Who is the greatest general

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

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.

Give the Chambermaid thing a rest. He's way way overrated. McClellan was the best commander of the Union Armies. He made the army that defeated Lee.

[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.

Give the Chambermaid thing a rest. He's way way overrated. McClellan was the best commander of the Union Armies. He made the army that defeated Lee.

Why are you against Chamberlain?

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

Chamberlain is overrated, he lead one charge down L.R.T. Their were many greater leaders on July 2nd. Plus, everyone talks about the great charge of the 20th Maine and fails to mention that the Berdans Sharpshooters pinned down the Alabamians from completely overrunning Chamberlains left flank.

[Gustaf]

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.

Give the Chambermaid thing a rest. He's way way overrated. McClellan was the best commander of the Union Armies. He made the army that defeated Lee.

Also, McClellan was a Demcorat and ran against Lincoln in 1864...

[12th Doctor]

Chamberlain is overrated, he lead one charge down L.R.T. Their were many greater leaders on July 2nd. Plus, everyone talks about the great charge of the 20th Maine and fails to mention that the Berdans Sharpshooters pinned down the Alabamians from completely overrunning Chamberlains left flank.

Your facts are all accurate, but it was still an incredible feat none-the-less.  But you are totally leaving out his service after Gettysburgh which is pretty extraordinary.  

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

Chamberlain is overrated, he lead one charge down L.R.T. Their were many greater leaders on July 2nd. Plus, everyone talks about the great charge of the 20th Maine and fails to mention that the Berdans Sharpshooters pinned down the Alabamians from completely overrunning Chamberlains left flank.

Your facts are all accurate, but it was still an incredible feat none-the-less.  But you are totally leaving out his service after Gettysburgh which is pretty extraordinary.  

Between Gettysburg and Appomattox the story of Chamberlain is kind of quiet. I mean he was honorable at Appomattox. But as far as great generals go I would say. Forrest, JEB Stuart, Hancock. Chamberlain is a honorable man with a mediocre record.

[12th Doctor]

Chamberlain is overrated, he lead one charge down L.R.T. Their were many greater leaders on July 2nd. Plus, everyone talks about the great charge of the 20th Maine and fails to mention that the Berdans Sharpshooters pinned down the Alabamians from completely overrunning Chamberlains left flank.

Your facts are all accurate, but it was still an incredible feat none-the-less.  But you are totally leaving out his service after Gettysburgh which is pretty extraordinary.  

Between Gettysburg and Appomattox the story of Chamberlain is kind of quiet. I mean he was honorable at Appomattox. But as far as great generals go I would say. Forrest, JEB Stuart, Hancock. Chamberlain is a honorable man with a mediocre record.

What about Cold Harbor?

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

What did he do at Cold Harbor. I forgot its been so long.

[12th Doctor]

What did he do at Cold Harbor. I forgot its been so long.

He was commanding the Brigade and when the order came to attack he pooped up out of the treanch.  Seconds later he was shot in one side of his hip, the bullet went totally through, puncturing his blater and out the other end.  He stood proped up on his sword for about a mintue until all of his men had passed by before he fell-over.  Of course during the Civil War a wound like that had about a 99% certianty of fatality.  He lived though.

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

Yeah, I remember that now. The wound later killed him, wayy down the road. As what I've read said he died in 80s of "old war wounds". I imagine he lived his life in terrible pain after the war.

[MAS117]

I dont know who I voted for cause it was a while ago, but Robert E. Lee, and Gen. George S. Patton Jr., where probably the best of all time...I dont know if you can count Lee as really a American General though...

[dunn]

The greatest general in American history is not even listed on the poll!!!

Bar none, it is the great William Tecumseh Sherman, the most humane commander in world history also.

Read "Ripples of Battle" by Victor Davs Hanson.

Sherman I think is the third greatest in world history behind Frederick the Great and Ghenghis Khan.

Humane?

[The Duke]

The greatest general in American history is not even listed on the poll!!!

Bar none, it is the great William Tecumseh Sherman, the most humane commander in world history also.

Read "Ripples of Battle" by Victor Davs Hanson.

Sherman I think is the third greatest in world history behind Frederick the Great and Ghenghis Khan.

Humane?

Yes.  Whiny southerners bitch about the march to Atlanta, trying to find an excuse for their ignominious defeat in the name of a comtemptible cause.  They want people to believe that Sherman was somehow playing dirty.  I'm going to write the story of Shiloh on my next post, so you can see what I mean.

[The Duke]

The Battle of Shiloh.

The Confederates advanced towards Cincinnatti in early 1862.  They faced a Union Army determined to stop them from capturing their first major northern city.  In this critical battle, Sherman saw the carnage of the Civil War first hand.  Gruesome injuries and death surrounded him and Sherman himself nearly died.  Sherman drew from this the conclusion that the only way to end the war was to make the slave owning class pay the price of defending slavery, instead of being allowed to send non-slave owning whites to the front to fight in their stead.

Grant's experience was different.  He was behind the front and observed only the tactical situation as presented to him by messengers.  His conclusion by battles end, based on his experience, was that the way to win was to throw waves of reserves into the fray, who could use superior numbers and freshness of legs to defeat the enemy.  Both generals incorporated their lessons in their future tactics.  Grant ran the meat grinder in Northern Virginia, losing huge numbers of men each time he went out, totally reliant on frontal attack.  Sherman however, rarely again engaged enemy forces head on, preferring to destroy communication lines, rail lines, supply depots, and other critical military infrastructure on his March to the Sea.

While Grant became a great American hero, it was Sherman who was the more humane commander, and the more effective strategist.  Largely because of Sherman's demonized reputation in the south after the war, his ideas were abandoned by future military leaders, a disproportionate number of whom came from the south, in favor of an approach closer to that of Grant and Lee, traditional Total War.

[dunn]

The Battle of Shiloh.

In this critical battle, with Cincinnati as its prize, Sherman saw the carnage of the Civil War first hand.  Gruesome injuries and death surrounded him and Sherman himself nearly died.  Sherman drew from this the conclusion that the only way to end the war was to make the slave owning class pay the price of defending slavery, instead of being allowed to send non-slave owning whites to the front to fight in their stead.

Grant's experience was different.  He was behind the front and observed only the tactical situation as presented to him by messengers.  His conclusion by battles end, based on his experience, was that the way to win was to throw waves of reserves into the fray, who could use superior numbers and freshness of legs to defeat the enemy.  Both generals incorporated their lessons in their future tactics.  Grant ran the meat grinder in Northern Virginia, losing huge numbers of men each time he went out, totally reliant on frontal attack.  Sherman however, rarely again engaged enemy forces head on, preferring to destroy communication lines, rail lines, supply depots, and other critical military infrastructure on his March to the Sea.

While Grant became a great American hero, it was Sherman who was the more humane commander, and the more effective strategist.  Largely because of Sherman's demonized reputation in the south after the war, his ideas were abandoned by future military leaders, a disproportionate number of whom came from the south, in favor of an approach closer to that of Grant and Lee, traditional Total War.

well maybe it was humane and maybe tactics but he was not very humane in that march you know

[The Duke]

The Battle of Shiloh.

In this critical battle, with Cincinnati as its prize, Sherman saw the carnage of the Civil War first hand.  Gruesome injuries and death surrounded him and Sherman himself nearly died.  Sherman drew from this the conclusion that the only way to end the war was to make the slave owning class pay the price of defending slavery, instead of being allowed to send non-slave owning whites to the front to fight in their stead.

Grant's experience was different.  He was behind the front and observed only the tactical situation as presented to him by messengers.  His conclusion by battles end, based on his experience, was that the way to win was to throw waves of reserves into the fray, who could use superior numbers and freshness of legs to defeat the enemy.  Both generals incorporated their lessons in their future tactics.  Grant ran the meat grinder in Northern Virginia, losing huge numbers of men each time he went out, totally reliant on frontal attack.  Sherman however, rarely again engaged enemy forces head on, preferring to destroy communication lines, rail lines, supply depots, and other critical military infrastructure on his March to the Sea.

While Grant became a great American hero, it was Sherman who was the more humane commander, and the more effective strategist.  Largely because of Sherman's demonized reputation in the south after the war, his ideas were abandoned by future military leaders, a disproportionate number of whom came from the south, in favor of an approach closer to that of Grant and Lee, traditional Total War.

well maybe it was humane and maybe tactics but he was not very humane in that march you know

More men died under Grant in some single days in Virginia as died in the whole 40 day siege of Atlanta.

[angus]

Since my real answer, The Desert Fox, wasn't on the list, I had to go with second choice, Lee.

[The Duke]

Since my real answer, The Desert Fox, wasn't on the list, I had to go with second choice, Lee.

Rommel?  Are you kidding?

Rommel was a terrible general.  He repeatedly overstretched his supply lines and was far too willing to engage in battles where he was badly outgunned.  The most striking example is the two Battles of El Alamein.

Why pick two Generals who lost?

[angus]

Why pick two Generals who lost?

I should ask you a more important question:  Why not?

Lee first:  Lincoln was the most overrated President in our country's history, and a complete buffoon.  But he made a few good decisions.  One, which sticks out in my memory, is his first choice of Commander of the Army of the Potomac, Robert E. Lee.  A top-tier graduate of West Point, and an ardent opponent of chattel slavery (not that that has anything to do with judging him as a general).  Lee, of course, politely and honorably refused the offer, saying he could not command a force against his homeland, Virginia.  (and to me, such unwavering loyalty does have quite a bit to do with judging a soldier).  He commanded an inferior force against a superior foe, my country's own US Army (I am a loyal american and glad my grandparents chose to come here some 70 years ago, but give credit to the enemy when it is due.  I suspect you are not doing this.)  Lee's army was outmonied, outmanned, outgunned.  The CSA population was maybe one-tenth of that of the USA, and the money-race was even more one-sided, yet he won battle after battle.  Only after so many good sons of the Confederacy were lost that they had to choose from among small boys and old men did he start to lose.  And often decisive defeats were only the results of historical accidents (private soldiers mistakes, etc.)  Yet Lee managed to hold out against a superior force for four years!  And, even in defeat, he was magnanimous.  He negotiated a fine surrender for his officers and men, allowing them to keep their dignity and their sidearms, and return to their farms like gentlemen.  Americans like Robert E. Lee make me proud to be an American.  

As for Rommel, many of the comments I made about Lee can also be made about Rommel, with the addition that Rommel worked for a madman, and, somehow, he managed to keep at bay some of the best armies the world has ever assembled for years.  I think that his command of the Seventh Panzer Division in France was his most impressive military conquest.  His crossing of the Meuse River was a tactical triumph against steep odds.  Sure, you correctly point out that his command of the Afrika Korps wasn't outstanding.  And he never really faced a good opposition until the First Battle of El Alamein and Operation Torch.  And his defense of Tunisia was a hard fought battle in vain.  My personal opinion is that Rommel's campaign in Africa and his command of the Afrika Korp was overrated in its importance to the German Reich and his brilliance in the desert.  One of the main reasons why I have such great respect for him as a commander was because, like Lee, he was such a great Patriot.  If he would have fought in the Great War, he might have been able to prove himself even to your satisfaction, though somehow I doubt it.  Maybe he earns my vote here not just because he was one of the best Generals of the past century, but because of the man that he was. One of my favorite WW2 people to study!  Rest in Peace, Herr General.

I'd just like to add, once I noticed that Rommel wasn't among the choices, it really was hard to choose between Washington and Lee.  On another day I may very well have chosen Washington, and for many of the same reasons.

[Apostle]

I think that Robert E. Lee was the best general and almost led the South to victory.  Second i would say is Ullysesse S. Grant even though he was a horrible alcoholic.

[The Duke]

Angus,

You make a good case for Rommel and Lee as soldiers.  But I never doubted that they were honorable men.

You also, make a decent case for Lee being a good general.  Your case for Rommel was less persuasive, it seemed to be series of excuses.  The Afrika Corps command was the central campaign of Rommel's career, and he mucked it up (If you want a better Panzer general, look at Heinz Guderian, the guy who invented lightning war.).

However, this thread is not asking for "good".  It is asking for the BEST in American history, which is very different.  To be the best, you have to win your war, in my opinion.  In the words of military mastermind "Viper" from Top Gun: There are no points for second place.

Sherman won and innvoated along the way.  He is #1.

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

Sherman was humane? Lets list his "humane" acts :

*Murder and rape of civilians from Atlanta to Columbia,SC
*Hundreds of blacks were killed when Sherman ordered a bridge to be pulled up causing hundreds of blacks to die.
*Pillaged and stole millions of dollars in property.

[The Duke]

You are a southerner, and therfore, as I said, not objective.  You cannot be.  Southerners are bred to hate Sherman.

War is ugly by nature.  The question is whether you are humane by relative standards, and Sherman inflicted far less death on his campaign than any Civil War general on any campaign.

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

I never said I hate him. I dislike him based on the facts.

[The Duke]

The thing you said that was most interesting was how mad you are over property damage.  Better he damage property than kill 300,000 men like Grant and Lee did.  That was all ill gotten property, anyway, built on the backs of slaves.  Those people had no right to any of it.

The whole point of the campaign was to make these very plantation owners pay for what they had done.