"Shot Generals" Topic

This is a cross post.

This last weekend, I was playing an ACW Division sized battle and a brigadier general was shot causing a line of his already engaged troops to disintegrate while also convincing the remainder of the Division to leave the field with them. Historically speaking, was this kind of thing a predictably common occurrence or is it some kind of game tradition? To me it seemed a bit much. What's your thoughts?

John S

It wouldn't take much to dissuade ME from making an ACW charge, and having my brigadier shot is as good a reason as any.

Ball's Bluff comes to mind as perhaps the salient example. However, I don't recall an Army taking off when their Commander died (maybe Gen Lyons at Wilsons Creek). I'd venture a guess that if Bragg had been killed his Army's morale would have gone up, not down. Johnston's Army stayed. MacPherson's Army stayed. There are examples of Corps Commanders and Division Commanders dying and the units continued to fight. Brigadiers came and went with the fortunes of war.

Perhaps it's a desire on our part to think we are so dearly beloved by our little lead men that we have such a rule?

More likely is a command/administrative breakdown while the new command structure sorts out the losses, especially during combat. But it would be just just one more confusing factor contributing to the chaos of combat, as if it was really needed.

Justy some thoughts.

I guess my thinking is that a unit that is with a well liked leader who got smacked <could> break. Seeing a nearby unit break <could> cause another unit to start looking over their shoulders and if they break a poorly disciplined or trained higher formation <might> go. You need only look at Napoleonic accounts in Spain for large numbers of poorly trained Spaniards basically stampeding.

So to answer your question, I think we make it too likely where it perhaps shouldn't even be modelled just for that remote chance and the gaming stories that would follow.

Michael

It depends on the circumstances. IMHO the effect of losing a commander depends entirely on the quality and self sufficiency of the troops serving under him. As John the OFM pointed out troops with poor morale are looking for a good reason to leave, and the death of an officer is as good as any.
Well trained, veteran troops don't have the same problem. After Reynolds was killed at McPherson's Woods, the Iron Brigade still continued on and routed Archer's Brigade.
Generals fell during Pickett's charge and the men continued on. There are lots of examples.
• Nothing is so good for the morale of the troops as occasionally to see a dead general.
– Field Marshal Slim

I think you would be hard pressed to find examples where the troops fled in the ACW because of officer casualties. Can't comment on Napoleonics of the other areas.

Once the battle gets going, your are caught up in what you have been ordered to do (hold the position, charge, whatever). People are falling all around you. That tough SOB sergeant from NY (or Georgia as the case may be) taking a head shot and going down may mean way more to you than the General. That guy you see every day, and he was tough, and he knew stuff.

And just because "you" (the player) see the general get shot and fall, how do your troops know that? They are probably eyes forward, trying to kill and not be killed.

And people get hit all the time, and many are merely wounded. They get carried from the field.

And the next guy in line, if he is anywhere near, now knows that he is in charge, and so he starts riding about, barking orders, sending out runners or couriers or whatever if changes to the initial plan are needed. Your a private, and you see a brigadier, or a colonel, or a major barking orders, you do what you're told.

Maybe later that night, around the campfires, you find out the general is dead. But during the chaos of battle, I doubt you would flee just because you saw your general fall, no matter how beloved he was.

Should a game factor that? Yes, disrupting the chain of command can cause confusion. If the rules are designed to care about orders, then it might be difficult to change them for a period of time. Beyond the normal battlefield confusion you have one more wrinkle, a new guy in charge.

But I don't think the generals troops should flee just because he falls. Not in the ACW at least.

I would imagine officer casualties are a pretty good indicator of just how hottly contested an area is. The hotter the area, the more likely you would be to see morale break down.

I would prefer to see a turn or two of confusion as if the command was stunned, capable of only defensive fire and actions.

However, if a formation had passed a morale check for breaking against such a situation there should follow a test to see if the formation actually decides to avenge their general, providing he was popular enough…

now that would liven things up a tad…

I agree that if you are toe to toe slugging it out that the general 10 yards behind you will not very likely be noticed. The command and control how fast your unit reacts to orders and makes decisions will certainly be affected. Or even if your general was actually in front of you "leading the charge" that might cause you to stop and be staggered.

I think the "death of a general=army routing" is a hang over from ancient/medieval era.At that period troops fought for their general, by 18th cent they fought for their state.The death/incapacity of a later period general ought to result in x turns of command confusion until the chain of command is restored.The only exception I can see would be in an Imperial French army where Napoleon himself bought it.

I agree with the overall tone – in the ACW, while having a general get shot was unquestionably a problem (disrupt chain of command), I doubt that a unit would rout because of it except in very unusual circumstances – even at Ball's Bluff, the death of Colonel Baker was towards the end of a hard fought battle by green troops facing very unexpected enemies. Some of our group don't like to use the Fallen Leader table (Fire and Fury) at all, but I think it is useful because there were times when a fallen general meant big command control problems – but it should not incite a general rout, as noted cogently by Vaughan

I think the real problem is the effect the General could have if some or all of his troops fell back off the line. His worth is whether or not he could get the men halted, reformed and organized to continue fighting. His reputation would matter greatly as to his success or failure. Plenty of example occured in every battle.

I agree with Shane.

I don't know about a whole army making off when a general is shot, but think of Salamanca 1812; it can't have helped the French to lose Marshal Marmont early on and his successor minutes later. There's no indication that any French troops ran because their commander was hit, but it must have given the Anglo-Portuguese an advantage in terms of command and control and response to enemy moves.

In the ACW there are countless examples of the general dying in battle and being immediately replaced by the second in command, with no discernable difference in the brigade/division/corps performance on the field

Barksdale, Reynolds, Vincent and many others at Gettysburg. Sedgewick at Spotsylvania, Jackson at Chancellorsville, etc are a few that come to mind.

I can not think of many examples during the SYW either. Frederick lost a lot of senior generals in battle (Schwerin at Prague, Kieth at Hochirk, Winterfeldt at Moys) – maybe an individual regiment or battalion might falter, but not the whole wing or army.

The rule is probably there because of our ability to see all and direct all – it restricts this at a crucial time.

Not running away, but: at Antietam Anderson was shot just as his division was coming up to reinforce the sunken road/Bloody Lane. His division didn't run away but the brigades did not function as a unified division. No one took over effective command and the confused troops running into the sunken road probably hurt the defense more than they helped. The division was under heavy rifle fire from the Yankees.

I've seen a scenario for this that rates Anderson's men as green. I think it was the command vacuum that did them in.

Yes,

I was thinking of Salamanca also. However, I was thinking of Pakenham's 3rd division. When Major Murphy of the 88th was shot, and consequently dragged by his horse in full view of his men, they were whipped into a bloodlust frenzy. They proceeded to kick some serious tail after that.

I believe the death of a commander should be a variable. If he was respected by his men, the sorrow of that loss may turn into an unholy rage against their enemy.

Mike

Hmm, cant remember the name of the chap. British Regimental leader who asked his men, that if he was to fall, let it be by the enemy's shot not theirs.

After the battle he raised his hat and called for a cheer.
A Brown Bess shot rang out and there was one more fragged officer less.

That last line makes no grammatical sense. :(

Read that in Muir's book recently, can't recall the battle. the fellow was a martinet.

I'm thinking of the Schellenberg 1704 where a high number of senior officers were killed, without any noticable effect on the assault.

Lt-Generals or higher 6 killed 5 wounded
Major-Generals 2 killed & 2 wounded
army losses were around 5,000 k & w, so the officer losses are quite a high percentage.