Irvin McDowell

[Chris0827]

234 USA Irvin McDowell ldr_USA_McDowell3 NULL NULL NULL NULL 3 15 3 5 General 1 NULL 2 2 2

There's not much to say about him. A bad general but probably not as bad as some think. Bull Run was the first time he ever commanded troops in combat and he came close to winning. 2 seems a little high for his combat ratings.

234 USA Irvin McDowell ldr_USA_McDowell3 NULL NULL NULL NULL 3 15 3 5 General 1 NULL 2 1 1

[frank7350]

i guess 2-1-1 is ok...but so is 2-2-2 or any combo in between i guess...

[Chris0827]

I'm trying to be conservative in my ratings since someone posted the average ratings and I saw how high they were. We've been told that 3|1|1 is average so I'm basing my ratings on that.

[Ironclad]

Probably more a very unlucky general than a bad one who really got shafted by some lousy early high command (Lincoln/Stanton) decisions.

[Korrigan]

I stand for 2 2 2, looks an appropriate mix of talent and incompetence...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvin_McDowell

[Colonel Dreux]

I rate at 3-2-2. He was a decent commander and did understand strategy. He had a good plan at Bull Run, but it just didn't work out. The Army was unprepared to fight, not too much his fault. He did okay during the rest of the war as well.

[Stonewall63]

I agree with many here I'm a Civil War person. While McDowell's plan did fail in the end, this lay more with his subordinates rather than him. He devised a very good plan just in the end it failed simply because most of his subordinates, as well as him, were new to command and things did not get carried out well. If the Union generals in command of the flanking force would have made a concerted attack instead of piecemeal assaults, as McDowell planned, they should have been able to drive the Confederate flank back long before Jackson and others arrived to stall then push back the assault.

On this I agree with the ratings and maybe even giving him a 1 point bonus in attack as like I said it was more the failing of experience of everyone involved that lead to the failure not really anything of his.

[woodcojb]

I like Irvin at 2-2-2 except for the idea that 3 is considered strategic competence. At First Manassas his subordinates were Tyler, Hunter, Heintzleman, and Miles. Only Hunter was mildly useful during the rest of the conflict.

McDowell was a favorite of the Republicans and they tried meddling to gain a bigger role for him when McClellan refused them. They felt comfortable with him at Falmouth during the Peninsula campaign, the only professional soldier they could call on to stop Jackson in the Valley (granted they handcuffed McClellan by doing that).

Actually, I'm okay with 2-2-2. McDowell never moved unless he had to. That would not show strategic foresight.