BEST GENERAL IN US MILITARY HISTORY - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - BEST GENERAL IN US MILITARY HISTORY (Page 2 of 5)

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:06:54 PM EDT

[#1]

Nobody mentioned "Custer" yet?

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:11:26 PM EDT

[#2]

So many great men...I can't pick just one.

W. T. Sherman, USA

Archer A. Vandegrift, USMC (MOH)

Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson, CSA

Joshua L. Chamberlain, USA (MOH)

Chester A. Nimitz, USN

Ulysses S. Grant, USA

George Washington, Colonial Army

Omar N. Bradley, USA

George C. Marshall, USA

George S. Patton, USA

Winfield Scott, USA

Robert E. Lee, CSA

Raymond A. Spruance, USN

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:11:44 PM EDT

[#3]

My grandfather, a Lt. Col. in the Army Air Corps and WWII vet could not stand Patton.

as a kid he told me a couple stories about Patton that even at that young of age, got my blood boiling.

so yeah, I'd say Sherman or Washington

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:12:58 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Tactically and strategically, Sherman wins hands-down, because in typical ARF.com fashion, he did both at the same time

Not only did he understand the art of maneuver in his March to the Sea, he also understood the enemy's center of gravity better than any other Union (or, for that matter, Confederate) general.

While other generals on both sides were concentrating on the enemy's fielded forces, Sherman understood that the REAL heart of the Southern will was the plantation OWNERS. Not your small-town farmer, not your city dweller, but the plantation owners.

During his march to the sea, he only burned towns that resisted him--those that surrendered he basically left alone. He did not burn every farm & crop, just the cotton and the plantations. He actually showed remarkable restraint in the way he controlled and used his army.

His campaign devastated the economic and material heart of the South, and while individual battles were important, the strategic battle was fought down South from Atlanta to Savannah in 1864. That campaign dramatically affected the South's ability to wage war as a nation in a way that no other campaign could, instead of simply eliminating the Confederate forces.

ETA: Check out the book, "Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime" by Eliot A. Cohen. Cohen does a much better job of analyzing Sherman's operational intent than I can.

Excellent Posting!

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:13:58 PM EDT

[#5]

Washington...with out him we would not have a USA to bore a Patton

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:15:03 PM EDT

[#6]

That guy in Iraq, what's his name . . .Abzudd, or Abdizz, well, he's real good the news says.

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:18:46 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Gen. Robert E. Lee

We're talking AMERICAN generals here, not traitorous confederates who fought AMERICANS

back on topic, I vote Mac (cause my dad was a football field away on Leyte when Mac was photographed for his "I have returned" picture).

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:21:51 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
I think at the battlefield level Stonewall Jackson is hard to beat (at least in the Valley campaigns and Manassas,though not on the Peninsula). He did so much with relatively few numbers of poorly equipped men. So many other US generals have had superior logistics systems backing them up.
At a strategic level, while Eisenhower,Marshall and Grant knew how to use the power of superior logistics against the enemy, Lee and Washington made the most of poor logistics support.So I have to go with Washington,who won despite poor logistics.

"Stoney" wasn't a US general (at the time of the war).

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:22:37 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Gen. Robert E. Lee

We're talking AMERICAN generals here, not traitorous confederates who fought AMERICANS

back on topic, I vote Mac (cause my dad was a football field away on Leyte when Mac was photographed for his "I have returned" picture).

So what's you take on Sherman laying waste to all them suutheners plantatuns?

ANdy

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:25:23 PM EDT

[#10]

Sherman!

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:26:56 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Gen. Robert E. Lee

We're talking AMERICAN generals here, not traitorous confederates who fought AMERICANS

back on topic, I vote Mac (cause my dad was a football field away on Leyte when Mac was photographed for his "I have returned" picture).

So what's you take on Sherman laying waste to all them suutheners plantatuns?

ANdy

I don't give a shit, anymore than I fret over the bombings Dresden or the atomic bomb over Hiroshima.
Start a war with the United States, pay the price

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:28:39 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Gen. Robert E. Lee

We're talking AMERICAN generals here, not traitorous confederates who fought AMERICANS

back on topic, I vote Mac (cause my dad was a football field away on Leyte when Mac was photographed for his "I have returned" picture).

oh boy... IBTCFW (In before the confederate flag wavers ) comes chiming in.

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:30:26 PM EDT

[#13]

Sherman was a scrapper. Same way Patton was. Bottom line.. These guys commanded and led men to victory.

Eisenhower and Marshall were great too but they were not field generals.

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:37:33 PM EDT

[#14]

My top pick would be General Washington. He fought for four years with a ragtag Army until the US received help from foreign country. He did at the time what I believe no one else could have done KEEP THE ARMY ALIVE. He was a master at this task. Because of this he was a master at retreating from battles he knew he could not win and only fought when he thought he could win. He was also well loved by his troops. This leads me to my second pick.

General Lee. Even though he fought for the South (at least he fought for what he believed in). If General Lee had fought on the side of the North I believe that the South would have collapsed within a year.

Either one I would follow into the pits of hell as would most if not all the soldiers that served under either commander.

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:41:39 PM EDT

[#15]

Some of the BEST generals this country EVER produced fought in the Civil War:

1) Robert E. Lee

2) Stonewall Jackson

3) Nathan B. Forrest (He was one tough sumbeach.

)

4) William T. Sherman

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:43:46 PM EDT

[#16]

I vote Robert E Lee,/Home Arlington plantation Va.
Won the battles but lost the war.

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:45:04 PM EDT

[#17]

T.J. Jackson

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:52:47 PM EDT

[#18]

Ok, almost universally we have only WWII Army generals offered up like Patton. Not a peep about the great USMC generals who fought in obscurity. Why did they fight in obscurity? Becasue the douche bag media did not spend much time in the pacific, instead they were drinking French wine, chasing European wimmin and NOT doing anything but re-issueing press releases extolling the US Amry, primarily the Third Army. What about Omar Fucking Bradley? How about Lightning Joe Collins? You guys keep spewing up Patton only becasue he was a press hound and the media was too lazy to spend time in the god forsaken Pacific Theater. Get hip , study your history and give me a name other than fuckin patton! Sherman is ok, but the south was on its knees when he started whipping their ass and his opposite numbers in the CSA made him lokk like an 'ass whipper' when they were just incompetent nitwits who could make granny smith look tough.

Posted: 12/5/2006 12:59:30 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Ok, almost universally we have only WWII Army generals offered up like Patton. Not a peep about the great USMC generals who fought in obscurity. Why did they fight in obscurity? Becasue the douche bag media did not spend much time in the pacific, instead they were drinking French wine, chasing European wimmin and NOT doing anything but re-issueing press releases extolling the US Amry, primarily the Third Army. What about Omar Fucking Bradley? How about Lightning Joe Collins? You guys keep spewing up Patton only becasue he was a press hound and the media was too lazy to spend time in the god forsaken Pacific Theater. Get hip , study your history and give me a name other than fuckin patton! Sherman is ok, but the south was on its knees when he started whipping their ass and his opposite numbers in the CSA made him lokk like an 'ass whipper' when they were just incompetent nitwits who could make granny smith look tough.

EASY BIG FELLA!
I only listed some of the "most" advertised (i.e. known history) generals. You have listed a number of others that are/were AWESOME! I only started this thread as an enlightenment & informational thread. Hell, even I forgot about some of the names listed here. There were a ton of admirals, pilots, marines etc., but this post could go on for 50 pages if I were able to have a poll for 100 Generals. I was just hoping to hear some opinions and names I had not heard or forgotten about.

Posted: 12/5/2006 1:09:43 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, almost universally we have only WWII Army generals offered up like Patton. Not a peep about the great USMC generals who fought in obscurity. Why did they fight in obscurity? Becasue the douche bag media did not spend much time in the pacific, instead they were drinking French wine, chasing European wimmin and NOT doing anything but re-issueing press releases extolling the US Amry, primarily the Third Army. What about Omar Fucking Bradley? How about Lightning Joe Collins? You guys keep spewing up Patton only becasue he was a press hound and the media was too lazy to spend time in the god forsaken Pacific Theater. Get hip , study your history and give me a name other than fuckin patton! Sherman is ok, but the south was on its knees when he started whipping their ass and his opposite numbers in the CSA made him lokk like an 'ass whipper' when they were just incompetent nitwits who could make granny smith look tough.

EASY BIG FELLA!
I only listed some of the "most" advertised (i.e. known history) generals. You have listed a number of others that are/were AWESOME! I only started this thread as an enlightenment & informational thread. Hell, even I forgot about some of the names listed here. There were a ton of admirals, pilots, marines etc., but this post could go on for 50 pages if I were able to have a poll for 100 Generals. I was just hoping to hear some opinions and names I had not heard or forgotten about.

No sweat, just trying to get folks to think and not just vomit up the first tname that pos into their mind. Patton was a true fighting general, but by no means was he the only general, but he was the most publicized general. That publicity makes him the 'first' choice, but not necessarily the best choice (to this student of US military history). And McArthur at Inchon was truly brilliant. OP Smith at the Chosin would be an insprired choice. Just think and get beyond the pop histroy and remember some truly great men.

Edit: obvioulsy I am pretty passionate about US military history. Just remember, if you do not remember these great men, they do not leave purgatory....

For all the guys who keep the great general out of heaven:

Posted: 12/5/2006 1:35:50 PM EDT

[#21]

Eisenhower and Marshall

Posted: 12/5/2006 1:41:25 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Washington

Ding Ding Ding

+1

The Greatest, most accomplished American ever.

After him, either Sherman or Patton.

Posted: 12/5/2006 1:43:03 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Mac.....should have been canned after losing the PI. Nothing stellar about him.

Or never should have been there in the first place due to his involvement in the Bonus Army escapade.

Posted: 12/5/2006 1:44:50 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, almost universally we have only WWII Army generals offered up like Patton. Not a peep about the great USMC generals who fought in obscurity. Why did they fight in obscurity? Becasue the douche bag media did not spend much time in the pacific, instead they were drinking French wine, chasing European wimmin and NOT doing anything but re-issueing press releases extolling the US Amry, primarily the Third Army. What about Omar Fucking Bradley? How about Lightning Joe Collins? You guys keep spewing up Patton only becasue he was a press hound and the media was too lazy to spend time in the god forsaken Pacific Theater. Get hip , study your history and give me a name other than fuckin patton! Sherman is ok, but the south was on its knees when he started whipping their ass and his opposite numbers in the CSA made him lokk like an 'ass whipper' when they were just incompetent nitwits who could make granny smith look tough.

EASY BIG FELLA!
I only listed some of the "most" advertised (i.e. known history) generals. You have listed a number of others that are/were AWESOME! I only started this thread as an enlightenment & informational thread. Hell, even I forgot about some of the names listed here. There were a ton of admirals, pilots, marines etc., but this post could go on for 50 pages if I were able to have a poll for 100 Generals. I was just hoping to hear some opinions and names I had not heard or forgotten about.

No sweat, just trying to get folks to think and not just vomit up the first tname that pos into their mind. Patton was a true fighting general, but by no means was he the only general, but he was the most publicized general. That publicity makes him the 'first' choice, but not necessarily the best choice (to this student of US military history). And McArthur at Inchon was truly brilliant. OP Smith at the Chosin would be an insprired choice. Just think and get beyond the pop histroy and remember some truly great men.

Edit: obvioulsy I am pretty passionate about US military history. Just remember, if you do not remember these great men, they do not leave purgatory....

For all the guys who keep the great general out of heaven:

How about Simon Boliver Buckner, killed on Okinawa?

Posted: 12/5/2006 1:47:13 PM EDT

[#25]

Field Marshal Montgomery....

Gotta be Patton IMHO. Anybody here read ~~'Generals ~~In Muddy Boots~~"?~~ Good look at the relationships between Patton, Bradley, and Monty (the fairy).

ETA - Sorry, book is actually 'Battle of the Generals'. Too many WWII books floating around in my brain.

Posted: 12/5/2006 1:49:21 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Mac.....should have been canned after losing the PI. Nothing stellar about him.

Or never should have been there in the first place due to his involvement in the Bonus Army escapade.

Patton participated in that atrocity as well.
I agree that early in the war Mac dropped the ball by letting Japan take out his airforce on the ground, when he had to know they were coming.
MacArthur compensated for his early failures, though, IMHO, with his leap frog back across the Pacific. Inchon was a brilliant move also.
I knew a lot of WW2 vets growing up, as my dad was one, and it seemed they either hated or loved Mac.
My own father, as I stated earlier in the thread, was present on Leyte for the famous picture, and deeply respected him, and reviled Truman for firing him.

Posted: 12/5/2006 1:49:47 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Big +1. John Keegan calls Jackson's Valley Campaign "perhaps the greatest example of manuever warfare in history," or something like that. Too bad he didn't have an inexhaustible supply of muskets and immigrant cannon fodder.

Bobby Lee, of course. Longstreet was also a visionary. Unfortunately, all of these folks are DQ'd. The question asks about the US military.

They all served in the US Military.

Posted: 12/5/2006 1:51:26 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Big +1. John Keegan calls Jackson's Valley Campaign "perhaps the greatest example of manuever warfare in history," or something like that. Too bad he didn't have an inexhaustible supply of muskets and immigrant cannon fodder.

Bobby Lee, of course. Longstreet was also a visionary. Unfortunately, all of these folks are DQ'd. The question asks about the US military.

They all served in the US Military.

..and left the US Military to wage war against it in a war that defined their place in history.

Posted: 12/5/2006 1:52:57 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Gen. Robert E. Lee

We're talking AMERICAN generals here, not traitorous confederates who fought AMERICANS

AGNTSA.

Posted: 12/5/2006 1:54:28 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
There are several ways to evaluate Generals.

Who was the best war strategist w/ their style of warfare?
Who was the best leader of men?
Who won against the greatest odds?

Not to say that Washington was the best at all three, but without him, we would not have won the Revolutionary War.

Many.

Posted: 12/5/2006 1:56:43 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
..and left the US Military to wage war against it in a war that defined their place in history.

It'd be nice if we could leave politics out of this thread. It was a war between brothers, between kin and they all respected each other more than most ARFCOMmers do.

Posted: 12/5/2006 2:26:27 PM EDT

[#32]

Patton: 1/4 Absolute Nuts, 1/4 Violent, 1/4 Determined, and 100% deadly. The guy was an infantry grunt at heart and all he wanted to do was fight. He did it very well.

Posted: 12/5/2006 2:27:33 PM EDT

[#33]

General Robert Lee !

Fought for what be belived, if he was commanding the North, He would have won in less than 365 days

Posted: 12/5/2006 2:29:14 PM EDT

[#34]

I voted for Patton but I would have voted for Sherman if it had been a choice. I never vote "other" in polls if I have a close second in mind.

Posted: 12/5/2006 2:50:53 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Gen. Robert E. Lee

We're talking AMERICAN generals here, not traitorous confederates who fought AMERICANS

back on topic, I vote Mac (cause my dad was a football field away on Leyte when Mac was photographed for his "I have returned" picture).

Hate to break it to bud but Lee received a Presidential pardon and the U.S. Congress restored his citizenship.

Why can’t you give the tiresome self righteous nastiness a rest for just once?

Posted: 12/5/2006 3:01:46 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Gen. Robert E. Lee

We're talking AMERICAN generals here, not traitorous confederates who fought AMERICANS

back on topic, I vote Mac (cause my dad was a football field away on Leyte when Mac was photographed for his "I have returned" picture).

Hate to break it to bud but Lee received a Presidential pardon and the U.S. Congress restored his citizenship.

Why can’t you give the tiresome self righteous nastiness a rest for just once?

I'm NOT taking sides here, because I can see it both ways, but the pardon and the restored citizenship do not change the fact that he led men into battle against the United States Army.

Posted: 12/5/2006 3:47:17 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Tactically and strategically, Sherman wins hands-down, because in typical ARF.com fashion, he did both at the same time

Not only did he understand the art of maneuver in his March to the Sea, he also understood the enemy's center of gravity better than any other Union (or, for that matter, Confederate) general.

While other generals on both sides were concentrating on the enemy's fielded forces, Sherman understood that the REAL heart of the Southern will was the plantation OWNERS. Not your small-town farmer, not your city dweller, but the plantation owners.

During his march to the sea, he only burned towns that resisted him--those that surrendered he basically left alone. He did not burn every farm & crop, just the cotton and the plantations. He actually showed remarkable restraint in the way he controlled and used his army.

His campaign devastated the economic and material heart of the South, and while individual battles were important, the strategic battle was fought down South from Atlanta to Savannah in 1864. That campaign dramatically affected the South's ability to wage war as a nation in a way that no other campaign could, instead of simply eliminating the Confederate forces.

ETA: Check out the book, "Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime" by Eliot A. Cohen. Cohen does a much better job of analyzing Sherman's operational intent than I can.

Yes and no.

Strategically yes… but from a battlefield command point of view Sherman didn’t have to work very hard a monkey could have handled the tactics for his troops and won… for much of the campaign Sherman was virtually unopposed.

True for the second part of his campaign, but Sherman's maneuver warfare up to Atlanta was pretty shrewd, not necessarily because of the brilliant tactics but because he maneuvered strategically, always looking for the heart of the South.

The purpose of war is supposed to be to bend the enemy to your will--I submit that the other Civil War generals were fighting tactically, locked in a war of attrition and focusing on outmaneuvering the enemy's army, while only Sherman really thought and fought strategically.

Posted: 12/5/2006 4:08:56 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Gen. Robert E. Lee

We're talking AMERICAN generals here, not traitorous confederates who fought AMERICANS

back on topic, I vote Mac (cause my dad was a football field away on Leyte when Mac was photographed for his "I have returned" picture).

If trampling on the constitution and states right is an american trait, Ill take traiterous confederate

Posted: 12/5/2006 5:04:55 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

True for the second part of his campaign, but Sherman's maneuver warfare up to Atlanta was pretty shrewd, not necessarily because of the brilliant tactics but because he maneuvered strategically, always looking for the heart of the South.

The purpose of war is supposed to be to bend the enemy to your will--I submit that the other Civil War generals were fighting tactically, locked in a war of attrition and focusing on outmaneuvering the enemy's army, while only Sherman really thought and fought strategically.

I disagree Grant was also doing what was strategically necessary and shrewd by getting Lee by the throat and not letting him have room to maneuver. He absolutely made Lee fight on his terms, terms that were the least advantageous to Lee.

If had been Lee that Sherman faced at Atlanta instead of an incompetent broken man he would have probably ended up headed back to Chattanooga.

Sherman gets way too much credit and Grant to little.

Shermans campaign in GA was strategically important/ground breaking but from a tactical battlefield level the campaign borders on insignificant because he faced no real challenge.

Posted: 12/5/2006 5:44:50 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted: No question about it, Robert E. Lee was the best general America ever had. I am surprised that he is not 1st on the list or at least on the list. The Army of Northern Virginia was his creation. Grant won because he was persistent and had all the cards in his hand. Sherman was a murderer.
Patton was brilliant but does not compare all around with Lee. Robert E. Lee, America's greatest general and one of its greatest men.

If he was so great hows come he LOST! He is a loser, Americans only like winners...

Yep, that automatically disqualifies him.

Posted: 12/5/2006 5:50:19 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted: No question about it, Robert E. Lee was the best general America ever had. I am surprised that he is not 1st on the list or at least on the list. The Army of Northern Virginia was his creation. Grant won because he was persistent and had all the cards in his hand. Sherman was a murderer.
Patton was brilliant but does not compare all around with Lee. Robert E. Lee, America's greatest general and one of its greatest men.

If he was so great hows come he LOST! He is a loser, Americans only like winners...

Yep, that automatically disqualifies him.

Oh really that will be news to historians...

Probably the second greatest military commander of all time lost… Hannibal

As did
Guderian
Napoleon
Ect.

Posted: 12/5/2006 6:00:17 PM EDT

[#42]

Jones, John Paul.

Stood on the demasted deck of the Bonhomme Richard, verbally raised the middle finger to a fully-functioning Royal Navy man-o-war (the Serpais), and proceeded to make it his bitch.

He sailed off in the Serpais. Which would be the equivalent of Patton driving home in Rommel's Panzers.

Posted: 12/5/2006 6:04:55 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
..and left the US Military to wage war against it in a war that defined their place in history.

Wow, you really hate the Confederates huh? Some rebs shoot your dog or something?

Posted: 12/5/2006 6:07:05 PM EDT

[#44]

PATTON--he decimated the enemy.

Posted: 12/5/2006 6:07:08 PM EDT

[#45]

General Robert E. Lee.

Posted: 12/5/2006 6:09:17 PM EDT

[#46]

Anthony Charles Zinni

One sharp man.....

Posted: 12/5/2006 6:17:07 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Gen. Robert E. Lee

We're talking AMERICAN generals here, not traitorous confederates who fought AMERICANS

back on topic, I vote Mac (cause my dad was a football field away on Leyte when Mac was photographed for his "I have returned" picture).

Hate to break it to bud but Lee received a Presidential pardon and the U.S. Congress restored his citizenship.

Why can’t you give the tiresome self righteous nastiness a rest for just once?

I'm NOT taking sides here, because I can see it both ways, but the pardon and the restored citizenship do not change the fact that he led men into battle against the United States Army.

That says it all right there.

Posted: 12/5/2006 6:17:48 PM EDT

[#48]

Robert E. Lee

Stonewall Jackson

Grant

Sherman

Patton

Chesty Puller

Posted: 12/5/2006 6:19:47 PM EDT

[#49]

Bradley

Posted: 12/5/2006 6:29:13 PM EDT

[#50]

Washington-he wins hands down.
Greene-
George Rodgers Clark-not a general but one of my faves.
Sherman
Crook
Pershing
Bradley
Marshall
Stilwell
HM Smith

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - BEST GENERAL IN US MILITARY HISTORY (Page 2 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us