Spinningplates2
Puritan Board Freshman
How about worse General's, maybe Santa Anna?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
Gen. George B. McCllelan - at least he thought so. But, he was without parallel on the parade ground!
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.
How about worse General's, maybe Santa Anna?
And unlike Montgomery, Patton understood how to carry blitzkrieg back to the Germans.
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.
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.
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
Would you define "big battles?" In my humble opinion I think the Pacific Campaign was a prolonged big battle.
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.
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.
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.
If anyone votes for Sherman I think discipline is in order...
...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.
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.
...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.
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.