America's greatest generals

[ACStrider]

I thought I would throw something interesting out there for everyone. Here's the deal... Everyone gets to nominate one general that they consider a great American general. It can be the one you consider the greatest or just a great military general. Tomorrow I'll take those proposed and we can make a poll out of it. When you make a submission, you can give an explanation if you would like.

Consider the following factors (and feel free to consider other factors)...the general who did the most with the least, the general who managed the material the best, the general who exerted maximum casulties on the enemy while sustaining the minimal amount to their own troops, the general who consistantly reached stated objectives, and the general who showed brilliance and tactical manuaverability on the battlefield.

My opening nomination: George Washington. When you examine his battlefield record, you might be a little surprised at this nomination. He actually lost more battles when fighting under an American flag then he won. There were several amazing features to Washington as a commander which deserves recognition.

To begin with, he showed signs of military brilliance early in his military career in the French and Indian war. Though officially he received the blame (which turns out wasn't his fault) for the early losses on the frontier, the reality was that he sucessfully countered the French and Indian forces despite difficult odds. A battlefield injury which almost took his life shortened his role in the conflict.

Progressing to the American Revolution, he was proclaimed the head general of the American forces at the outbreak of the revolution. He inherited a group of forces that were poorly trained, poorly equiped and had low morale, and encountered an enemy that was exactly the opposite. Needless to say, any encounter on a battlefield was a forgone conclusion. Despite these setbacks, he managed to show surprising manuaverability in several instinces (one being the rapid movement of artillary to the cliffs over Boston harbor to force the British out of Boston, and the infamous crossing of the Delaware to rout the Hessian mercinaries). Another key feature to Washington (and quite possibly his greatest feature) was that he managed to keep a downtrodden group of militiamen together almost singlehandedly. Everywhere he went, he commanded uncountered respect. He held the respect of his soldiers and of his fellow commanders.

Following the brutal winter of Valley Forge, his forces emerged battered and bruised, but not beaten. In addition, the time proved valuable for no other reason but that the colonial forces received much needed training. From this moment forward Washington's battlefield record improved greatly and the colonial forces proved a competant foe to the world's greatest army.

Well, that's my initial nomination. What will yours be?

[Calis]

Can I nominate the General Lee?

[Havok]

Patton Patton Patton!!!!

[CAsterling]

As long as no-one nominates Custer or McArthur

In recent history I would say the worlds greatest Generals were some of the great german ones - so I have no opinion on the relative merits of the American ones

[NoMyths]

Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant are the top two, end of story, in my opinion. I'll take Lee because if they'd switched sides Grant would have drank himself to death long before Gettysburg.

[Qwikshot]

Washington

[BishopMVP]

I second Patton

[bamcgee]

Washington. He did so much more with less. The more I read about the revolution, the more it boggles my mind that we pulled it off.

[Draft Dodger]

America's Greatest General:



General Mills.

[Draft Dodger]

honorable mention to , though.

[sabotai]

I vote General Lee !!! (The car...)

Seriously, I second Washington. What he did with what he had was incredible. Well, actually I should say what he and his spy network did was incredible, as far as on field tactics go...I guess we would never know since he didn't have much to work with.

#2, Patton

[MrBug708]

William T Sherman

The man was ahead of his time. His total war mindset took the people out of the Civil War. His type of warfare would be used later on in WW1 and beyond. He marched right through the south

No one said he had to be the worldest greatest person. His flaws were how he probably hurt reconstruction a lot more and his dealings with Sheridan in the Indian Wars were not always the most humane



As for Custer, he was a very stupid, but very lucky and brave General. We would know about as much about him as we do about Gen Crock, Gen Howard, Gen Terry, and Col Gibbon, had Custer not been arrogant enough to take on the who Lakota nation. In his defense, he thought there were a little less then the 2000 warriors in the camp.

[tucker342]

It has to be Washington

[sianews]

George Rogers Clark .

Just did a research paper on him. Little know, but fascinating man (Brother of William Clark; see Lewis and Clark). He was unable to engage in many battles, and was hung out to dry by the government, but he was the only undefeated Revolutionary general. Lafayette put him on the same tactical level as Washington.

He employed psy ops in the 1770's to the point where he took a British town/fort (Vincennes) with 150 while the Brits were under the impression he had over 600 until the surrender took place. This after a 200-mile march though the Illinois countryside in the middle of winter where freezing water was often up to the men's chests.

These "men" were nothing more than local recruits from the Kentucky outback looking to protect their families. Clark personally turned them into an effective military unit, and, preferring a small unit so he could command it himself, captured much of the Illionis/Indiana territority with these troops.

Aside from that, he was a master diplomat, converting over 15 Indian tribes in the region from the British side to the Americans. He conquered two other French (who considered the barbaric Americans worse then the Indians) villages with no shots fired. He also formed a spy network which has yet to be fully disclosed. "Luck" provided by these spies followed his unit the length of their campaign.

In the end, his victories were personally responsible for the British cessation of the Northwest Territories. Territories had we not claimed, expansion into the Louisiana and beyond would have not happened.

So while perhaps unable to consider Clark an important military general (due to lack of engagements), he was definitely one of the most important, yet unknown, revolutionary figures.

[kiwiLB57]

General McAuliffe for his one word reply to the German surrender terms........

On 16 December the Germans attacked through the Ardennes. The American front began to collapse, and the entire northern wing of the Allied armies in the west was threatened. At 2030 hours, 17 December, the 101st received orders to proceed north to Bastogne.

Brigadier General Anthony C. McAuliffe(Division Artillery Commander), the acting commander (General Taylor was in the United States on War Department business), led the 11,840 soldiers to the strategically important Belgian town of Bastogne. Since the German forces were overrunning the lightly protected ap- proaches to the town, General McAuliff a directed the 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment east towards the direction of the town of Longvilly, an offensive move that temporarily disorganized the Germans and gave the 101st time to set up Its defense of Bastogne.

It was the mission of the 101st to hold Bastogne and disrupt the German line of communication. During the battle, Combat Command B of the 10th Armored Division, the 705th Tank Destroyer Battalion, and the 969th Field Artillery Battalion were attached to the 101st. These units played critical roles in the outcome.

On 20 December, German troops isolated Bastogne and the 101st by seizing the last road leading out of the town. The success of their offensive in the west depended on the defeat of the 101st and the capture of Bastogne. Strong German armored and infantry forces tried to break through the American lines north, then south, and finally west of the town, and were beaten back each time. On 22 December, the German commander, Lieutenant General Heinrich von Luttwitz, issued a demand for surrender. General McAuliffe gave his now-famous reply, "Nutsl'Although outnumbered by units from five German divisions, the 101st continued to resist until 26 December when the American 4th Armored Division broke through to Bastogne.

During the next three weeks, the Screaming Eagles encountered some of the hardest and bloodiest fighting of the Bastogne campaign. Teamed with the United States Third Army, they reduced the German pocket in the Ardennes and ended German resistance in the area.

On 18 January 1945, VIII Corps relieved the 101st of its task of defending Bastogne. Upon departure, the Division received a receipt from the VIII Corps command that read: "Received from the 101st Airborne Division, the town of Bastogne, Luxembourg Province, Belgium. Condition: Used but serviceable." For its heroic Defense of Bastogne, the 101st was awarded the Distinguished Unit Citation, the first time in the history of the United States Army that an entire division received the award.


kiwiDE57

[Aylmar]

Stonewall.

[Fritz]

McArthur would be an excellent pick, but I will go with Winfield Scott.

[Qwikshot]

I still say Washington was the best...with what he had to work with, against a superior force, had to deal with treachery of one his generals (Benedict), no navy, no allies for much of the war, few crack troops, low morale (Valley Forge), and somehow he managed with a group of men still trying to figure out what government was going to be installed...to rally the troops, hold out until the war proved too costly and unpopular in England, convince allies like France, Prussia and even Poland to send generals and aid...then be appointed President, and then, at the height of his power people, he walked away rather than to appointed president for life...

Patton was excellent for his time, but I think Bradley was better liked. A skilled warrior, he would've been excellent in our push to Bagdhad.

Lee and Grant and Sherman all displayed wonderful tactics and ability, Stonewall was good too, but I think Longstreet is a guy overlooked by peers alot because he was second to Lee...Longstreet presented ideas of tactics that didn't become popular or accepted until WW1.

Lee was skilled but he did have a crack force (not all Southeners were farm boys) and most of his generals were from West Point (the cream of the crop stayed South)...amazing to think that Grant and Sherman (an alcoholic and a man once institutionalized) beat them...

The more I look at it, the more I have to stick with Washington.

[The_herd]

Originally posted by Aylmar
Stonewall.

I second this one.

[WSUCougar]

Grant's legacy as a drunk and/or alcoholic is based on questionable evidence at best and is completely unfounded at worst. His reputation derived from the pre-war army (early 1850s), when he was stationed at dreary Ft. Humboldt, CA. He was separated from his beloved wife Julia and young children (who were back home in St. Louis), was languishing with nothing to do, became depressed, and (probably) drank. He soon resigned from the army entirely so that he could return to his family, but rumors followed him that he was a drunkard.

Fast forward to the Civil War. With Grant's meteoric rise to fame, jealous Union officers (including Henry W. Halleck) sought reasons to bring Grant down a few notches, and the old "drunk" label resurfaced. The Northern press, prodded by a few influencials, grabbed the stories and ran with them. He was accused of being drunk on the field at Shiloh (ludicrous), going on a riverboat bender during the Vicksburg campaign (he was ill with migraine headaches), and various other sordid stories. The myth persists to this day.

You may want to reconsider Grant in your appraisals of great American generals. His career was simply amazing.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by MrBug708
William T Sherman

As for Custer, he was a very stupid, but very lucky and brave General. We would know about as much about him as we do about Gen Crock, Gen Howard, Gen Terry, and Col Gibbon, had Custer not been arrogant enough to take on the who Lakota nation. In his defense, he thought there were a little less then the 2000 warriors in the camp.

FWIW, custer was not a General awhen he was an indian fighter. He was a Lt. Col.

One could make arguments about his career as a general, but they would have to based on his civil war service

---
The scope of "General" is very broad. Probably too broad for a question like this.

[JPhillips]

I would have gone with Grant, but seeing as he has been picked numerous times I choose Eisenhower.

Ike doesn't get the press that Patton gets, but he held not only the US forces together, he masterfully held the coalition together. His work, not only with Churchill but De Gualle as well, is simply breathtaking. Eisenhower epitomizes the modern combined forces and combine arms general. That and his ballsy decision to go on June 6 when the weather was horrible and later his immediate recognition that the Bulge was a major opportunity make him one of America's greatest military leaders.

[JeeberD]

Omar Bradley. He has a tank named after him...

[MrBug708]

FWIW, custer was not a General awhen he was an indian fighter. He was a Lt. Col.

That he was, but he had been a General at one time, albeit a bad one

[MrBug708]

Im surprised Eisenhower isn't getting much publicity. He, MacArthur, Washington, and a few others have been some of the elite 5 star Generals. Patton, Bradley, and I think Grant were not 5 star Generals. Grant might have been. You can only get your 5th star by merit in battle

[Barkeep49]

Originally posted by Fritz
I will go with Winfield Scott.

I think this is an excellent call. He deserves praise if only for his longevity.

[Dutch]

Patton was most famous for his "Human Wave" tactics. Not something any soldier would truly endear themselves too. We slammed head on into German Armor, Artillery, and Infantry on D-Day and besides a brief respit as we rolled across francE, we continued on throughout Germany and Belgium and the Netherlands in the same fashion. Manpower and Material edge.

But with a Material and Technological edge, things have improved to such a dramatic point, that we have to wonder if General Powell, Schwartzkopf, Myers, and Franks deserve any credit or if they are just putting their forces on autopilot. (I know better and would therefor put my votes to Powell and Franks).

[GrantDawg]

Stonewall. Some of things he did could be described as miraculous. Of course, this opinion (as most of these opinions) is limited to a knowledge of American history for the most part. I'm sure there have been better generals in the world than the American versions (at least, maybe there have been).

[Bee]

I'd go with Stonewall as well.

[Thadaleus]

Thomas Stonewall Jackson had one major advantage as a leader, but it was also his major flaw.

He gained the utmost respect from his soldiers by leading by example. He was fearless and dedicated.
And an argument could surely be made that he had the most dedicated force beneath him.
Stories tell of absolutely zero dissention, and outward fanatical acceptance for Jackson.
And, in a time when many soldiers questioned their role in the war, minute by minute.. Jackson's men would think of nothing more then serving their leader.

But it was this reckless abandon that led to his own demise, standing out in front of his own army, and not knowing that his greatest value was to stay alive and lead his men.

A great Leader? One of the greatest ever.

A great General? I can name 20 better.

So, my vote goes for William T. Sherman.

As someone already said, he pioneered modern warfare, and had the intelligence, and nerve to see war for what it was, and use that to gather victory for his side. He was tough, honest, and successful. His enemies feared him. His own men feared him. But they served him without question, and he led them to victory.

Hmmm.. then again, what about the Khans..

[Bee]

My second choice would be

General Barnard Bee

[cg]

If you are discussing the Civil War there is one great general:
George H Thomas.

He was not a political and selfish general, like Grant. He was not careless with his own soldiers life, making bad tactical decisions, like Lee.

Read about a true american hero:

http://home.att.net/~dmercado/

[WSUCougar]

Originally posted by cg
If you are discussing the Civil War there is one great general:
George H Thomas.

He was not a political and selfish general, like Grant.

Sorry, cg, but you are very misinformed in your assessment of Grant. Probably the LAST two things you could ever say about Grant as a general were that he was "political and selfish."

[cg]

WSUCougar, some reading

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/...d/article1.htm

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/...hattanooga.htm

http://www.aotc.net/Grant.htm


Probably this will not convince you, but I don't like Grant... I've read too much about him.



Thadaleus: Sherman?? That's a joke, right?

[Anrhydeddu]

Imo

Revolutionary War:
George Washington
Benedict Arnold (pre-traitor)
Nathaniel Greene

1812:
Winfield Scott (not a General but a commander)

Civil War:
Ulysses Grant
William Sherman
Stonewall Jackson
Phil Sheridan

I definitely do not put Robert Lee up there. His flaws were in the area of overall strategy (coordinating theatres) and in fighting a modern war with out-of-date Napoleanic tactics. Grant and Sherman understood this change in warfare and this is what makes them great but not Lee.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Charles Earl Cornwallis

[Fritz]

Originally posted by cg
WSUCougar, some reading

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/...d/article1.htm

This work reads like heavily biased pro-thomas proaganda. "if Grant were to stumble in his new assignment, the only possible choice to succeed him would have been Thomas" is a doubious conclusion.

The author's position that Grant was motivated politicaly is not supported by his own references. The cited works do suggest that Lincoln was influanced by the political forces pulling on Grant, but the General does not seem to be swayed.

I hope that anyone who reads this work does themselves the favor of looking into material by other authors.

---
Edit:

This is not to contradict Thomas as the greatest american general, nor that Grant was selfish. I am just saying that the one work sited does not seem well supported.

[Anrhydeddu]

Fritz, right on. Thanks for the intelligent response.

[Bee]

Anrhydeddu,

Do you think the "greatest" General would depend on the situation? You know...kinda the right tool for the job kind of thing.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I would say Mc Arthur ,He did return to the Phillipines and damned near brought us to the brink of WW3 .
Napoleon toowould count .

[Bee]

Napoleon was an American? I'd like to change my answer.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Fritz, right on. Thanks for the intelligent response.

shhh. bad for my rep.

[HornedFrog Purple]

General Benjamin Oliver Davis. It will probably be lost on people why since he was not "famous".

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by Bee
Anrhydeddu,

Do you think the "greatest" General would depend on the situation? You know...kinda the right tool for the job kind of thing.

Absolutely (really good insight, Bee). The success of a commanding general, imo, is ensuring strategic and tactical victories. However, it is only in hindsight can "greatness" be measured. The best example of this is Geo. Washington. Many, including his staff and Congress, were critical of his "keep away" strategy. After the battles of Long Island and New York where he had engaged the enemy line for line (and failed), he changed his strategy because the situation calls for holding out until the right time. This, imo, was Lee's failure in that he did not adapt to the situation of the improved rifle-based defenses and with less troops, he could not fight a Napoleanic (or war of attrition) war (whereas Longstreet saw this and frequently asked for fighting a defensive war on ground of their choosing).

But there is more to it than that in terms of greatness. Sherman and Sheridan took the war to where it could be much more decisive in reducing the will to continue. Greene single-handedly provided the means as to which Washington's army could survive (whereas Washington solely supplied the will and tactical genius). Arnold, esp. in Saratoga, did the unbelievable tactic of going after the commanders and engaged in guerilla tactics (again, improvising on the situation). These generals are great because what they did proved successful and the right thing to do given the situation.

[Thadaleus]

Originally posted by cg
WSUCougar, some reading

Thadaleus: Sherman?? That's a joke, right?

Interesting.
Ask any historian about the role Sherman had, not only in ending the Civil War, but on the evolution and consideration of warfare as a whole.

Sherman's famous "March to the Sea" broke the back of the Confederate Army, cut off all supply lines, and all but secured the Union Victory.

That aside, his tactics and "War is Hell" speech are studied in outrageous detail in Military schools across the world.

For those of you unfamiliar with what Sherman accomplished, goto..

General William Tecumseh Sherman

[WSUCougar]

In response to comments made in the articles on Thomas & Grant:

“Grant felt uncertain of himself in Thomas's presence, seeing in him the only possible rival for overall command.”

I’m not sure what this remark is based upon, other than the obvious one that the author is a Thomas advocate and has a serious axe to grind with Grant. What’s clear in my study of Grant is that he was not motivated by ambition, power, glory, politics, or any other such things, but rather by the simple desire to do his duty and get the job done. When it came to military politics, he simply didn’t play the game the way others did. He didn’t care about Thomas as a potential “rival” – he cared about accomplishing what needed to be done.

“On the other hand, Thomas didn't like Grant's improvised way of doing battle. Moreover, Thomas didn't really need Grant's help to deal with Bragg.”

Another way to read this is that Thomas and other members of the Army of the Cumberland were jealous of Grant’s (and Sherman’s) successes, and were resentful that they had been put under Grant’s command.

“Grant's hidden or not so hidden agenda (promote Sherman, get himself called East to take on Lee, open other paths to success after the war) was therefore in conflict with that of Thomas who merely wanted to decisively defeat Bragg and shorten the war.”

This is pure and utter hogwash. Grant utilized Sherman because he was a known commodity, and one of the few generals he could trust to do what he wanted done. The notion that Grant had this whole agenda to promote himself as a post-war political candidate is a complete fantasy. The last person who wanted to be president in 1864 was Ulysses S. Grant! He ran as president in 1868 only because he felt it was his duty and that the goals of the war needed to be protected. This person knows little of Grant’s character if he is suggesting that Grant subverted Union victory to his fanciful ambitions.

“Grant had proven already, and would prove again many times later, that he was not particularly motivated by a desire to keep as many of his men alive as possible in battle. The main reason for his displeasure, aside from his habitual reaction to any perceived infraction of his orders, was the fear that the charge might succeed. That not Sherman , but Thomas would win the battle (and get the credit).”

Would you accuse Robert E. Lee of a similar charge? His casualty percentages were higher than Grant’s. It’s not the job of a commanding general to “keep as many of his men alive as possible in battle.” That’s a secondary goal. Grant knew the primary goal was to engage and defeat the Confederate armies, and that – due to the weaponry and tactics of the day – was a bloody affair. That does not mean that Grant was indifferent to casualties; it meant that he had the “moral fortitude” (his term, by the way) to do what had to be done.

Finally, throughout the Civil War Grant suffered from poor division and corps commanders. Either they disregarded his orders, botched them entirely, or acted on them slowly or hesitantly. That’s one of the reasons why he liked Sherman so much – he did what he was told.

Although this guy has studied Chattanooga a helluva lot more than I have, I think it’s illustrative that one of the arguments put forth about Thomas is that he “took matters into his own hands” and launched the attack up the ridge. Assuming Grant did not order him to do so – isn’t this violation of the commander’s orders?

[ISiddiqui]

Winfield Scott, bar none.

[ColtCrazy]

I'd go with Patton. A born general, despite the ego, that knew how to out smart his opponent. One of my personal favorites.

Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, William T. Sherman, and Grant are notables from the Civil War.

[SoundOff]

Gen. Curtis E. LeMay. Say what you want about him personally, but the man was a fighter. Also, he changed B-17 bombing tactics in World War II that didn't necessarily keep more men alive, but they used his boxes to provide better collective protection, follow the lead bomber to the target, put more bombs on target, and, hopefully, more accurately destroy a target so it would not have to be rebombed as often. So, in that sense, he saved lives.

He was also visionary in his development of 2/3ds of the nuclear triad as the first commander of the now-obsolete Strategic Air Command. He was certainly the Air Force's answer to Patton and the Navy's Bull Halsey.

Bill

[Bee]

I can't believe General Bee isn't getting more support.