Who is the greatest general

[Brutus]

I think Lee was great from a tactical perspective, but as a strategist he left a lot to be desired.  Going on the offensive in Maryland and Pennsylvania did nothing but galvanize northern resolve and squandered the South's limited manpower and resources.  The later years of defensive entrenchment could have won the war for the South had they applied that strategy from the beginning.

[dunn]

I think Lee was great from a tactical perspective, but as a strategist he left a lot to be desired.  Going on the offensive in Maryland and Pennsylvania did nothing but galvanize northern resolve and squandered the South's limited manpower and resources.  The later years of defensive entrenchment could have won the war for the South had they applied that strategy from the beginning.

if he won you would say he is? it's not just the results you know

[Gustaf]

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

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

Nobody knows if Bee meant that Jackson was a solid rally point, or a slow-poker not coming to his aid in time...

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

I voted for Jackson. Yes old Blue eyes. Washington was not a good general like many think. He nearly lost the war, the only reason we won the revolution was because the French came in and joined and blockaded the British fleet at Yorktown. Old Blue Eyes was a genius but if I could have voted twice I would have voted for Blue Eyes and Lee. Those two together were dangerous! Chancerlorsville is a shining example of their combined genuis. Outnumbered 2-1 Lee split his forces in the face of the enemy and allowed Jackson a flank march which smashed the Union army and caused a major rout.  Jackson was not afraid to take his men into battle. He would charge the Union forces until they broke as he did during Second Manassas. Lee was good but alone after Jackson died he became to cautious also it didnt help that he was having minor heartattacks for the last 2 years of the war. If Lee had attacked Culp Hill and Cemetary Hill on the first night as Jubal Early begged him to do Lee would have won the battle on the first day. To bad the British decided not to send troops to Lee.

[Siege40]

I fail to see how Washington is the best General. I know he's a hero to the U.S. but from a military point of view? He wasn't exactly Erwin Rommel. From my memory I can only name two major battles that he won, Trenton and Yorktown. His campaign in New York was an utter failure, he never did campaign in Massachusetts, and some of his Middle Colony campaigning wasn't exactly great. I believe the man had a much higher Loss:Victory ratio then widely believed. Upon further reflection... Washington was a pretty bad General, Yorktown was a French Victory. He reminds me of McClellan, good administrator but when it came to combat... Both McClellan and Washington did win the big ones though, Antietam and Yorktown. I think he was a good President though right?

Siege40

[zachman]

Washington was a motivator to his troops, and prevented them from leaving after winning in Trenton.

[Nation]

Washington was a good leader, but he was lucky that the French let him go after Fort Necessity.

I'd throw my support to either Lee or Eisenhower for best general.

[12th Doctor]

I voted for Jackson. Yes old Blue eyes. Washington was not a good general like many think. He nearly lost the war, the only reason we won the revolution was because the French came in and joined and blockaded the British fleet at Yorktown. Old Blue Eyes was a genius but if I could have voted twice I would have voted for Blue Eyes and Lee. Those two together were dangerous! Chancerlorsville is a shining example of their combined genuis. Outnumbered 2-1 Lee split his forces in the face of the enemy and allowed Jackson a flank march which smashed the Union army and caused a major rout.  Jackson was not afraid to take his men into battle. He would charge the Union forces until they broke as he did during Second Manassas. Lee was good but alone after Jackson died he became to cautious also it didnt help that he was having minor heartattacks for the last 2 years of the war. If Lee had attacked Culp Hill and Cemetary Hill on the first night as Jubal Early begged him to do Lee would have won the battle on the first day. To bad the British decided not to send troops to Lee.

I htink that both you and Siege are looking at this from the wrong perspective.  It is true that Washington never pulled any grand menuvers or won any smashing victories, but that shouldn't be the judge of how good a general is. One who knows how to make the best of the resources he has.  Washington certainly did this.

Make no mistake about it, it was a MIRACLE that he managed to keep the army together and win the war.  Do I think he was the greatest?  No.  I voted Lee, but he is certainly worth venerating for the job that he did and to say that he wasn't very good is an injustice.

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

I give Washington credit he did keep Congress together about the war and was a excellent motivator. Kind of like McClellan, who someone said earlier and I agree with.

[Gustaf]

Hm, I will soon have to nominate Charles XII, he would pretty much be the opposite of Washington. Great tactician, pulling off amazing victories, but not very good at handling the over-all picture. And fighting against IMPOSSIBLE odds as well.

[12th Doctor]

Hm, I will soon have to nominate Charles XII, he would pretty much be the opposite of Washington. Great tactician, pulling off amazing victories, but not very good at handling the over-all picture. And fighting against IMPOSSIBLE odds as well.

True but I said American History.

[Gustaf]

Hm, I will soon have to nominate Charles XII, he would pretty much be the opposite of Washington. Great tactician, pulling off amazing victories, but not very good at handling the over-all picture. And fighting against IMPOSSIBLE odds as well.

True but I said American History.

Oh... Then, who gives...

[Siege40]

I think I can clarify, General in my sense means a military mind that fights and wins, often or when he needs to. Washington was an OK General. But Washington was an excellent leader of men. He did not only form but kept the Continental Army together, no small feat. Excellent Leader, ok General.

Siege40

[Ben.]

Stonewall all the way...the valley campaign allone should qualify him for that...as a general Washington was not a tactical genius....Pershing was also a very good commander, as was Nathan Bedford Forrest...but Grant, Winnfield Scott, Lee, "Stonewall" Jackson and Andrew Jackson where proably the top five...    

[zachman]

Wasn't Grant a terrible general?

[Siege40]

If I'm correct in my memory Grant faced opposite Lee? If so he merely surprised Lee by being the first Yankee General to actually attack him at a place he did not assume. Most Generals before that were Reactionary Generals, Grant I guess you could say was a go-getter.

Siege40

[12th Doctor]

Wasn't Grant a terrible general?

No.  He was a bad tactical general, but he was brilliant when it came to strategy and the overall picture.  He also pocessed a resolve to win that probably has never been matched by anyother genral in history.

[12th Doctor]

Wasn't Grant a terrible general?

No.  He was a bad tactical general, but he was brilliant when it came to strategy and the overall picture.  He also pocessed a resolve to win that probably has never been matched by anyother genral in history.

By contrast, Lee was an excellent tactical general, but not as good at viewing the over-all picture.

[12th Doctor]

Wasn't Grant a terrible general?

No.  He was a bad tactical general, but he was brilliant when it came to strategy and the overall picture.  He also pocessed a resolve to win that probably has never been matched by anyother genral in history.

By contrast, Lee was an excellent tactical general, but not as good at viewing the over-all picture.

Ironically, Lee never lost a battle to Grant, but Grant won the war.

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

Grant was a butcher, plain and simple. The only reason he beat Lee is because he sacrificed thousand of men for very little ground. Over 3000 soldiers died in 5 minutes at Cold Harbor. And Grant didnt, win he had a draw.

[Gustaf]

Grant was a butcher, plain and simple. The only reason he beat Lee is because he sacrificed thousand of men for very little ground. Over 3000 soldiers died in 5 minutes at Cold Harbor. And Grant didnt, win he had a draw.

'You lost the Vietnam war. No we didn't. IT WAS A TIE!!!!!!!!!!'

[12th Doctor]

Grant was a butcher, plain and simple. The only reason he beat Lee is because he sacrificed thousand of men for very little ground. Over 3000 soldiers died in 5 minutes at Cold Harbor. And Grant didnt, win he had a draw.

The Cold Harbor assult was more Meade's fault than Grants.  Meade screwed up the battle plan and failed to report to Grant the the entire Union second corps wasn't in possition for the assult.  Grant wasn't a butcher, it's just that, unlike the other Union commanders he understood that great numbers of soldiers would have to be sacraficed to end the war.  

[zachman]

All of the Union commanders were lousy. Grant was a terrible president, corrrect? He probably was the worst two term president.

[12th Doctor]

All of the Union commanders were lousy. Grant was a terrible president, corrrect? He probably was the worst two term president.

Not all of the Union commanders were bad.  It's just that the commanders at the start of the war were far worse compared to there Confederate counter-parts.  Grant was excellent. Sherman was good (if you don't count the March to the Sea), Winfield Scott Hancock was an excellent commander.  John Reynolds was a great commander who was killed in his prime at Gettysburg.  Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was a great general.  There are pleanty of others.

[zachman]

I was referring to the heads of the entire Union Army like McClellan and Grant.