I've got Stonewall Jackson and Bedford Forest at 1a and 1b.
Who is the greatest American military leader of all time?
- Thread starter OriginalGatorHator
- Start date
Patton saved Ike's butt at times. Ike was a better "politician" at it.
Patton knew something was up before the Germans started The Battle of the Bulge, as he surrounded himself with an excellent staff. Another one of his positive great traits.
When they met to decide what to do when the Germans started their advance not one single military officer had a clue what to do, except Patton already had three plans ready to go. Patton's 90 degree pivot from a full frontal assault into a second full frontal assault, thus being able to maintain two front lines, has been called the single most brilliant move in military history.
Last edited:
General George Patton or Andrew Jackson, both men were incredible military leaders & strategist.
All good answers and hard to argue against Patton. But, let’s not forget the guy who was a mentor to Ike,Patton and MacArthur.
John “Black Jack” Pershing.
I’ll give Pershing credit for basically building an entire army from scratch and refusing to be bullied by the French or English.
Patton demonstrated his brilliance and tenacity at Bastogne for sure.
But Stonewall Jackson’s Shenandoah valley campaign is just another level. He and Bedford are the closest America to will ever come to producing a mind like Caesar.
Honor, loyalty, duty - Robert E. Lee
What Andrew Jackson did in the swamps of Louisiana leading up to the Battle of New Orleans is mind boggling, almost super human effort by his rag tag army!
I heard one time that the three greatest generals were Patton, Rommel and R. E. Lee. And Rommel used/was a student of Lee's tactics.
I grew up on the east side of the Blue Ridge from the Shenandoah valley in close proximity to a number of civil war battlefields. Our farm was on the periphery of the Battle of Upperville, where Jeb Stuart effectively screened Lee’s forces moving up the valley on their way to Gettysburg.
Unsurprisingly the history of the war in VA has always held particular interest.
Jackson’s Valley campaign stands as one of the most impressive military campaigns ever. Splitting his already outnumbered forces, which he did several times, went against all accepted military doctrine. Of course he did have the advantage of operating in friendly territory with troops that could travel great distances and fight at a capacity the union forces thought was impossible (thus the nickname “Jackson’s foot cavalry”).
I wrote a paper at UGA positing that Lee would have won at Gettysburg had he had Jackson there to better execute his strategic plan. My professor was skeptical, but I ended up getting an A on the paper. Lee’s effectiveness, particularly in offensive operations, was never the same after he lost Stonewall.
Little known fact, Rommel came to the US in the ‘30s to study Lee and Jackson and the Valley campaign specifically. He was given a tour of the valley by representatives from the US Army.
Disclaimer, there is some dispute as to whether this happened or not, but I’ve seen enough to believe it did, and it makes sense that the US military would do their best to hide this event.
Edit: Of course, this topic spurred more research and the question of whether Rommel ever came to the US is more controversial than I thought. I’m now actually more inclined to say it didn’t happen.
Last edited:
If Jackson had been at Gettysburg is one of the great what if moments in American history.
I am of the opinion that had Lee marched on Washington after the fist battle at manassas the confederates would have captured the capital and won the war in 1861. After that the North just had way too many resources and Lincoln had the resolve to keep his agricultural colonies a part of the union by any means necessary.
Lee didn’t lead the Confederate army at the first battle of Manasas. Believe it Beauregard
You are correct. Still iirc Jackson wanted to attack and was ignored.
I've been fascinated by the Civil War, since at trip to Andersonville, when I was about 9.
If Lee had gone to Gettysburg, with Jackson, I think the South wins the war.
Even without Jackson, if Ewell occupies Cemetery Hill, as he should have, things are probably different.
If Lee had redeployed, instead of ordering the attack on day 2, I think the South could have won.
I think there was still a chance for a southern victory, if not for the Pickett's Charge disaster.
I'm not saying, "Oh shucks, the south lost the war".
I'm just pointing out.....a decision here....a decision there...and the world is very different. The south never recovered from that battle
Ike and George Marshall deserve a lot of credit. Both (to my untrained eye) seem like masters of knowing how to manage and put people in the right positions to win. I mean managing personalities like Patton and Montgomery sounds like a nightmare.
But I don’t know if tactically he compares to other American generals.
The historical “what if” game is always an interesting exercise, particularly when talking military history.
Of course, if you believe in quantum physics, all of those possibilities, and an infinite number of other possibilities, became reality, in their own discreet timeline. But I stoped smoking weed after college and was never good with physics anyway so I don’t think about those concepts very often!
Last edited:
You can make an argument it took 120 years for the South to recover. Reconstruction devastated us.
Speaking of historical what-ifs, you can definitly make the argument that Booth killing Lincoln resulted in a much worse outcome for the South. Lincoln was focused on reconciliation and after his assassination the North took a much more punitive approach than they likely would have otherwise.
my first pug via deceased cousin
was sent to us with crochet stuffed snake.
that dog loved what we called "sneaky snake"
it lasted 3 years.
I'm not messed up.
although I appear to be.
sigh;
Last edited:
It certainly put the radical republicans in charge.
It probably also created the circumstances which lead to the south hating Longstreet.
A lot of good choices here. Jackson and Forrest were exceptional but never had supreme command of any major armies. But as independent forces of nature they were unmatched. Washington may not have been brilliant on the field but he kept a rag tag group together for years and got the job done. Patton was stunning. His ferocious style and insightful battlefield instincts were unmatched. Lee did so much with so little. Grant was a way underrated commander because everyone talks about his advantages. His tenacity and strategic vision were exceptional.
But I go with Ike and Nimitz. The sheer scale of what they had to command PLUS juggling the egos and needs of dozens of other countries and still did what they did. They fought in the map of the World with millions of moving parts and got it done in a few short years.
Steve Gaines influence. Skynyrd was taking up another level with this album.
I go with McAuther he was a great tactician and a great leader. He also turned Japan into a democracy and he also taught at West Point.
Similar threads
