Who is the greatest general

[12th Doctor]

This is a though one.  I vote Lee though.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.  

[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.

[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?

[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.  

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

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?

Thanks, it a subject that I havebeen studying for most of my life.

I'm against Rumsfelds down sizing.  As you said manpower still matters.  And I think that the Commanche is a a solid weapon.  Canceling the program is a bad idea.  I believe that we do need some "lighter forces" to combat terrorists, but we need heavier forces for serious wars and situations like Iraq.

[12th Doctor]

The ANV lost the war at the Battle of Five Forks. Once that spot collapsed the whole defense of Richmond was lost. That in my opinion is when Lee lost the civil war. Certain generals shouldn't have been worried about a shad bake, they should have been worried about those dern yanks.

By then, the election had already happened.  The ANV lost the war at the battle of North Anna.  Lee could have split and destroyed the AotP piece-by-piece but subordinate comanders failed to sring the trap he had set.