I'm not a military historian, so I tend to judge generals by, well, scoreboard. So I was surprised to see in the President Powell thread people giving thumbs-down to Zhukov and Eisenhower (okay, that was Mr. Cam, but still). So I thought the subject could have its own thread, as a diversion/not really a diversion from the Iraqet that's going on. I remember a couple of years ago there was an all-time list that had George Washington as number one. His won-loss record was horrific, but talk about a guy who pulled off the upset. Ho Chi Minh should be up there....but maybe home field advantage is too much of a factor. So maybe Subotai or Alexander deserves the honor.
Scipio Africanus, Hannibal, Caesar, Genghis Khan, Marlbourough, Turenne, Napoleon, Wellington, Washington, Grant, Lee, Monash (ok, I had to throw an Aussie in there), Mannstein, Zhukov, Ho Chi Minh ....
From WWII, just to name a few - Patton, Eisenhower, Rommel, Montgomery, Bradley, MacArthur, Manstein, Guderian, Paulus, Rundstedt, de Gaulle
You're right - sorry I was thinking of him but couldn't remember the name. Helped by some dumb French tactics at Dien Bien Phu
You can pretty much rule out any of the idiots who had the rank of Genneral in WW1. When I think of a great general I think of one who comes up with new tactics and new ways of conducting war. A lot have been listed already but I would add Gen./Chairman Mao. His concept of Guerrilla warfare was used by Giap.
Patton was a good to very good FIELDGeneral!!! Certainly far superior to Powell. FYI moron, Eisenhower NEVER distinguished himself as a field commander nor as a strategic planer. Consequently, he cannot enjoy great General status. The classification of Patton as a great general WITHOUT the mention of MacArthur emphatically demonstrates a profound bias or ignorance of the highest order. Please describe Eisenhower's principle WWII responsibility if you can. Please describe the principle characteristics of officers that quickly rise in the American peace time military with an emphasis on those that reach general class officer status? Please describe the principle characteristics of officers that quickly rise in the American war time military with an emphasis on those that reach general class officer status? No cheating!!! If you don’t know at least have the balls to admit that you cannot answer one or more of the above questions!!! O.K. Dan Looney Tunes: answer the above questions if you can?
He tried to destroy Georgia. He was the first General in Modern times to understand Total War. Destroy the enemies ability to fight along with its will.
winfield scott, nathan beford forrest, patrick cleburne, nathaniel greene.... i could go on and on. alot of the generals listed above are mostly just notables and weren't all that amazing for they made just as many enormous blunders as they did fix things.
don't give him SO much credit. much of this was due to Grant instructing him to completely eliminate their effectiveness in the rail center of georgia. Sherman faught less a total war as he mostly avoided conflict. In a different situation i don't think he would have faired so well as he did in georgia his opposision in georgia was only effective early on and he was lucky to barely escape having his flank turned after resaca by hood (of all people) but got away due to some bad intel. Sherman was lucky that he knew the terrain well (he had surveyed it before the war) he also had the confederates reeling due to leadership issues (davis, bragg, and hood all undermining johnston) and the fact that his army had the supply lines (only left them once) and superior numbers (even when the army of tennesee was at full strenth at dalton and had polk's troops at resaca) Johnston didn't have much of a chance but did show he was the better commander at Kennesaw. Sherman did his job, minded his maps and stuck by his supply lines and avoided major head on battle while doing what Grant told him to do, i don't find anything amazing about that.
I'll just stick to WWII. Eisenhower was the first "General as CEO" in the history of modern warfare. He was really an administrator par excellence, more diplomat (though he could be very blunt if need be) than field officer. In my view, it was astounding that Overlord was organized, managed, executed without computers. Surely a tremendous event of courage and daring, but in another way, an astounding administrative tour de fource. It was no accident that he was George Marshall's protege -- the guy who really "Chairman of the Board" in military terms. One of the great Americans of the 20th century. At the army level, you've got guys like Patton, Bradley, Montgomery. Montgomery would do daring things but was slow about it. Patton was docrtrinally innovative, but was a wacko prima donna. Bradley was more no-nonsense. At the core and divisional level on the American side, you have tremendous field officers like Courtney Hodges, Lucian Truscott, and James Gavin. Guys who understood the big picture, but knew about smaller unit tactics. Of course, everyone should read Band of Brothers, even if you have seen the HBO special. The hero of this saga, Dick Winters, was called by one of his men the best small unit combat commader of the war -- he could immedately size up terrain, and then knew exactly what to do and when to do it. His Normandy exploits, where he won the DSC, are still studied today in the Army War College as exemplars of small unit tactics. On the German side, the usual suspects -- Guderian, Rommel, Manstein. Hoth was another talented army commander. Guderain invented Blitzkrieg, Rommel perfected its execution. Manstein could move more troops over more distance faster and with more impact than any other general in the war. Hans Hube, who ran 16th Panzer, which was part of 6th Army in Stalingrad, and also directed the evacuation of Sicily (out on one of last planes) was a working class guy who enlisted as a private in WWI, lost an arm, but worked his way up in the ranks. Hitler thoughg so highly of him that he sent a special SS guard to get him out of the Stalingrad pocket. Rule of thumb: when the guys in the black uniforms come, do as they say. On the Russian side, Zhukov was the master strategist, but even he would resort to blunt force attacks. To me, the most amazing Russian general was Yeremenko, who ran the defense of Stalingrad from inside the city, and at one point hand only a few hundred yards between his back and the Volga. Everyone should read William Craig's book "Enemy at the Gates." If you think things are bad in YOUR life, well, you don't KNOW bad. One day in August, lovers are stolling on the grounds near Mamaev Hill; the next day, German bombers, then fast on, German troops, and 6 months of endless, ceaseless, unmitigated horror.
Ike was ONLY the Supreme Commander of the Allies, that's ALL. D-Day, anyone? Hm? HM? Have a nice, hot cup of SCOREBOARD, Cammy! MacArthur? Please. Nimitz did everything Mac did, without the body count. And Dougie had his head way, way up his ass in the Philippines. He administered Japan fairly well after the war, though. But Truman was right to fire him during the Korean War. Mac had his hands full fighting the freaking Bonus Army during the Great Depression. Not the most overrated general in history, but it isn't like Montgomery and Grant were too far above him. EDIT - thesis: the North had no good generals in the Civil War. Discuss. Saladin had home field advantage, and couldn't drive Richard the Lion-Hearted into the sea. Cetewayo. Drake. Bolivar. Lots of guys are out there, I guess.
I beg to differ Loney. Pehaps you've never heard of Joshua Chamberlain?Yea, he definatley became a great general soon after Gettysburg. He was a great leader;how can you overlook him? Sherman too was a very good general,and Sheridan was a masterful cavalry general. And what is a "good" general by your standards? If is has anything to do with morale, or how beloved he was then you would have to include McClellan! His men loved him, which is why he was so damn reluctant to put them to battle.I want know how you can make such a bold statment as you did without defining what good meant? Win/loss ratio, leadership, battle tactics, morale instilled, what exactly? But if i assume you mean battle tactics, see above, excluding McClellan because he hardly ever made it to the battlefield.
I'll chime in here... I would say that Grant was overrated except for the fact that no one else seemed to be able to do the job. McClellan would have made a great staff officer, but his battlefield acumen was awful. WWII - I'm agreeing with Karl Keller here (oh, boy ) Eisenhower kept Montgomery and Patton from killing each other, which was probably more difficult than supervising the D-Day invasion...There is a reason MacArthur got canned by Truman and Eisenhower became President. Monty wouldn't go into battle unless he had like a 3-1 majority at least. Giap, Mao, Washington, Bolivar were fine Generals, but they all profited from pathetic and squabbling generalship and the very strained supply lines of the enemy. Lee didn't have that, hence he eventually lost. (We are talking about Generals here...Washington's main strength was that he was very far-seeing and the only man who could keep the newly minted US together) Great Generals : Alexander the Great Julius Caesar Subotai Gustavus Aldophus Bellisarius (how come no one has brought him up yet?) Napoleon Wellington Hannibal MacArthur - I wouldn't call him great, but I would be remiss not to mention Inchon if nothing else I'm probably missing a few (and I'm trying to make the distinction between great and very good)