Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
How would you rank the greatest US generals?
Author Message
UCGrad1992 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,109
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 710
I Root For: Cincy Bearcats
Location: North Carolina
Post: #21
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 02:42 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 12:46 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Eisenhower was not a great general. He was too busy playing politics to be a good general.
(06-11-2014 07:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  McArthur?
MacArthur was an arrogant fool, who lead many men to their deaths, just so he could return to the place where he barely escaped with his life. He could have avoided those deaths and still won the war without all that bloodshed. But he had to fulfill his promise to return to the Philippines, sacrificing thousands of his men to do it.

Screw MacArthur. 03-banghead

Amen to that. Plus, he essentially wanted to turn Korea into WWIII.

C'mon man! An arrogant fool? Look, MacArthur sure as heck was neither the first nor the last general to have some ego and pride. Don't let that discount his ability to lead and govern. After he retired from the army he accepted a military advisor position in the Philippines to help organize and train their army. His family had a previous history with the Philippine people and MacArthur grew to respect them and had a great relationship with the Philippine President. Once the Japs cranked up their imperialistic ways FDR reinstated him as general. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his efforts to try and defend the islands with limited resources. The point is that his promise to return was mainly due to his affinity for the Philippine nation and the men that died during the invasion. He also believed it was a moral obligation to liberate the Philippines since they were allies to the U.S. and the Japs were ruthless occupiers.

The governance he did in post-war Japan was incredible with rebuilding their nation and establishing a constitution and democracy all the while keeping the peace and respecting the cultural traditions of Japan.

Throw in his deployment of "island hopping" tactics that took strategic islands back from the Japs to establish air bases for air support and supplies was critical to helping defeat them. He understood the power and logistics in combining air, naval and ground forces in battle. IMO, he was one of the great generals ever for the U.S.
06-11-2014 04:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,672
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 160
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #22
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 03:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 02:53 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  Shouldn't overlook Grant. Wasn't the greatest tactician, but he understood better than any other union general what it was going to take to beat the Confederacy, with the possible exception of Sherman.
Grant also turned out to be one of the most corrupt Presidents in U.S. history. He was a decent general. Not a great one. Anyone willing to sacrifice his men could have won the war for the north. George Mcclellan should have won the war long before Grant was given command. But he was a coward, and refuse to attack Richmond as President Lincoln commanded. So he was forced into retirement, and Grant was promoted to command the Union Army. The north had all the industry, and the majority of the population at the time. Their victory was inevitable. It was only the incompetence of the Union Army command that prolonged the war.

Grant was totally incompetent as a politician, as were the people he chose for his cabinet. As a general, he was adequate. But that's all.

(06-11-2014 02:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 02:07 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Had Patton been in charge, the war in Europe would have ended sooner. He could play politics, when it was required. But he didn't play politics when it came to battle strategy or planning. In his opinion, politics had no business on the battlefield, and I fully agree with him there. He didn't like to put up with stupid military commanders, like Montgomery, who used politics to make himself look good, instead of being an effective military commander, like Patton.
Why do you think Patton could achieved victory sooner? Regardless of his capability, Montgomery was the British Commander with which Patton would have had to liaison with. And of course Patton and Bradley couldn't stand each other. I just think that a SAC Patton would have such a high turnover rate of his general staff that Marshall would have been forced to either demote him to a field general or relieve him altogether.
Did you actually read the historical accounts? Or did you gain your knowledge from movies?

I would like to think the course material I took in school was fairly accurate.
06-11-2014 04:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,863
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #23
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 04:52 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 02:42 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 12:46 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Eisenhower was not a great general. He was too busy playing politics to be a good general.
(06-11-2014 07:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  McArthur?
MacArthur was an arrogant fool, who lead many men to their deaths, just so he could return to the place where he barely escaped with his life. He could have avoided those deaths and still won the war without all that bloodshed. But he had to fulfill his promise to return to the Philippines, sacrificing thousands of his men to do it.

Screw MacArthur. 03-banghead
Amen to that. Plus, he essentially wanted to turn Korea into WWIII.
C'mon man! An arrogant fool? Look, MacArthur sure as heck was neither the first nor the last general to have some ego and pride. Don't let that discount his ability to lead and govern. After he retired from the army he accepted a military advisor position in the Philippines to help organize and train their army. His family had a previous history with the Philippine people and MacArthur grew to respect them and had a great relationship with the Philippine President. Once the Japs cranked up their imperialistic ways FDR reinstated him as general. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his efforts to try and defend the islands with limited resources. The point is that his promise to return was mainly due to his affinity for the Philippine nation and the men that died during the invasion. He also believed it was a moral obligation to liberate the Philippines since they were allies to the U.S. and the Japs were ruthless occupiers.

The governance he did in post-war Japan was incredible with rebuilding their nation and establishing a constitution and democracy all the while keeping the peace and respecting the cultural traditions of Japan.

Throw in his deployment of "island hopping" tactics that took strategic islands back from the Japs to establish air bases for air support and supplies was critical to helping defeat them. He understood the power and logistics in combining air, naval and ground forces in battle. IMO, he was one of the great generals ever for the U.S.
MacArthur puts me in mind of George Armstrong Custer, with the exception that he didn't get all his troops killed. But both were arrogant fools who led men to their deaths for no other reason than they wanted glory, and hoped to used that for political gain. It didn't work in either case. Thank goodness for that.

Can you imagine how incompetent either would have been as President? Grant would have been a great President by comparison, and that's saying something.

(06-11-2014 04:55 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 03:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 02:53 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  Shouldn't overlook Grant. Wasn't the greatest tactician, but he understood better than any other union general what it was going to take to beat the Confederacy, with the possible exception of Sherman.
Grant also turned out to be one of the most corrupt Presidents in U.S. history. He was a decent general. Not a great one. Anyone willing to sacrifice his men could have won the war for the north. George Mcclellan should have won the war long before Grant was given command. But he was a coward, and refuse to attack Richmond as President Lincoln commanded. So he was forced into retirement, and Grant was promoted to command the Union Army. The north had all the industry, and the majority of the population at the time. Their victory was inevitable. It was only the incompetence of the Union Army command that prolonged the war.

Grant was totally incompetent as a politician, as were the people he chose for his cabinet. As a general, he was adequate. But that's all.

(06-11-2014 02:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 02:07 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Had Patton been in charge, the war in Europe would have ended sooner. He could play politics, when it was required. But he didn't play politics when it came to battle strategy or planning. In his opinion, politics had no business on the battlefield, and I fully agree with him there. He didn't like to put up with stupid military commanders, like Montgomery, who used politics to make himself look good, instead of being an effective military commander, like Patton.
Why do you think Patton could achieved victory sooner? Regardless of his capability, Montgomery was the British Commander with which Patton would have had to liaison with. And of course Patton and Bradley couldn't stand each other. I just think that a SAC Patton would have such a high turnover rate of his general staff that Marshall would have been forced to either demote him to a field general or relieve him altogether.
Did you actually read the historical accounts? Or did you gain your knowledge from movies?
I would like to think the course material I took in school was fairly accurate.
Then the answer to your question should have been self explanatory, if you paid attention in class. If not, there are plenty of books to clue you in.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014 05:09 PM by bitcruncher.)
06-11-2014 05:06 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCGrad1992 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,109
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 710
I Root For: Cincy Bearcats
Location: North Carolina
Post: #24
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 05:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  MacArthur puts me in mind of George Armstrong Custer, with the exception that he didn't get all his troops killed. But both were arrogant fools who led men to their deaths for no other reason than they wanted glory, and hoped to used that for political gain. It didn't work in either case. Thank goodness for that.

Can you imagine how incompetent either would have been as President? Grant would have been a great President by comparison, and that's saying something.

I'll give you he definitely had presidential aspirations but to link that to having men killed for this goal and on your main points I'll agree to disagree.
06-11-2014 06:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 60,235
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 775
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #25
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
Custer was like Nebraska in the 80s. Build up hype roughing up cupcakes, then get to your bowl game and get your ass kicked by a good team.
06-11-2014 06:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,863
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #26
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
That was funny, Smaug. 03-lmfao
(06-11-2014 06:33 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 05:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  MacArthur puts me in mind of George Armstrong Custer, with the exception that he didn't get all his troops killed. But both were arrogant fools who led men to their deaths for no other reason than they wanted glory, and hoped to used that for political gain. It didn't work in either case. Thank goodness for that.

Can you imagine how incompetent either would have been as President? Grant would have been a great President by comparison, and that's saying something.
I'll give you he definitely had presidential aspirations but to link that to having men killed for this goal and on your main points I'll agree to disagree.
No problem. Agreement isn't required, even if I am of the opinion that your opinion is misguided. The world will be as it will, and not as you or I would will it to be.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2014 07:21 PM by bitcruncher.)
06-11-2014 07:21 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
49RFootballNow Offline
Kwisatz Haderach
*

Posts: 6,944
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 400
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location: Charlotte
Post: #27
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
I wouldn't call MacArthur a great general but he didn't get people killed for his own ego either. There were valid reasons to retake The Philippines, not the least of which were a significant number of U.S. and Filipino POW's that were on borderline starvation at the time of their liberation. All the Japanese garrisons on those other islands we "skipped" had virtually no POW's located on them.
06-11-2014 07:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofM_Tiger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,987
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 73
I Root For: Tigers
Location: Memphis
Post: #28
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 04:52 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 02:42 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 12:46 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Eisenhower was not a great general. He was too busy playing politics to be a good general.
(06-11-2014 07:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  McArthur?
MacArthur was an arrogant fool, who lead many men to their deaths, just so he could return to the place where he barely escaped with his life. He could have avoided those deaths and still won the war without all that bloodshed. But he had to fulfill his promise to return to the Philippines, sacrificing thousands of his men to do it.

Screw MacArthur. 03-banghead

Amen to that. Plus, he essentially wanted to turn Korea into WWIII.

C'mon man! An arrogant fool? Look, MacArthur sure as heck was neither the first nor the last general to have some ego and pride. Don't let that discount his ability to lead and govern. After he retired from the army he accepted a military advisor position in the Philippines to help organize and train their army. His family had a previous history with the Philippine people and MacArthur grew to respect them and had a great relationship with the Philippine President. Once the Japs cranked up their imperialistic ways FDR reinstated him as general. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his efforts to try and defend the islands with limited resources. The point is that his promise to return was mainly due to his affinity for the Philippine nation and the men that died during the invasion. He also believed it was a moral obligation to liberate the Philippines since they were allies to the U.S. and the Japs were ruthless occupiers.

The governance he did in post-war Japan was incredible with rebuilding their nation and establishing a constitution and democracy all the while keeping the peace and respecting the cultural traditions of Japan.

Throw in his deployment of "island hopping" tactics that took strategic islands back from the Japs to establish air bases for air support and supplies was critical to helping defeat them. He understood the power and logistics in combining air, naval and ground forces in battle. IMO, he was one of the great generals ever for the U.S.

the island hopping campaign was the brain child of Nimitz, not MacArthur. MacArthur had the army slogging through the rain forest on New Guinea to provide a base for his return.
06-12-2014 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofM_Tiger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,987
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 73
I Root For: Tigers
Location: Memphis
Post: #29
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-11-2014 03:04 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 02:53 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  Shouldn't overlook Grant. Wasn't the greatest tactician, but he understood better than any other union general what it was going to take to beat the Confederacy, with the possible exception of Sherman.

Grant was a "good" general in the exact same way Stalin way a "good" general. He knew he had more resources than his foe and feed men into the meat grinder. I suppose knowing you can win with the numbers you have if you're willing to kill as many of your own men as it takes is a type of "good" generalship.

None of other generals that had been in charge prior to Grant realized that. Just like Patton in WWII Grant knew that the quickest way to win and get the war over with was to relentlessly attack. Don't give your enemy time to regroup.
06-12-2014 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ClairtonPanther Offline
people need to wake up
*

Posts: 24,049
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 638
I Root For: Pitt/Navy
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Donators
Post: #30
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
Washington
Patton
Stonewall Jackson


I can't really get past a top 3.
06-12-2014 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Proud Bammer Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 143
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Yet Another NC
Location: The 15 Percent
Post: #31
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
Washington is the only American general to win a war as the underdog.
06-13-2014 06:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCGrad1992 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,109
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 710
I Root For: Cincy Bearcats
Location: North Carolina
Post: #32
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-12-2014 01:22 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  the island hopping campaign was the brain child of Nimitz, not MacArthur. MacArthur had the army slogging through the rain forest on New Guinea to provide a base for his return.

Actually, the US Navy first developed the island hopping strategy at the turn of the 20th century due to a series of events caused by Japan that threatened U.S interests in the western Pacific:

Quote:The U.S. Navy began to draft, as early as 1897, war plans against Japan, which were eventually code-named "War Plan Orange. " The war plan of 1911, which was drafted under Rear Admiral Raymond P. Rodgers, included an island-hopping strategy for approaching Japan.

Quote: General Douglas MacArthur greatly supported this strategy in his effort to regain the Philippines. This strategy began to be implemented in late 1943 in Operation Cartwheel. While General Douglas MacArthur claimed to have invented the strategy, it initially came out of the Navy.

https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/fr...-to-tokyo/

My point was that regardless of who "invented or first developed" the tactic of island hopping, MacArthur used it effectively in his Pacific Theater strategy as the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in the Southwest Pacific.
06-13-2014 09:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 54,865
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1066
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #33
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
US military history is not full of great generals.

As someone noted above, Washington is the only US military leader to win a war as an underdog. And he did it without really winning a major battle, but by being a pest and outlasting the British resolve--kind of like what is happening to us today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We win wars, not by having great leaders but by having superior logistics. The greatest military leader in US history was probably someone like Henry Ford or Henry J. Kaiser, because that's how we win wars.

It is often said that there are two types of officers--warriors and paper shufflers. War in this era is such a political event that ideally you need one of each. Ike and Bradley were paper shufflers, Patton and MacArthur were warriors. In Desert Storm, Schwartzkopf was the warrior and Powell the paper shuffler. Probably the best leadership we ever had was WWII in the Pacific, with Nimitz and Halsey and Spruance. But they were helped because Honolulu was not exactly on the beaten path so they didn't get the same level of media scrutiny as the war in Europe, so their paper shuffling needs were lower, and even then it was our industrial capacity the made the difference.

The Japanese had three possible targets at Pearl Harbor. The carriers would have been #1, although by coincidence or luck or perhaps something more sinister, they were away at the time. Without carriers, the Japanese opted for the battleships. Had they gone instead for knocking out the repair facilities, they might have won the war.
06-14-2014 07:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,863
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #34
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-14-2014 07:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  US military history is not full of great generals.

As someone noted above, Washington is the only US military leader to win a war as an underdog. And he did it without really winning a major battle, but by being a pest and outlasting the British resolve--kind of like what is happening to us today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We win wars, not by having great leaders but by having superior logistics. The greatest military leader in US history was probably someone like Henry Ford or Henry J. Kaiser, because that's how we win wars.

It is often said that there are two types of officers--warriors and paper shufflers. War in this era is such a political event that ideally you need one of each. Ike and Bradley were paper shufflers, Patton and MacArthur were warriors. In Desert Storm, Schwartzkopf was the warrior and Powell the paper shuffler. Probably the best leadership we ever had was WWII in the Pacific, with Nimitz and Halsey and Spruance. But they were helped because Honolulu was not exactly on the beaten path so they didn't get the same level of media scrutiny as the war in Europe, so their paper shuffling needs were lower, and even then it was our industrial capacity the made the difference.

The Japanese had three possible targets at Pearl Harbor. The carriers would have been #1, although by coincidence or luck or perhaps something more sinister, they were away at the time. Without carriers, the Japanese opted for the battleships. Had they gone instead for knocking out the repair facilities, they might have won the war.
It was something more sinister. There's plenty of evidence that our government knew the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and they left the battleships there to be attacked. It was the only way to gain enough popular sentiment for the U.S. to enter the war on the right side.

Prior to Pearl Harbor, popular sentiment was split, with about half of the nation wanting us to enter as Germany's ally. Letting Japan attack Hawai'i changed that sentiment overnight.
06-14-2014 09:59 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCGrad1992 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,109
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 710
I Root For: Cincy Bearcats
Location: North Carolina
Post: #35
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(06-14-2014 09:59 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(06-14-2014 07:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  US military history is not full of great generals.

As someone noted above, Washington is the only US military leader to win a war as an underdog. And he did it without really winning a major battle, but by being a pest and outlasting the British resolve--kind of like what is happening to us today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We win wars, not by having great leaders but by having superior logistics. The greatest military leader in US history was probably someone like Henry Ford or Henry J. Kaiser, because that's how we win wars.

It is often said that there are two types of officers--warriors and paper shufflers. War in this era is such a political event that ideally you need one of each. Ike and Bradley were paper shufflers, Patton and MacArthur were warriors. In Desert Storm, Schwartzkopf was the warrior and Powell the paper shuffler. Probably the best leadership we ever had was WWII in the Pacific, with Nimitz and Halsey and Spruance. But they were helped because Honolulu was not exactly on the beaten path so they didn't get the same level of media scrutiny as the war in Europe, so their paper shuffling needs were lower, and even then it was our industrial capacity the made the difference.

The Japanese had three possible targets at Pearl Harbor. The carriers would have been #1, although by coincidence or luck or perhaps something more sinister, they were away at the time. Without carriers, the Japanese opted for the battleships. Had they gone instead for knocking out the repair facilities, they might have won the war.
It was something more sinister. There's plenty of evidence that our government knew the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and they left the battleships there to be attacked. It was the only way to gain enough popular sentiment for the U.S. to enter the war on the right side.

Prior to Pearl Harbor, popular sentiment was split, with about half of the nation wanting us to enter as Germany's ally. Letting Japan attack Hawai'i changed that sentiment overnight.

Great points Owl. There's no question it takes a combination of successful factors and collective leadership to win a major war or conflict. All of the generals that have been mentioned in this thread have varying degrees of battlefield/tactical prowess, circumstantial improvisation, political acumen, administrative proficiency, leadership skills and charisma, etc. I would only make the point that IMO the great generals ultimately have to perform on the battlefield when it counts despite the external support structure and political factors.

To Owl and bit's point on Pearl Harbor...I am familiar with the theory that the U.S. knew "something" beforehand but it would be a damn shame and morally/ethically wrong if our leadership purposefully sacrificed the lives of soldiers and civilians in that manner to open the door to war with Japan. If we anticipated/knew the pending attack beforehand it would make more sense to position our carriers in strategic areas around Pearl Harbor. That would have allowed our air support to counter the Jap's planes and made the outcome more favorable to the U.S. IMO. Japan would still have been the aggressor for the attack and political and public support-wise the justification for war would ensue.

Quote: Several writers, including journalist Robert Stinnett and former United States rear admiral Robert Alfred Theobald, have argued that various parties high in the U.S. and British governments knew of the attack in advance and may even have let it happen or encouraged it in order to force America into war via the so-called "back door." However, this Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory is rejected by mainstream historians.

I realize that historians can still be wrong in full or in part but this conspiracy definitely has some holes in it. Just sayin'.....
06-14-2014 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,863
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #36
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
Mainstream historians tend to follow the belief that the government actually works for the people too, and we all know that's a crock.
06-14-2014 12:26 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 19,727
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #37
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
There have been some good ones mentioned already, so I'll skip over those to bring up a fewer lesser known ones who's leadership and/or strategy should be more highly celebrated.


Nathanael Greene probably played as big of a part in the eventual defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown as anybody. When he split his forces in the Carolinas he forced Cornwallis to do the same, resulting in Patriot victories at Cowpens and Kings Mountain. Then his strategic retreat forced Cornwallis to chase him, and most importantly in order to keep up forced Cornwallis to shed much of his equipment and provisions, thus weakening his forces. When Greene faced Cornwallis in full scale battle he rarely outright defeated him, but even in defeat he forced Cornwallis to expend more resources than he was able to replace. This eventually forced Cornwallis out of the Carolinas and into Virginia where he was eventually defeated.


Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller is an American military leader that outside of the Marine Corps and a small segment of history buffs doesn't get anywhere near the credit he deserves. He fought in the "Banana Wars" in Haiti and Nicaragua, WWII and Korea and served as an exemplary leader of men in almost every case. He didn't achieve a general's rank until after his masterful actions during the withdrawal from Chosin Reservoir, but Puller was without a doubt one of the best battlefield leaders in US history.
(This post was last modified: 06-14-2014 02:52 PM by Kaplony.)
06-14-2014 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Phillip26r Offline
Deceptively Slow
*

Posts: 5,327
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 125
I Root For: wile e coyote
Location:
Post: #38
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
It's an odd thing, being considered great. What does that mean? If it means getting men to buy into your cause and being effective in completing a mission, then I think Washington and even N.B. Forrest have to be included.

To include Lee means to gloss over his order for Pickett's charge. To me, that is one of the biggest blunders in military history.
07-10-2014 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,603
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 862
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #39
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(07-10-2014 11:50 AM)Phillip26r Wrote:  It's an odd thing, being considered great. What does that mean? If it means getting men to buy into your cause and being effective in completing a mission, then I think Washington and even N.B. Forrest have to be included.

To include Lee means to gloss over his order for Pickett's charge. To me, that is one of the biggest blunders in military history.

If it had worked, the charge, the war would have been over. It's only a blunder because it didn't pan out.
07-10-2014 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
john01992 Offline
Former ESPNer still in recovery mode

Posts: 16,289
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: John0 out!!!!
Location: The Worst P5 Program
Post: #40
RE: How would you rank the greatest US generals?
(07-10-2014 12:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(07-10-2014 11:50 AM)Phillip26r Wrote:  It's an odd thing, being considered great. What does that mean? If it means getting men to buy into your cause and being effective in completing a mission, then I think Washington and even N.B. Forrest have to be included.

To include Lee means to gloss over his order for Pickett's charge. To me, that is one of the biggest blunders in military history.

If it had worked, the charge, the war would have been over. It's only a blunder because it didn't pan out.

it didn't pan out because it was a terrible idea. this isn't risk where it comes down to the role of dice and random chance of something going wrong.
07-10-2014 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.