Best Pre-1900 American General

4,294 Views | 45 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Texarkanaag69
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:16p, 6/25/21
I've been reading Chernow's Grant and his description of the differences between Grant and Lee got me to thinking which pre-1900 US general would you rank in the top three?

Robert Lee, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, Winfield Scott, Zachary Taylor, and WH Harrison.

I realize there are a number missing and these aren't all apples to apples comparison.
Reply Quote
BQ_90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:38p, 6/25/21
AG
So where does Sherman fall in this list?

I know he plowed thru the heart of the south. Was that being great general or just south was too weak to resist.

But even though I'm not sure many saw it for decades, he showed what total war would look like in the future.

Of course nobody learned that lesson.
Reply Quote
3
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ_90 • 4:12p, 6/25/21
BQ_90 said:
So where does Sherman fall in this list?

I know he plowed thru the heart of the south. Was that being great general or just south was too weak to resist.

But even though I'm not sure many saw it for decades, he showed what total war would look like in the future.

Of course nobody learned that lesson.


I had written Sherman's name down but the. Felt like I'd have to go down the rabbit hole with a number of other generals on both sides.
Reply Quote
UTExan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ_90 • 4:16p, 6/25/21
BQ_90 said:
So where does Sherman fall in this list?

I know he plowed thru the heart of the south. Was that being great general or just south was too weak to resist.

But even though I'm not sure many saw it for decades, he showed what total war would look like in the future.

Of course nobody learned that lesson.


I thought the thread was about great generals, not war criminals.
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
Reply Quote
12
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:19p, 6/25/21
AG
Best, what does that mean?

Each of the men mentioned had different circumstances and opponents that make a comparison extremely difficult to make. For audacity Lee is tops. Washington was a terrible battlefield commander with a small army but held it together during a trying revolution and won. Jackson nah, New Orleans wasn't a great feat. Grant was brilliant at Vicksburg, stole a march on Lee crossing the James (although his subordinate let him down) and he may have been the best communicator in US Army history. Scott is definitely the most underrated. Taylor had his hands tied by Polk but showed nothing more than promise. Harrison nah, see Jackson for another fleeting moment against an inferior opponent. Finally, Sherman doesn't really belong with the ones mention above. Although another good communicator like his friend Grant but when did he ever have a great military moment during the war? Making Georgia howl after flanking a pathetic Joe Johnston out of North Georgia and surviving the Hood battering ram? Pat Cleburne beat his entire army with a division at Chattanooga, big no to Sherman from me.
Reply Quote
4
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:33p, 6/25/21
Interesting question.

First, one needs to define the factors that define greatness. Great tactician, great strategist, great logistician, or all of the above? Also, many of the great generals of history won their battles against inferior generals and/or inferior forces. Was the victory due to the winner's brilliance or to the loser's inferiority?

To take a stab at beginning to answer my own questions, I'd say that a great general had to be one who combined as many of the elements required of a general as possible and succeeded against opponents who in terms of abilities and resources were at least his equal.

However, I don't know enough about the details of the campaigns of the generals you listed to be able to make an intelligent evaluation.
Reply Quote
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 4:35p, 6/25/21
Jabin said:
Interesting question.

First, one needs to define the factors that define greatness. Great tactician, great strategist, great logistician, or all of the above? Also, many of the great generals of history won their battles against inferior generals and/or inferior forces. Was the victory due to the winner's brilliance or to the loser's inferiority?

To take a stab at beginning to answer my own questions, I'd say that a great general had to be one who combined as many of the elements required of a general as possible and succeeded against opponents who in terms of abilities and resources were at least his equal.

However, I don't know enough about the details of the campaigns of the generals you listed to be able to make an intelligent evaluation.


I think the answer to your question depends on the person answering. I know that is a cheap and easy way out but I also believe it.
Reply Quote
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:44p, 6/25/21
I also read Grant's biography and, in his defense, he was given great advantages but he didn't screw it up like most of his predecessors and peers did. From the very beginning, he was on the offensive and never stopped.
Given the huge advantage in resources possessed by the North, every Union general should have done the same.

Should Stonewall Jackson also be considered?
Reply Quote
DevilYack
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:57p, 6/25/21
AG
I think you have to include Thomas Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forrest in the conversation. Jackson basically ran the union out of the Shenandoah Valley and might have turned the tide if anyone could.
Reply Quote
4
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DevilYack • 8:19p, 6/27/21
DevilYack said:
I think you have to include Thomas Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forrest in the conversation. Jackson basically ran the union out of the Shenandoah Valley and might have turned the tide if anyone could.
I get that but then you have to include a whole slew of generals like Sheridan and Sherman as well.
Reply Quote
Rabid Cougar
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:23p, 6/27/21
AG
Nathan Greene, Horatio Gates - Revolution
Zachary Taylor - Mexican War.
Robert E Lee - His entire career.
John Gordon - Lee's best commander.
George Crook - Indian wars.
Fighting Joe Wheeler- Spanish American War.
Reply Quote
1
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rabid Cougar • 9:23a, 6/28/21
AG
Gates and Wheeler, really?
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:37a, 6/28/21
AG
Washington and Lee. Nathan Bedford Forrest deserves honorable mention.
Reply Quote
2
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:25a, 6/28/21
How does one put Lee on the list and then ignore the one that beat him?
Reply Quote
1 edit
Jabin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton • 12:02p, 6/28/21
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
How does one put Lee on the list and then ignore the one that beat him?
I don't know enough to argue either way convincingly, but I can see the logic in that conclusion in that Grant won simply because he had all of the advantages but Lee did a better job with the hand he was dealt. But who knows?
Reply Quote
6
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 1:00p, 6/28/21
Jabin said:
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
How does one put Lee on the list and then ignore the one that beat him?
I don't know enough to argue either way convincingly, but I can see the logic in that conclusion in that Grant won simply because he had all of the advantages but Lee did a better job with the hand he was dealt. But who knows?


Lee was good on the defensive but a mess on the offensive, right?
Reply Quote
Wicked Good Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jabin • 1:01p, 6/28/21
Jabin said:
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
How does one put Lee on the list and then ignore the one that beat him?
I don't know enough to argue either way convincingly, but I can see the logic in that conclusion in that Grant won simply because he had all of the advantages but Lee did a better job with the hand he was dealt. But who knows?
I think that last statement about the hand that was dealt is what you really have to look hard at

Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton • 1:31p, 6/28/21
AG
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
Jabin said:
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
How does one put Lee on the list and then ignore the one that beat him?
I don't know enough to argue either way convincingly, but I can see the logic in that conclusion in that Grant won simply because he had all of the advantages but Lee did a better job with the hand he was dealt. But who knows?


Lee was good on the defensive but a mess on the offensive, right?
A mess on the offensive? He did a poor job when his cavalry failed him, and he chose successive targets (ending in the middle) at Gettysburg, but he wasn't really trying to (a) fight there, nor (b) was he in position to win, in the final analysis. His decision to go on the offensive was not, imho, a mistake in itself.

I do believe command and control was poor, however. Much is written about day 2, but it was on day 1 that the most crucial mistakes were made;

Reply Quote
1
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton • 1:32p, 6/28/21
AG
Two and a half bad days in the war does not a mess make, Chancellorsville, the Wilderness, Second Bull Run, the first day at Gettysburg and numerous hard hitting attacks around Petersburg disagree with you.
Reply Quote
1
pmart
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:34p, 6/28/21
I addition to defining the criteria for 'best', it is also a little bit of a challenge to define 'American', particularly with the people we are talking about. Do you count all of Washington's military career or just the time he was fighting in the revolutionary war? Does Lee's exploits in the Civil War count when he fought for the confederates against the US? Do you count any of the Confederate generals for the same reason? If so, then do we count the Native American war chiefs who often fought against the US? They had a very large technological and economical/production disadvantage making their victories largely tactical base, creating ambushes and using gorilla tactics.
I don't do well with ambiguity, which would not make me a very good heisman voter.
Reply Quote
1
Rabid Cougar
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:35p, 6/28/21
AG
R.E. Lee's entire career blows everyone else out of the water. There is a reason he was superintendent at West Point and hand picked by Lincoln AND Davis to command their armies. He out performed every general that was put against him, including Grant. Yes even Sharpsburg and Gettysburg. He was not run from the field in either battle. There is nothing more difficult than an organized retreat while in contact with of a superior force. He inflicted twice an many casualties on the Federal Army than he sustained during the Overland Campaign. However, he could not make up the attrition.
Reply Quote
10
1 edit
Rabid Cougar
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ78 • 1:49p, 6/28/21
AG
BQ78 said:
Gates and Wheeler, really?
Gates for Saratoga but yea..... Not as good a Greene.

Joe Wheeler.... who cannot like Fighting Joe???? I also couldn't think of another SAW general off the top of my head.
Reply Quote
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to pmart • 1:57p, 6/28/21
AG
Good point, throw Red Cloud into the mix.
Reply Quote
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rabid Cougar • 2:10p, 6/28/21
AG
Well then if you are making awards for Saratoga, give it to Daniel Morgan. Gates was horrible. If we have to make an award for the Spanish American War I guess Wheeler is as good as anyone but I'd throw Nelson Miles for his Puerto Rican Campaign as a better option. Wheeler disobeyed his orders from Shaftner that brought on to the Battle of Las Guasimas and he got his nose bloodied in this rear guard action by the Spaniards. Shaftner was a medal of honor winner but was pretty weak (and fat) in Cuba. I guess no one in the Spanish American War at the general level was brilliant IMO.
Reply Quote
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ78 • 2:31p, 6/28/21
BQ78 said:
Two and a half bad days in the war does not a mess make, Chancellorsville, the Wilderness, Second Bull Run, the first day at Gettysburg and numerous hard hitting attacks around Petersburg disagree with you.


My post wasn't meant to come across as making an argument. It just appears to me that Lee lost when he attacked and the tech seem to give the defender the advantage at the time. When he had to do what the Union generals had to do, he was just as effective, right?
Reply Quote
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton • 2:35p, 6/28/21
AG
I would say he was more effective. They always like to say he divided his force into two at Chancellorsville but the reality was he divided his army into fours (Early at Fredericksburg, Longstreet at Suffolk, McLaws/Anderson in Hooker's front and then he sent Jackson on his flank march). What audacity! Attacking an army that had stole a march on Lee and initially surprised him in his weaken state. But what does Lee do, he attacks and blows Hooker off the battlefield (we'll skip the morning of the last day of the battle, which was the bloodiest morning of the Civil War)
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ78 • 2:44p, 6/28/21
BQ78 said:
I would say he was more effective. They always like to say he divided his force into two at Chancellorsville but the reality was he divided his army into fours (Early at Fredericksburg, Longstreet at Suffolk, McLaws/Anderson in Hooker's front and then he sent Jackson on his flank march). What audacity! Attacking an army that had stole a march on Lee and initially surprised him in his weaken state. But what does Lee do, he attacks and blows Hooker off the battlefield (we'll skip the morning of the last day of the battle, which was the bloodiest morning of the Civil War)


Fair enough. So let's say Lee accepts Lincoln's offer, is the war over much sooner?
Reply Quote
1
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:47p, 6/28/21
AG
Yes, although counterfactuals are dangerous business and strictly opinion. He would have done what McClellan did in the spring of 1862 but he wouldn't have been a scaredy cat like M.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton • 4:23p, 6/28/21
AG
It would have been 'interesting.'

Lee is a fascinating historical figure.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/
Reply Quote
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ78 • 8:40p, 6/28/21
BQ78 said:
Yes, although counterfactuals are dangerous business and strictly opinion. He would have done what McClellan did in the spring of 1862 but he wouldn't have been a scaredy cat like M.


What do you think happens if Grant gets the "Lee" offer?
Reply Quote
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:19p, 6/28/21
AG
You mean Grant gets the eastern army instead of McDowell? Never would have happened as Grant was too obscure and if you knew him, you knew he was run out of the army as a drunk. But for counterfactual sake I think he falls on his face because the pressure in Virginia was way too intense and Lincoln wasn't very patient with his generals there. In the west, Grant had the luxury of making some early mistakes but was able to survive them even though Halleck and some politicians tried to put him on a shelf.
Reply Quote
2
wargograw
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:14p, 6/28/21
Not sure it's fair to dismiss Forrest as comparable to other lesser known generals. My understanding is he had an unbelievable number of kills for someone of his rank and was known to be highly skilled in hand to hand combat.
Reply Quote
2
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ78 • 12:02a, 6/29/21
BQ78 said:
You mean Grant gets the eastern army instead of McDowell? Never would have happened as Grant was too obscure and if you knew him, you knew he was run out of the army as a drunk. But for counterfactual sake I think he falls on his face because the pressure in Virginia was way too intense and Lincoln wasn't very patient with his generals there. In the west, Grant had the luxury of making some early mistakes but was able to survive them even though Halleck and some politicians tried to put him on a shelf.


Grants drunkness appears to have come about when he was "bored" and not when the action was hot or demanded his undivided attention. Now, I'm biased in this from the Chernow book and could be convinced it's revisionist. It would appear to me that he puts his skills to work very soon and gets the Army ready and makes the same plan that McClellan had but actually puts pressure on the army.

I appreciate your time and patience in answering my question.
Reply Quote
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton • 10:54a, 6/29/21
AG
No doubt Grant had the skill and his plan in '64 was quite good but that was after three years of experience in the west. In Virginia, I'm not sure he survives a Shiloh fiasco against more competent Confederate leadership. Lincoln was about to can him after the third attempt to take Vicksburg but gave him one more chance and sent Charles Dana as a spy to make sure he wasn't a drunk. Fortunately his fourth attempt to take Vicksburg was a smashing success. I think John Rawlins keeping Grant on the straight and narrow makes him one of the most unsung heroes of the war.
Reply Quote
1
Smeghead4761
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:51a, 6/29/21
Winfield Scott, hands down. He was a general officer for almost 50 years, from the War of 1812 to the start of the Civil War.

He was one of, if not the best, American battlefield generals, in the War of 1812. Most importantly, in an age when Americans were still in love with the using the militia to be the bulk of the land forces, Scott championed the criticality of properly trained, regular troops.

His Mexico City campaign in the Mexican War was brilliant, and probably provided more than a little inspiration for Grant's Vicksburg campaign.

At the start of the Civil War, Scott was the only person of any prominance and influence who saw that it would be a long war, and came up with a plan to fight it as such.

I'll leave it with the commentary from the victor of Waterloo:


Quote:
"the greatest living general." - - the Duke of Wellington referring to Winfield Scott
Reply Quote
1
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.