The Best Generals in History

[Spinningplates2]

How about worse General's, maybe Santa Anna?

 

[timmopussycat]

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.

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

 

[LawrenceU]

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

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

How about worse General's, maybe Santa Anna?

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

Theognome

 

[TimV]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Henry V

 

[jwithnell]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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.

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]

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

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

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.