Who is the greatest general

[12th Doctor]

This is a though one.  I vote Lee though.

[Michael Z]

That really is a tough one, but I voted for Washington simply because his actions as General contributed massively to the formation of the United States. I'm basically following the logic of No Washington = no Patton, no Eisenhower, etc, etc...

[12th Doctor]

That really is a tough one, but I voted for Washington simply because his actions as General contributed massively to the formation of the United States. I'm basically following the logic of No Washington = no Patton, no Eisenhower, etc, etc...

True, but you should never think of that.  If that were the case, then you would have to say Washington was the best president too, followed by Adams, Jefferson, Madison, etc.

[minionofmidas]

At first I asked myself: Which of these won against the odds? None of them, of course. Lee and Jackson won anyways, and the others were clear favs from the outset.
Then I thought: What war can you think of where America wasn't the favorite? None.
This led to about two anti-american seconds before I released I can't think of any war in the last twohundredandfifty years where the chances weren't at least almost even for the side that eventually won, except the Chinese-Vietnamese one of the late seventies. There are probably a few more, but I can't think of any now. In other words, America is far from alone in this respect.
So I voted for the one among the winners who had the hardest task: George Washington.

[minionofmidas]

Except that Grant wasn't the first to come up with the Anaconda ("I like it when they give things daft names like that"). Winfield Scott, the Union's first supremo (whatever the title, I have a terrible memory for titles), outlined the idea right at the beginning of the war. It's just that he was sacked after Bull Run, and his plans collected mildew for one or two years before Grant put them back on the agenda.

[TheWildCard]

I voted for Washington.

But a good General that wasn't on there was MacArthur

[M]

Washington is one of the Great Menof history. But he was a poor general. In fact, he nearly lost the war at our Dunkirk, on Long Island. In contrast, Bendict Arnold was a very skilled General.

I voted Patton, one of WW2's great tank geniuses, along with Rommel and Zhukov (not Monty, sorry Brits). MacArthur was not really a good general, he could have held out on Luzon for two years if he had backed down to Bataan like he was supposed to. Igreatly admire his character, though.

John Pershing was another great one, our only living General of the Armies ever (think six stars, though it has no insignia). Washington was also granted this rank posthumously.

Also notable is James Longstreet, who believed in WWI style tactics in the early 1860s. Other great Confederate generals who achieved success were J.E.B. Stuart, the infamous Nathan Bedford Forrest, P.T. Beauregard, and Joe Johnston.

Finally, Sam Houston, whose cautious campaign eventually smashed the Mexican armies where the excessive aggression and zeal of Fannin, Travis, Crockett, Bowie, Bonham, and others failed. (Another example of an against the odds winner)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Lee was by far the best General, but not as sucessfull as some of the others.
But he was also the nicest person of all the people on the list.

[7,052,770]

I voted for Lee, the best general of the list.  The fact that he took the outnumbered and outmanufactured confederacy for 4 years really says a lot about him.

[MAS117]

I voted for Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

[12th Doctor]

Wow....this has to be the toughest poll I have ever done on this forum.  Here's who I considered:

George Washington
Robert E. Lee
Ulysses S. Grant
Dwight D. Eisenhower

First I narrowed it down, which had the best strategy that worked.  In that case, you'd have to look at the top commanders, although Patton and Jackson were excellent Generals, and definantely needed when they were fighting, they didn't have as much as an impact as any of the above I mentioned.

I further narrowed my list above by supplies.  Eisenhower was swimming in supplies and his strategy was excellent, he had everything going for him.  Germany was waning, and his supply strength was rock hard.  Plus he had another country coming in from the East to help him.  He was ruled out first.

Then I looked at the outcome in the beginning, middle and end of the war.  Here's Lee, he kicked butt at the beginning and middle, and lost in the end.  He was comparatively the smartest General to ever come out of America.  He was simply put, a genious.  However, due to losses and lose of moral his armies were beaten back ever since Gettysburg.  He lost his touch once he lost once.  Lee was elimated due to lack of soldier moral.

Then I came to Grant, he had to contain the beast.    Grant had a big problem and thorn in his side, Jackson and Lee.  This duo was simply amazing together, then he came up with the Anaconda Plan, which knocked 4 southern states instantly out of the war, allowing Sherman to further penetrate the Deep South, and take the important cities.  He was an excellent General, and used his supplies to the most advantage possible.  He also took on the best General in the world, and won.  However, towards the end, he had a huge amount more troops and manufactored materials than the South.  He was knocked because of supplies.  Plus, he was a sucky politician.  

Then comes Washington, the odds were stacked up against him, supplies sucked, and his strategies worked.  Washington took on the best and most well trained army in the world.  And the most mobile.  Washington was defeated time and time again in the beginning, much like Grant.  However, he came back and kicked in the end.  Once he surrounded the Brits at Yorktown, and the French were arriving, the end was set for the British Empire in the 13 states.  Also he affected history the most, by creating a country that would become great in a few hundred years.  Plus he was a good politician.  

That's my thinking.

Fresh, your history is way off.  Grant never had to take on Jackson and Lee.  Jackson died half-a-year before Grant moved ot the Eastern Front of the war.  The Anaconda Plan was develpoed by Winfield Scott.  Not Grant.

Secondlt, Lee didn't just start doing 'badly' after Gettysburg.  Lee never lost a battle in all of 1864.  Lee defeated Grant time and time again, in battle after battle.  Grant's major credit as a commander is that after he got pummled in one battle after another by Lee, he didn't give-up and head back north like all the previous commanders of the Army of the Potomac had done.  He pulled out of the battle and marched south, forcing Lee to fight march-hard and put his forces between Grant and Richmond.  Grant kept going south because he new that man power and material were the two greatest advantages the Union had over the Confederates and that evenatually, he would be able to where the Confederates down.  He also never that he had to show that the army was making progress before the election in Nov. 1864 so that way Lincoln wouldn't get voted out of office and replaced with McClellan, who would have recongnized southern independence in some form.

[12th Doctor]

Except that Grant wasn't the first to come up with the Anaconda ("I like it when they give things daft names like that"). Winfield Scott, the Union's first supremo (whatever the title, I have a terrible memory for titles), outlined the idea right at the beginning of the war. It's just that he was sacked after Bull Run, and his plans collected mildew for one or two years before Grant put them back on the agenda.

And modified it if my memory serves me right.

Maybe. That's the kind of detail I wouldn't remember...

No the Anaconda Plan was always being used by the North.  The chief components of the Anoconda Plan were to blockade southern harbors and take control of the Mississippi River, thus cuting the south in two.  Both goals were accomplished by 1863, the second year of the war.  That's why Vicksburg was such a big deal.  It was the lynchpin connecting the two halves of the south together.  The last open port on the Mississippi.  Grant siezed it on July 4th 1863.

[Gustaf]

I voted for Washington.

But a good General that wasn't on there was MacArthur

Yalu River...?

[Gustaf]

At first I asked myself: Which of these won against the odds? None of them, of course. Lee and Jackson won anyways, and the others were clear favs from the outset.
Then I thought: What war can you think of where America wasn't the favorite? None.
This led to about two anti-american seconds before I released I can't think of any war in the last twohundredandfifty years where the chances weren't at least almost even for the side that eventually won, except the Chinese-Vietnamese one of the late seventies. There are probably a few more, but I can't think of any now. In other words, America is far from alone in this respect.
So I voted for the one among the winners who had the hardest task: George Washington.

A war we discussed rather a lot: Finnish Winter War...

[TheWildCard]

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

[Gustaf]

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

You went from calling him a 'good general' to 'not that great of a general'?

I haven't heard any of his speeches, but I guess they could well be good. He still messed up in Korea though.

[TheWildCard]

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

You went from calling him a 'good general' to 'not that great of a general'?

I haven't heard any of his speeches, but I guess they could well be good. He still messed up in Korea though.

As I said when I reffered to him as a good General I was thinking of his speeches this one for example..



Surrender ceremony on the U.S.S. Missouri

"We are gathered here, representatives of the major warring powers, to conclude a solemn agreement whereby peace may be restored. The issues, involving divergent ideals and ideologies, have been determined on the battlefields of the world and hence are not for our discussion or debate. Nor is it for us here to meet, representing as we do a majority of the people of the earth, in a spirit of distrust, malice or hatred. But rather it is for us, both victors and vanquished, to rise to that higher dignity which alone befits the sacred purposes we are about to serve, committing all our people unreservedly to faithful compliance with the understanding they are here formally to assume.

It is my earnest hope, and indeed the hope of all mankind, that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past -- a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance and justice.

Today the guns are silent. A great tragedy has ended. A great victory has been won....

As I look back upon the long, tortuous trail from those grim days of Bataan and Corregidor, when an entire world lived in fear, when democracy was on the defensive everywhere, when modern civilization trembled in the balance, I thank a merciful God that he has given us the faith, the courage and the power from which to mold victory. We have known the bitterness of defeat and the exultation of triumph, and from both we have learned there can be no turning back. We must go forward to preserve in peace what we won in war.

A new era is upon us. Even the lesson of victory itself brings with it profound concern, both for our future security and the survival of civilization. The destructiveness of the war potential, through progressive advances in scientific discovery, has in fact now reached a point which revises the traditional concepts of war.

Men since the beginning of time have sought peace.... Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature and all material and cultural development of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh."

And that is one of the reasons why I like him.

[PD]

Wow, this really is a tough one. But I vote for Robert E. Lee.

[dunn]

Lee. with MacArthur close 2nd

[MarkDel]

I voted for George Washington. The problem with Robert E. Lee is that his entire career was truly brilliant...except for the one battle that mattered most...and he flat out choked at Gettysburg. Take away Gettysburg and Lee is the clear winner, but his decision to commit to all-out battle after months of flanking was silly. And his final day attack with Pickett's Charge is one of the saddest events in the history of warfare.

[JohnFKennedy]

I like Truman's quote about MacArthur....

[M]

There stands Jackson like a stone wall! Rallt behind the Virginians!

-Col. Bee of SC, right before getting shot and killed.

[PD]

Like I said, I voted for Lee. I really like him. My great grandfather was named after him, as well. Patton would be my second choice. I really like him, too. Besides, my grandfather served under him in WW2.

[12th Doctor]

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist--"
                  -Union General John Sedgwick
                    just before being shot in the
                    head at the battle of Spotylvania
                     1864

[Gustaf]

'Hurrah boys, we've got them'

General Custer, right before Little Big Horn...