Proof Burnside was an Idiot
Every now and again the idiocy of General Burnside is debated here and there. Was he good, or a complete buffoon? Was he misunderstood or do most people accurately assess him as having the leadership skills of a hamster?
Chris Wilkins sheds some light on this General of the American Civil War.
I am for the latter; he was a complete buffoon who should never have been given command of men and who got many of them killed because of his ineptitude. Worse than that, at Antietam he could have easily crushed Lee’s army and ended the war three years earlier.
This is not open for debate. I have conclusive proof this was the case. Plus his blunder was readily recognised by those who fought under or against him on the day. .....
Unlock for 2 fraxions
Login to fraxion payments
I have to say that as the south, playing with a fordable river was very distressing. The scenario doesn’t even include two extra corps that McClellan had available to him at the battle, but even so its a total rout for the South.
One has to wonder why Lee deployed as if the river was not fordable. It seems that both sides had troops on the ground that knew this but the commanders did not.
Of course, when playing a wargame you have more knowledge about what is going on than the historical commanders could have hoped for. Yet in this case the lack of knowledge seems inexcusable.
As many times as I’ve played both sides of this battle, I heartily agree that for the Rebels it requires an inept Union CiC in order to win. With a concerted Union assault, the Rebs stand no chance even if Burnside’s IX Corps is held at the bridge named for his folly. The fact that the Rebs DID win it historically only goes to show it wasn’t just Burnside who was inept, but McClellan as well!
It is hard for the South. Yet I like playing them the most because of the challenge. If you can keep the Union off balance and stop them from forming for a united assault you can win. Its just very hard to do.