Scourge of War Boards

I read a biography on Hill a few months ago and I began to wonder why nobody seems to think Hill was a good commander? He didn't get along with his superiors except Lee but that is his only fault I see. He was a commander who liked to get into the thick of like at Cedar Mountain he very aggresive to he only had trouble with his illnesses that had caused him to move up to slow on the 1st day at Gettysburg he had also had a really bad time with his illness after the end of second days fighting in the battle of the Wilderness. I think he was a good commander though.

I think Hill was a splendid commander. Sure, he had his faults, (like you said, it seemed he always a fight with one or another of his C.O.s) but as fighting went, Hill was a tough one. His division took part in some of the heaviest fighting during the Seven Days, and then delivered the Hay-Maker at Cedar Mountain when he rushed his division up (much like he would at Antietam little more than a month later). His Light Division easily matches their English counterpart from the Napoleonic Wars in the early 1800s, much in the same way as the English L.D. changed the outcome of a fight more than once.

Even as a corps commander I think he did well under his conditions. Sure he was no Jackson, but Ewell certainly wasn't either. Had it not been for the illnesses always plaguing him, I think he could have made a much bigger impact than he actually did in the war

I agree. He was indeed a splendid commander. Aggressive is always a major plus in my eyes.

Armchair General wrote:

Even as a corps commander I think he did well under his conditions.

Sorry AG but this is where I would disagree. I've had a few conversations with other member's on this(Ephrum in particular) and we agree that, at the Division level Hill was well tuned but lacked heavily at the Corps level.
His organizational skills faltered as a Corps Commander; which was a waste of his Division leading skills and talent. Yet with the death of Jackson they needed someone to replace him. I, however, believe that Lee should have appointed J.E.B. Stuart as Jackson's Corps replacement. (Us Cavalier's have to stick together )

I agree with the argument that Stuart would have made a better Corps commander. Stuart did a fine job at Chancellorsville. I am not sure if Stuart was really desiring to be more than a cavalry commander. His personality was such that he really enjoyed the company of fellow cavalrymen and their status as the elite of Lee's army.

JC Edwards wrote:

Armchair General wrote:

Even as a corps commander I think he did well under his conditions.

Sorry AG but this is where I would disagree. I've had a few conversations with other member's on this(Ephrum in particular) and we agree that, at the Division level Hill was well tuned but lacked heavily at the Corps level.
His organizational skills faltered as a Corps Commander; which was a waste of his Division leading skills and talent. Yet with the death of Jackson they needed someone to replace him. I, however, believe that Lee should have appointed J.E.B. Stuart as Jackson's Corps replacement. (Us Cavalier's have to stick together )

We'll agree to disagree, eh Sarge? How long did Stuart command Jackson's corps at Chancellorsville? Two, three days of combat? (I haven't read a lot about the battle, so I don't know.) Anyways, I don't think the few days which Stuart did command is enough to judge his performance. I think Stuart wished he had been born about two hundred years prior to the ACW, when the cavaliers were still the knights in shining armor, instead of a dreary, infantry and artillery dominated battlefield.

From what I've read, Stuart's performance in Jackson's stead was fine and well received by other Senior Officer's. But for some reason, Lee decided upon Hill. I agree with Dale's assessment, but given the opportunity I feel Stuart would have done very well as Jackson's replacement and would have probably been given the choice of folding his Cavalry into Jackson's old Corps.

Now that would have been interesting......Stuart's Dragoon's and the Stonewall Brigade.

I think Stuart wished he had been born about two hundred years prior to the ACW, when the cavaliers were still the knights in shining armor......

Agreed. Even a hundred years prior would have suited him.

A.P. Hill was a great Division Commander. Probably one of the best in ANV. For any faults he had, specifically in getting along with his Superiors, as a Div Commander he could be counted on to do his job and then some.

As a Corps Commander, the record speaks for itself. But I will say his illness probably had a lot to do with it.

It seems both Hill and Hood were surprisingly not as effective, once promoted above Div Commander.

Sarge- Lee probably didn't want to give up Stuart, as his Cavalry Commander. And given Hill's record at that point, it's really not hard to understand why he chose Hill.

But you raise an interesting concept....Stuart's Dragoons and the Stonewall Brigade! B)

I think he did great on the unfinished RR during 2nd Man. I always love playing those scenarios in TC2M.

Now you know that I'm a fan of Hill, hence my screen name.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that he was a bad commander. Gettsyburg sort of hurt his reputation (well it hurt a few CSA generals reputations), but as stated above, his performance before then was unmatchable by others.. He was a vicious fighter (a.ka. badass) and thats why he was one of Lees favorites.