Greatest General

Who do you think was the greatest general of all time and why?

Or if you have more than one throughout history, then who was the greatest general of the ancient/classical world, the medieval, the modern world (since firearms), the 20th century? Why?

 

Why do you consider to be among the greatest of the 20th century. For instance, what made Eisenhower - a general who never commanded on the field - greater than say Montgomery or Rommel?

 

Very true. Hence the reason for the thread

I wouldn't necessarily define these as great (for what is worth, I consider neither of these examples to be great generals. Greatly hyped generals - the former by himself mostly and the latter by the media and WWII buffs - but not great generals. Decent to above averagage operational level leaders and tacticians at the best.). However being able to win battles would seem to be somewhat essential to defining a great general - after all, thats typically the generals main job.

That seems more of an argument that he is a great man. Is a great men necesarily a great general? Can one be a great man yet a poor or not so great general?

 

Why?


BTW, Sherman could have beaten Lee

 

All true...but then it is quite arguable that every general that was thrown at him was either incompetent (Hooker and Burnside) or, at best, simply mediocre (McClellen). He was an audacious tactician certainly, but his grasp of warfare seemed largely limited to a better than average, even brilliant, use of outmoded (Napoleonic) tactics. Consider the first time he faced a competent general (ie. not enamoured of Napoleonic tactics) not prone to panic and in relatively even numbers was at Gettysburg...he lost.

Again true.

However, let me also point out that this was largely successful because of Lee's failure of generalship - his desire to keep Richmond safe, a largely unimportant location (either militarily, politically, or morale wise), at the cost of his army. While an arguably brilliant tactician (he was never really tested and thus the risks he took never had a chance of maturing as they might have against even a competent opponent), he failed in true generalship by letting sentimentality win out over the strategy and logisitics.

Does that failure make him a bad general? No, but, IMO it makes his claim for being a great (much less the greatest) highly arguable.

Sherman and Grant had many things in common, true. But Sherman had a *much* better grasp of modern warfare than Grant. As far as generalship goes, there is little in common between the two beyond their lack of brilliance as battlefield tactician (an area in which Lee certainly outpaced both of them). But Sherman's grasp of grand strategy, theater strategy, logistics, and morale far surpassed bullhead Grant and outshone (in as far as can be determined considering the fact they never faced each other) even Lee. Lee might have been able to outmaneuver Sherman on the battlefield, but the risks he took in other battles probably wouldn't have paid off...in fact, given Sheman's propensity to plan well for the unexpected or 'bold' moves of the enemy, they probably would have cost him sorely. But even if he didn't do a Gettysburg againt Sheman, Sherman would certainly have winkled him out of any defensive position and then brought the hammer down on him...and without the cost in men or cost in time that Grant required.

 

Jackson, IMO, was (in as far as can be told from his limited number of battles) a Rommel - a brilliant corps commander but unfit to lead an army because of his extremely tentative grasp on several larger aspects of extended warfare. A better subordinate a general couldn't ask for, but it seems to me the 'greats' should be limited to more well-rounded leaders.

Maybe if he had stuck around longer I would rank him up there with Prince Eugene of Savoy.

 

For the 'greats' it seems one should limit themselves to those who never suffered a strategic defeat unless due to overwhelming numbers/resources (thus throwing out Lee), had beaten, at least once, a general who could classified as at least 'highly competent' (again throwing out Lee and Jackson), and demonstrated a well-rounded grasp of all aspects of warfare (once again eliminating Lee and Jackson).

Ancient/Classical: Scipio Africanus
Modern: Wellington, Marlborough, Sheman

 

LOL

1. Lee lost Jackson: Of course, if Jackson was so necessary to Lee's success then just how great was Lee? Sure, he lost his best subordinate but he still had a slew of more than competent ones.

2. Stuart's failure: One of Lee's biggest failings as a general was his failure of leadership - he always had an inordinate amount of difficulty keeping his subordinates in line. Yes, the loss at Gettysburg can be blamed on his subordinates failures...but his subordinates had a habit of failing him and he not reigning them in. So his subordinate's failures were not simply a fact of the battle but a continual and reoccuring fact which he never was able to deal with properly. He was too genteel, if you will.

The point still remains...the loss of Gettysburg (esp. Picketts charge) was a failure of him as a general. He was all about Napoleonic tactics and he could use them well, even brilliantly. But their success for him in past was largely due to the fact that his opponents were reading from the same basic playbook...and he was much better at them than they were. With Gettysburg he met an average but steady general who gained the high ground. Lee kept at his old tactics when the situation no longer warrented them (of course, few generals at that time beyond Sherman realized the true impact of the breechloading rifle on tactics) and he lost both tactically and strategically.

 

If he was the best, he was pretty inconsistent. Why do you rate him higher than the general who had no strategic defeats and beat him in the end - Wellington?

A good one. He definitely used his advantages to the greatest effect.

I like qualifiers like that

Definitely one of the best light cavalry leaders ever.

Why Hood?