Oh and Washington was a terrible tactical commander. He learned on the job and very slowly, his organization of the intelligence capabilities of his army was terrible, despite what the show Turn may say. To say otherwise means someone has not followed his career close enough. Still, he was still the right man for the job as a general and president.

Since Patton was there with the Carthaginians, I'd start with him.

I would of course say Generals Patton and Schwarzkopf, but I will also throw out another name.

Admiral Bill Halsey. While he may not attain the level of greatness that others have throughout history, I will contend that he was exactly the right man for the job in the South Pacific. He was well known due to his availability to news reporters - he was not aloof or standoff-ish as was someone like Ernest King. He was great for morale in a time when the myth of the invincibility of the Jap soldier was prevalent through his various quotes that got filtered back to the troops, wherever they were. He is seen, I think, as a man who was impulsive and a damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead type, which really was not the case. He was actually a thoughtful, intelligent and forceful leader; he listened to his men, to their thoughts and objections, even from the enlisted men. He was bold but not reckless; he possessed a fine command of details, he saw the entire picture, and he weighed his decisions accordingly.

Some of his famous quotes:

"Kill Japs, kill Japs, and then kill more Japs"
"When we're done with them, the Japanese language will only be spoken in hell"
"When we get to Tokyo, where we're bound to get eventually, we'll have a little celebration where Tokyo was"
And another that I have not been able to locate again, although I read it in a book that I have: "We are perfectly willing to share the Pacific with the Japanese. We will take the top half and they can have the bottom"

Of course, he had the issue at Leyte Gulf where he fell for a decoy Jap fleet and left troops not under his command exposed. That was a major issue, and should keep him off this list, but even given that failure, I still feel he was the right man at the right time.

Stonewall Jackson.

JEB Stuart. his tactics were the precursor of modern " fast moving" cavalry movements.

MacArthur's pathetic response to Pearl Harbor in preparing for an obviously imminent attack on the Philippines disqualifies him from the list. Even Inchon doesn't make up for that.

USAF General Chuck Horner's planning and execution of the air campaign at the onset of Desert Storm ought to put him in consideration.

JR69 said:

---

MacArthur's pathetic response to Pearl Harbor in preparing for an obviously imminent attack on the Philippines disqualifies him from the list. Even Inchon doesn't make up for that.

USAF General Chuck Horner's planning and execution of the air campaign at the onset of Desert Storm ought to put him in consideration.

---

Agreed. MacArthur should never be forgiven for how he bungled the Philippines so terribly. If Japan was not rolling us back everywhere and senior commanders were not at a premium he should have been relieved at once. But he was what we had to work with I guess.

Eliminatus said:

---

JR69 said:

---

MacArthur's pathetic response to Pearl Harbor in preparing for an obviously imminent attack on the Philippines disqualifies him from the list. Even Inchon doesn't make up for that.

USAF General Chuck Horner's planning and execution of the air campaign at the onset of Desert Storm ought to put him in consideration.

---

Agreed. MacArthur should never be forgiven for how he bungled the Philippines so terribly. If Japan was not rolling us back everywhere and senior commanders were not at a premium he should have been relieved at once. But he was what we had to work with I guess.

---

Dugout Doug presided over the greatest military defeat and surrender in US history. His opening stages were grounds alone for retirement and possible court marshal . His SWPA campaign were way too personal and ego driven and in many respects a waste of resources in a crusade to not just defeat the japs but to defeat Adms King and Nimitz. His co-opting of every ounce of achievement by his subordinates was absolutely juvenile and disgusting. He was damn lucky to have some of the finest field commanders in the entire war serving under him who were able to execute his ego driven strategy with amazing vigor and success.
Our American Ceasar was probably needed as a PR prop for the home front and , for this, he deserves praise however as a great military mind ...ehhhh

The Original AG 76 said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

JR69 said:

---

MacArthur's pathetic response to Pearl Harbor in preparing for an obviously imminent attack on the Philippines disqualifies him from the list. Even Inchon doesn't make up for that.

USAF General Chuck Horner's planning and execution of the air campaign at the onset of Desert Storm ought to put him in consideration.

---

Agreed. MacArthur should never be forgiven for how he bungled the Philippines so terribly. If Japan was not rolling us back everywhere and senior commanders were not at a premium he should have been relieved at once. But he was what we had to work with I guess.

---

Dugout Doug presided over the greatest military defeat and surrender in US history. His opening stages were grounds alone for retirement and possible court marshal . His SWPA campaign were way too personal and ego driven and in many respects a waste of resources in a crusade to not just defeat the japs but to defeat Adms King and Nimitz. His co-opting of every ounce of achievement by his subordinates was absolutely juvenile and disgusting. He was damn lucky to have some of the finest field commanders in the entire war serving under him who were able to execute his ego driven strategy with amazing vigor and success.
Our American Ceasar was probably needed as a PR prop for the home front and , for this, he deserves praise however as a great military mind ...ehhhh

---

There is very little difference in the actions of Admiral H.E. Kimmel, General W.C. Short prior to the Pearl Harbor attack and MacArthur prior to the Dec 8 attacks on the Philippines. Kimmel and Short had received vague warnings to be prepared for a potential attack and MacArthur received news of the actual attack. As important as the location of the Philippines was (and still is) it would have seemed to be common sense, much less "military genius" to expect that an attack on the Philippines would be imminent.

Both Pearl Harbor and Clark Field (and the other air bases in the Philippines) were devastated, leaving the defenders of the Philippines essentially without an air force of any strength. The outcome for the principals, however, was quite different. MacArthur was awarded a symbolic Medal of Honor, at the insistence of George C Marshall, for his "defense of the Philippines" and made into an American Hero. Kimmel and Short were fired, forced into retirement, and had their reputations destroyed.

I've been to the Philippines several times in the last few years and had several discussions with various folks about MacArthur, the Japanese invasion, the Bataan Death March, occupation, the battles to retake the Philippines, treatment and at least 2 successful missions to rescue the POWs. The Filipino people still regard MacArthur as a hero, and he is revered nearly as much as their official national heroes such as Jose Rizal, Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Aguinaldo, Gregorio del Pilar, and others. There are statues of him "everywhere". It is understandable from their point of view. But military genius? Not a chance.

Rabid:

You are buying into the lost cause mythology. Stuart had no intention of riding around the Federal army, he got cut off from Lee and had no other choice than to take the route he did and he was continuosuly trying to get back and running into resistance. Lee was never without cavalry he had the brigades of Robertson and Jones plus regiments attached to Second Corps. Stuart just makes a great scapegoats for the Jubal Earlys of the nineteenth century and to absolve Lee of the errors of the Gettysburg Campaign.

Washington was a mediocre battlefield commander save for Long Island and Trenton. But he was an excellent leader of men. He kept the Continental Army together against insurmountable odds both from England and the Continental Congress

BQ78 said:

---

Only did what Lee gave him the latitute to do, he just had some bad luck getting caught on the other side of the AoP but he obeyed his orders.

Still rank him behind Forrest and Hampton for military genius

---

I'm glad to see your assessment of Forrest. I wanted to put him forward but am not as much a "wall-to-wall" authority as some of you fellows.

I do have some knowledge of Forrest; enough that I would seriously ask if any know of a commensurately (non)educated -- he spelled phonetically; it was intelligible, but atrocious -- soldier comparable to Forrest?

It is not going too far, is it, to declare him an unquestioned genius in the operational tactics of close battle? And would his lack of military education -- ANY military education other than that gained "in the saddle" (at which his greatest detractor would have to admit him an effective prodigy despite his age) qualify him for consideration as the greatest natural battle field commander in, possibly, North American history? And while he never had scope to demonstrate large scale strategic genius, he proved himself equal to every challenge and every rank through four years of savagely intense battle; literally hundreds of actions; "every rank" meant literally as he rose from private to lieutenant general. The Confederacy had (iirc) no higher field rank. Who is to say what his limitations were?

I've read that for many years Forrest's victory at Brice's Crossroads was considered and taught at West Point as the definitive "small army" action of the Civil War. Forrest routed a much superior enemy, and it was not the only time.

Posters familiar with Forrest will appreciate that not pages but chapters are required to recount just part of his remarkable -- scarcely believable, really -- life.

But to the point, do others beside BQ (authoritatively) and I (humbly) and Irish Man, who was first to cite him, believe Forrest worthy of the appellation "genius"?