Leadership Ratings for Civil War Generals

[bschulte]

I've recently been involved in a project where I need to rank Civil War generals at a certain battle on a scale of 0 (worst) to 6 (best) in several important features, including:

1) the ability to rally troops who are disrupted or routed
2) the radius of command a leader has to effectively control his men
3) the ability to keep unit cohesion high (i.e. keep men in their units and fighting
4) leadership (the ability to give units in the vicinity a boost to their morale)
5) leader style (i.e. aggressive, normal, George McClellan)
6) combat experience.

In addition to reading about the performance of each leader (brigade and above) at the battle in question, I've come up with several other factors to use when calculating these ratings. These include:

1) age at the battle: I thought a particularly old or young leader might be marked down in some areas for physical disability or inexperience.

2) West Point (or equivalent) graduate or attendee: I realize that many West Pointers turned out to be dismal generals and that some civilians turned into excellent combat officers, but this is one that could be used as a general guideline.

3) number of battles leading his current type of formation (brigade, division, corps, army): The idea here is to see how much practical battle experience the leader has at commanding this number of men. A leader recently promoted to a higher level might struggle a bit with cohesion until he gets used to handling a larger number of men.

4) number of battles the leader has been with his current unit (or a lower subunit of the current unit): This is basically familiarity. How well do the men know this commander. A long term leader is probably going to function more efficiently leading a unit rather than someone just placed in command of a new unit.

5) wounds prior to the battle and possible adverse affects on the leader in question: This is what I'll call the "Hood rule". The laudanum usage has proven to be a myth, but losing a leg and losing most of the use of one arm has to affect you in some large ways. Another example is Winfield Scott Hancock after his Gettysburg wound. He was never the same and was ultimately forced from command of the II Corps by this wound.


Does anyone else have any ideas on factors to consider and how they would apply them to the six features listed at the top of this post? I find this sort of research fascinating and I'd love to hear from those of you who have any opinions on this one.

[Brochgale]

Good luck with this. Not sure age makes any difference though. Or even that physical disability makes any difference. Plenty of examples in history where it did not?
Sounds like an intersting project though. Hope you will elaborate more on it in the forums.

[bschulte]

Good luck with this. Not sure age makes any difference though. Or even that physical disability makes any difference. Plenty of examples in history where it did not?
Sounds like an intersting project though. Hope you will elaborate more on it in the forums.

Thanks. I know I was pretty vague above, but I can't really divulge any more info on it at this point. I plan to blog about it extensively in the future once I am allowed though.

[runyan99]

Good luck on your highly subjective endeavor.

[tyrex]

The trouble of such a classification is that none general should have is ratio fixed.
Let me explain with an historical exemple: Stonewall Jackson was by far one of the finest general in this war.
But even him may have some blackout of performance. During the Six (or seven..sorry I'm not american) Days Battle, his war performance was abysmal. He failed to achieve anything. In this case your "leader style" should have been "McClellan". But take it at Chancellorville and this specific rating must be "far too impetuous" (his presence in front line was the cause of his fatal wound). So in his case you must have dynamic and not static value. I'm not sure the Age motor (quite not sure of this word there) can handle dynamic value. Indeed I've never see any games handling the erratic capacity of human behaviour (and I spare you medical reasons such as illness or drunkness or previous injury)

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[bschulte]

Good luck on your highly subjective endeavor.

runyan99,

I agree it is highly subjective. The idea is to come up with values the majority of gamers would consider believable.

[bschulte]

The trouble of such a classification is that none general should have is ratio fixed.
Let me explain with an historical exemple: Stonewall Jackson was by far one of the finest general in this war.
But even him may have some blackout of performance. During the Six (or seven..sorry I'm not american) Days Battle, his war performance was abysmal. He failed to achieve anything. In this case your "leader style" should have been "McClellan". But take it at Chancellorville and this specific rating must be "far too impetuous" (his presence in front line was the cause of his fatal wound). So in his case you must have dynamic and not static value. I'm not sure the Age motor (quite not sure of this word there) can handle dynamic value. Indeed I've never see any games handling the erratic capacity of human behaviour (and I spare you medical reasons such as illness or drunkness or previous injury)

tyrex,

Good points. For my purposes, I am looking at only one specific battle. Luckily, I have numerous books on this battle, and I'm in the process of reading and taking notes as we speak.

[tyrex]

You've just to read, take notes, compair and make your own decision in fact. It's a good amator historian work nonetheless.
Good luck cause it a very consuming time activity as I know it (I've myself done some reworkon, another series of wargames for a french community).

[bschulte]

You've just to read, take notes, compair and make your own decision in fact. It's a good amator historian work nonetheless.
Good luck cause it a very consuming time activity as I know it (I've myself done some reworkon, another series of wargames for a french community).

Exactly. All of these other factors are only a portion of the whole. Reading actual books on the battle and using these as a guide will be the main portion of the work.