Young vs old generals

[Doug Beman]

Is it just my mistaken impression, or did the German Army have a higher average age for generals/field marshals/whatever than the US? It seems like the well-known US figures (Ike, Patton, Bradley) were in their early 50s (?) while Guderian, Rommel, Manstein were a good 5 years older.

Am I wrong? Somebody with a big "Who Was who in World War Two" set me straight.

DjB

[AndyRoss]

Congratulations Archangel.

[Guest scurlock]

Originally posted by AndyRoss:

Scurlock, what about Nathan Bedford Forrest? The guy had three months of education (not military) in total: assembled a corp and became, perhaps, the most successful commander of the civil war and certainly the best commander of cavalry operations.

Leadership is not strictly a military trait, and can be taught and nurtured in ways your average joe 6 pack doesn't understand. Forrest along with most people who show leadership skills at an early age, or with little formal training probably had one or more people in his life who taught him how to be a successful leader by people who loved him and took a vested interest in reasing him "right". You must remember that leadership is the art of getting people to acomplish tasks and goals. This is learned behavior. You want to see the opposite of what I mean by learning leadership traits picture a true losser. A real person I know dropped out of high school, couldn't keep a job, was arrested and convicted of breaking in to a store (did this as a lark). This kid had no possitive guidance from any of his significant others. He didn't have enough discipline, forsight, integrity, believability, steadfastness, sincerity, conviction...(add your favorite admerable trait exhibited by your favorite leader here)... to lead flies to fresh ****. He isn't a nasty spirited person(actually he was a fun guy to be around), he just was never provided the tools to take care of himself, let alone take care of or lead anybody else.

The whole point is that leadership is developed (taught), and those who have been possitively influence at young ages can be as effective leaders, as older people who had to learn and develope those personal traits and skills which enabled them to effectively lead a bit latter in life.

[Mark IV]

Forrest is a heckuva good choice, but Custer's example is (echoing BTS) more in line with CM's scale.

It seems some battlefield leaders are born, not made. This wouldn't be the norm, and may be the result of natural instincts combined with quick study ability. But throughout recorded history, from Thucydides to Hannibal through Nappie to Lee/Grant through Manstein and Ike, you will read of the frustration with commanders who will not M-O-V-E.

Impetuousity can be grown out of, but ossification is grown into.

[AndyRoss]

Yes, Mr. Bedford Forrest was a fine, upstanding citizen No one else contributed as much to the linen and rope market in the deep south

My point about lack of education is not linked to age: Nathan Bedford Forrest was considerably older than George Custer. In broad terms we are in agreement. I certainly believe that there are many routes to becoming a successful commander: a young commander is likely to be less experienced and less authoritative than an older counterpart. This is not a firm rule by any means: I'm sure we can all pick on older commanders who were terrible; and young who were equally terrible.

I don't believe that age or military education will necessarily give someone the talent of effective leadership.

[Guest scurlock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AndyRoss:

My point about lack of education is not linked to age: Nathan Bedford Forrest was considerably older than George Custer. In broad terms we are in agreement.

I don't believe that age or military education will necessarily give someone the talent of effective leadership.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Understood. I also understand that leadership abillity is just one of the skills that makes a General successful. The subject is extreemly broad, and volumes can and have been written on the subject.

I was just attempting to address the more narrow subject of age and why a young person can have equal or greator skills as a leader than the skills of an older person, while attempting to devalue the hypothisis that some people are natural born leaders. Nathan Bedford tossed lack of formal education into the picture. It is my premise that in both cases the successful person was groomed for success by loving and possitive mentorship, whether that mentorship comes formally or informally is not so important as the possitive mentorship itself.

[AndyRoss]

MarkIV, Custer finished the war as a Major-General whereas Bedford Forrest was a Lt.-General, so Bedford Forrest was of slightly lower rank. I know that Custer commanded a division at Cedar Creek so I'd say that neither were in CM's scale as of late in the civil war. Bedford Forrest, for a great period in the war, led fairly small forces. Neither are really in CM scale: neither are generals, so this thread can't really be said to be about people in CM's scale.

I'd also say that while they were close to CM's scale, (i.e. before both led much larger forces) Custer was a reckless man who led without result, whereas Bedford Forrest distinguished himself as a superb leader of forces. Custer also began as a commissioned officer (Lt.?) while Bedford Forrest began as a private.

[Mark IV]

I'll not quibble about the scale issue, though Custer's exploits might be illustrative of maneuver and combat at various levels.

Let's move right to it (Quibble Mode ON): <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Custer was a reckless man who led without result<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now Andy, I know you're a Scot, and you may not follow the ACW as closely as Bannockburn or Culloden. Plenty of Americans with some interest in history know precious little, other than some Hollywood disinfo and street legend, about Custer's Civil War record.

I apologize in advance if you've actually done some Custer ACW research and merely drawn a wrong conclusion as indicated by the quote above. Otherwise, I would urge you to read up on Custer's ACW record rather than accepting any popular myths.

Custer was at every major engagement in which the cavalry of the Army of the Potomac and the Shenandoah participated, except Fredericksburg, and most of the minor ones. He was in the midst of planning another impromptu charge with another commander when the flag of truce rode out from the Appomattox Court House. I don't know what it is you want from a soldier to qualify as effective, but by any reasonable measure George Custer had it.

Custer was a cadet at West Point with a so-so record and entered regular service just when the Civl War broke out. As a lieutenant his first battle was the First Battle of Bull Run, fought the day after he reached his new unit. His company was one of the last to leave the battlefield, and one of the few blue-coated ones to leave the field in good order. He was cited for bravery and noticed by Federal officers in need of cool heads under fire.

Appointed first to Gen. Kearny's staff, then to an Engineer unit during the Union Army rebuilding, he was a pioneer balloonist-observer. He tried everything to get into action, and was an "unofficial aide" to Gen. Hancock at Williamsburg. During the rebel counterattack, when Hancock ordered the decisive counter-charge, Custer leapt ahead of all others and personally captured the first Rebel battle-standard (along with a captain and five men) taken by the Army of the Potomac.

At the Chickahominy River he led the engineer survey across to the Confederate side (wading), sketched the Reb positions, returned to his company and led a raid back to cut off an enemy picket post. This feat ultimately got him appointed a temporary Captain on Gen. McClellan's staff- when McClellan was relieved he was technically "busted" back to lieutenant.

He became an aide to Gen. Pleasanton, and ultimately Pleasonton's right hand. Though an aide, he led an amphibious raid behind enemy lines which burned two schooners and a bridge a captured 12 men, which earned him the notice and commendation of Gen. Hooker. He was promoted to captain.

He was to plague J.E.B. Stuart all his career and ultimately led the charge that killed him. At Brandy Station when the 8th NY Cavalry's commander was killed, Custer (though only an aide attached to the unit) took command of the 8th and 2 other regiments and led the saber charge that got them out of a Confederate encirclement.

Based on this and numerous other actions where personal bravery and intiative were his trademark, Custer was recommended for promotion to Brigadier along with Wesley Merritt and another member of Pleasanton's command. Best of all, he was assigned to command the 2nd Brigade, 3rd Cavalry, which included the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 7th Michigan Cavalry. His commander was Gen. H. J. Kilpatrick, also know as "Kill-cavalry" for his bloody battles and high body counts, and more closely resembles the portrait you have mistakenly ascribed to Custer.

As commander of the "Michigan Men" he was idolized by his men, feared by the Rebels, and lionized by the press (there is abundant source material for all of these facts, BTW).

When reassigned to command the 3rd Cavalry Division (by Phil Sheridan, who at 33 was making a pretty good name for "youngsters" in command), almost 500 of the Michigan Wolverines signed petitions to be transferred along with him.

He personally chased a man named Jubal Early back to Richmond. He was critical to turning the tide at Five Forks. His exploits at Crooked Run and Winchester are the stuff of legend, but true. A company of Confederates was reported to have been assigned the task of identifying and killing him in the Shenandoah valley.

Sorry if this was a bit much, but Michigan men gotta stick together . There is so much wrong with the popular view of Custer (that such a little reading could fix) that I had to speak up.

[AndyRoss]

Yeah, I'm sorry. As soon as I posted it I realised that it was a rash and abrupt way to (apparently) judge the man. I would have edited it, but that's not my style (reap what I sow and all that ) and if I post something stupid, I won't pursue it. You could have expanded the quote though: I wasn't commenting on his later battles.

I certainly don't learn history from movies or television: there is no poorer source for content in my opinion. Also, Scottish history is so boring. American history is far more interesting and I am moderately knowledgeable on the ACW.

Looking at my post, it is a seriously big distortion of my views on Custer. I had drafted a reply trying to explain some of the mistakes he made: I genuinely don't want to do this as it will look like I've got a bone to pick with him.

I actually think that he is a man with many qualities normally attributed to Confederate leaders. His relentless assault at Cedar Creek being a good example.

I'm surprised, when you were talking of his orderly retreat from Bull Run, that you left out the fact that his company carried Gen. Heintzelman from the field of battle. That was certainly something which got him some notice.

Again, I'm sorry for posting that. I have no qualms with Custer: he's as admirable a general as the North fielded in the ACW.

[Mark IV]

Well, what a gentleman. I must say I'm a little disappointed you didn't opt to pursue it, as I was saving the big guns for later. I too had created a much lengthier reply, but (believe it or not) edited it down to the mere diatribe above.

I can't believe you find Scottish history boring. It's so much more romantic than US history, and so much more developed over so many more centuries. There are some mighty good reads on the topic.

Re:Custer, I am not blind to his mistakes or weaknesses, and that would make an interesting thread for a more on-topic forum. He was a warrior's warrior and to me that's what counts. He genuinely loved war, but he genuinely loved his men, and that's the stuff success (and legend) is made of. I don't know what might have happened if he had made it to the next level of command.

You've got to admit, the doffed cap salute to Rosser before attacking is a timeless military classic. In fact, the Rosser-Custer rivalry screams mini-series.

For the record I would never shy away from a legitimate controversy merely to preserve the peace, and it doesn't sound as though you would, either (I've seen a few of your other posts). Thanks for maintaining the high standard of the board and sorry if I was a tad gruff.

[Goanna]

Your discussion on Custer is very apt for the topic of age/experience. I am thinking especially of his later loss/death at Little Big Horn that perhaps shows his how even after he had gained experience, he kept his style of attack constant. His primary failing at LBH had to be his failure to get a good assessment of his opposing force, and also his arrogance at thinking they would trounce the indians

[Goanna]

One reason some of the younger players might do well aginst the "old farts" in CM is that they don't follow classic styles of play and tend to improvise more. I know that I have a difficult time beating Berlichingen and this may have something to do with the fact that we both have military experience and he probably has an easier time predicting what I will do compared to Eridani.

In any case, I am looking forward to games with Eridani, SSPanzerleader and some of the younger guys. I enjoyed playing Cpt. Manieri (not just because I won) but because I enjoyed the good taunting he provided.

Mr Peng sort of breaks this mold, however, since I know he is older, but has a line of BS few seem to match.

------------------

desert rat wannabe

[AndyRoss]

Mark, there is simply no WAY Scottish history is as romantic as American. Sullivan Balou's last letter stands head and shoulders above anything from these isles. Things like Braveheart have romanticised Scotland's history even further than before, but it's only loosely based on truth (and if it's not possible to do it with historical accuracy, then there's no point doing it at all).

On the whole I'd say that the fight for Scottish independance was rather like a low quality aristocracy staving off the more successful southern aristocracy. In the end we were bribed into submission (hardly heroic or romantic ). Scottish history has never been about fighting for universal liberty, as has been the case for so long in America. My opinion is that we fought for freedom from southern tyranny so that we could instigate our own.

These days I have a great dislike for Scottish nationalism. It appears to involve an inate hatred of the English; for which I see no reason.

To be honest I'm rather saddened that no one sprung to Nathan Bedford Forrest's defence when I made a wise crack about the KKK. He does appear to have been struck down by revisionist history (I read a Clancy book not so long ago which stated that he set up the KKK and implied that, though a good cavalry commander, he was a depraved human being: I almost choked. I suppose Congressional hearings don't matter very much to Mr. Clancy).

I do wonder how Custer would perform if stepped up to a larger command. It certainly would not be practical for him to lead from the front: maybe he was at the level suited to him.

I didn't find your post gruff or inciteful without reason: there's nothing wrong with standing up vociferously for those you believe in. I fully deserved a response like yours (it would be strange if there hadn't been a response at all).

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Custer finished the war as a Major-General whereas Bedford Forrest was a Lt.-General, so Bedford Forrest was of slightly lower rank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm, Maj.Gen. is a lower rank than Lt.Gen. Also, Forrest commanded an army by the end.

[kak]

my wife said to me the other day "I feel like an eighteen year old!"

I said "Me too do you think we could find one?"

My wife hates me

[Fionn]

Goanna,

Personally, if I couldn't compete with Little-Peng's taunting abilities I'd compensate by leaving his broken, crushed, mutilated body on the field of virtual battle.

It's kind of hard to taunt when all your men lie dead in pools of their own blood eh?

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[AndyRoss]

Berlichtingen: I realised that after I'd posted it. Why don't I give things a thorough going over? I checked a source and noted the ranks: making a rash posting.

I'm perfectly aware that Bedford Forrest commanded an army. My point is that he did not begin as a commissioned officer and intially led small forces forces. Can you quote a point in my posts which says that he led small forces late or even mid war? If so I will surely admit my error.

[Mark IV]

Goanna: While I understand and appreciate your sentiments, I solemnly swear NOT to be drawn into an LBH thread in this forum. We might as well cover abortion, gun control, and the Holocaust, which are about equal in the flame-bait category (I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but I know where this one goes).

I am still a PBEM virgin and will have to work my way up to the likes of y'all. You can "soften" up the Pengless One for me.

Andy: Interesting perspectives. I'll let the southerners speak up for Forrest, as I am a damn Yankee bluebelly from the git-go.

Though having said that, may I add that if they take that flag down in South Carolina I will lose every ounce of respect for the sons of the Confederacy and southern man and will smash my Lynyrd Skynyrd album to pieces. Where are you Johnny Rebs?