Who is the greatest general

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

They paid for it with their money fair and square? How do you assume they didn't "own" it. Do those clothes you wear that are made in China or Burma really "yours" since they were most likely sewed by slaves.

[angus]

 oops, I should  learn to read.  Thanks John D. Ford.  Yes, well then forget Rommel.  I still like him, but the best in American history, among those choices comes down to two for me Washington and Lee.  Supersoulty lays out a pretty good definition in earlier posts about 'working with what you have' and such, so I'll not repeat it here.  In the end, I still say Robert E. Lee.

I agree with Statesrights that it is hard to make the case that Sherman acted humanely.  He acted smartly, and won.  But he was no humanitarian.  You cannot blame five generations of Georgians for holding a grudge, given his brutality.

[The Duke]

How many died in the fighitng in N. Virginia?

How many died in the Marh to the Sea?

Exactly.  End of story, Sherman was humane.

[12th Doctor]

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.

Obviously because Grant was doing heavier fighting than Sherman.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference is the deaths in N.Virginia were mostly military in battle or by disease. Whereas the deaths on the march to the sea were mostly civilian. If Sherman himself wasn't guilty of ordering the atrocities that occured, he sure was guilty of doing nothing about the Bummers.

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference is the deaths in N.Virginia were mostly military in battle or by disease. Whereas the deaths on the march to the sea were mostly civilian. If Sherman himself wasn't guilty of ordering the atrocities that occured, he sure was guilty of doing nothing about the Bummers.

Ditto

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

By the way. I don't know if you know or not but the "Bummers" as they were called were rogue Union soldiers who followed the armies during the "March to the sea". They often raped and pillaged towns along the route and Sherman did nothing to prosecute them for their crimes.

[angus]

By the way. I don't know if you know or not but the "Bummers" as they were called were rogue Union soldiers who followed the armies during the "March to the sea". They often raped and pillaged towns along the route and Sherman did nothing to prosecute them for their crimes.

i did not know that.  or I forgot.  thanks for the history lesson.

[The Duke]

I know that Grant had higher losses because he fought pitched battle, that is my point.

In the Art of War by Suun Tzu, he says that the greatest commanders can subdue the enemy without a fight.  Sherman did this.

Over 300,000 Union soldiers died, but fewer than 4,000 Union soldiers died on the March to the Sea.  It is very hard to argue that Grant or any other Union General is more humane than Sherman with numbers like that.

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

Well, by 19th Century standards what Sherman did was very "unfair". He may have been humane to his troops by not slaughtering them, but the way he treated civilians is up for debate.

[PBrunsel]

So many good choices! Knowing history makes me lean toward Lee.

[CmdrBond]

well they were all good generals but PATTON is my man....he knew what needed to be done...i say we name a medal after him....the "General G.S. Patton award for Bravery"...it brings a tear to my eye...

[The Dowager Mod]

lee was the best tactical general grant the best strategic.
washington was a joke as a general.

[KEmperor]

I think Patton just squeezes by as the best if we are rating strictly on military ability.

[Free Tibet]

Patton, just for one fact that...He would grab the enemy by the nose and kick him in the ass!

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

lee was the best tactical general grant the best strategic.
washington was a joke as a general.

What great strategy did Grant have? Charge thousands of your men in the open against heavily fortified positions? His great strategy at Cold Harbor cost him almost 4,000 men in 7 minutes of combat. Grant the Butcher.

[The Dowager Mod]

may have been costly but it worked.

[12th Doctor]

I know that Grant had higher losses because he fought pitched battle, that is my point.

In the Art of War by Suun Tzu, he says that the greatest commanders can subdue the enemy without a fight.  Sherman did this.

Over 300,000 Union soldiers died, but fewer than 4,000 Union soldiers died on the March to the Sea.  It is very hard to argue that Grant or any other Union General is more humane than Sherman with numbers like that.

The only reason that Sherman only lost 4,000 men is because he faced no serious opposition.  Hood took the Confederate Army into Tennessee hoping to draw Sherman  out of Tennessee and hopefully recapture Nashville.  He, of course, went down in infamy for ordering the attack at Franklin.

All of Sherman casulties were incured by small militia groups, often times, just farmers with a musket.

When you consider this and then consider that Grant was going up against what many would deem the finest army and the finest commander that this nation has ever know, you can understand why Grant took far more casulties.

[The Dowager Mod]

grants genious was recognizing the concept of "total war".
instead of trying to out manouvre lee he simply threw more men at lee than he could handle.

[12th Doctor]

lee was the best tactical general grant the best strategic.
washington was a joke as a general.

What great strategy did Grant have? Charge thousands of your men in the open against heavily fortified positions? His great strategy at Cold Harbor cost him almost 4,000 men in 7 minutes of combat. Grant the Butcher.

Like I said, Grant didn't know what was going on at Cold Harbor.  Meade never reported the situation back to him as he was supposed to.  Cold Harbor was more Meade's fault than Grants.

Anyway that doesn't matter, because that is a tactical matter.  Admittedly, Grant was not the best tactician.  But his strategy was great:  "Keep fighting Lee and don't let up.  Keep trying to manuver the Army of the Potomac between Lee and Richmond, thus Lee will be forced to fight out in the open where he is most vulnerable".  Grant strategy depended on fighting bloody, pitched battles, becuase he new that Lee would run out of men and resources before he did, something the other commanders of the Army of the Potomac clearly didn't understand.

[The Duke]

Soulty,

I am not so impressed with Grant's strategy.  The ability to recognize that you can just wear down the enemy because you have a vastly superior industrial base doesn't impress me as much as Sherman coming out of nowhere to ravage infrastructure.  I know that Grant faced tougher fighting, that is my point.  Sherman avoided pitched battle and instead focused on key "nodes" to decimate Southern fighting capacity.

Texasgurl,

Grant is no genius for recognizing total war.  Read Caleb Carr's "The Lessons of Terror".  It is a stirring indictment of total war.  In any case, Napoleon recognized it first and so did anyone who read Clausewitz, so it wasn't exactly an innovation.  The US military has sadly been saddled with Grant's fighting personality for 150 years.  Aside from Patton and Franks, I can't think of any generals who were imaginative that the US has produced.

[12th Doctor]

Soulty,

I am not so impressed with Grant's strategy.  The ability to recognize that you can just wear down the enemy because you have a vastly superior industrial base doesn't impress me as much as Sherman coming out of nowhere to ravage infrastructure.  I know that Grant faced tougher fighting, that is my point.  Sherman avoided pitched battle and instead focused on key "nodes" to decimate Southern fighting capacity.

But as I explained, Sherman faced NO serious opposition.  Sherman didn't "avoid pitched battles".  He simply had NO force to contend with.  Had he, then the "March to the Sea" would have taken until Feb. 1865 at best.  

Grant knew that Lee HAD to defend Richmond.  So kept moving, to Lee's flanks so Lee would have to leave his entreanchments and fight him out in the open.  It wasn't just Grant "slaming" into Lee.  There was a method to it.

[Chiahead]

When it comes to tatics Lee is my overall pick

When it comes to action = Patton

I do think that Napoleon was a great tatical general, but his lust for power is another issue

[Chiahead]

may have been costly but it worked.

Desperate times call for desperate measures...If Grant wouldn't have acted...how much longer would the war have lasted?

[The Duke]

Soulty,

I am impressed with your knowledge of the Civil War.  I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on Rumsfeld's "transformation" program.  I am not a big fan of it, since I don't think Rumsfeld places enough value on manpower, and Iraq shows that manpower still matters.  I think he has also canselled some important weapon systems like the Commanche and the Crusader.

What are your thoughts?