# The Best Generals in History



## Theognome (May 8, 2009)

Poll options to come...

So, for all you war buffs, who, in your opinion, is the best general/chief army leader of all time? 

Theognome


----------



## fredtgreco (May 8, 2009)

Way too many to pick one. Warfare has changed so much over the centuries.

It would have to be a list.


----------



## Theognome (May 8, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Way too many to pick one. Warfare has changed so much over the centuries.
> 
> It would have to be a list.



If you prefer to give a list, go for it.

Theognome


----------



## Montanablue (May 8, 2009)

I agree with Fred - war and warfare has varied so much from period to period that its hard to make a fair comparison or ranking. Having said that - I think Alexander the Great was absolutely brilliant - in a rather scary way, really.


----------



## Kevin (May 8, 2009)

Means & methods have changed over time. However, no serious person can doubt that Alexander the Great, was in fact, Great.


----------



## PresbyDane (May 8, 2009)

Alexander the Great


----------



## Theognome (May 8, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> I agree with Fred - war and warfare has varied so much from period to period that its hard to make a fair comparison or ranking. Having said that - I think Alexander the Great was absolutely brilliant - in a rather scary way, really.



The methods of war have changed, but the military principles behind it are relatively static. How a general uses a tactical situation and the strategy under girding it can be compared on a fairly even keel- and indeed are in military colleges all over the world.

Theognome


----------



## Montanablue (May 8, 2009)

Theognome said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Fred - war and warfare has varied so much from period to period that its hard to make a fair comparison or ranking. Having said that - I think Alexander the Great was absolutely brilliant - in a rather scary way, really.
> ...



Very true. I know more about the methods and circumstances of the actual battles (which, as you say are markedly different) than I do about the strategies and principles. So, its difficult for me to compare generals from different eras. But, I still hold fast to Alexander the Great being unnervingly brilliant!


----------



## Theognome (May 8, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> > Montanablue said:
> ...



Oh, I agree completely that A.T. Great was 'the bomb'. He's definitely in my personal top 5. 

Theognome


----------



## Ivan (May 8, 2009)

Give Lee the resources the North had and this would be a very different country.


----------



## Theognome (May 8, 2009)

Ivan said:


> Give Lee the resources the North had and this would be a very different country.



You are in error. The proper way to state this is as follows-

"Give Lee the resources the North had and North America would have very different countries."

Theognome


----------



## Whitefield (May 8, 2009)

Ok, I will show my historical bias (the area of my interest)

Logistics: Eisenhower
Strategy: MacArthur
Tactics: Patton


----------



## fredtgreco (May 8, 2009)

Caesar was absolutely brilliant. Vastly outnumbered in Gaul, he crushed the Gauls. Alesia was a stunning victory.

Napoleon also was brilliant. In perhaps more varied tactical cirumstances than anyone (the Italian Campaign vs. Austerlitz vs. Jena/Friedland) he was a genius.

Eisenhower was no slouch, given the massive scale of his campaign.

Patton was perhaps the greatest of the early modern armor warfare generals.

MacArthur's Campaign in Korea was brilliant.

Alexander is near the top of any list.

Scipio Africanus stopped the unstoppable - Hannibal.

Many others could be named.


----------



## Ivan (May 8, 2009)

Theognome said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > Give Lee the resources the North had and this would be a very different country.
> ...



I think they would have re-united.

-----Added 5/8/2009 at 12:54:21 EST-----



fredtgreco said:


> MacArthur's Campaign in Korea was brilliant.



And the world would be a very different place if MacArthur had been allowed to go into China.


----------



## Theognome (May 8, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Ok, I will show my historical bias (the area of my interest)
> 
> Logistics: Eisenhower
> Strategy: MacArthur
> Tactics: Patton



For strategy of that era, Erich von Manstein was I think the better of MacArthur. Tactically, Rommel definately gives Patton a run for his money.

Theognome


----------



## Edward (May 8, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Caesar was absolutely brilliant. Vastly outnumbered in Gaul, he crushed the Gauls. Alesia was a stunning victory.
> 
> Napoleon also was brilliant. In perhaps more varied tactical cirumstances than anyone (the Italian Campaign vs. Austerlitz vs. Jena/Friedland) he was a genius.
> 
> ...



Don't forget Hermann. His tactics at the Teutoburger Wald were outstanding. 

Any general should be able to look good when he has overwealming strength. It's how he performs against overwhelming odds that show his metal.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 8, 2009)

What? No General Motors, General Foods, Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson???

Caesar, Alexander the Great, and Hannibal as all-around generals.

Lee and Patton among the Americans.


----------



## OPC'n (May 8, 2009)

Alexander the Great... appropriately named!


----------



## ExGentibus (May 8, 2009)

Anyone surprised I voted for Julius Caesar? 

In 55 B.C., while confronting the Germanic tribes, he could have crossed the Rhine river by boat. He decided to build a bridge instead just to impress the enemy. His legionaries built the bridge in only _ten_ days using slumber cut on place, crossed the river and found that the tribes had escaped. 18 days later they returned to Gaul and destroyed the bridge.
This demonstration of power was so effective that it stopped germanic incursions across the Rhine for several _centuries_.


----------



## forgivenmuch (May 8, 2009)

As great as those other guys were in warfare, I picked Joshua because he had someone named Yahweh fighting for him. How many of those other men can make the claim that the sun stood still for them allowing them to finish the battle? Any? Nope.


----------



## Timothy William (May 8, 2009)

I voted for Genghis Kahn, though Julius Caesar also has a fair claim to the title. Would have like to have seen Rommel on the list.


----------



## pm (May 8, 2009)

*Dwight D. Eisenhower, George Marshall and BlackJack Pershing*

These generals should be on the list:

Dwight D. Eisenhower

George Marshall

BlackJack Pershing


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 8, 2009)

If anyone votes for Sherman I think discipline is in order...

But seriously I voted for T.J. Jackson. Partly because we were born in the same town and partly because his Valley Campaign is _still_ studied at Military Colleges. 

For a neat little story Rommel in the mid-30's came to America and studied _on foot_ Jackson's Valley Campaign. He stayed at several still existing Bed & Breakfast's in the Valley and also spent time at VMI.


----------



## TimV (May 8, 2009)

Guderian is considered the best of the WW2 generals by a plurality of those who are into WW2, then probably Zhukov. Jackson was a student of Napoleon, and would probably picked him. Then Hannabal, M'zilikazi, Alexander, Joshua, Bismark in that war is politics by other means and he saw that and it worked for him, Tamerlane, Ghengis Khan. It's true General Lee is about the most studied American general abroad, so you have to count him in. The Spaniard de Cordoba gave Spain the tactics she used to create her centuries lasting huge empire, and he never lost a battle.



> Alesia was a stunning victory



WHERE WAS THAT????? (from Asterix)


----------



## Rangerus (May 8, 2009)

I would have voted for William Wallace, but he wasn't on the list.  

That being said I voted for Joshua because none of those other generals ever asked God to cause the Sun and Moon to stand still and "the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man."


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (May 8, 2009)

Caesar was unstoppable in every match. No one ever beat his armies when he was in command. He could fight Romans, Greeks and various Celtic tribes and each victory was more brilliant than the next. Alexander also did many of these things, but had his generals to back him. Caesar was alone. Now, don't forget Cromwell, who was also unbeatable, but was not tested in enough variety.

Sorry Benjamin, but Jackson had his moments of failure to act when he needed decisive action. Can't say that about Caesar.


----------



## TimV (May 8, 2009)




----------



## Hippo (May 8, 2009)

I am slightly shocked at some of the support given to some very flawed Americans in this poll. 

My heart goes for Alexander but my head says it has to be Julius Ceaser, he was the whole package without fault, demonstrating his skills against a whole backdrop of differing problems, whether materially, staregically or tacticlly.


----------



## jwithnell (May 8, 2009)

I'm glad others brought Patton into this. Flawed? Definitely. His main problem was that he was not a politician in a war that rife with office politics.


----------



## turmeric (May 8, 2009)

Alexander, Julius Caesar, Scipio, Genghis Khan, Lee.


----------



## Spinningplates2 (May 8, 2009)

How about worse General's, maybe Santa Anna?


----------



## timmopussycat (May 8, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Caesar was absolutely brilliant. Vastly outnumbered in Gaul, he crushed the Gauls. Alesia was a stunning victory.
> 
> Napoleon also was brilliant. In perhaps more varied tactical cirumstances than anyone (the Italian Campaign vs. Austerlitz vs. Jena/Friedland) he was a genius.
> 
> ...



Let's not forget Currie who at Vimy showed the Allies how to defeat WW1 Germany.


----------



## LawrenceU (May 8, 2009)

Gen. George B. McCllelan - at least he thought so. But, he was without parallel on the parade ground!


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (May 8, 2009)

Julius Caesar got my vote. As Pastor Greco has already noted, Caesar won some major victories he had no business winning. His troops were loyal, and Caesar managed to balance political delicacies while winning major engagements. No man did so much with so little, and managed to change the world in the process.

Alexander was excellent, but he had a superb army - the best in the world - handed to him on a platter by his father, Philip of Macedon. Alexander did make some tactical innovations with his cavalry, and never made a major blunder in battle, other than perhaps being too reckless with his own life. 

Lee was at best the 3rd best general in the Civil War. For those of you who think he just needed more resources, consider he basically single-handedly lost the war at Gettysburg with tactical blunder after blunder, and was outmaneuvered by the very mediocre Meade. He doesn't even deserve consideration for "best general in history." Grant and Sherman were both superior, though I don't think either one are in the same league as Alexander or Julius Caesar. 

Eisenhower was perhaps the best commander of all time in terms of managing a vast unified force, but I don't know if it's fair to put him in with the generals of old who had to make tactical and strategic decisions - Eisenhower's underlings like Patton and Bradley made the tactical moves that made Ike's strategy a success.


----------



## Whitefield (May 8, 2009)

jwithnell said:


> I'm glad others brought Patton into this. Flawed? Definitely. His main problem was that he was not a politician in a war that rife with office politics.



And unlike Montgomery, Patton understood how to carry blitzkrieg back to the Germans.


----------



## Theognome (May 8, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> Gen. George B. McCllelan - at least he thought so. But, he was without parallel on the parade ground!



He was good at training and boosting moral... That's something I suppose.

Theognome


----------



## Whitefield (May 8, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Eisenhower was perhaps the best commander of all time in terms of managing a vast unified force, but I don't know if it's fair to put him in with the generals of old who had to make tactical and strategic decisions - Eisenhower's underlings like Patton and Bradley made the tactical moves that made Ike's strategy a success.



That is why I put him down in Logistics (a much overlooked aspect of warfare). I believe that if Eisenhower had not been in the position he was in, Overlord would have been delayed and a failure due to the lack of sufficient supplies and coordination.


----------



## Theognome (May 8, 2009)

Spinningplates2 said:


> How about worse General's, maybe Santa Anna?



Personally, I'd put George Washington on that list- and George McClellan.

Theognome


----------



## TimV (May 8, 2009)

> And unlike Montgomery, Patton understood how to carry blitzkrieg back to the Germans.



I think Mike's point has a bit to do with the inherent chauvinism involved when recording one's own history. We Americans weren't particularly involved with WW2, or WW1 for that matter, when one looks at the whole picture. Only 2 percent of the casualties during WW2 were American, and we weren't involved in any of the big battles. But it's only natural that American history books cover American involvement. Lee was probably the best general that we ever produced. Certainly one can't compare people like Patton, Eisenhower etc... with the likes of Guderian, Keitel, Jodl, Heinrici, Rokossovsky, Vasilevsky and Zhukov.


----------



## Theognome (May 8, 2009)

TimV said:


> > And unlike Montgomery, Patton understood how to carry blitzkrieg back to the Germans.
> 
> 
> 
> I think Mike's point has a bit to do with the inherent chauvinism involved when recording one's own history. We Americans weren't particularly involved with WW2, or WW1 for that matter, when one looks at the whole picture. Only 2 percent of the casualties during WW2 were American, and we weren't involved in any of the big battles. But it's only natural that American history books cover American involvement. Lee was probably the best general that we ever produced. Certainly one can't compare people like Patton, Eisenhower etc... with the likes of Guderian, Keitel, Jodl, Heinrici, Rokossovsky, Vasilevsky and Zhukov.



Agreed. American involvment in WWII was primarily logistic- we provided the materials. 

Theognome


----------



## Whitefield (May 8, 2009)

TimV said:


> > And unlike Montgomery, Patton understood how to carry blitzkrieg back to the Germans.
> 
> 
> 
> Only 2 percent of the casualties during WW2 were American, and we weren't involved in any of the big battles.



Would you define "big battles?" In my humble opinion I think the Pacific Campaign was a prolonged big battle.


----------



## LawrenceU (May 8, 2009)

Theognome said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Gen. George B. McCllelan - at least he thought so. But, he was without parallel on the parade ground!
> ...



Of course you know I was jesting. 

To say that any general was the 'best' I believe is very difficult. It would depend a lot upon the nature of the campaigns in which he was involved, what were the nature of his directives, and much more. There are multitudes of variables in one era, let alone across the millenia.

A very fine gentleman from my home town was a close aide to General Patton. This man retired a general himself. While he had a good deal of respect for General Patton, he thinks is overrated. He thought he should have been able to accomplish much more with what he had to use. 

Re: Lee and Gettysburg. That is a fascinating study. Lee used his forces in a very uncharacteristic fashion. No one is sure why. Had he done what he usually done, and it is what Longstreet wanted, the outcome would have been very different. It is almost like Longstreet and Lee switched brains for four days. An interesting read on this topic is the novel by Newt Gingrich, Gettysburg.


----------



## TimV (May 8, 2009)

> Would you define "big battles?" In my humble opinion I think the Pacific Campaign was a prolonged big battle.



There was incredible bravery and hardship among all the combatants in the Pacific theater, so I don't want to minimize the sacrifice of the Allies or Japanese, but it was just a minor theater. For instance we lost 6000 men at Guadalcanal, but the Russians lost 300,000 men just taking Berlin.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (May 8, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Would you define "big battles?" In my humble opinion I think the Pacific Campaign was a prolonged big battle.
> 
> 
> 
> There was incredible bravery and hardship among all the combatants in the Pacific theater, so I don't want to minimize the sacrifice of the Allies or Japanese, but it was just a minor theater. For instance we lost 6000 men at Guadalcanal, but the Russians lost 300,000 men just taking Berlin.



Looking at casualties isn't particularly accurate to determine involvement in a war. The Russians' "strategy" was to throw body after body at the Germans to win. So of course they took more casualties - it was part of their plan all along, in a similar vein to their scorched earth strategy. 

The American involvement was vital in the Pacific theater, and critical in Europe. Even if the allies could have won without us, it would have taken them at least twice the time. The Germans had to divert forces from the east to fight the Americans - that allowed the Russians to re-group and push their way to Berlin.


----------



## Answerman (May 8, 2009)

I was torn between Lee, Alexander the Great and Jackson but picked Lee, although if the truth be known is was probably Alexander.

I was surprised/disappointed that Patton wasn't listed though.


----------



## Whitefield (May 8, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Would you define "big battles?" In my humble opinion I think the Pacific Campaign was a prolonged big battle.
> 
> 
> 
> There was incredible bravery and hardship among all the combatants in the Pacific theater, so I don't want to minimize the sacrifice of the Allies or Japanese, but it was just a minor theater. For instance we lost 6000 men at Guadalcanal, but the Russians lost 300,000 men just taking Berlin.



So, casualties is the measure of a "big battle?" The English only had about 120 deaths at Agincourt, and that was a "big" (significant) battle.


----------



## Theognome (May 8, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > > Would you define "big battles?" In my humble opinion I think the Pacific Campaign was a prolonged big battle.
> ...



The Russians were in very different straights than the US. When the war began, their army was still reeling from the purges of the '30's, plus was in the middle of a huge re-equipping program. They had really no choice but to trade lives and real estate for time 'til they could get the T34's and such into mass production.

Theognome


----------



## DMcFadden (May 8, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> If anyone votes for Sherman I think discipline is in order...



What's wrong with Sherman? He certainly knew how to teach those rebs a lesson or two about the consequences of their immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional attack on the integrity of the United States of America. 

[ Just kidding, folks. I couldn't resist the temptation to tweak our TS (truly southern) brethren. Don't even bother to respond. I'm just in a puckish instigator mood this morning.]

Stonewall was a master general. For Lee's sake, it is too bad that he did not live longer. In a world of wannabes, he was the real deal and a committed Christian as well. It does make you wonder about the vicissitudes of Providence, however. From the standpoint of the theological commitments and overlap with what most of us on PB believe, the southern generals beat the snot out of the northern ones.


----------



## DouglasT (May 8, 2009)

Henry V


----------



## jwithnell (May 8, 2009)

We were blessed to have only one area of occupation during World War II (in Alaska) so we didn't have to deal with the kind of sieges and bombings experienced by other countries. But involvement? We were in the middle of Normandy, put on pressure from the south coming up the boot of Italy (then had to wait on the British!); and don't forget Midway and the whole Naval engagement in the Pacific! I'd say we were involved!


----------



## smhbbag (May 8, 2009)

I bring an assumption to the question that changes it a great deal:

In order to be _great_, one must first be _good._

And that rules out over half the list.

That said, I voted for Stonewall.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 8, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> ...Looking at casualties isn't particularly accurate to determine involvement in a war. The Russians' "strategy" was to throw body after body at the Germans to win. So of course they took more casualties - it was part of their plan all along, in a similar vein to their scorched earth strategy.



See this is why neither Grant nor Sherman should be in the discussion. Grant lost tactically in practically every battle he ever fought. He was just able to win by attrition.


----------



## Theognome (May 8, 2009)

In my opinion, only five of the generals on the poll list deserve to be there, and more than 20 others should be on it. However, I threw the riff-raff up there as a matter of fame as opposed to ability. However, fame does not indicate ability.


Theognome


----------



## DMcFadden (May 8, 2009)

Grant had another advantage, my wife's ancestor Montgomery Meigs. Meigs who was the one to establish Arlington practically in Lee's rose garden to make him look at fields of union graveplots, was a VERY effective quartermaster. He kept the union generals in a much better supply situation than the south was able to do. And, Grant, who never wanted to "pay for the same real estate twice," would sacrifice his men as canon fodder in order to wear down the south, as Benjamin suggests, "by attrition." In this sense he was the polar opposite of McCelland, the reluctant and risk-aversive warrior.

But, if winning battles is a measure, Washington had only a couple of really solid wins and a whole lot of losses. Much of his success was due to the brilliance and industry of some of his generals who made field decisions that beat the British.


----------



## Hippo (May 8, 2009)

A big problem is comparing generals who had material superiority to those who did not, you can never tell how good a General is until he wins wars were he was materially at a significant disadvntage. You will never know how good many American generals were as very few really fought gainst the odds and won.

A general who wins a war that he should have only proves himself to be competant. He may be a genius but that will only ever be seculation.

Now Clive of India was a fine General, he did not even have a real army behind him.


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy (May 8, 2009)

> Re: Lee and Gettysburg. That is a fascinating study. Lee used his forces in a very uncharacteristic fashion. No one is sure why. Had he done what he usually done, and it is what Longstreet wanted, the outcome would have been very different. It is almost like Longstreet and Lee switched brains for four days.


 
Your point reminds me of Hannibal vs. Scipio at Zama. Hannibal abandoned tactics that he had used in the past and just allowed the Romans to destroy his battle lines.

For me, the three greatest generals in history are Alexander the Great (he conquered Persia in three battles, pushed all the way into India and Afghanistan, took a battalion of _scientists_ along with him during his conquests, and turned back, not because he had ever lost, but because his men were homesick!), Hannibal (now there's a guy with fortitude; he invaded, defeated, and occupied Italy for years, starting out with only 40,000 men and almost no reinforcements- only problem is that Rome never surrendered), and Julius Caesar (I read through his _Wars_, and I was amazed at how he always took control of a situation immediately with only a quick assessment of the situation; he was both a brilliant tactician and a fine [read: cunning] politician)


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 8, 2009)

I really wish I can remember where I heard this (Ken Burns?) but I recall someone saying that there is some thought Lee had a Stroke before Gettysburg...


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (May 8, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> ColdSilverMoon said:
> 
> 
> > ...Looking at casualties isn't particularly accurate to determine involvement in a war. The Russians' "strategy" was to throw body after body at the Germans to win. So of course they took more casualties - it was part of their plan all along, in a similar vein to their scorched earth strategy.
> ...



Ah, but that was Grant's plan all along. Lee was vastly outmanned and on the defensive by the time he faced Grant. Lee's strategy, and it was a good one, was to avoid a major battle against Grant's superior forces. He zig-zagged his way across Virginia, hoping to wear down Grant and his army. Grant knew this was Lee's plan, but he felt he could play Lee's game and still win. So, he was content with a string of "Pyrrhic" victories that ultimately wore down Lee enough to secure victory.


----------



## Berean (May 8, 2009)

One of my personal favorites (after reading _Killer Angels_ and visiting the battlefield) is Brigadier General John Buford who fought at Gettysburg.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (May 8, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> Re: Lee and Gettysburg. That is a fascinating study. Lee used his forces in a very uncharacteristic fashion. No one is sure why. Had he done what he usually done, and it is what Longstreet wanted, the outcome would have been very different. It is almost like Longstreet and Lee switched brains for four days. An interesting read on this topic is the novel by Newt Gingrich, Gettysburg.



I agree, but that's my point about Lee - he was bad in the most important battle in the war. Overall he was good (though he did nothing truly great), but to be considered among the best in history, a general can't have performed terribly at the most crucial hour.


----------



## Ivan (May 8, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I really wish I can remember where I heard this (Ken Burns?) but I recall someone saying that there is some thought Lee had a Stroke before Gettysburg...



I love this discussion about Lee and Grant. Whether Lee had a stroke...why Lee did what he did when he did it...one day I believe we'll be able to ask Lee about it. Does anyone think we'll have the same opportunity with Grant?


----------



## Theognome (May 8, 2009)

Ivan said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish I can remember where I heard this (Ken Burns?) but I recall someone saying that there is some thought Lee had a Stroke before Gettysburg...
> ...



Of all the Yankee generals of said conflict, I do believe that if any of them were true believers, he out of all of them would be the most likely one. Most of them claimed to be (as was the convention of the time), but unlike any other Yankee general, he actually consistently demonstrated humility. That, of course, does not make him a Christian in and of itself, but it does lend some credence to his profession. 

Theognome


----------



## Wannabee (May 8, 2009)

Joshua

He maintained his military. He maintained moral. He inspired men. He unashamedly trusted God. He won. He rewarded the faithful. He praised God. He retired with dignity, honor and an untarnished name.


----------



## py3ak (May 8, 2009)

Well, I don't know about the best. But for _style_, George Bernard Shaw would have cast his vote for General Burgoyne.


----------



## Theognome (May 8, 2009)

*Here's my personal top 5 faves-*

#1. Genghis Kahn - From abject poverty Temujin, through political and military prowess, established the largest empire in human history. He surrounded himself with commanders of his own training and installed governors of his own design in lands he conquered. His conquest of China is without parallel in its genius. 

#2. Julius Caesar - Many of the merits of Julius have already been explained in this thread, and I agree with them. His tactical savvy is without peer.

#3. Liu Bang - From a prison cell, he gathered brigands, organized them into a fighting force and, through an incredible guerrilla campaign, united China into the first great empire of the east- the Han dynasty.

#4. Heinz Guderian - This visionary gave birth to the modern era of mechanized warfare. It was he who conceived of an entire army as a special force- small, highly trained and well equipped to exact shock-attack victories. His strategies transformed warfare in the modern world.

#5. Alexander the Great - Again, he's been extolled aplenty in this thread. Though it has been said that his success was in no small part due to having highly competent generals in his staff, a truly great general is capable of reigning such wild stallions into a unified force.


Theognome


----------



## Whitefield (May 9, 2009)

Ivan said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish I can remember where I heard this (Ken Burns?) but I recall someone saying that there is some thought Lee had a Stroke before Gettysburg...
> ...



Is there a presumption we won't?


----------



## bug (May 14, 2009)

My vote is for this guy 

Joshua 5:14 So He said, "No, but as *Commander of the army of the LORD *I have now come." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped, and said to Him, "What does my Lord say to His servant?"


----------



## Edward (May 14, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



From WikiAnswers: 

"Grant was never baptized into any church, though he accompanied his wife Julia Grant to Methodist services. Many sources list his religious affiliation as Methodist based on a Methodist minister's account of a deathbed conversion. He did leave a note for his wife in which he hoped to meet her again in a better world. Other sources say he was a Presbyterian." WikiAnswers - What Religion was Ulysses S. Grant

Not a strong statement of faith. 

See also:

"Rev. J.L. Cram, chaplain of Grant's regiment, says:

"Grant belonged to no church."

Grant was not a Methodist, he was not a church member, he was not a Christian."
Six Historic Americans: Ulysses S. Grant

While certainly not research of academic standards, there does appear to be reasonable doubt as to his fate.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 14, 2009)

TimV said:


> > And unlike Montgomery, Patton understood how to carry blitzkrieg back to the Germans.
> 
> 
> 
> I think Mike's point has a bit to do with the inherent chauvinism involved when recording one's own history. *We Americans weren't particularly involved with WW2, or WW1 for that matter, when one looks at the whole picture. *Only 2 percent of the casualties during WW2 were American, and we weren't involved in any of the big battles. But it's only natural that American history books cover American involvement. Lee was probably the best general that we ever produced. Certainly one can't compare people like Patton, Eisenhower etc... with the likes of Guderian, Keitel, Jodl, Heinrici, Rokossovsky, Vasilevsky and Zhukov.



Don't mistake casualty rates with "level of involvement." It was the American entrance into the war that made the difference. Even Churchill knew this... and Yamamoto did too. The American military is the biggest baddest rear-end-kickingest force ever to grace the planet. (When, of course, they're allowed to do just that by the politicians who hold the reins!)


----------



## kvanlaan (May 14, 2009)

A huge list of generals and not one Dutch farmer?

Where are the Pretorius', Bothas, De Wets, Cronjes, and De La Reys? Is this a patrician-only party? Give me a few Boere generals and 80,000 angry peasants, and I'll show you Calvinism on the warpath in a way that would terrify Patton to his soul.


----------



## TimV (May 14, 2009)

> Don't mistake casualty rates with "level of involvement." It was the American entrance into the war that made the difference. Even Churchill knew this... and Yamamoto did too. The American military is the biggest baddest rear-end-kickingest force ever to grace the planet. (When, of course, they're allowed to do just that by the politicians who hold the reins!)



That's the sort of chauvinism I'm talking about. Something inherent about being born in the US that makes us genetically and morally and mentally better than everyone else. When we met the Germans in both wars when there was anything remotely resembling equity they kicked our butts, since they were better. Churchill said D-Day was successful because the Russians ripped the guts out of the Wehrmacht. We could have stayed neutral and the outcome would have been the same, but it would have taken longer.

And if you don't like casualty rates, look at kill rates. 82 percent of Germans who were killed during WW2 were killed on the Eastern front, which leaves 18 percent divided up evenly between the Brits, the French and us.

I'm glad for all the pep talks you've had, Ben, but I'm a Division One All American athlete, and while I'm thankful to have been born in the US, and am proud of an ancestor who fought in the Revolutionary War (and even more proud of the Captain of Cavalry based in Tennessee during the Civil War) an proud that I have a Ron Paul bumper sticker on every truck and trailer I own, I've actually seen and competed with people from other countries, evidently unlike yourself. And we're just not genetically and morally and mentally the best fighters who have every graced the planet. Although if it makes you feel better to believe that, I suppose it's OK, as long as it doesn't affect your combat efficiency, since I'm paying you and I expect hard training rather than mindless slogans.

PS did you see the Greatest Warrior last night? When US special forces were compared to Russian Spetsnaz? If so, what did you think about the two philosophies of training fighting men, and did you agree with the experts opinion on who'd win?

-----Added 5/14/2009 at 11:32:42 EST-----

Amen, Kevin. When you're interested we can do another SA thread. The Commando I was involved in was a bit different than the mainly military base personnel church I now attend. I love those guys, but if I had a choice between my current church members based in in Vandenberg and some of my SA Afrikaner friends, well, I can be a patriotic American and still would prefer....


----------



## relostuff (May 15, 2009)

Ivan said:


> Give Lee the resources the North had and this would be a very different country.



Give Lee back Stonewall Jackson (calvinist) and We would have our rights back.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 15, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Don't mistake casualty rates with "level of involvement." It was the American entrance into the war that made the difference. Even Churchill knew this... and Yamamoto did too. The American military is the biggest baddest rear-end-kickingest force ever to grace the planet. (When, of course, they're allowed to do just that by the politicians who hold the reins!)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow. Truly mind blowing.

So I suppose you'd also say that because some women somewhere are as strong as men, that this somehow disproves that men are stronger than women.

Americans ARE better militarily than anyone out there. Our culture makes us better. I've heard lectures from RC Sproul about how in America we don't accept things - we change them (he was contrasting us with Europe) and I've seen that all over this planet. Really. We have an ethos that makes us great. That makes us tough. 

Americans die - we're mere mortals after all - but Americans really only suffer militarily when subjected to command influence from European commanders. When Americans are under American command... we trounce 'em. Big time. So bring on that pitiful band of "warriors" from whatever nation they may hail from, or whomever you think is tough enough. 

Maybe being around the world has "enlightened" you that this nation in which you reside is just another place... my travels have opened my eyes that I would rather be here than ANYWHERE else.

About silly shows comparing Russian and American units... nah, I didn't watch it. And I don't need to. Before you give any of that nonsense an ounce of credence you should soberly recall all the '80s stuff about how "ooh so scary" the Soviet military was, about how "superior" their MIG fighters were how their tanks were so amazing, blah blah blah... and we got to engage that technology and we found out that their stuff was total "crapolla." Also, it is a bit of a mistake to think that our Green Berets are all that and a bag of chips... they're primarily guerrilla trainers. If you want to compare physical toughness you really need to look at the SEALs or the Rangers. If you want tactical expertise you'd need to look at Delta - but their methods aren't going to be on any show anytime soon. 

Quit watching tv and instead look at who kicks major badguy behind.


----------



## Hawaiian Puritan (May 15, 2009)

The greatest general of all time is not on your list: King Leonidas of Sparta.

Ω ΞΕΙΝ ΑΓΓΕΛΛΕΙΝ ΛΑΚΕΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΟΙΣ ΟΤΙ ΤΗΔΕ ΚΕΙΜΕΘΑ ΤΟΙΣ ΚΕΙΝΩΝ ΡΗΜΑΣΙ ΠΕΙΘΟΜΕΝΟΙ

"GO TELL THE SPARTANS, PASSERSBY, THAT HERE OBEDIENT TO THEIR LAWS WE LIE"


----------



## Hippo (May 15, 2009)

A countries military tradition tends to shadow its general civil tradition, therfore when America was at least partially a land of self sufficient country folk it had a fine military, however few countries today have been tainted by rampant humanism as much as America and this has reflected in its military prowess. If an army holds the life of its soldiers to be almost sacred it will necesarily degenerate into a pretty impotent force unless it has a huge superiority in firepower.

Historically the Royal Navy was one of the greatest fighting forces the world has ever seen, they were just mental for centurys, it did not matter what the oddds were they would just go for the enemy with a ridiculous aggression and just win because any other outcome was not an option, yet this tradition is now behind us as the nation itself has changed. 

A truly great general will by definition never be beaten as he will never get himself in a position where that can happen, even Napoleon fails this test yet at his best he was without parallel.

-----Added 5/15/2009 at 04:18:36 EST-----



Hawaiian Puritan said:


> The greatest general of all time is not on your list: King Leonidas of Sparta.
> 
> Ω ΞΕΙΝ ΑΓΓΕΛΛΕΙΝ ΛΑΚΕΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΟΙΣ ΟΤΙ ΤΗΔΕ ΚΕΙΜΕΘΑ ΤΟΙΣ ΚΕΙΝΩΝ ΡΗΜΑΣΙ ΠΕΙΘΟΜΕΝΟΙ
> 
> "GO TELL THE SPARTANS, PASSERSBY, THAT HERE OBEDIENT TO THEIR LAWS WE LIE"



Apart from letting himself get outflanked.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 15, 2009)

I vote for Gideon, Moses, Joshua, King David, Joab, and all men who have God for the grace of wisdom in making their hands to war. It is God who sets up and puts down.


----------



## TimV (May 15, 2009)

The first major battle between American forces and German forces in WW2 was at Kasserine Pass. There was parity in numbers. The Russians had just beat the Germans at Stalingrad. Eisenhower was in charge. Major General Lloyd Fredendall was on the ground. 

About the nicest thing said by military historians about this battle was



> While complete disaster had been averted, the Battle of Kasserine Pass was a humiliating defeat for US forces. Their first major clash with the Germans, the battle showed an enemy superiority in experience and equipment as well as exposed several flaws in the American command structure and doctrine. After the fight, Rommel dismissed American troops as ineffective and felt they did offer a threat to his command.



Battle of Kasserine Pass - World War II Battle of Kasserine Pass



> So I suppose you'd also say that because some women somewhere are as strong as men, that this somehow disproves that men are stronger than women.



If I don't believe that the US army is the 



> is the biggest baddest rear-end-kickingest force ever to grace the planet.



then I believe women are stronger than men. Whatever.


----------



## kvanlaan (May 15, 2009)

I think that you tend to put your own regiment/corps/army ahead of any others when you are in the thick of it. Why wouldn't you? When I was in the Argylls, they drilled into our heads that there was no force on earth more deadly than a particular regiment of men in kilts, though we are only a regiment of foot. The Germans on the crest at Vimy Ridge called us 'skirted devils'. You'd be keen on getting into someone else's trench and getting things over with too if you knelt in the mud all day in a kilt, had lice, and were not afforded the luxury of underpants. Talk about motivation to get things done...

Anyway, if you don't believe that you are part of the best and can take all comers, what's the point?


----------



## TimV (May 15, 2009)

> Anyway, if you don't believe that you are part of the best and can take all comers, what's the point?



There's truth to that, but since this is a theological forum we've got to address the point of sober assessment, not thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought, etc...and that translates into military theory as well. During the Second Boer War the Brits, like us, had spent 50 years fighting third rate non technological powers, and that left them really arrogant. There was one incident when they didn't bother destroying a train station in the ZAR, and ZAR forces just loaded up the train, took the troops to the battle field and won a battle.

Historians call 1902 the end of "The Braggart Era" for Great Britian. History never really repeats itself, but one is foolish not to learn from history.

So, you've got Delarey, de Cordoba, Lee, Guderian, Zhukov, Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, Fredrick the Great, Gustav Adolf, Sun Tzu, Bismark, Julius Ceasar, Alexander, the Hittite prince at Kadesh, Joshua, Hannibal, Cromwell, Napoleon, Militiades, M'zilikazi, Narses, Cyrus and the list could be expanded quite a bit.

A good thread, especially when you can put yourself in the other guy's shoes, which isn't ever totally possible, but with work we can remove enough parochialism to discuss successful tactics and strategy.


----------



## Theognome (May 15, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Anyway, if you don't believe that you are part of the best and can take all comers, what's the point?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A good list. I already posted my 'top 5', and all but one you mentioned. It can be difficult to look at a general's performance in the 'cold light of day' apart from nationalist predjudices. 

Theognome


----------



## greenbaggins (May 15, 2009)

My favorite general is Stonewall Jackson. However, I think the most brilliant general of all time was Hannibal. He was only beaten by his own Carthaginians, who refused to send him supplies and men when he needed them. In terms of sheer lop-sided victories, Hannibal takes the cake.


----------



## ServantofGod (May 15, 2009)

Would anyone consider Joab a successful general?


I think Mohammad was the greatest. If you can't destroy, over populate. His kingdom is still growing.


----------



## Ivan (May 15, 2009)

ServantofGod said:


> I think Mohammad was the greatest. If you can't destroy, over populate. His kingdom is still growing.



Growing weeds...it will die.


----------



## R Harris (May 15, 2009)

Incredible. Absolutely incredible.

I have been through every post but searched in vain to find the name of the Russian general ALEXANDR SUVOROV.

Most military historians rate him in the top 5, some have put him at number 1, as the greatest general in world history.

63 military victories, 0 defeats. He died in 1800. Napoleon once commented that had Suvorov been alive, he would have never even considered going into Russia.

The Russians still employed many of his tactics even into WW II.
He wrote a book entitled _The Science of Victory_, which is out of print, but apparently you can find scant copies of it through the rare book market.

What is interesting about Suvorov is that management consultants who teach the Toyota "Lean" methodology have sometimes quoted him with regard to training. Suvorov said it was impossible to ever achieve victory unless you had a well trained force. He would even teach privates himself! He always had a force where every man, no matter what the circumstances -point of time in battle, weather, supplies, reinforcements - always knew exactly what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. Obviously an important factor in the modern workforce or any standing army.


----------



## py3ak (May 15, 2009)

ServantofGod said:


> Would anyone consider Joab a successful general?
> 
> 
> I think Mohammad was the greatest. If you can't destroy, over populate. His kingdom is still growing.



Maybe because of [KJV]2 Samuel 10[/KJV].


----------

