Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Florida

Irvin McDowell

Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:34 am

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

Brigadier General
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:18 am

Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:21 pm

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

Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Florida

Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:54 pm

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.

Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:23 pm

Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:05 pm

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

User avatar
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: France

Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:33 am

I stand for 2 2 2, looks an appropriate mix of talent and incompetence...
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain


User avatar
Colonel Dreux
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:25 am

Sat May 30, 2009 9:19 pm

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.
Oh my God, lay me down!

Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:14 am

Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:20 am

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.

Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:29 pm


Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:32 pm

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.

Return to “Officers room”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests