ahead of him.

charlesonmission
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:55 am
Location: USA (somewhere)

Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:09 pm

Lots of thought is being put into this! I like it! ACW2 is going to be awesome!

Return to “Help to improve AACW!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests