Missing General

[Nial]

I've looked thru the generals list PDF. But I can't find "Lowel Armistead". I just can't believe he is missing. He is rather famous. Being the centerpiece of one of the most known paintings of Pickets charge at Gettysburg. Also one of my favorite division cmdrs. of the war. Is he just not on the list? ( Have only played the demo/ waiting for full game to arrive).

Nial

[Aurelin]

IIRC, he was a brigade commander in Pickett's division. Don't have the game yet, so I'm guessing bde cmdrs are not in it.

[blackbellamy]

No, although if you're really into it, you can mod the name of one of the starting CSA brigades to "Armistead’s Brigade", which I believe was the actual name.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Le Ricain]

I assume that we are talking about Lewis Addison Armistead, brigade commander in Pickett's division.

[Nial]

Now thats interesting. I had always thought his given name was Lowell. Upon further research it seems you are correct. It is Lewis. Though I found entries for both. And it seems they are one in the same. The only thing I can come up with is that lowell is what friends / who-ever called him. Because Lowell always led me back to lewis. *shrugs* learn something new everyday.

Thanks
Nial

P.S. Will prolly mod him in as brigade commander under Pickett.

[Le Ricain]

Now thats interesting. I had always thought his given name was Lowell. Upon further research it seems you are correct. It is Lewis. Though I found entries for both. And it seems they are one in the same. The only thing I can come up with is that lowell is what friends / who-ever called him. Because Lowell always led me back to lewis. *shrugs* learn something new everyday.

Thanks
Nial

P.S. Will prolly mod him in as brigade commander under Pickett.

Perhaps the confusion comes from his nickname, 'Lo'. 'Lo' was short for 'Lothario' as a joke as he was a shy man, a widower and not a ladies man at all.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[runyan99]

Incidentally, Armistead was senior to Pickett, as were several other generals, when Pickett was promoted to major general and given his division.

So, and alternate reality where Armistread got a division command before Pickett would be entirely reasonable.

[McNaughton]

L Armistead is in the Leader MOD

He shows up sometime between January and March 1864, if you are using the Leader MOD

Wasn't he dead by January 1864?

[Chamberlain]

Wasn't he dead by January 1864?

Yes,

He was killed at Gettysburg.

Chamberlain

[Nial]

Yes, killed at Gettysburg, the only general, ( I think ) that made it to the Union entrenchments during Pickett's charge. His brigade broke through, but was repulsed by the federal reserves. ( not enough men left to hold the line after they took it, as I remember.)

I have the leader MOD, but am still waiting for the full game to arrive in the mail. *sigh* He should prolly arrive in early 63 if not late 62.

Nial

[Bodders]

I would assume the point is he shows up when he'd have been likely to become a division commander had he lived - so that would have been around Jan 1864 assuming Pickett is still promoted first (which the mod does).

[McNaughton]

Hmm, but shouldn't we assume that as brigade commander (abstracted in game) he would be killed? Otherwize, how many countless colonels killed in 1861 should be placed as division commanders as they 'had potential'?

IMO, only those who survived to divisional command, should be divisional commanders. Otherwize, 100% of the time you will get Armistead as a divisional commander in 1864, even if you start the 1864 scenario (well after he was officially killed at Gettysburg).

Had he been given even temporary command of a division before his death (Pettigrew for example) I can see his inclusion, but since he was killed before he should appear in game, I don't think this is a justified addition.

[Nial]

Well, He was already a Brig. General when he was killed, not a colonel. Of course, if he had survived? He would have most certainly been sent to a POW camp. As he was captured and died in Union hands I believe. Though only a prisoner for a few hours before he died as I remember. ( Just going on memory now though)

Nial

[Chamberlain]

Well, He was already a Brig. General when he was killed, not a colonel. Of course, if he had survived? He would have most certainly been sent to a POW camp. As he was captured and died in Union hands I believe.

Nial

Correct Nial,

He was shot near the wall & he died a couple days later in the Union hands.

How fate played a role when both he and his best friend, Union Maj. Gen. Hancock were also shot on the same day, though he survived.

Chamberlain

[McNaughton]

Well, He was already a Brig. General when he was killed, not a colonel. Of course, if he had survived? He would have most certainly been sent to a POW camp. As he was captured and died in Union hands I believe. Though only a prisoner for a few hours before he died as I remember. ( Just going on memory now though)

Nial

The Confederates, more than the Union, placed Brigadiers in charge of Brigades, Major Generals in charge of Divisions, and Lieutenant Generals in charge of Corps. You will find many 'brigadiers' in charge of Confederate Brigades (even some Federal Brigadiers in command of Federal Brigades, as well).

Check the scenario files, and you will see integrated brigade commanders (i.e., the listed commander) are 'brigadiers' almost 90% of the time for the Confederates, even though you don't see them as actual commanders.

[Nial]

I guess it all comes down to how much ' What if?' you want in the game. If he had survived? If he had not been captured? Using those what ifs. He would most prolly have been selected for divison command after his performance at Gettysburg. But then Hancock died the same day. And I doubt many are choosing to 'not' use him after gettysburg. Historic flavor or not. Few games directly follow events after the first turn. Though sometimes it can seem generaly close. I find that as the exception, not the rule in my humble experience.

Nial

[McNaughton]

I guess it all comes down to how much ' What if?' you want in the game. If he had survived? If he had not been captured? Using those what ifs. He would most prolly have been selected for divison command after his performance at Gettysburg. But then Hancock died the same day. And I doubt many are choosing to 'not' use him after gettysburg. Historic flavor or not. Few games directly follow events after the first turn. Though sometimes it can seem generaly close. I find that as the exception, not the rule in my humble experience.

Nial

Well, the system of promotion from 'abstract' command to a real commander is based wholly on following a general process of history. Most generals appear in game because there is an assumption of following history up until the point of their arrival. Colonels promoted to Division command were based on certain criteria (did they do well in battle, was there a sudden need for replacement generals due to casualties, did they have politics supporting them, etc.).

This criteria is dependent on assuming that before a general appears 'in game' as a separate unit, that their history matched the real history of the Civil War. Siegel won at Pea Ridge. Davis was not captured at Fort Sumter. Sherman or Burnside weren't killed or captured at Bull Run. And so on... Without this assumption, then half of the generals should not appear in game.

Historically, before he ever had the chance to command a unit larger than a brigade, Armistead was killed in battle. Due to his personality, it appears that it was probably inevitable he would fall in battle (brigadier who led from the front). His only two major engagements as a brigade commander were Fredricksburg and Gettysburg (prior to that was a provost marshall). He died after his second major engagement. The 'what if' leads more toward he would be killed in action before the chance of him getting a divisional command.

HOWEVER!

The process of command usually followed internal promotion.

If a corps commander died, or was wounded, one of his divisional commanders took his role, based on familiarity with the units in the formation.

Same with the divisional scale. If a divisional commander was killed, wounded, or given command (temporarily or permanently) of the Corps, then usually one of the division's brigadiers was assigned command of the division (due to same reasons for division to corps command transfers).

Since Armistead was in Pickett's Division, if Pickett was killed, or promoted to corps commander (2 star), and it happens before July 3, 1863, then I see the possibility of Armistead being 'in the game' as a general.

So, I see Armistead's promotion to divisional command being wholly contingent on Pickett's level of promotion or general health (if killed, Armistead is his likely replacement) and it happening before July 3, 1863. He shouldn't just appear regardless.

[Nial]

.(quote)
( "The 'what if' leads more toward he would be killed in action before the chance of him getting a divisional command.")

That is a totaly subjective statement.

Many Generals in the Civil war led from the front. It is true that many of those died. It is also true that many didn't.

I don't consider it a given either way from a gamers point of view. But games are enjoyed or not enjoyed by the person playing. IMHO. Once you start bringing generals back from the grave? Then one justification is as good as another. All that matters is that you enjoy it. I was perfectly fine with modding Armistead in as a brigade commander under Pickett. I'll use him as a Div. commander since he is in the mod. *shrugs* Its all good to me.

Nial

[Bodders]

Well, quite - if you decide for whatever reason you want a few more leaders combined with increased chances for leader casualties then you can use whoever you want I think.

Can't Lyon be promoted in the original game anyway so there's already 'what ifs'?

[McNaughton]

It doesn't sit right with me, to have Armistead appear every game after he historically died.

It is up to chance that Jackson will be killed in 1863, (or other generals you have contorl over) but at least there is a chance for this to happen. As is, Armistead will be in the game, as a divisional commander, 100%.

Frankly, benefit of the doubt going for Armistead surviving into Divisional command is going way too far.

Had he, like Pettigrew, been given even a temporary divisional command, then killed, I would wholly support his inclusion. He didn't, he died as a brigadier commanding a brigade, and his inclusion will be totally against the rationalization why certain other generals do, or do not, appear in the game.

Every other general meets this criteria, as appearing as a 'brigadier' at the time they served in command of a Division sized force. This never happened for Armistead. What may or may not have happened after his death is conjecture, fact is, he died and we will never know how he would have fared as a divisional commander (maybe he would have been exceptionally poor as divisional commander, like Hood was poor as an army commander?).

[Nial]

*smile* Methinks you should be addressing this concern in the leader mod thread. As I said in my last post. I am fine with modding him as a brigade cmndr. If he is in the mod as a Div. cmndr? I'll use him as such. That is my personal preference and in no way requires any sacrifice from any other player. There are several stats for certain generals that I disagree with, yet will it stop me from enjoying the game? Doubtfull I'm thinking. If it bothers me that much? I'll mod them myself to where I think they should be. Will I try to force other players to mod their games to what I think is the proper historical context? No.......Since I play against the AI. It only matters that I am happy with the way my game is set up.

*smile* Happy, happy

Nial

[jam3]

Hancock was his good friend from West Point and was leading the brigade that engaged Armisted at Gettysburg. Armisted had written a note to his friend which they found on his body saying how he was wrong to have joined the confederacy. Thats the story anyways. Other accounts say he simply remarked while dying that he had "done a great injustice".

[Ingtar]

Hancock was his good friend from West Point and was leading the brigade that engaged Armisted at Gettysburg. Armisted had written a note to his friend which they found on his body saying how he was wrong to have joined the confederacy. Thats the story anyways. Other accounts say he simply remarked while dying that he had "done a great injustice".

It is my understanding that Hancock and Armistead were part of a group that agreed to refuse to face each other if it came to that. Armistead was sure enough of his fate to arrange to have his Bible sent to Mira Hancock the night before. He gave his ring to Pickett to send to his girlfriend. What he unready to face was the fact the Hancock was on the same field and wounded on the same day.

He had promised to never raise his hand against Hancock and had done so. He felt that he had wronged an old friend. His comments were taken a bit out of context, I think, when he expressed the regret that he had possibly contributed to Hancock's injury. Armistead died two days later after arranging for his remaining personal effects to go to Hancock.