William Franklin

[frank7350]

Currently:

Franklin2 3-2-2

Spent two years as an engineer out West following West Point and oversaw the construction of the US lighthouses in the late 1850s. Its a reach, but we could give him the def. eng. bonus, based on that.

Again...more or less average.... would suggest lowering the ratings to 3-1-1

[Jabberwock]

Grant thought highly of him (he graduated top of Grant's West Point class), but he thoroughly failed to do his job at Fredericksburg, and he made a poor showing working for Banks at both Sabine Pass and Sabine Crossroads.

Should probably be a 3-0-1 or a 2-0-1.

[McNaughton]

Grant thought highly of him (he graduated top of Grant's West Point class), but he thoroughly failed to do his job at Fredericksburg, and he made a poor showing working for Banks at both Sabine Pass and Sabine Crossroads.

Should probably be a 3-0-1 or a 2-0-1.

Who could have made a good showing at Fredericksburg?

I think that when coming up with stats for Corps Commanders (like Franklin and Porter, for example) you have to put them in the command chain.

Take Franklin, he was subordinate to McClellan, Burnside, and Banks. None of whom are strategic marvels. He was shown to capably follow orders to the best of his ability. He was chastised by Burnside for Fredericksburg, yet he followed the orders to the best of his ability (I doubt any commander could have done better). Take McClellan and Banks into account, and there are already 'hits' on their subordinates in regards to stats.

I believe that the system works that the army commander provides bonus for strategic ratings to their corps commanders if they are at above 2 strategic ratings. Since these 3 Army commanders have such poor strategic ratings, they would provide no bonus to their corps commanders, in some cases penalties. To me, this puts things in perspective for Franklin, who was constantly serving under duds.

Sure, a general like Hooker can shine even serving under the likes of Pope, McClellan and Burnside, but that is because he was exceptional. I think Franklin was good, followed the chain of command, but he wasn't necessarily a 'genious'. A 3-1-1 rating, in my opinion, fits him well. His failures can be placed partially on the position he was in. In game, if you put Franklin under command of Banks, Burnside or McClellan he will not fare well, but under Grant his average abilities will make him useful.

[Jabberwock]

Who could have made a good showing at Fredericksburg?

I think that when coming up with stats for Corps Commanders (like Franklin and Porter, for example) you have to put them in the command chain.

Take Franklin, he was subordinate to McClellan, Burnside, and Banks. None of whom are strategic marvels. He was shown to capably follow orders to the best of his ability. He was chastised by Burnside for Fredericksburg, yet he followed the orders to the best of his ability (I doubt any commander could have done better). Take McClellan and Banks into account, and there are already 'hits' on their subordinates in regards to stats.

I believe that the system works that the army commander provides bonus for strategic ratings to their corps commanders if they are at above 2 strategic ratings. Since these 3 Army commanders have such poor strategic ratings, they would provide no bonus to their corps commanders, in some cases penalties. To me, this puts things in perspective for Franklin, who was constantly serving under duds.

Sure, a general like Hooker can shine even serving under the likes of Pope, McClellan and Burnside, but that is because he was exceptional. I think Franklin was good, followed the chain of command, but he wasn't necessarily a 'genious'. A 3-1-1 rating, in my opinion, fits him well. His failures can be placed partially on the position he was in. In game, if you put Franklin under command of Banks, Burnside or McClellan he will not fare well, but under Grant his average abilities will make him useful.

Fredericksburg - If anyone had a chance at Fredericksburg, it was Franklin. He had the Left Grand Division, (8 divisions, 60,000 men - that includes the two on loan from Hooker). His job was to attack Jackson (4 divisions, aproximately 35,000 men) across the low end of the ridge, then sweep north clearing the ridge so that the Right Grand Division could advance without being slaughtered. Admittedly, his orders included the phrases "governed by circumstances" and "well supported and its line of retreat open", but the idea was fairly easy to comprehend. He failed to support a breakthrough, using only a third of the available troops from that division - although Meade (the division commander) can share some of the blame. Then he stopped. What happened to the Right Gr. Div. can be blamed on Burnside for continuing the assault once Franklin had quit. I'd give Franklin low strategy and and attack ratings for this one alone. Who gets blamed? Burnside.

Sabine Pass - He was given a reinforced division, independent command. The plan was to assault Ft. Griffin (6 guns, 43 men), with a preliminary naval bombardment. The bombardment failed. The navy lost two gunboats. Franklin decided to head back to New Orleans without landing any troops. Who gets blamed? The Navy. OK, they deserved it, but there was a lack of initiative shown here.

Sabine Crossroads / Mansfield - Cavalry in the lead, then 300 wagons with cavalry supplies (occupying about 2.5 miles of road), then Franklin with the infantry, then his supplies. After initial skirmishing during the march, the cavalry commander repeatedly asks Franklin to let him shift his wagons down the column. Franklin repeatedly refuses. Fighting gets more serious, cavalry commander requests infantry reinforcements. Franklin refuses. One of Banks' aides finally brings the situation to the attention of headquarters. Franklin sends a brigade forward. Richard Taylor is waiting with 9,000 troops at Sabine Crossroads. Three more brigades are able to make it most of the way through the cavalry train before the Confederate assault begins. It is a rout. Losses: 2235 troops, 20 guns, 200 wagons. Who gets dismissed? Alfred Lee, the cavalry commander (and Charles Stone, the chief of staff, but that's another story).

The next day: Pleasant Hill - Franklin's flank crumbles. Fortunately A.J. Smith sends in the reserves at just the right moment, saves the day, and administers a whupping to the rebs.

At this point, Franklin advises a retreat to Blair's Landing. Smith reccomends continuing the advance (the strategically sound alternative). Banks takes Franklin's advice. When the troops start getting disgruntled about it, Franklin lets it be known that he would never have reccomended withdrawal if the army had a competent commander. While his troops are digging in during the retreat, Franklin advises them that they don't need that much protection, they can whip the rebs easily. They ignore him and keep digging.

Were there extenuating circumstances in each case? Yes, there always are. Did he serve under poor commanders? Yes. Perhaps if his commanders had been better served, they would not be remembered as quite such duds (well, maybe they would). I would give this character a high political rating. If there was a circumspection rating, I'd give him high marks there, but that's it. If someone can find equal examples of his demonstrated competence (:niark , I would be willing to say he was average.