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

August · 10-25-14, 07:52 PM

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 · 10-26-14, 01:22 AM

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

Jimbuna · 10-26-14, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Dread Knot · 10-26-14, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

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 · 10-26-14, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

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 · 10-26-14, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

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 · 10-26-14, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

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 · 10-26-14, 02:50 PM

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.

10-25-14, 07:52 PM	#1
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.

10-26-14, 01:22 AM	#2
em2nought Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,485 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Grant would have been a good Russian general maybe. Give Jackson half of the advantages that Grant had and see what would have transpired. __________________ em2nought is ecstatic garbage!

10-26-14, 02:50 PM	#8
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,197 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.