Who is the greatest general

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[The Duke]

I'd like to make a case for Tommy Franks as one of America's best generals ever.

His operation in Afghanistan was very impressive.  With little preparation in hostile terrain on the other side of the planet in an assymetrical war he took down the whole Taliban in two months.  In Iraq, American armor advanced farther and faster than any such force in history.  He's not the best, but he belongs in the discussion, I think.

[The Duke]

Most of this has to do with McArthur's political skills.  As a general, his mistakes outweigh his achievements in my view.  Crossing the Yalu was bad strategy, Inchon was good strategy.  Its a wash.  The Philippines in 1941-1942 was bad, the island hopping campaign was good.  Another wash.  Trust me, Alexander, Scipio, and Frederick would have stayed south of the Yalu, and while the 1942 campaign in the Philippines ws almost unwinnable, those guys would have done better.

[The Duke]

My apologies for my mistatement, McArthur only threatened to cross the Yalu.

In any case, the idea that he felt entitled to make the threat to re-install Chang Kai-Shek without the President's approval demonstrates the arrogance of the guy.  He threatened the idea of civilian control of the military by ignoring Truman.

For every McArthur achievement, there were at least as many disasters.