If my fledgling American Civil war armies are going to make it to the table top any time in the near future, then it's clear that they'll need some commanding officers.
Now as it happens, with the dearth of spare time in my life at the moment such a requirement fits very nicely with the limited time I can devote to the painting table at the moment - so last night with my wife safely ensconced at work (on an evening shift) and the spuds watching some hideous MTV program that seems to comprise mostly scantily clad young ladies gyrating to some hideous, bass laden, dirge (me, old????! 
) I took myself off to said table and ended up after a few hours with the following...
Now given that the OOB I'm painting units for is historically based, then properly these guys represent Garnett (Confederate) and Kimball (Union) but I suspect the resemblance isn't too close - better they be considered "general" Brigadier officers...
In Fire and Fury Regimental these guys would command 3 or 4 units, and would have a command radius of 9"... tricky - you want to keep your units close!
Garnett:
Garnett was unlucky at Kernstown (and it was Napoleon who was supposed to have famously asked "... but is he lucky?" - the Emperor understood the value..).
During the battle he commanded the famous Stonewall Brigade but his brigade was forced back in the face of overwhelming Union numbers, and low on ammunition. Their position was untenable from the beginning as a result of uncharacteristic tactical mistakes by "Stonewall" Jackson...
After the battle, unfairly I think, Jackson laid most of the blame for his defeat on Garnett and had him sacked... a scapegoat if ever there was one. To all accounts it was not a very popular move with the army, as to a man, they believed Garnett was a good, aggressive, fighting soldier.. Confederate high command agreed with the army, but Jackson wouldn't detract the order. Garnett did eventually get another brigade command, but died leading it as part of Pickets charge at Gettysburg (funnily enough just a few weeks after being a pall bearer at Jackson's funeral; he obviously didn't hold a grudge!)
Colonel Eppa Hunton, who was to succeed Garnett, said of him: “He was one of the noblest and bravest men I ever knew.”
Check this excellent site for much more detail: http://stonewall.hut.ru/leaders/garnett.htm
Kimball:
I touched on Kimball in my post on the 14th Indiana (here) but in summary Kimball had fought in the Mexican-American war [edit - thanks Austin!], and volunteered when war broke out.
At Kernstown, Kimball actually assumed command of the entire Union force on the second day of the battle, as the C-in-C had been wounded. Kimball had a "good" battle and at one point successfully counter attacked and pushed back Jackson - he was promoted to brigadier general on April 16, 1862.
There you go then - he was as lucky as Garnett was unlucky... stark contrast.
Figures are Newline Design - 20mm - painted with various (mostly Vallejo) acrylics, on a black undercoat damp-brushed with white.
Now as it happens, with the dearth of spare time in my life at the moment such a requirement fits very nicely with the limited time I can devote to the painting table at the moment - so last night with my wife safely ensconced at work (on an evening shift) and the spuds watching some hideous MTV program that seems to comprise mostly scantily clad young ladies gyrating to some hideous, bass laden, dirge (me, old????! ) I took myself off to said table and ended up after a few hours with the following...
Now given that the OOB I'm painting units for is historically based, then properly these guys represent Garnett (Confederate) and Kimball (Union) but I suspect the resemblance isn't too close - better they be considered "general" Brigadier officers...
In Fire and Fury Regimental these guys would command 3 or 4 units, and would have a command radius of 9"... tricky - you want to keep your units close!
Garnett:
Garnett was unlucky at Kernstown (and it was Napoleon who was supposed to have famously asked "... but is he lucky?" - the Emperor understood the value..). During the battle he commanded the famous Stonewall Brigade but his brigade was forced back in the face of overwhelming Union numbers, and low on ammunition. Their position was untenable from the beginning as a result of uncharacteristic tactical mistakes by "Stonewall" Jackson...
After the battle, unfairly I think, Jackson laid most of the blame for his defeat on Garnett and had him sacked... a scapegoat if ever there was one. To all accounts it was not a very popular move with the army, as to a man, they believed Garnett was a good, aggressive, fighting soldier.. Confederate high command agreed with the army, but Jackson wouldn't detract the order. Garnett did eventually get another brigade command, but died leading it as part of Pickets charge at Gettysburg (funnily enough just a few weeks after being a pall bearer at Jackson's funeral; he obviously didn't hold a grudge!)
Colonel Eppa Hunton, who was to succeed Garnett, said of him: “He was one of the noblest and bravest men I ever knew.”
Check this excellent site for much more detail: http://stonewall.hut.ru/leaders/garnett.htm
Kimball:
At Kernstown, Kimball actually assumed command of the entire Union force on the second day of the battle, as the C-in-C had been wounded. Kimball had a "good" battle and at one point successfully counter attacked and pushed back Jackson - he was promoted to brigadier general on April 16, 1862.
There you go then - he was as lucky as Garnett was unlucky... stark contrast.
Figures are Newline Design - 20mm - painted with various (mostly Vallejo) acrylics, on a black undercoat damp-brushed with white.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou keep referring to Kimble as having fought in the Spanish-American War. He fought in the Mexican War 1846-48.
(Mexican-American War for the politically correct). Kimble died in 1898, just before the Spanish-American war broke out.
Austin
So, you pick a "lucky" Union general and an "unlucky" Confederate one . . . is your bias showing, sir?
ReplyDeleteThe figures look great, Steve. I look forward to seeing table top action.
One word of warning . . . ACW battlefields tended to have MUCH MORE TERRAIN than those in Europe.
One of my ancestors was in a battle during the Wilderness Campaign wherein the units to either side of them had huge casualty figures (both oin three figures counting wounded) . . . but my ancestor's unit had only one dead and three wounded.
Why? Although they could hear gunfire all around them, they never did find the enemy.
So be prepared for LOTS of terrain building to come.
-- Jeff
Like these guys Steve - I think it's fair to say that later on in the war brigadiers were almost always on foot, so that's nice to see.
ReplyDeleteJust to echo what Jeff says - reading about the Battle of Franklin at the minute, and looks like it was one of the few battles where the entire army could be seen from a single spot - awe-inspiring and apparently an experience which stood out in veterans minds
Donogh
Cheers guys & Jeff, noted!
ReplyDeleteAustin - you're absolutely right - I should have checked my original sources when I re-posted on him rather than using the data I published last time! Thanks for that...
Figs are looking good, history is very interesting still waiting for the WV 7th.
ReplyDeletegreat figures Steve I think ACW is the route back into figures for me with ease of painting & purchase this week of magnifying light! I have some nice 20mm Tumbling Dice mini's somewhere
ReplyDeleteNice to see some real painting not slopping on many coats of yacht varnish.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work.
ps didn't find F&F regimental as good as the brigade version.
This is just to thank you for posting the Tabletop Teasers (sorry, couldn't find a comment link there). I've been searching on the web for these for ages - cheers!
ReplyDeleteSteve - Once more I come to your blog rather late (see what working long hours does for your gaming?)
ReplyDeleteLove the figures. Nicely painted & based. Hope we get to see them in action soon.
Steve.