Best Generals, Pre-1900:

The opinions of the general public may vary based upon their a priori "knowledge".

That of academia doesn't.

Thank you for one of the most humorous statements recently posted. Opinions of academia vary significantly, often based on their a priori "knowledge". I know you think Reed is right because she believed McClellan was a military genius, but can you provide any other sources that share her view of the Vicksburg campaign?
 
Given Many Thousands of years of history to comb through, and for sure thousands of Generals/commanders throughout that time, I would suggest that winning every battle is a necessary condition to being in the top 10 list. It is by no means enough, but otherwise there will be someone out there better than you.

Most people define the best general was the one who wins the most battles, but warfare is not a sporting event. You don't just total up the numbers to see who won the war. 'Why does he fight battles?' is a legitimate question. Campaigns have been won by fighting a losing battle or avoiding battle altogether. Battlefield victories are meaningless if the general lacks the skill to turn them into successful campaigns.
 
I feel it might be better suited for purposes such as this thread to indicate 'best tactical generals' or 'best strategists' because one does not necessarily make the other.

Indeed, take Stonewall Jackson or Rommel - Jackson a sound strategist, but lacking clear command on the tactical field; Rommel the opposite.


@Fiver - well played

Most people define the best general was the one who wins the most battles, but warfare is not a sporting event. You don't just total up the numbers to see who won the war. 'Why does he fight battles?' is a legitimate question. Campaigns have been won by fighting a losing battle or avoiding battle altogether. Battlefield victories are meaningless if the general lacks the skill to turn them into successful campaigns.
 
Most people define the best general was the one who wins the most battles, but warfare is not a sporting event. You don't just total up the numbers to see who won the war. 'Why does he fight battles?' is a legitimate question. Campaigns have been won by fighting a losing battle or avoiding battle altogether. Battlefield victories are meaningless if the general lacks the skill to turn them into successful campaigns.



It is probably this kind of perspective that allows fatheads like me to embrace generals like Sherman as "Military Geniuses" despite perhaps a lack of measurable military criteria ;)

"Sherman never actually won a battle with another military force."

"But he wrote so well, and, his occupational HQ in Savannah is really, really cool in such an Edgar Allen Poe-ish Gothic horror kind of way!"


Edit: I did visit his hq in Savannah, man, that place is evocative. I either was sufficiently discreet with my drooling or the locals just didn't care, either way I wasn't called out and thrashed so yeah.




from http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/shermans-march-to-the-sea.htm
sherman-hearquarters-savannah_small.jpg




below from http://www.mikelynaugh.com/VirtualCivilWar/New/Savannah/pages/IMG_8354.htm

IMG_8354.jpg
 
Last edited:
from the dutch wikipedia article on it (it also appears in the spanish article on it, french article writes even more on it)
dutch: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slag_bij_Gembloers
spanish: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Gembloux
french: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_de_Gembloux

Don Juan was a foreboding of what the spanish inquisition would later to to the protestants in the netherlands, just read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition


Oh my God! If it is in wikipedia it must be true!!!!! :eek:
 
next time: narrow the field

Grey Wolf wrote: "Pre-1900 is about 10 millennia of recorded history, hmmm
I'm not even sure how to approach answering this one..."

A "best" general in one era cannot be easily equated with another.
Grant, Lee and gunpowder era generals are not interchangeable with Alexander, GJCaesar, Hannibal and other leaders of edged weapon armies.

I think narrowing the field is apt to trigger better posts and comparisons.
Comparisons ranging from ASB headgear to my Aunt Sally's Bonnet is too broad.
 
[FONT=&quot]

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." - Sun Tzu[/FONT]

I normally like that quote, but I think Sherman had the great advantage of facing an enemy who couldn't fight back there - which is to say, it wasn't a mark of his brilliance that the March to the Sea was unopposed.

Still a crafty piece of work, well managed (Sherman knew logistics well).
 
I normally like that quote, but I think Sherman had the great advantage of facing an enemy who couldn't fight back there - which is to say, it wasn't a mark of his brilliance that the March to the Sea was unopposed.

Still a crafty piece of work, well managed (Sherman knew logistics well).

Eh, at least a part of that was because George H. Thomas did all the tactical heavy lifting. ;)
 
Eh, at least a part of that was because George H. Thomas did all the tactical heavy lifting. ;)

I wish I could list Thomas as one of the Greats for this list in good conscience. The man was everything a professional could be.

But none of this achievements really strike me as meriting a place on this scale.

19th century generals, probably. American generals, definitely. But too many even more accomplished people to list him here.

Ironically, I'd bet on him beating Lee every time, so maybe he should be on here just because it makes no sense to put his inferiors before him. He had to face that enough in life.
 
I wish I could list Thomas as one of the Greats for this list in good conscience. The man was everything a professional could be.

But none of this achievements really strike me as meriting a place on this scale.

19th century generals, probably. American generals, definitely. But too many even more accomplished people to list him here.

Ironically, I'd bet on him beating Lee every time, so maybe he should be on here just because it makes no sense to put his inferiors before him. He had to face that enough in life.

Fair point. And technically speaking, too, Thomas is the only general in the US Civil War to have never lost a battle......
 
Fair point. And technically speaking, too, Thomas is the only general in the US Civil War to have never lost a battle......

Chickamauga being Rosy's responsibility?

Just for clarification, as Thomas leaving the field in the closest to good order the situation permitted is hardly a win - although its not the same as what happened to the rest of the army.
 
Chickamauga being Rosy's responsibility?

Just for clarification, as Thomas leaving the field in the closest to good order the situation permitted is hardly a win - although its not the same as what happened to the rest of the army.

Yes, as he was the overall general commanding. By the same token the battles where Thomas served under Sherman's command as general of the Army of the Cumberland all rebound to Thomas as he's the one in command both of the army and its tactical handling in the field. The same with regard to McPherson and Howard for the Army of the Tennessee and Schofield for the Army of the Ohio.
 
Top