|
I would put N. B. Forrest near the top of the list, if you focus on his military skills. Enlisted as a Private in 1861, rose to the rank of Lieutenant General by the end of the War four years later. Personally killed more than 30 men in combat, and a number before the War in duels and fights. I would second Longstreet and Jackson, though they each had their share of bad days.
I do not see Grant as a brilliant commander as much as a relentless one. In fact, I believe that if Lee had the resources that Grant did and the roles were reversed, Grant would have lasted less than 2 years before being decisively defeated.
Marshall was a genius and a renaissance man, succeeding in both war and peace. Donovan would be another success story, though at a different level.
Patton was a superb tactician, but had some personality issues and required adult supervision, and did MacArthur, to some extent.
Custer was a narcissistic idiot.
TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|