Masters of the Battlefield: The Five Greatest U.S. Generals in History

[vienna]

Let the arguments begin:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/masters-the-battlefield-the-five-greatest-us-generals-11541

I, personally, think the list is sound and well argued...


<O>

[vanjast]

Maybe not the greatest, but George Patton was the most influential on the battlefield.
The Germans were just plain scared of him... so much so that a major part of D-Day+ successes were due to his reputation, and he didn't have to do a thing.
:arrgh!:

[nikimcbee]

Did Irving McDowell make the list? :har:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvin_McDowell

[Aktungbby]

Did Irving McDowell make the list? :har:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvin_McDowell

C'mon! I do some of my best work ...and play, in the Presidio of San Francisco and am indebted to the man!:sunny:

[August]

I can't disagree with their choices although I would not claim they were the 5 best however, except for George Washington. He is by far the greatest general we've ever had.

[em2nought]

Grant would have been a good Russian general maybe. Give Jackson half of the advantages that Grant had and see what would have transpired. :D

[Jimbuna]

I can't disagree with their choices although I would not claim they were the 5 best however, except for George Washington. He is by far the greatest general we've ever had.

Would have been interesting to see the outcome had Wellington been posted overseas.

[Dread Knot]

Would have been interesting to see the outcome had Wellington been posted overseas.

He might have made for a fine drummer boy as Arthur Wellesley, the future First Duke of Wellington was roughly between the ages of six and twleve during the American Revolutionary War. :)

[Jimbuna]

He might have made for a fine drummer boy as Arthur Wellesley, the future First Duke of Wellington was roughly between the ages of six and twleve during the American Revolutionary War. :)

Yes I know that but my question was posed as a hypothetical comparison between the achievements of both :)

[Dread Knot]

Yes I know that but my question was posed as a hypothetical comparison between the achievements of both :)

I suppose it depends on what position Wellington holds in the overall command structure. By all accounts, Lt. General John Burgoyne at Saratoga was an able British general. But when you're part of a three prong effort and the other prongs don't do their part or even get started because your superiors let you down, you're somewhat screwed.

It's my understanding Wellington wanted nothing to do with the War of 1812, seeing it as a useless diversion from Napleon.

[Sailor Steve]

It's my understanding Wellington wanted nothing to do with the War of 1812, seeing it as a useless diversion from Napleon.
Wellington also told the Parliament that the war was unwinnable, and the best he could do was negotiate the peace treaty they should have already signed.

[August]

Washington and his Continentals were a vastly different type of opponent than Napoleons Grande Armée. Wellingtons success against the latter really isn't a good indicator at how he'd fare against the former. Conversely while Washington prevailed against the succession of competing British Generals things might have turned out different against a general of Wellingtons stature.

This illustrates a problem I have with designating best of anything but especially military leaders. Success in war is far too dependent on a multitude of factors that are out of the leaders control.

Take the Battle of Trenton for example. Had the Hessian pickets been a little more alert that chilly morning, or had Col Raul bothered to read the message in his pocket delivered the night before that detailed Washingtons plans the battle could have been a disaster for the Continental army.

What we call an example of the military genius of Washington we might well see as a prime example of his incompetence.

But that would involve the Germans actually defeating the Americans which as we all know from Hollywood movies simply can't happen.