"If you could have one?" Topic

Another thread got me thinking about this. If you could take one General from the U.S. Civil War of 1861-65, Union or Confederate, and put him on the French side in 1870 who would you choose and why? The French command was so abysmally bad that there probably isn't a bad choice here. I think I would take Robert E. Lee because Lee was very good at fighting a foe with superior numbers and equipment. I would love to see what Lee could have done with the Imperial French Army early in the war.

But Lee also had a number of very competent and good generals under him. I don't he would have had the same results with the French army. Grant excelled in the West because he had very good generals beneath him but when he shifted to the East he did not get the same results.

The safe choice would be Stonewall Jackson, who improved with every promotion. But my first thought was John Bell Hood to impart the fire which is a lot of the French military tradition and somehow isn't there in those last months of the Imperial army. As Grattan rightly notes, for one general to make a difference, he has to change the generals (or marshals) who are already there.

Might stretch with Cleaburne if on defensive though risky due to lack of army command experience

Lee was great mainly because he knew the Army of the Potomac generals that he faced. He knew their personalities and how to beat them.
I don't think that he knew many Prussian generals from Mexico.
Besides, he died just a few weeks after the Franco Prussian War started. 🤷

But if I'm to take this seriously, I would take Sherman.

Interesting, if twisted, counterfactual!

I'll second the vote for Jackson. He had an instinct for war that should have translated successfully to any similar time or theatre.

I'd take Lee over Hood, Hood's record is just not very good. What about A. P. Hill or Albert Johnston?

Not sure about which Union general might be best, but any of them noted above should be better than who the French had at that time. All the good French commanders seemed to be overseas fighting colonial wars.

None? Leaving aside the potential language problem, the resentment from the rest of French generals from having an American imposed over them would probably makes things even worse.
And, if your favourite American general were assumed to be a Frenchman he couldn't be the same man he was in the ACW, or facing the same challenges with the same resources.
Finally, Lee's proclivity for the offence would likely be disaster against Bolt action rifles and breech loading artillery, especially as he would be advancing into it rather than standing back to take advantage of the Chassepot's superior range, France's only edge.

How about Hooker? Licked a shambolic defeated army into shape within a month after Fredericksburg. Handled personal and political problems among his subordinates. Very good on logistics and organisation and planning. Embraced new technologies (balloon, telegraph). His plan for Chancellorsville – strategic offensive maneuver, but geared towards fighting tactically defensive battles – could have been ideal for exploiting 1870 firepower.

Jackson. Good at surprising and confounding enemies with superior forces.

My personal favorite, George Thomas, tenacious on defense and able to win when attacking with the smaller force. Granted, he would have to get on a health plan, give up smoking and get some exercise so that he would not pass in 1870, just when he would be needed. One other thing, he was able to work with subordinates who would actively look to undermine him.

Jackson or Thomas for me – both great generals

My out of the box choice is George McClellan. I have a lot issues with "Little Mac" but he was good at training, organization and inspiration. The French needed all of that and more. He spent time studying the Second Empire French Army when he was in Europe in the 1850s. He was fluent in French.

Braxton Bragg!

Thomas or McClellan. Thomas if you have no time to reinvigorate the army, McClellan if you send him there in 1868 to reorganize and train before the war.

One way to determine the answer to this -- fight it out on the tabletop!

This time McClellan would actually be outnumbered.

While a great "What If?" to game out, unfortunately I feel whatever brilliant plan that general would devise, it would be sabotaged by Napoleon III or one of his minions at higher HQ.

This is the Era of Silly Facial Hair.
Come on. Look at Napoleon III! How can you look at him without giggling? And the sheer audacity of comparing himself to Napoleon (No Roman Numeral) is astronomical!

Therefore I nominate Ambrose Burnside.

McClellan's facial hair is silly too, but not as spectacularly as Ambrose. He is the spit and image of a pompous Philosophy teacher I had Freshman year, with that absurd patch under his lower lip, though.

Since I don't particularly care for the French in any the FPW

Earl van Dorn.
Braxton Bragg.
John Bell Hood.
Richard Ewell.

I would suggest that von Moltke and the Prussians get George Thomas to replace Karl Friedrich von Steinmetz.