StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Who do you think was the best American general, and do you think that that general holds a candle for the title against commanders like Napoleon, Alexander and Caesar?

Robert E. Lee, Grant, Winfield Scott, Hancock, Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, Washington, MacArthur?

My vote goes for Robert E. Lee and I would think he would be a contender for one of the worlds greatest general. Not only was he tactically brilliant, but he also commanded the adoration of his troops and the respect of his enemy.

I should note that Washington was never a very effective general as far as military tactics and such go, he was just a brilliant leader.

I would rank MacArthur as the best in U.S. history, and Alexander the Great as the best of all time.

Patton would kick MacArthur's ass.

Durran Korr wrote:
I would rank MacArthur as the best in U.S. history.

You know American military history very poorly. MacArthur was amoung the nations worst commanders and should never have held a field command past Dec 8 1941.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:
I would rank MacArthur as the best in U.S. history.

You know American military history very poorly. MacArthur was amoung the nations worst commanders and should never have held a field command past Dec 8 1941.

Mostly for his aura, the whole American Caesar thing.

Patton, duh.

*the door hits Rommel's ass on the way out*

Hehehe...

Suvorov is definitely on the "top generals of all time list". I don't know too much of American military history, though.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:
I would rank MacArthur as the best in U.S. history.

You know American military history very poorly. MacArthur was amoung the nations worst commanders and should never have held a field command past Dec 8 1941.

Not to add to much on top of that but MacArthur is possibly the most overrated commander in American History. His limited succeses (I count only the Inchon Landing as really such) are far outweighed by his gross incompetence in the Phillipines, his rather foolish choices near the Yalu, and his rather haphazard defense of Australia that succeded in saving Port Moresby despite and not because of him.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Patton, duh.

*the door hits Rommel's ass on the way out*

Hehehe...

*resurrects Patton and implants him into a Garden Gnome body*

Take this to the TGOD and have fun, DGG.

Trytostaydead wrote:Who do you think was the best American general, and do you think that that general holds a candle for the title against commanders like Napoleon, Alexander and Caesar?

Robert E. Lee, Grant, Winfield Scott, Hancock, Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley, Washington, MacArthur?

My vote goes for Robert E. Lee and I would think he would be a contender for one of the worlds greatest general. Not only was he tactically brilliant, but he also commanded the adoration of his troops and the respect of his enemy.

Lee is probably one of the best choices but he was also strategically blind in that he allowed the limtied goal of saving Virginia to become all consuming even when actions to save Virginia were not neccessarily helpful to his nation's cause in general.

The one man left off your list who deserves serious consideration would be W.T. Sherman. He displayed the kind of brilliance in action that was rather rare in the Civil War and he was equal to any other general in the esteem his troops held for him. Personally I'm also a huge fan of Thomas but the Rock of Chickamagua probably didn't see enough action to qualify.

You know, people make all these "Greatest General" threads...what about Greatest Admiral, huh?

Bastards...

Or Greatest Colonel? My vote: Colonel Sanders.

CmdrWilkens wrote:
Not to add to much on top of that but MacArthur is possibly the most overrated commander in American History. His limited succeses (I count only the Inchon Landing as really such) are far outweighed by his gross incompetence in the Phillipines, his rather foolish choices near the Yalu, and his rather haphazard defense of Australia that succeded in saving Port Moresby despite and not because of him.

Agree with the above. Inchon was an important move, but the damn tide was a bigger opposition to actually pulling it off then the enemy.

CmdrWilkens wrote:
Lee is probably one of the best choices but he was also strategically blind in that he allowed the limtied goal of saving Virginia to become all consuming even when actions to save Virginia were not neccessarily helpful to his nation's cause in general.

I'd disagree on that. Virginia held most of the South's key industry, including its only plant capable of building large scale machinery and armor, the stuff needed both to make ironclads and more importantly set up additional factories. In addition the state also built much of the South's ordinance. In 1865 he likely should have pulled back sooner. But then its questionable southern moral and resources would have allowed him to last any longer.

Also about Virginia, it was his home. I do not believe he was fighting for the Confederacy and if he had the chance he would have never left the Union.. he was fighting for his home, his family, his friends. I think that is something we can all relate too.

And forgive me for leaving out Sherman, Sheridan, Stuart, Longstreet and Gordon. All great men.

It makes you truly wonder though about the Civil War. Was the education and culture so different back then to produce so many brilliant and (for the most part) honorable men in a horrendous situation that no one side was ever guaranteed victory but the final victor would have to pay a price in terrible blood? Or was it something else..?

Colonel John Boyd redifined how wars will be fought for the foreseeable future.

How about Stonewall Jackson? You could definitely make an argument that he was Lee's most able Lieutenant, and he showed remarkable skill in handling a smaller force against a large Union force in the Valley campagin in Spring of 1862. His march to Manassas in August of 1862 was an amazing military feat, as well as his charge at Chancellorsville.

I would put forth Nathan B. Forrest of the Confederacy. He was quite possibly the most brilliant cavalry commander to ever walk the earth. Heck, Rommel studied him to get his tactics. Many have stained his reputation by stating he started the KKK. Yes, he did, but not the same as is today. In fact, when he saw what it was turning into, he disbanded it. It resurfaced later and has turned into what it is now. Revisionist history has taken this brilliant tactician's legacy and turned him into a monster next to the likes of Hitler.

Other than Forrest, though, I am going to have to go with Patton, for obvious reasons.

From what I read about American history I'd say Winfield Scott is the best American general. Alexander the Great would have to be the best in history. He made so many innovations in war and he never suffered defeat.

Nathan F wrote:Many have stained his reputation by stating he started the KKK. Yes, he did, but not the same as is today.

*sniff sniff*

I smell apologism.

Someone else, clarify?

Hmm.. actually another contender for best general/commander in history might be Ghengis Khan? True, maybe he wasn't as tactically innovative or brilliant as some of the aforementioned.. but he did sweep through the better part of Asia and successfully subjected the people in there. Moreover, he was also an able administrator where, like the Romans, he quickly integrated the lands he took and learned from their strengths and added them to his arsenal.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Nathan F wrote:Many have stained his reputation by stating he started the KKK. Yes, he did, but not the same as is today.

*sniff sniff*

I smell apologism.

Someone else, clarify?

Not apologism. I hate the KKK, I think it is an evil organization and I think that anyone involoved with it is some kind of sick bastard.

I am simply stating that, even though he started an organization known as the KKK, it isn't the same that exists today. It was as protection to southern citizens against the rapid influx of northerners into the south. Very aggressive and militant northerners in most cases.

As I said, I am in no way being apologetic to the KKK, simply clarifying a common mistake.

Unfortunately, Forrest will always be tarred with slave trading and Fort Pillow. However, I do not know the full story of what occured at Fort Pillow, nor the reasons for him parting ways with the KKK. Though yes, the KKK was formed as a more Democratic strongarm than a white supremacy group of rednecks that it is today (I think that New World Organization is much more dangerous).

Trytostaydead wrote:Unfortunately, Forrest will always be tarred with slave trading and Fort Pillow. However, I do not know the full story of what occured at Fort Pillow, nor the reasons for him parting ways with the KKK. Though yes, the KKK was formed as a more Democratic strongarm than a white supremacy group of rednecks that it is today (I think that New World Organization is much more dangerous).

Fort Pillow was a CSA built fort that had been taken over by Federal troops. Included in the garrison were ~250 African American troops. When the Confederates retook the fort, commanded by Gen. Forrest, only 62 black troops survived the battle. The circumstances surrounding this are still foggy, and the Union used this as a rallying point, calling it the Fort Pillow massacre. Not to necessarily take sides in this issue, but when 62 black soldiers survived, plus the white regulars that survived, how is this necessarily a massacre, and not just a particularly bloody battle, of which the Civil War was full of. However, Forrest's slave trading is a fact, and I won't deny that. It was bad, yes, but it also should be clarified that the KKK started by Forrest wasn't just a lynch mob out to get ex-slaves, but, that is what it turned into after he disbanded it.

Edit:

Just did a bit of digging, and I found this:
"The Confederates charged the Union position and drove the federal soldiers over the bluff and down the riverbank, where many tried to surrender. What happened next has been debated over the years. From the high casualty rate of the Union troops it seems a massacre occured. The Union troops suffered 231 killed, 100 wounded, and 226 captured. The black units suffered 64 percent killed; the white units only 33 percent. The attacking Confederates suffered only 14 killed and 86 wounded."

Entire article:
http://www.us-civilwar.com/pillow.htm

Edit 2:
Compilation of official Union and Confederate records:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/ftpillow.htm

Edit 3:
Article on the Fort Pillow battle, long, but an interesting read:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/forrestpillow.htm

U.S. history: Patton

World:"VIVE L'EMPEURER!"