Who is the greatest general

[??????????]

Well, by 19th Century standards what Sherman did was very "unfair". He may have been humane to his troops by not slaughtering them, but the way he treated civilians is up for debate.

[PBrunsel]

So many good choices! Knowing history makes me lean toward Lee.

[CmdrBond]

well they were all good generals but PATTON is my man....he knew what needed to be done...i say we name a medal after him....the "General G.S. Patton award for Bravery"...it brings a tear to my eye...

[The Dowager Mod]

lee was the best tactical general grant the best strategic.
washington was a joke as a general.

[KEmperor]

I think Patton just squeezes by as the best if we are rating strictly on military ability.

[Free Tibet]

Patton, just for one fact that...He would grab the enemy by the nose and kick him in the ass!

[??????????]

lee was the best tactical general grant the best strategic.
washington was a joke as a general.

What great strategy did Grant have? Charge thousands of your men in the open against heavily fortified positions? His great strategy at Cold Harbor cost him almost 4,000 men in 7 minutes of combat. Grant the Butcher.

[The Dowager Mod]

may have been costly but it worked.

[12th Doctor]

I know that Grant had higher losses because he fought pitched battle, that is my point.

In the Art of War by Suun Tzu, he says that the greatest commanders can subdue the enemy without a fight.  Sherman did this.

Over 300,000 Union soldiers died, but fewer than 4,000 Union soldiers died on the March to the Sea.  It is very hard to argue that Grant or any other Union General is more humane than Sherman with numbers like that.

The only reason that Sherman only lost 4,000 men is because he faced no serious opposition.  Hood took the Confederate Army into Tennessee hoping to draw Sherman  out of Tennessee and hopefully recapture Nashville.  He, of course, went down in infamy for ordering the attack at Franklin.

All of Sherman casulties were incured by small militia groups, often times, just farmers with a musket.

When you consider this and then consider that Grant was going up against what many would deem the finest army and the finest commander that this nation has ever know, you can understand why Grant took far more casulties.

[The Dowager Mod]

grants genious was recognizing the concept of "total war".
instead of trying to out manouvre lee he simply threw more men at lee than he could handle.

[12th Doctor]

lee was the best tactical general grant the best strategic.
washington was a joke as a general.

What great strategy did Grant have? Charge thousands of your men in the open against heavily fortified positions? His great strategy at Cold Harbor cost him almost 4,000 men in 7 minutes of combat. Grant the Butcher.

Like I said, Grant didn't know what was going on at Cold Harbor.  Meade never reported the situation back to him as he was supposed to.  Cold Harbor was more Meade's fault than Grants.

Anyway that doesn't matter, because that is a tactical matter.  Admittedly, Grant was not the best tactician.  But his strategy was great:  "Keep fighting Lee and don't let up.  Keep trying to manuver the Army of the Potomac between Lee and Richmond, thus Lee will be forced to fight out in the open where he is most vulnerable".  Grant strategy depended on fighting bloody, pitched battles, becuase he new that Lee would run out of men and resources before he did, something the other commanders of the Army of the Potomac clearly didn't understand.

[The Duke]

Soulty,

I am not so impressed with Grant's strategy.  The ability to recognize that you can just wear down the enemy because you have a vastly superior industrial base doesn't impress me as much as Sherman coming out of nowhere to ravage infrastructure.  I know that Grant faced tougher fighting, that is my point.  Sherman avoided pitched battle and instead focused on key "nodes" to decimate Southern fighting capacity.

Texasgurl,

Grant is no genius for recognizing total war.  Read Caleb Carr's "The Lessons of Terror".  It is a stirring indictment of total war.  In any case, Napoleon recognized it first and so did anyone who read Clausewitz, so it wasn't exactly an innovation.  The US military has sadly been saddled with Grant's fighting personality for 150 years.  Aside from Patton and Franks, I can't think of any generals who were imaginative that the US has produced.

[12th Doctor]

Soulty,

I am not so impressed with Grant's strategy.  The ability to recognize that you can just wear down the enemy because you have a vastly superior industrial base doesn't impress me as much as Sherman coming out of nowhere to ravage infrastructure.  I know that Grant faced tougher fighting, that is my point.  Sherman avoided pitched battle and instead focused on key "nodes" to decimate Southern fighting capacity.

But as I explained, Sherman faced NO serious opposition.  Sherman didn't "avoid pitched battles".  He simply had NO force to contend with.  Had he, then the "March to the Sea" would have taken until Feb. 1865 at best.  

Grant knew that Lee HAD to defend Richmond.  So kept moving, to Lee's flanks so Lee would have to leave his entreanchments and fight him out in the open.  It wasn't just Grant "slaming" into Lee.  There was a method to it.

[Chiahead]

When it comes to tatics Lee is my overall pick

When it comes to action = Patton

I do think that Napoleon was a great tatical general, but his lust for power is another issue

[Chiahead]

may have been costly but it worked.

Desperate times call for desperate measures...If Grant wouldn't have acted...how much longer would the war have lasted?

[The Duke]

Soulty,

I am impressed with your knowledge of the Civil War.  I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on Rumsfeld's "transformation" program.  I am not a big fan of it, since I don't think Rumsfeld places enough value on manpower, and Iraq shows that manpower still matters.  I think he has also canselled some important weapon systems like the Commanche and the Crusader.

What are your thoughts?

[12th Doctor]

Soulty,

I am impressed with your knowledge of the Civil War.  I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on Rumsfeld's "transformation" program.  I am not a big fan of it, since I don't think Rumsfeld places enough value on manpower, and Iraq shows that manpower still matters.  I think he has also canselled some important weapon systems like the Commanche and the Crusader.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks, it a subject that I havebeen studying for most of my life.

I'm against Rumsfelds down sizing.  As you said manpower still matters.  And I think that the Commanche is a a solid weapon.  Canceling the program is a bad idea.  I believe that we do need some "lighter forces" to combat terrorists, but we need heavier forces for serious wars and situations like Iraq.

[??????????]

The ANV lost the war at the Battle of Five Forks. Once that spot collapsed the whole defense of Richmond was lost. That in my opinion is when Lee lost the civil war. Certain generals shouldn't have been worried about a shad bake, they should have been worried about those dern yanks.

[The Duke]

I'd like to make a case for Tommy Franks as one of America's best generals ever.

His operation in Afghanistan was very impressive.  With little preparation in hostile terrain on the other side of the planet in an assymetrical war he took down the whole Taliban in two months.  In Iraq, American armor advanced farther and faster than any such force in history.  He's not the best, but he belongs in the discussion, I think.

[12th Doctor]

The ANV lost the war at the Battle of Five Forks. Once that spot collapsed the whole defense of Richmond was lost. That in my opinion is when Lee lost the civil war. Certain generals shouldn't have been worried about a shad bake, they should have been worried about those dern yanks.

By then, the election had already happened.  The ANV lost the war at the battle of North Anna.  Lee could have split and destroyed the AotP piece-by-piece but subordinate comanders failed to sring the trap he had set.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Okay so MacArthur wasn't that great of a General but you have to give him credit for being a great speaker.

I must beg to differ!  MacArthur was a genius!!!

As a young officer, he helped put together the famous Rainbow division.

As Superintendent of West Point, he brought the program of that great institution into modernity.

As Chief of Staff of the Army he preserved the Army from the severe cuts sought by FDR and the Congress.

As commander in the Philippines, his was the only major force which threw a monkey wrench into the Japanese schedule of conquest.

As theatre commander, he achieved more, with less in resources and fewer casualties than any comprable commander.

As the de facto ruler of a defeated Japan he presided over an effective case of nation building.

His landing at Inchon has justly been called a masterpiece of strategy.

[The Duke]

Most of this has to do with McArthur's political skills.  As a general, his mistakes outweigh his achievements in my view.  Crossing the Yalu was bad strategy, Inchon was good strategy.  Its a wash.  The Philippines in 1941-1942 was bad, the island hopping campaign was good.  Another wash.  Trust me, Alexander, Scipio, and Frederick would have stayed south of the Yalu, and while the 1942 campaign in the Philippines ws almost unwinnable, those guys would have done better.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The yalu was NOT crossed by American or allied forces.  It was crossed by the Communist Chinese forces!

[KEmperor]

MacArthur may have been a good general, but he was by no means the greatest.  And he was an arrogant fool, who got himself relieved of duty, so that's not too impressive.

[CARLHAYDEN]

MacArthur may have been a good general, but he was by no means the greatest.  And he was an arrogant fool, who got himself relieved of duty, so that's not too impressive.

I pointed out facts of MacArthur's record, whereas you responded with vitroil.

MacArthur believed, as Churchill famously noted, the purpose of war is victory.  Truman was a dishonest politician who did not want to win that conflict.