"Best Rebel Brigade" Topic

I'd like to define 'best' as most combat-effective but I'm up for amendments (& add others I may have left out).

1. Stonewall

2. Hood's Texas

3. Orphan

4. Lawton's Georgia

Louisiana Tigers

Walker's greyhounds

Barksdale Mississippians

Hood's in its prime.

Another vote for Barksdale's

1. 26th North Carolina Infantry
2, 4th Texas Cavalry of the Sibley Brigade
3. 1st Cherokee Mounted Rifles

What is your definition of "combat effective?"

The Missouri Brigade

I'm curious about other people's definition of combat effective as well. Just to pick two from above, what are the accomplishments of Barksdale's Brigade and the Orphan Brigade that rank it as the "best" of the war for the South? Then I'll give my choices. :)

Combat effectiveness: either achieved their objectives or, if they were unrealistic, went down swinging.

4th Texas

The Stonewall Brigade. For two reasons: It had more combat experience than the other eastern theatre brigades (I'm unable to comment on the western brigades as I mostly ignore the minor skirmishing that occurred west of the Appalachian mountains ;) ). Also, it was recognized even then as the ANV's finest brigade as it is the only unit that was officially designated by its nickname rather than simply a number.

Perhaps "best" could refer to the unit's nickname. Here my choice would have to be the "High Pressure Brigade" consisting of the 7th Miss, 9th Miss, 10th Miss, 41st Miss, 44th Miss and 9th Miss Btn Sharpshooters.

I'd have to pull for the Texas brigade in the ANV, and the "Orphan brigade" in the AoT.

My reasons for this are based upon how their own commanders saw them, and how the army as a whole saw them. In both cases, senior commanders asked for them specifically, and mentioned them often in dispatches. Perception is as, or more, important than fact in these cases.

For a brief period of time, Pickett's Virginians were amongst the most respected in the ANV. Govan's Trans-Mississippians and Cleburne's Old Brigade were also generally very effective.

Cleburne`s brigade in the west and Hoods Texan boy's in the east.

Hood's Texas Brigade.

When? For example the Stonewall brigade was probably the best in the east in 1861/early 1862. By the end of the Valley Campaign, I'd pick Taylor's. After Antietam it is riding on its former glory. Just my two cents.

Cleburne's Brigade if for no other reason than it remained consistently effective in spite of the incompetency that characterized the senior leadership of the Army of Tennessee.

I'm glad others thought of Cleburne/Liddell/Govan's Brigade as well.

Fought well at Shiloh under Hindman
Fought reasonably well at Perryville,
Smashed the Union flank at Stones River (Post's brigade) and continued until only stopped by exhaustion hours later
Routed Baird's division at Chickamauga, and attacked again later that day. Broke through the Union lines at the Kelly Field on the 2nd Day, and attacked 2 more times later in the afternoon. You'd be hard pressed to find a brigade that went on 5 separate attacks during the battle.
Held Sherman's men in check at Tunnel Hill at Missionary Ridge
Held Hooker's men in check at Ringgold Gap. They held the center of the gap.
Half the brigade played a pivotal role at Pickett's Mill (the 8&19th and 6&7th)
At Atlanta they crushed Hall's brigade and captured 8 cannons during the initial attack.
Only overwhelmed at Jonesborough because of crushing numerical superiority, and it wasn't a sure thing.
Fought fiercely at the cotton gin at Franklin.

I'd match that up against the Texas Brigade any day, and I think the Texas Brigade was probably the best brigade unit in the ANV, keeping its elan and relevancy all the way through the Wilderness and beyond. I don't think the Stonewall Brigade did much after Antietam, and disappeared as a unit after the surrender at Spotsylvania.

I would also put the Missouri Brigade up there at the top. First as a division, then as they were slowly whittled down to brigade size. They were always tough on the attack and counterattack. Corinth, Port Gibson, Champion's Hill, Kennesaw Mountain (defensive), Allatoona Pass.

I think the Orphan Brigade gets too much credit just because they have a fancy name. They did have a successful attack at Baton Rouge. Their attack at Stone's River had some initial success, but failed. They got nowhere at Chickamauga. At Dallas they just marched into a killing field and barely escaped. And finally at Atlanta they were decisively repulsed. I don't think that really stacks up against Cleburne's Brigade, the Texans, or the Missourians.

This is certainly a debate that will last indefinitely with never a consensus, but fun nevertheless

No better authority than Lee himself -
"Hurrah for Texas! Texans always move them!"

Gaines Mill – broke the Federal line on Turkey Hill
2nd Manassas – part of Longstreet's assault breaking the Federal line
Sharpsburg – Cornfield, stopping the Federal advance
Gettysburg – Devil's Den and Little Round Top
Chickamauga – part of Longstreet's assault once again breaking the Federal line
Wilderness – "Lee to the rear" – plugging the CSA line and again stopping the Federal advance

Don't forget, at Chickamauga the Texas Brigade also swept away three Federal brigades at Viniard Field on the 19th.

Tough choice. Not sure what combat effective means? But this is how I rate them overall:

1. Texas Brigade
2. Orphan Brigade
3. Stonewall Brigade
5. Cleburne's Brigade

Can anybody tell me why the Orphan Brigade ranks high on the list? Now, I mean no disrespect toward the Kentuckians. However, I think wargamers seem to assign them an elan, eliteness, or on the gaming table, extra bonuses just because the brigade has a cool name. Can anybody explain to me what justifies their ranking as one of the best brigades in the Confederacy? Or why they should be counted as elite on the gaming table?

Fought well as Shiloh.
They did have a successful attack at Baton Rouge.
Their attack at Stone's River had some initial success, but failed.
Half the brigade got nowhere at Chickamauga and got decimated, though the other half did capture part of Bridge's battery.
At Dallas they just marched into a killing field and barely escaped.
At Atlanta they were decisively repulsed.

Maybe they should? Am I being to hard on them compared to the Texas, Govan, Missourian brigades?

Do wargamers tend to over-inflate the morale of units on the board because they have cool names? We know it happens with Zouave units. ;)

Just trying to get a discussion going.

The 'romance' of the Orphans notwithstanding, i would have to say;

for the Army of Northern Virginia = Texas Brigade, just for consistency of performance? with honourable mentions to the Stonewall Brigade and the Tiger Brigade.

for the Army of Tennessee = Missourian's, Govan's/Granbury's Brigades in Cleburne's Division?

Some fringe additions – Walker's Greyhounds and Polignac's (Old) Brigade were both pretty successful units in 1864, and some elements of Polignac's were obviously hard-bitten, well-proven veterans with battle honours from Wilson's Creek onwards.

The troops that made up Breckinridge's Division in 1864 had a wide combat experience against often superior odds, marked with regular success. (Similarly with the Thomas Legion, which fought well in its forays to the field and was brigade-sized).

Unsure how to judge Forrest's corps – high success in specific conditions, but not sure if his old brigade was really one of "the best".

Me, I am a western theatre guy … and have spent a large portion of my life researching the battles of the Army of Tennessee and in particular Cheatham's Division. I'd take any one of his original four Tennessee brigades over anyone (and have in miniature campaigns):

1) George E. Maney's Brigade
2) Otho F. Strahl's Brigade
3) Marcus J. Wright's Brigade
4) Preston Smith's Brigade

Each had at least one regiment that fought in damn near every action from 1861 to 1865, and they were seriously engaged in all the big battles always fought hard.

Mark

Good additions; Walker's Texans, Mouton/Polignac's Brigade, plus I do have considerable affection for all of 'Marse' Frank Cheatham's boys!

(I totally expected this thread to be about Rebel Minis scifi factions.) (In which case Pangalactic Legion all the way!)

Anything under the command of L-G Nathan Bedford Forrest.

From my point of view, the best Rebel brigades are the ones in POW camps.

No idea but wonder why the fascination with "best" or "worst" units in a war, especially a civil war one side fought for States Rights (good) and Slavery (pretty much horrible.)

Maybe that is why I quit playing ACW.

"No idea but wonder why the fascination with "best" or "worst" units in a war, especially a civil war one side fought for States Rights (good) and Slavery (pretty much horrible.)
Maybe that is why I quit playing ACW."

Perhaps I missed something, but this is an ACW board.

Perhaps I missed something, but this is an ACW board.

And the Poll Suggestion board.

So is there somehow a "good" war you recommend gaming? You know the one where both sides are somehow "morally" right, both have legitimate greivances against the other that can only be resolved through violence, and both fight cleanly and only on the side of goodness?

Excellently put, jaxenro.

I would hope that no-one would suggest I am pro-slavery etc just because I like to push some butter-nut coloured figures around a gaming table.

Such an implication is rather naïve.

Thought this was a board asking people interested in the ACW to discuss an opinion of the "Best Rebel Brigades" not their opinions on how they see or feel about the ACW.

3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines … BEST EVER ;-)

Not qualified to have an opinion on anything but the ANV, but IMHO its' Hood's Texians. John Miller

How about Williams Maryland Brigade at Guilford Courthouse 1781 after all rebels can refer to more then one period!

Barksdale's boys at Gettysburg was in a class all by itself

The Brigades of Parsons, McRae and Fagan at Helena, July 4th 1863?