Best American General?

[Strike For The South]

Well who was it?

I have always been partial to Lee but lately I am open to suggestion as I find Lee has a massive cult of personality and no one says anything bad about him, He is on the historians good list

[Kagemusha]

Stonewall Jackson. He was both amazing Corps commander and maybe even better in independent role as his valley campaign proved. The man really understood the principle of warfare, by showing up at the right place at the right time, with right amount of force. At Valley he was fighting enemy thrice his own and still kept the initiative completely to himself.

[Fixiwee]

Lee was a brilliant tacticians. He is probably the "best" american general. But the thing is, the list urges to compare different people from different timespans in different wars with unique situation.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Omar Bradley was pretty good.

I'd say he was equal to Patton in a lot of ways, not because Bradley was a great general, but because Patton had so many personal foibles and you could say Patton sort of fell into the cult of the attack attitude. I don't know how the man would fare if he were put on the defensive. I could be wrong though, anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Conradus]

Where's Ike?

[Banquo's Ghost]

In my opinion, the test of a great general is his strategic, not tactical ability. A notable general should win his campaign, not just the odd engagement.

I have never really understood the devotion to General Lee, except as a romantic attachment. His mistakes at Gettysburg were born of hubris and his exceptional tactical ability actually led him astray in this three day modern battle and subsequently.

I would cast my vote for Washington. He started with a rabble and over a long campaign and despite awful setbacks, managed to forge an army and fight the pre-eminent power in the world to a standstill and thus victory.

Eisenhower would also be high on the list.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have always admired the tactics of Robert E. Lee, and that is who I voted for, but I still much prefer Eisenhower.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'd add a few more for consideration:

Nathan B Forrest

John Buford

Zachary Taylor

Benedict Arnold

Francis Marion

Lewis B. Puller

Smedley Butler

Dwight Eisenhower

Roy Geiger

Thomas F. Meagher

[Strike For The South]

I'd add a few more for consideration:

Nathan B Forrest

John Buford

Zachary Taylor

Benedict Arnold

Francis Marion

Lewis B. Puller

Smedley Butler

Dwight Eisenhower

Roy Geiger

Thomas F. Meagher

No idea whom these men are. I feel so unprepared.

[Marshal Murat]

It's difficult (as it always is) to pick between generals, to get a good debate. Years ago I tried, but the results gravitated usually to the better-known generals. That's beside the point however.

George Washington
A general who was able, with the help of his subordinates, to obtain victory in America despite a foe who possessed supreme naval and land power. While he didn't win every battle that came his way, his strikes against the British, when they succeeded, were key to winning French support and the American Revolution.

Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson
Here was a general whose skills ensured victory in the Shenandoah Valley, at Chancellorsville, Manassas, at Fredericksburg, and elsewhere. He outfought, outskilled, outmaneuvered, and out-prayed the Union forces with his troops.

Robert E. Lee
Robert E. Lee was a smart and capable commander. He kept together an army that otherwise would've crumbled, especially before the Gates of Richmond. Lee was definitely served by his commanders (see Jackson), but he knew what he was doing. In defeat, he knew that the guerrilla war was dangerous and destructive, and helped prevent this from occurring in the East. He successfully defeated the Union at Manassas, Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg, and elsewhere. He forced U.S. Grant to commit his men into suicidal marches at Cold Harbor or Petersberg.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Buford was a cavalry commander in the Army of the Potomac. Hooker later stated that Buford should have been given command of the cavalry instead of Pleasanton. Buford was the man who fought a good delaying action against Heath on Day 1 at Gettysburg, finally allowing the Union to have the good ground for a change. His resilience was a fair part of what got Lee's "blood up" and helped contribute to that victory for the North.


Francis Marion "the swamp fox" fought a surprisingly successful guerilla war in the Carolinas during the revolution. The inability of the British to bring him to heel was a source of frustration throughout the middle of war. The excesses of his most noted opponent, Col Tarleton, backfired in terms of local morale (though to be fair, Marion was no saint).


Roy Geiger was a USMC aviator flying combat in WW1 and between the wars. He then commanded the Marine Air Group that fought in the Southern Solomons and then commanded amphibuous assault groups on Bougainville and Okinawa. Needless to say, he was one of the best at close air support etc.


Thomas Meagher was an Irish-born rabble-rouser who, having been exiled from the Old Sod, eventually wafted onto the shores of America. He commanded the Irish Brigade during the Civil War (ACW) and is often considered one of the premier brigadier generals of that conflict. He had great big brass ones that clanked when he walked.

[PanzerJaeger]

This poll could really just be cut to two options, Lee and Jackson. If you wanted to spice it up, you could add some of the other distinguished Southern commanders such as Longstreet, Johnston, etc, and even Forrest for his asymmetrical approach. Its funny, the best American commanders came almost exclusively from the CSA. Really though, it comes back to Lee and Jackson.

Opinion has vacillated back and forth on these two. For the longest time Lee, being the superior, was considered the master. Lately, opinion seems to have reversed. As we all know, historians love nothing better than to challenge popular assumptions. As such, many have reassessed the historical record and have asserted that Jackson was, in fact, the superior tactician.

Personally, I'm not sure. Both men demonstrated a level of martial expertise far superior to their peers in America, and arguably equal or greater than their European counterparts. Jackson certainly showed more daring, but he was also in a more appropriate position to do so. Also, Jackson died before the devastating attritional effects began to take hold among the Southern forces.

To be honest, that’s it.

Before the ACW, American commanders performed fairly poorly against real opposition. Washington was a great leader. He was politically savvy, persistent in the face of adversity, charismatic, and knew how to best take advantage of his circumstances. A great general, though? He lost a number of engagements, and the ones he won were not exactly brilliant military victories. While the crossing of the Deleware was quite coy, it was microscopic in scale. The leadership wasn't much better during the War of 1812 aside from some bright spots like Jackson in New Orleans. Again, though, in a battle that resulted in only 46 British dead. The Mexican-American war was the proving ground for many of the great Civil War generals, but I'm not really sure how much credit Zach Taylor deserves for that victory considering the opposition. Then again, the overall strategy culminating in the taking of Mexico City was well planned and executed, so he may deserve another look.

After the ACW, American commanders in general again failed to demonstrate any particular special abilities, but for completely different reasons - they didn't have to. In every major conflict in this period the Americans have held extreme numerical advantages. When victory is assured, generalship becomes more about politics and personalities than strategy and tactics.

Patton gets a lot of praise, not undeservedly either. Like Washington, he had the special ability to drive his men harder than other commanders all the while gaining more of their respect and admiration than his peers. Honestly, though, he did not have much competition among other Allied commanders. Further, he did not demonstrate any special martial ability. While his ideas on combined arms operations were somewhat revolutionary among the allies, they would have been considered child's play by the Germans. :shrug:

[Marshal Murat]

One could argue both ways on Washington.
While he wasn't a "great" military leader a la Alexander of Macedon, he did win the battles that counted. The concept of "winning all the battles and the war" or "winning the important battles and the war" probably won't ever be resolved. You hear the same thing about Ho Chi Minh. He lost the Tet Offensive, but won the war. Was he a great?

One could call William Henry Harrison a great leader simply because he was able to drive out the Natives, and the same could be said on Winfield Scott. He presided from 1810-1861 in the Army, either drilling them or establishing the Anaconda plan, also expanding US influence westward.



Lee and Jackson were both great in their own spheres. I've read some stuff that says "Jackson could've won the war after Shenandoah Valley", others praise Lee for setting Burnside up for Fredericksburg and turning around the Peninsula Campaign. When they were in their element, both generals were successful. The Shenandoah Valley campaign was a strategic and tactical success for Jackson. No doubt about it.
Once Lee assumed control of the Army of Northern Virginia, he beat the Yankees both on the battlefield and mentally.

I would also say that Sherman would be a serious candidate. His leadership at Shiloh ensured at least one regiment wasn't running around like headless chicken. He continued to provide serious leadership that culminated in his destruction of the Southern will to wage war against the US forces.

Once the US could wield overwhelming numbers against a smaller and less-advanced foe, until WW1, we were like all other Imperial nations.

[Fisherking]

I want to know how you could leave out this man when discussing American Generals..

George Rogers Clark

He fought the Western Campaign of the War of Independence alone and was the only American Commander to defeat Arnold in the field.

Nathanael Greene deserves mention also. He is considered by most to be the best strategist of the American Revolution and one of the greatest military minds the United States has ever produced.

[Ibrahim]

well, I randomly picked Sherman. they are all good on there, and i had a hard time picking one. lots of others did not make it to the poll as well.

But washington is not a tactically brilliant general-his genius was strategic: hold the army long enough to win the war.

[Spino]

I must chime in with the Stonewall cheerleaders and voice my support for Thomas Jackson as well. Few generals of the Civil War could exploit an enemy's strategic position as well as Jackson and his ability to lead by example went beyond all expectations of a high ranking officer of that era. Jackson had few faults and an extraordinary war record to back it all up. One has to wonder how much longer the war would have gone on had he not been tragically killed by friendly fire? Jackson was to Lee what Davout was to Napoleon, an astoundingly capable & irreplaceable subordinate.

Also rans would be Lee, MacArthur, Sherman & Patton (in that order). As much as I love Patton the more I think about it the more I feel compelled to acknowledge MacArthur as the better commander. His island hopping strategy in WW2 and his astounding landing at Inchon were a combination of sheer brilliance and balls of hi-grade titanium.

Regarding Washington, he was a great leader by means of his force of will and charisma but his tactical shortcomings were simply too great for him to be considered in the 'best' category.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

....The leadership wasn't much better during the War of 1812 aside from some bright spots like Jackson in New Orleans. Again, though, in a battle that resulted in only 46 British dead. ...

You're referring only to the spoiler attack before Christmas.

Dec. 23/24: British 46 dead, 167 wounded, 64 captured; USA 24 dead, 115 wounded, 74 captured.

This was a draw, despite Jackson's choice to launch a night attack. It did, however, accomplish his purpose of pinning the British in place while he moved troops into the rougher terrain to the North. This effectively blocked the British from anything but the Frontal assault they later made or a withdraw.

Jan 8: British 385 dead, 1186 wounded, 484 captured; USA 13 dead, 58 wounded, 30captured.

THIS was the battle of New Orleans, and it was a signal defeat. Pakenham should not have accepted a frontal assault and should have withdrawn. He did not survive his mistake.

Of the British expeditionary force of 11,000, roughly 7500 troops were deployed forward to capture New Orleans. Of those 7,500, 431 died, 548 were captured, and 1353 wounded. Since, given medical standards for the era, roughly half of those wounded would die of wounds or be unable to return to service, we're talking about 1655 of 7500 men or 22%. By way of comparison British & Allied forces at Waterloo suffered roughly 23% casualties and British Imperial forces during the first day of the Somme Offensive suffered 9.5%. The Battle of New Orleans was a serious engagment by the standards of the era.

[CountArach]

Lee should get this title. I don't see how someone can win a battle like Antietam and not be counted as the greatest.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lee should get this title. I don't see how someone can win a battle like Antietam and not be counted as the greatest.

Antietam? That was McClellan's victory (if anybody's). I'd call it a bloody stalemate that Lincoln and Seward "spun" for all they were worth.

Lee's best were 2nd Bull Run and Chancellorsville. Some would add Fredericksburg, but I'd put that down to Burnside dooming his own army. The M2TW AI could have outfought Burnside that day. The attack up Marye's Heights truly is among the epitomes of military idiocy. In fact, if we were seeking to determine the WORST ever yank general, Burnside would win by a mile.

[CountArach]

Antietam? That was McClellan's victory (if anybody's). I'd call it a bloody stalemate that Lincoln and Seward "spun" for all they were worth.
I don't know. I personally would call it a slight tactical victory for Leee because he was outnumbered close to 2-1 and managed to deal out more damage than he received. Strategically wiki hands it to the Union, but I don't see how Lee could have fought it much better.

Lee's best were 2nd Bull Run and Chancellorsville. Some would add Fredericksburg, but I'd put that down to Burnside dooming his own army. The M2TW AI could have outfought Burnside that day. The attack up Marye's Heights truly is among the epitomes of military idiocy. In fact, if we were seeking to determine the WORST ever yank general, Burnside would win by a mile.
2nd Manassas would get no arguments from me as a brilliant victory.

[Marshal Murat]

While Lee did lose to McClellan, he didn't win either. His withdrawal from Maryland definitely prevented an early end to the war.

Burnside was an okay general, he didn't win many, but he did win some. His maneuver into Fredericksburg was just because he felt pressured into advancing, even into the guns of Lee. He's like Haig and other WW1 generals, following "doctrine" even if it cost them thousands of dead.

[PanzerJaeger]

You're referring only to the spoiler attack before Christmas.

Dec. 23/24: British 46 dead, 167 wounded, 64 captured; USA 24 dead, 115 wounded, 74 captured.

This was a draw, despite Jackson's choice to launch a night attack. It did, however, accomplish his purpose of pinning the British in place while he moved troops into the rougher terrain to the North. This effectively blocked the British from anything but the Frontal assault they later made or a withdraw.

Nice catch on the casualties, Seamus. There seems to be more to the battle than I remembered. I had thought that the Brits launched their disastrous assault on their own, but Jackson forcing them into it indeed demonstrates strong generalship. :book:

[Rufus]

I wouldn't put him up there with Washington, Lee and Eisenhower, but Gen. David Petraeus now deserves to be in the discussion, even though he's still serving. He played a huge role in taking what appeared to be a likely strategic defeat in Iraq and putting it on the path to stability. He is also the first U.S. general to implement a successful (so far) large-scale counterinsurgency campaign in the Middle East.

[TenkiSoratoti_]

George Washington
A general who was able, with the help of his subordinates, to obtain victory in America despite a foe who possessed supreme naval and land power. While he didn't win every battle that came his way, his strikes against the British, when they succeeded, were key to winning French support and the American Revolution.

Naval, yes. Land, no - a common myth. The British Army doctrine in 1775 was woeful due to years of inaction, additionally, both the Rebel Militia and Regulars combined outnumbered the British Army in America considerably.

I don't respect Jackson much mainly because his victory at New Orleans was brought about by a typically British trait - Suicidal charges against heavily fortified positions. This more or less characterised the British set backs during the War of 1812. Had Jackson taken his force and routed the British in open battle akin to what the British did at Cryslers Farm then he'd get my respect. But that is probably testament to his wise thinking, he knew his army stood no chance against the battle hardended Highlanders so he camped behind earth works accordingly.

Robert Lee got my vote. Pretty much broke and outnumbered he still had the US/Union Army beat on many occasions.

[Melvish]

I like Ike :2thumbsup:

[TinCow]

I'm a bit of a late arrival to this thread, but I think MacArthur should get some more credit than he seems to. MacArthur is often disparaged for his failure to hold the Philippines, his decision to leave the Corregidor, and for not anticipating the Chinese attack in Korea. Of these, I think only the third is really valid. MacArthur accurately predicted the invasion plans the Japanese would use and quickly enacted a defensive plan that was designed to respond to it as best as he was able. I blame the failure of the defense of the Philippines on general American reluctance to supply the level of forces necessary to hold the islands in the first place. The units available were simply not capable of the task, and it's to MacArthur's credit that they held out as long as they did.

The criticism of his abandonment of Corregidor is not really a military criticism but more of a point of honor. Many felt he should have taken the Army equivalent of going down with the ship. This is, frankly, absurd. MacArthur was one of the few generals who had an intimate knowledge of Japanese tactics and culture and his loss would have been a major blow to the Army's campaign in the Pacific. His escape was the proper thing to do under the circumstances.

This is then countered by a very strong claim that he was the best US general of WW2. MacArthur was very careful in his defense and then advance across the Pacific, picking targets that were always strategically signifiant and bypassing everything else. The end result was a campaign that did vast damage to the Japanese war effort at a relatively minimal cost of American lives. The contrast with the Marines' campaigns was startling, with the Marines suffering significantly higher casualties for objectives that had far less strategic impact on the outcome of the war.

Into Korea, MacArthur's response to the North Korean attack was decisive and inspired. Inchon was an incredibly bold move and the success of the attack and the subsequent offensive routed the North Koreans so quickly that it the campaign deserves to be rated with Patton's Third Army advance in the annals of great break-out moves. MacArthur's main criticism is in his failure to anticipate the Chinese response to the defeat of the North Koreans. While this is an entirely valid point, it is worth noting that even Truman did not believe the Chinese would attack. In any case, this is a failure that is heavily political in nature, and not one that I believe should be ranked up there with strategic or tactical errors.

In general, I see MacArthur's performance as being very similar to Lee's. Both were masters of strategy who used extremely limited resources to maximum effect. They both have cults of personality that impact their historical view to a great extent. They both also made incredibly significant errors; Lee on Day 3 of Gettysburg, and MacArthur's failure to anticipate the Chinese attack. Of these two, I think Lee's order of the charge is the more egregious, as it is a pure military decision and was simple folly. Lee made a battlefield error at a deciding moment of a battle that could have changed the course of the entire war. In contrast MacArthur's error, while also massive, was to a great extent political in nature and thus is of less merit when discussing his actual skill as a general.

I do not think that MacArthur should necessarily win the title of Best American General, but he should certainly be one of the leading contenders.

[Fwapper]

This guy (https://img19.imageshack.us/img19/6832/108years.jpg). :P

[Seign Thelas]

Jackson or Sherman. Neither side had a shot without them.

Even though Sherman was a war criminal by today's standards and Jackson was a Jesus freak.

But Sherman did what he had to do. Without his March to the Sea or his Total War strategy, the war could have dragged on for years more. And if Jackson had lived a bit longer, I wouldn't be surprised to have seen Lee winning the war and the CSA being an established country and ally to the USA.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Jackson or Sherman. Neither side had a shot without them.

Even though Sherman was a war criminal by today's standards and Jackson was a Jesus freak.

But Sherman did what he had to do. Without his March to the Sea or his Total War strategy, the war could have dragged on for years more. And if Jackson had lived a bit longer, I wouldn't be surprised to have seen Lee winning the war and the CSA being an established country and ally to the USA.

I would be very surprised to see an amicable relationship between the CSA and USA. If the CSA had one the war through some terrible miracle I expect the two states would have been bitter rivals and probably fought a war or two more.

[Vladimir]

Washington; because without him none of the others would have existed.

[Mailman653]

I would be very surprised to see an amicable relationship between the CSA and USA. If the CSA had one the war through some terrible miracle I expect the two states would have been bitter rivals and probably fought a war or two more.

I think we would of gotten a long eventually, look at the US and England. I think over the following decades slavery would of died out on its own or had its role severly minimized as technology and industriliaztion increased. But that's a whole other topic.

As for best general, I can't decide, but I think Andrew Jackson should get a little more attention, Jackson had a poorly equiped army comprised of mostly militia (town folk from New Orleans), pirates (John Laffite and his men) voulnteer Natives and handfull of slaves and free men of color in addition to the regular troops he had and was able face and defeat a vastly superior force.

I don't think there has been any other vastly diverse US force ever assembled before or since and that actually fought effectively.

Although I can come up with some counter points to my comment, such as they didn't actually go muzzle to muzzle with the English and fought behind deffensive fortifications. And had the English not forgotten their ladders, the battle could of ended very differently.

[A Very Super Market]

Andrew Jackson? Andrew Jackson of the Seminole Wars, and the War of 1812?

He isn't incompetent, but calling the slow marching of British troops an "advance" is far too much. He was in a fortified position, and the British simply marched towards him without any sense of tactics. What is special about that?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Washington's generalship lay in his ability to keep the rebels in the war for much longer than they had any right to be.

I'm going to offer up Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain to counter the criticism of Union generals in the ACW. Although he was only a colonel at Gettysburg, he ended as a brigadier general and highly decorated. He's probably first and foremost tactical, though...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Andrew Jackson? Andrew Jackson of the Seminole Wars, and the War of 1812?

He isn't incompetent, but calling the slow marching of British troops an "advance" is far too much. He was in a fortified position, and the British simply marched towards him without any sense of tactics. What is special about that?

Jackson's ability to get the most out of a sub-par and inherently disjointed force.

Jackson's use of a spoiling attack and well-positioned covering forces to limit British tactical options.

Jackson's ability to get his forces TO New Orleans in time to fight.

He's not my number one choice, but he was no slouch either.

[Fisherking]

Seriously, it is hard to find better Generalship and audacious action resulting in victory than George Rogers Clark in the west of the War for Independence.

He had nothing but a few volunteer militia and mostly paid for the thing out of his own pocket. The hardships are almost unimaginable. Then when he turned east and fought and defeated Arnold.

He may have become a drunk and the war bankrupted him as well as destroying his health but what he accomplished with such a tiny force was truly amazing.

[Greyblades]

I dont realy know much about the generals of the nation of the stars & stripes :7cowboy:, but I would say Patton for beating The German General Rommel who was considerd legendary for the time.

[PanzerJaeger]

I dont realy know much about the generals of the nation of the stars & stripes :7cowboy:, but I would say Patton for beating The German General Rommel who was considerd legendary for the time.

When did that occur?

[Sheogorath]

Jackson didn't get ANY votes?

Come on, people. This is the man who personally surfed across the Atlantic ocean on a shark, kicked George's ass, swam back and threw bears at the British ships surrounding New Orleans harbor. And after that he ascended to heaven on a red white and blue beam of light and sits next to Jesus, from which vantage point he inflicts a curse of bears upon the enemies of America.
At least, that's what my high school history book said.

:gring:

[Greyblades]

When did that occur?
It didnt.:sweatdrop:
Like I said I dont know very much about it and i realy need to look things up before saying them out loud.:shame:

[Mangudai]

Tommy Franks

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Jackson didn't get ANY votes?

Come on, people. This is the man who personally surfed across the Atlantic ocean on a shark, kicked George's ass, swam back and threw bears at the British ships surrounding New Orleans harbor. And after that he ascended to heaven on a red white and blue beam of light and sits next to Jesus, from which vantage point he inflicts a curse of bears upon the enemies of America.
At least, that's what my high school history book said.

:gring:

You SURE you weren't looking under the "Chuck Norris" entry?

[Sheogorath]

You SURE you weren't looking under the "Chuck Norris" entry?

Andrew Jackson is far superior to Chuck Norris. It's a well known fact that Jackson is totally immune to mystical Indian powers.

[anweRU]

It is hard to choose a best. There are a number of generals that didn't make it on this list. Among WW2 generals, Patton grabs all the glory - but many other US generals fought better and did more damage against the Germans...

What made Lee great was the incompetence of the USA generals that he faced. He was very much like Rommel. He knew his opponent, and took large risks knowing his opponent would not be able to respond correctly. In the end, he failed against Grant. Sure, he won many battles against Grant - but he kept retreating south in the face of Grant's superior numbers. He knew Grant wasn't going to shy away from losing men, and therefore he knew was beat. He failed miserably at Gettysburg, believing the CSA's own propaganda of invincibility...

I would vote for Sherman I suppose. He won a number of important victories against the CSA, and took calculated risks. Unlike Lee, he knew his back was covered when he marched to the sea, in the opposite direction of the CSA army behind him. The risk was much smaller. He also knew war was nasty business, and that the CSA had to be punished to discrouge the populace's support for the war, and that its infrastructure had to be destroyed to hinder its ability to wage war. What he did was no different - actually much less destructive - than what the Allies did to Germany and Japan in WW2.

[Ibrahim]

Andrew Jackson is far superior to Chuck Norris. It's a well known fact that Jackson is totally immune to mystical Indian powers.

Ah! jackson-old and fierce. that's what the indians use to call him (until the 1830s)

[Centurion1]

Personally i find Jackson obnoxious, he was really one of those men who you either love or hate.

My personal favorite would have to be George "blood an guts" Patton. Ever see the movie patton? Well multiple the movie character by about one million and you have the real George Patton. He was both a icon of masculinity and a brilliant general. Before he whipped his men into shape in Africa the "desert fox" was wiping the floor with America. Plus the man thought he was reincarnated from ancient generals, now that is one truly bamf for a history nut like me.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

WW2's General Patton, hands down.

[Garnier]

There are different qualities that are important, that you can't really compare with each other. For instance, Lee and Jackson were very charismatic, bold and clever tactically, but they limited their focus to that one front while the war was being lost in the West. Grant and Sherman were very good for planning and executing a plan to win in the end, though Grant did allow insane casualties, he was doing all he could to end the war sooner, which is what everyone wanted. Sherman was one of the first really modern generals who used total war strategy. McClellan was very bad at leading an army in the field and was not at all charismatic or bold, but he was an expert at organization. However, you don't win by out-organizing the enemy if you never fight them.

[Snite]

Washington deserves a lot more credit than I see him getting in this thread. It's been quite awhile since I read up on the American Revolution, but as I recall he really didn't have a lot going for him. Desertion was high and the vast majority of the militia that made up the Continental Army were woefully untrained and unprepared for any action. He lost a great many battles yes, but he was typically outnumbered and outclassed in terms of the fighting capability for the soldiers involved. He did have a tactical and strategic sense that went above his foes and many of his subordinates and the politicians in Pennsylvania. Without Washington ther would be no USA.

That said, it's a toss up for me as to who was the best general, but Grant doesn't even deserve to be on the list. The man made a career of applying brute stregnth and attrition and Lee dealt a casualty ratio to Grant of 1 to 3 IIRC.


Snite

[Captain Blackadder]

MacArthur was a fool during the second world war he ignored the best troops that he had (the australian divisions) leaving them to do mopping up on various islands that were not important and when due to his stratgic failings Australian troops got into trouble he blamed the troops rather then his own failings.

[Fisherking]

Andrew Jackson's military accomplishments are nothing amazing. His personal ambitions were without bounds, however.

I fail to see little to admire in the man. He was more than willing to betray his allies, as he showed in the Creek War and many times over in his personal and political life. Additionally his victory at the battle of New Orleans was no more than could be expected of any competent leader. He was on the defense with strong natural positions and prepared positions against a force less than twice his size attacking through bad terrain.

When ever I look at Jackson’s military career I can’t help seeing the arrogant, cynical politician gaining a name for himself.

His troops said he was tough, but I don’t think you will find any love lost between them.

If you are looking for bold and audacious leaders then look at George R. Clark and Sam Huston.

[Hooahguy]

Lee. his victories in the ACW were nothing short of astounding.

[Don Corleone]

From a tactical standpoint, Thomas Jackson. Read up on what the man did in the Shenadoah Valley, evading 3 different US army corps sent to drive him out.

From a strategic standpoint, Eisenhower. He doesn't get a lot of mention, but in terms of making the best of what you have available to bring to bear, I think he was terrific.

In terms of combining both, for the full package... Washington. Hands down. What he did in Trenton on Christmas Day was amazing. But what he was able to do in keeping that ragtag bunch of rebels together... even greater.

[Strike For The South]

Andrew Jackson's military accomplishments are nothing amazing. His personal ambitions were without bounds, however.

I fail to see little to admire in the man. He was more than willing to betray his allies, as he showed in the Creek War and many times over in his personal and political life. Additionally his victory at the battle of New Orleans was no more than could be expected of any competent leader. He was on the defense with strong natural positions and prepared positions against a force less than twice his size attacking through bad terrain.

When ever I look at Jackson’s military career I can’t help seeing the arrogant, cynical politician gaining a name for himself.

His troops said he was tough, but I don’t think you will find any love lost between them.

If you are looking for bold and audacious leaders then look at George R. Clark and Sam Houston.

FIFY

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

MacArthur was a fool during the second world war he ignored the best troops that he had (the australian divisions) leaving them to do mopping up on various islands that were not important and when due to his stratgic failings Australian troops got into trouble he blamed the troops rather then his own failings.

I've always preferred Eisenhower to MacArthur, or, for that matter, any other Allied general. He drafted a letter before D-Day - it was a letter of resignation in case he didn't meet his general objectives.

That's class.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've always preferred Eisenhower to MacArthur, or, for that matter, any other Allied general. He drafted a letter before D-Day - it was a letter of resignation in case he didn't meet his general objectives.

That's class.

I always preferred Ike as well, but to be fair, Mac was a brilliant general. He could never live up to the hype he self-generated, but that's not surprising as he would have had to have walked on the water while returning to the Phillipines to live up to that hype.

Ike used a staff better. MacArthur's staff, to whom he was loyal and dedicated, consistently let him down in terms of military and strategic intelligence. DESPITE which Mac managed significant victories.