Great Generals

[rubberneck]

Yesterday my eight year old son asked me to take him to one of the local parks to throw a football around. The park itself is right next to the local VFW which has a really nice M48 Patton on display. As he was exploring the tank he asked why it was called the Patton and I explained who General Patton was and why he was so famous. Any ways my son finally asked who the best General this country has ever produced and why. I explained that there was a difference between being a famous general and a great general even though they often go hand in hand but there was probably no right answer.

It got me to thinking about some of the great generals this country has produced but never became house hold names for one reason or another. We all learn about Washington, Grant, Sherman, Jackson, Lee, Custer, Pershing, Eisenhower, Patton, MacArthur, Bradley, Puller and others in history class but we hear less about men like General Ridgeway and General Blackburn. I am curious about some of the lesser known Generals you guys consider to have been great leaders. Given the wide breadth of military experience and historical knowledge the members of this board has I thought that this would be the best place to get an interesting perspective.

[ZonieDiver]

Two of my favorite U.S. generals are:

1. "Mad" Anthony Wayne - from the Revolution and the Battle of Fallen Timbers.
2. Ranald S. MacKenzie - U.S. Cavalry officer from Civil War and Texas Indian fighting.

[mojaveman]

Though not as well known as some of the more famous generals, regarding air power, Curtis LeMay was a brilliant and ruthless strategist.

[Richard]

IMO - such a list must include the likes of James 'Old Pete' Longstreet, Philip 'Little Phil' Sheridan, John Buford, Henry 'Hap' Arnold, and George Catlett Marshall.

Were that we could honor more leaders with the same sense of high esteem held by those under Buford's command who published a resolution that set forth their feelings for him:

...we, the staff officers of the late Major General John Buford, fully appreciating his merits as a gentleman, soldier, commander, and patriot, conceive his death to be an irreparable loss to the cavalry arm of the service. That we have been deprived of a friend and leader whose sole ambition was our success, and whose chief pleasure was in administering to the welfare, safety and happiness of the officers and men of his command.

...That to his unwearied exertions in the many responsible positions which he has occupied, the service at large is indebted for much of its efficiency, and in his death the cavalry has lost firm friend and most ardent advocate. That we are called to mourn the loss of one who was ever to us as the kindest and tenderest father, and that our fondest desire and wish will ever be to perpetuate his memory and emulate his greatness."

- Hard, Abner N., History of the Eighth Cavalry Regiment, Illinois Volunteers, Aurora, Illinois: privately published, 1868.

Richard's $.02

[Richard]

It got me to thinking about some of the great generals this country has produced...

Mojaveman - Ivan Konev, Erwin Rommel, Georgy Zhukov, Hasso Von Manteuffel, Konstantin Rokossovsky

Huh?

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[The Reaper]

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

[akv]

IMHO

Americans

1) Nathan Bedford Forrest

2) Omar Bradley

3) Winfield Hancock


FWIW, the greatest general in history

Subotai

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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

Andrew Jackson.

[Dad]

How would McAuliff, the "Battling Bastards of Bastogne" rank?

[FMF DOC]

akv I gotta go with your third choice.... To bad he was never elected President.


Winfield Scott Hancock (February 14, 1824 – February 9, 1886) was a career U.S. Army officer and the Democratic nominee for President of the United States in 1880. He served with distinction in the Army for four decades, including service in the Mexican-American War and as a Union general in the American Civil War. Known to his Army colleagues as "Hancock the Superb he was noted in particular for his personal leadership at the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863. One military historian wrote, "No other Union general at Gettysburg dominated men by the sheer force of their presence more completely than Hancock As another wrote, "... his tactical skill had won him the quick admiration of adversaries who had come to know him as the 'Thunderbolt of the Army of the Potomac' His military service continued after the Civil War, as Hancock participated in the military Reconstruction of the South and the Army's presence at the Western frontier.

After the Civil War, Hancock's reputation as a soldier and his dedication to conservative constitutional principles made him a quadrennial Presidential possibility. His noted integrity was a counterpoint to the corruption of the era, for as President Rutherford B. Hayes said, "... f, when we make up our estimate of a public man, conspicuous both as a soldier and in civil life, we are to think first and chiefly of his manhood, his integrity, his purity, his singleness of purpose, and his unselfish devotion to duty, we can truthfully say of Hancock that he was through and through pure gold This nationwide popularity led the Democrats to nominate him for President in 1880 Although he ran a strong campaign, Hancock was defeated by Republican James Garfield by the closest popular vote margin in American history.

[Cisco Kid]

Two generals from the Revolution, Daniel Morgan & Nathaniel Greene. I like Morgan because he beat the Hell out of Banastre Tarleton at Cowpens.

[Roguish Lawyer]

What about Abe Abrams?

[rubberneck]

Does anyone have an opinion on General Hank Emerson? Everything I have read about him seems to imply that he got the big picture when other Generals at the time didn't.

[Richard]

Does anyone have an opinion on General Hank Emerson?

I've got plenty of 'Gunfighter' stories - MOO - as a GO, he's of about the same caliber as General Electric.

Now I recall MG Lutz as being a good commander - solid, pragmatic, SF oriented - and we were damn lucky to have him when we did.

Richard's $.02

[Red Flag 1]

Thomas J. Jackson.

RF 1