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
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
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
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.
Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.
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?
"A man's dying is more his survivor's affair than his own."
C.S. Lewis
"So many people tiptoe through life, so carefully, to arrive, safely, at death."
Jermaine Evans
Where's Ike?
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.
"If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
Albert Camus "Noces"
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
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
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.
"Nietzsche is dead" - God
"I agree, although I support China I support anyone discovering things for Science and humanity." - lenin96
Re: Pursuit of happiness
Have you just been dumped?
I ask because it's usually something like that which causes outbursts like this, needless to say I dissagree completely.
I have always admired the tactics of Robert E. Lee, and that is who I voted for, but I still much prefer Eisenhower.
I like Ike![]()
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends. ---Abraham Lincoln
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.
Last edited by TinCow; 03-18-2009 at 20:17.
This guy. :P
![]()
Self proclaimed loser of 'User Who Looks Most Like His Avatar' competition.
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.
"A man's dying is more his survivor's affair than his own."
C.S. Lewis
"So many people tiptoe through life, so carefully, to arrive, safely, at death."
Jermaine Evans
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.
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?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
- Proud Horseman of the Presence
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...
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.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
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.
Education: that which reveals to the wise,
and conceals from the stupid,
the vast limits of their knowledge.
Mark Twain
I dont realy know much about the generals of the nation of the stars & stripes, but I would say Patton for beating The German General Rommel who was considerd legendary for the time.
Last edited by Greyblades; 04-18-2009 at 01:06.
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.
Education: that which reveals to the wise,
and conceals from the stupid,
the vast limits of their knowledge.
Mark Twain
Lee. his victories in the ACW were nothing short of astounding.
On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
Visited:![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Hvil i fred HoreToreA man who casts no shadow has no soul.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Washington; because without him none of the others would have existed.
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pintenOriginally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
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
Ubi Libertas Habitat Ibi Nostra Patria Est: "Where Liberty Lives there is our Homeland"
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 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.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
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.
![]()
Tallyho lads, rape the houses and burn the women! Leave not a single potted plant alive! Full speed ahead and damn the cheesemongers!
Bookmarks