-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Greatest American General
- Thread starter carpro
- Start date
DavidFWhite3
New Member
Ike. U.S.A.
He held the the great alliance together, and managed to keep Montgomery and Patton fighting for the same side. But he was tough as nails, never letting personal friendship get in the way of decision making as with Patton, nor letting his personal dislike of Montgomery blind him to Monty's effectiveness as a battlfield general.
Lee. C.S.A.
He accomplished more with what he had to work with than any general before or since. He took command of the Confederacy's main army in the middle of General McClellan's thrust at Richmond up the pennisular in June of 1862. He quickly reorganized the army under two main wings, his left under Jackson coming in from the west, and his right under Longstreet. A series of costly but hard hitting offensives drove the massive federal army off the pennisular and back into their boats. As they were being sent west to join General Pope above Mannasses, VA, site of the first Bull Run Battle, Lee swung his army north west to meet him, and at Second Bull Run, totally routed a second federal army of much larger size, all within sixty days.
Virginia was clear of Federal Troops. His next campaign took him into Maryland. A full one-third of his army refused to fight on Northern soil due to conscience. But with the 40,000 he had left he fought an army of 90,000 to a standstill at Antietam on September 17, 1962. He sat there a whole day waiting for McClellan to attack him again. He went back to Virginia unmolested. His 20,000 consciencious objectors were waitng, and returned in less than a year with two more victories and almost 80,000 troops to see his tide reach its peak at Gettysburg.
His use of divisions, cavalry, and artillary in concerted action, concentrating the bulk of his forces on the enemies weakest points, and his willingness to take great risks, are still major topics of academic study at West Point. He was not only a master strategist as commander of a major army, almost always beating his enemy to the field, and choosing his own ground, but also a master tactician. In many regards, he is the inventor of modern warfare, in that he learned to adjust his tactics to the capability of his weapons. More could be said, but no need.
Sad thing is he was not a U.S General. He left the U.S. Army before reaching that rank, and made his fame as a C.S.A. General. But he was the greatest one produced by the U.S. Military and its traditions. It is generally agreed that if he has stayed loyal to the Union and accepted command of its main army, the war would have ended much sooner, and the union more properly healed, for he was a great man, not just a great general.
[ January 31, 2005, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: DavidFWhite3 ]
He held the the great alliance together, and managed to keep Montgomery and Patton fighting for the same side. But he was tough as nails, never letting personal friendship get in the way of decision making as with Patton, nor letting his personal dislike of Montgomery blind him to Monty's effectiveness as a battlfield general.
Lee. C.S.A.
He accomplished more with what he had to work with than any general before or since. He took command of the Confederacy's main army in the middle of General McClellan's thrust at Richmond up the pennisular in June of 1862. He quickly reorganized the army under two main wings, his left under Jackson coming in from the west, and his right under Longstreet. A series of costly but hard hitting offensives drove the massive federal army off the pennisular and back into their boats. As they were being sent west to join General Pope above Mannasses, VA, site of the first Bull Run Battle, Lee swung his army north west to meet him, and at Second Bull Run, totally routed a second federal army of much larger size, all within sixty days.
Virginia was clear of Federal Troops. His next campaign took him into Maryland. A full one-third of his army refused to fight on Northern soil due to conscience. But with the 40,000 he had left he fought an army of 90,000 to a standstill at Antietam on September 17, 1962. He sat there a whole day waiting for McClellan to attack him again. He went back to Virginia unmolested. His 20,000 consciencious objectors were waitng, and returned in less than a year with two more victories and almost 80,000 troops to see his tide reach its peak at Gettysburg.
His use of divisions, cavalry, and artillary in concerted action, concentrating the bulk of his forces on the enemies weakest points, and his willingness to take great risks, are still major topics of academic study at West Point. He was not only a master strategist as commander of a major army, almost always beating his enemy to the field, and choosing his own ground, but also a master tactician. In many regards, he is the inventor of modern warfare, in that he learned to adjust his tactics to the capability of his weapons. More could be said, but no need.
Sad thing is he was not a U.S General. He left the U.S. Army before reaching that rank, and made his fame as a C.S.A. General. But he was the greatest one produced by the U.S. Military and its traditions. It is generally agreed that if he has stayed loyal to the Union and accepted command of its main army, the war would have ended much sooner, and the union more properly healed, for he was a great man, not just a great general.
[ January 31, 2005, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: DavidFWhite3 ]
DavidFWhite3
New Member
and Tecumseh. </font>[/QUOTE]William Tecumseh Sherman was a monster! </font>[/QUOTE]Being from the South, and I mean really from the South, you'd think I'd naturally agree with you, but I don't. I use to. But I troubled myself enough to read Sherman's Memoirs, and he really did love the South. He truly hated war and new that this war must take the very heart for war out of the people. He was a product of his times. He was living in the South when South Carolina secceeded, in Louisiana when she followed. I simply ask you read his Memoirs and see how you feel about him then. Thanks.
Stratiotes
New Member
By the way, I have read Sherman's memoirs and I still don't like him. 
But, I don't think he alone was responsible for his actions. He was under the command of a President and other generals I do not care much for either.
I think memoirs are nothing more than recording for history what you would like people to remember about you. Its human nature and therefore not a great tool for determining the morality of the person's actions.
Now, when I first saw the Tecumseh post, I thought it referred to the great Indian warlord by that name. Interesting that Sherman, as a later high-ranking officer in the US Army during the post war years helped plan and carry out the extermination of a large percentage of the Indians. A continuation of total war perhaps?
But, I don't think he alone was responsible for his actions. He was under the command of a President and other generals I do not care much for either.I think memoirs are nothing more than recording for history what you would like people to remember about you. Its human nature and therefore not a great tool for determining the morality of the person's actions.
Now, when I first saw the Tecumseh post, I thought it referred to the great Indian warlord by that name. Interesting that Sherman, as a later high-ranking officer in the US Army during the post war years helped plan and carry out the extermination of a large percentage of the Indians. A continuation of total war perhaps?
I would think it appropriate to break it down by era's.
Revolutionary Generals
Lord Cornwallis- Nice move locking yourself up on the peninsula. 1/3 of the population of the day is loyalists and you didn't get any news that Washington was sneaking down from New York? And those guys in white Borbon coats, do you suppose they had a navy bring them over from France? He might be the best general from the American point of view.
Dan Morgan- saved the day at Cowpens, his riflemen were vital at Saratoga. Every time Burgoyne pounded the Continental regulars Morgans rifles bought them critical time to reform.
Civil War era-
Lee & Jackson- The most unstoppable combination until Kobe and Shaq came along. Lee still worked wonders after Jackson's death but the invincibility died with Jackson. The rest of the world knew it after Gettysburg.
Grant and Sherman because they were the first two to understand the weaknesses of the South. To use a metaphor under Lee the ANV was a boxer like Ali, brilliance of movement lighting attack a military scientists joy to study 150 years later. The AOP under Grant was the slugger, the raging bull. Grant cut off the ring and forced Lee to defend fixed locations. Grant may have squandered the lives of Union soldiers but he forced Lee to do the same, a war of attrition.
Sherman is a monster, no doubt about it. However he ended the south's ability to fight. He ended the war maybe even more so than Grant. He left no doubt that the South was not going to be able to continue.
Sherman was a monster but he stopped the Southern leadership from forming into guerilla bands and fighting on. The destruction he brought destroyed all the romantic views of war.
MODERN ERA
From the WWI & WWII era I would pick Patton. I think if SHAEF hadn't been so busy coddling Montgomery, Patton probably would have been marching down the Unter Den Linden in November of 44 while the Reds were still trying to cross the Vistula.
While SHAEF gave supplies to Monty, The Wehrmacht was hording supplies and assembling Volksturm(sp?) units that would lead first to the German second Ardennes offensive (The Bulge) and then to the push through Germany being dangerous and difficult. How different is the post war world if the Americans take Berlin instead of the Communists.
Vietnam and Korea
I have just finished reading We were Soldiers once and Young. So I want to put down Hal Moores name, he would becom a general later on I think. As far as leading soldiers in combat and preparing them, what his 7th Cavalry accomplished in the Ia Drang valley of Vietnam is very impressive.
While everyone is drafting Colin Powell to run for president, I would like to see Stormin Norman sit in the Oval Office or Tommy Franks. These two remind me that the qualities that make the American military great are still alive and well in our military. God bless and protect and grant victory to our soliers.
Revolutionary Generals
Lord Cornwallis- Nice move locking yourself up on the peninsula. 1/3 of the population of the day is loyalists and you didn't get any news that Washington was sneaking down from New York? And those guys in white Borbon coats, do you suppose they had a navy bring them over from France? He might be the best general from the American point of view.
Dan Morgan- saved the day at Cowpens, his riflemen were vital at Saratoga. Every time Burgoyne pounded the Continental regulars Morgans rifles bought them critical time to reform.
Civil War era-
Lee & Jackson- The most unstoppable combination until Kobe and Shaq came along. Lee still worked wonders after Jackson's death but the invincibility died with Jackson. The rest of the world knew it after Gettysburg.
Grant and Sherman because they were the first two to understand the weaknesses of the South. To use a metaphor under Lee the ANV was a boxer like Ali, brilliance of movement lighting attack a military scientists joy to study 150 years later. The AOP under Grant was the slugger, the raging bull. Grant cut off the ring and forced Lee to defend fixed locations. Grant may have squandered the lives of Union soldiers but he forced Lee to do the same, a war of attrition.
Sherman is a monster, no doubt about it. However he ended the south's ability to fight. He ended the war maybe even more so than Grant. He left no doubt that the South was not going to be able to continue.
Sherman was a monster but he stopped the Southern leadership from forming into guerilla bands and fighting on. The destruction he brought destroyed all the romantic views of war.
MODERN ERA
From the WWI & WWII era I would pick Patton. I think if SHAEF hadn't been so busy coddling Montgomery, Patton probably would have been marching down the Unter Den Linden in November of 44 while the Reds were still trying to cross the Vistula.
While SHAEF gave supplies to Monty, The Wehrmacht was hording supplies and assembling Volksturm(sp?) units that would lead first to the German second Ardennes offensive (The Bulge) and then to the push through Germany being dangerous and difficult. How different is the post war world if the Americans take Berlin instead of the Communists.
Vietnam and Korea
I have just finished reading We were Soldiers once and Young. So I want to put down Hal Moores name, he would becom a general later on I think. As far as leading soldiers in combat and preparing them, what his 7th Cavalry accomplished in the Ia Drang valley of Vietnam is very impressive.
While everyone is drafting Colin Powell to run for president, I would like to see Stormin Norman sit in the Oval Office or Tommy Franks. These two remind me that the qualities that make the American military great are still alive and well in our military. God bless and protect and grant victory to our soliers.
Stratiotes
New Member
Some of the best and brightest never make general due to politics within the command and so on. Boyd, again, is a great example:
Chet Richards Interview
Chet Richards Interview
I would never want Powell to be President. He is pro-choice. Although he is loyal to the Bush Family, there is no doubt that he is only a Republican on economic issues. He is a social liberal. Bush accepted his resignation at the end of 4 years. In December 2003, Powell was operated on for prostrate cancer. Perhaps his health is not too good. I would vote for Kerry over Powell.
My choice for 2008 is Tommy Franks so that America can be assured of military victory over the Arab and Islamic terrorists.
My choice for 2008 is Tommy Franks so that America can be assured of military victory over the Arab and Islamic terrorists.
Stratiotes
New Member
Tommy Franks was among the generals who indicated to Rumsfeld that 500K troops would be needed to make the peace in Iraq. The others were fired and then Franks changed his stance. It could be that Rumsfeld convinced him with reasoned debate or it could be that he backed down from what he knew was right. If the latter, then he has no business as a general, much less as president. I don't know which is the case, it just does not give me a great feeling about the guy when he changes his mind so drastically with such apparent ease. It smacks of political thinking rather than conviction thinking to me.
Stratiotes
New Member
Public statements of some of those who were fired.
The same is said of Colin Powell though Powell made it clear he would remain on because it was wrong to abandon his men on the eve of war. That may also be the opinion of Franks for that matter.
A related article on the subject:
Zinni
[ February 01, 2005, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Stratiotes ]
The same is said of Colin Powell though Powell made it clear he would remain on because it was wrong to abandon his men on the eve of war. That may also be the opinion of Franks for that matter.
A related article on the subject:
Zinni
[ February 01, 2005, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Stratiotes ]
I'm disappointed you have no source.
Is that what is known as hearsay?
I am well aware of Zinni's opinion and value it. I am also aware he is retired and more likely to speak out, especially since he disagreed.
Franks , on the other hand, was active duty and , after stating his opinion(whatever it was which we have no proof of) would say , "Yes sir" and carry out the mission.
Zinni would have done the same had he been active duty.
Is that what is known as hearsay?
I am well aware of Zinni's opinion and value it. I am also aware he is retired and more likely to speak out, especially since he disagreed.
Franks , on the other hand, was active duty and , after stating his opinion(whatever it was which we have no proof of) would say , "Yes sir" and carry out the mission.
Zinni would have done the same had he been active duty.
Stratiotes
New Member
Not having a link to a source on the web is not the same as not having a source . I have heard it in interviews with those individuals but I just don't remember for sure where it was. You are welcome to consider that hearsay if you like and I don't blame you. I still don't have the time or desire to go digging to prove it...mainly because I thought it was common knowledge.
It is well-known, however (and sources are readily available for anyone who wants to search), that Gen. Shinseki estimated "several hundred thousand" troops and Gen. Franks indicated it would likely take about 250 thousand. Both also were assuming there would be more troops coming from a coalition when they made those judgements. So, any way you slice it, the current levels are far from what was estimated by Gen Franks and his predecessors at one time.
As for "doing their duty" - some will, others will refuse to give in and end up fired or resign in protest as many did. I think Gen. Zinni said in his book that this was one of the reasons that helped him decide to retire. As I said earlier, the motivation may be a good one - I respect a man who says he is staying because he sees no winning the argument and chooses to stay with his troops. I also respect the one who says he cannot in good conscience remain when he knows the choices being made are wrong. I think both could be said to be doing their duty.
. I have heard it in interviews with those individuals but I just don't remember for sure where it was. You are welcome to consider that hearsay if you like and I don't blame you. I still don't have the time or desire to go digging to prove it...mainly because I thought it was common knowledge.It is well-known, however (and sources are readily available for anyone who wants to search), that Gen. Shinseki estimated "several hundred thousand" troops and Gen. Franks indicated it would likely take about 250 thousand. Both also were assuming there would be more troops coming from a coalition when they made those judgements. So, any way you slice it, the current levels are far from what was estimated by Gen Franks and his predecessors at one time.
As for "doing their duty" - some will, others will refuse to give in and end up fired or resign in protest as many did. I think Gen. Zinni said in his book that this was one of the reasons that helped him decide to retire. As I said earlier, the motivation may be a good one - I respect a man who says he is staying because he sees no winning the argument and chooses to stay with his troops. I also respect the one who says he cannot in good conscience remain when he knows the choices being made are wrong. I think both could be said to be doing their duty.
Stratiotes
New Member
I stand by that statement. </font>[/QUOTE]Fair enough.
Robert the Bruce (my ancestors were his pipers); Robert E. Lee (I'm from the South); Douglas McArthur (my WWII hero - other than my grandfather); Stormin' Norman (one tough dude)
If I really have to pick one, it would be Douglas McArthur. My grandfather fought on Omaha Beach. He talked about McArthur all the time.
If I really have to pick one, it would be Douglas McArthur. My grandfather fought on Omaha Beach. He talked about McArthur all the time.
Stephen Mills
New Member
George S. Patton, without a doubt. He beat Rommel in North Africa and saved the day at the Battle of the Bulge.
Stephen---if you let the Englanders hear you say that it was Patton who beat Rommel and not Monty---they'll hang you by a short rope!!
The American Army took a beating at Kasserine Pass--but came of age---and yes---Pattton brought victory in North Africa--and then kicked the Krauts at the Bulge!!
But to hear Monty's side of the story---comic book adventure!!