Do Americans care for a defensive general?

I have always wondered whether or not Americans care for a good defensive general. From the American history I know the generl feeling seems to be that defensive generals aren't good and the only way to win a war is to be offensive.

Take the (arguably) two best generals of the 1800's, Napoleon and Wellington. Given the choice, it seems, that most Americans prefer Napoleon who spent most of his career being offensive to Wellington to spent most of his time being defensive. I mean...not one single American General (to my knowledge) was ever compared to or nicknamed Wellington but I can name two without really trying that were nicknamed Napoleon (thats P.G.T. Beauregard and George B. McClellan). And it seems that Napoleon get no end of praise from Americans while Wellington gets very little...almost as if they dont want to admit Napoleon was beaten.

Even when in regards to their own general they seem to prefer offensive generals to anyone of good defensive capabilities.

From the ACW for example the first names that come up when thinking of who the greatest generals of the war were are always Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackon, U.S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman...all who were offensive. Often overlooked or under-rated generals of the ACW are James Longstreet, Joe Johnston and George Henry Thomas...all who were defensive and are subsequently accused of being slow and hesitant.

So is it just that the Americans prefer the glory that the offensive general get or do they simply hold no stock in a good defensive commander?
 
I would argue that Lee wasn't necessarily offensive, as his major campaign into the north was undertaken because of orders to do so. He was very adaptive to the circumstances and was either defensive or offensive as the circumstances required.
 
On the other hand, Americans haven't fought many wars that included a strong defensive. When martial success called for it, they did praise it:

"There stand Jackson like a Stonewall" Stone walls usually defend, though obviously Jackson's primary contribution would become his daring attacks, like that at Chancellorsville (which even then was a strategically defensive battle for the South). Yet Lee's victory at Fredericksburg is certainly a defensive triumph.

"Remember the Alamo" Need I say more? Travis isn't a general and he isn't remembered singularly, but it's a defensive stand nonetheless. Houston himself was on the strategic defensive at San Jacinto, even though he was tactically attacking.

Indeed, if one takes the notion of "strategic defensive" to the extreme, then Washington was a defensive general.

On the whole, I'd say that the notoreity of Napoloen in American popular history is not due for Americans particular high regard for the offensive alone. Certainly, Americans liked winners, but McClellan wasn't either. Rather Americans usually used Napoleon to identify military commanders with concerted political ambitions and BIG egos. Hence the term "Napoleon of the West" for Santa Anna. Napoleon here is meant to have a slightly derisive edge that Wellington wouldn't. I don't think the preference in allusion really corresponds to a preference for offense or defense.
 
to those Americans who are knowledgable about the ACW, Longstreet is regarded as a good general...

and I'm not sure that we have that much disregard for 'defensive' generals... Andrew Jackson was one at New Orleans... Bunker Hill is remembered rather heroically (although I don't think there was a general there)... the defense of Elsenborn Ridge and Bastogne (not to mention Wake Island) in WW2 are lauded...
 
Washington's entire point in the ARW was to repel the British and exhaust them. As remembered as he is for stuff like Trenton and Yorktown, they were part of a grander defensive strategy. By the war's results, I'd say he did well enough in that regard.
 
On the other hand, Americans haven't fought many wars that included a strong defensive. When martial success called for it, they did praise it:

"There stand Jackson like a Stonewall" Stone walls usually defend, though obviously Jackson's primary contribution would become his daring attacks, like that at Chancellorsville (which even then was a strategically defensive battle for the South). Yet Lee's victory at Fredericksburg is certainly a defensive triumph.

There is actually questions about whether General Bee was praising or criticizing Jackson when he said that. The generally accepted version is that Bee was praising Jackson and trying to rally his troops but in some circles it is believed that he was annoyed that Jackson hadn't moved to try and help his forces that were getting destroyed at the time.

And interestingly how did Jackson fight at 1st Manassas? He didn't fight defensively there and the only times he did fight defensively was when he was forced to, either by the Union or by Lee.

And Lee more over was offensive over all and when given the option to fight on the offensive or defensive he chose to offensive.

On the whole, I'd say that the notoreity of Napoloen in American popular history is not due for Americans particular high regard for the offensive alone. Certainly, Americans liked winners, but McClellan wasn't either. Rather Americans usually used Napoleon to identify military commanders with concerted political ambitions and BIG egos. Hence the term "Napoleon of the West" for Santa Anna. Napoleon here is meant to have a slightly derisive edge that Wellington wouldn't. I don't think the preference in allusion really corresponds to a preference for offense or defense.

Actually the idea of calling McClellan "the Young Napoleon" and PGT Beauregard "Napoleon in Gray" was because they both were concidered men who liked to use Napoleonic like manouvers in battle and were conciered very talented generals as the war began. McClellan proved to be all hype and no ability and he ended up trying to get into politics.

Beauregard never really got his chance to prove himself due to poor health and arguements with Davis but he was never really politically driven...except for a short attempt to become mayor of New Orleans before the war...he was compared to Napoleon because of military ability...which he failed to live up to.

In regards to Santa Anna, correct me if I am wrong, didn't he call himself the Napoleon of the West? It's a bit different if he gave himself that title rather than the title being bestowed upon him.
 
Here's a nice dichotomy for you: most of the defensive generals have less direct priase and rememberance than the offensive generals, yet the defensive generals always have the better names, besides the famous Stonewall, and the Iron Brigae, you have the famous Rock of 'fill in the blank' (The Marne, Chickamauga, Cedar Creek, etc.) Bear in mind also that in the better cases it is the troops who deserve the name more than the general.

I must agree with Nytram01 on this: Jackson has the nickname Stonewall for exactly 1 engagement: First Bull Run. He fought on the strategic defensive for the first part of Second Bull Run and Fredericksburg, and the tactical defensive at Antietam. He fought on the strategic and/or tactical offensive at every single battle he ever fought in the Valley, every single battle of the Seven Days Battles, the middle part of Antietam, the latter part of Second Bull Run, and the entirety of Chancellorsville. It should also be remembered that when he fought on the defensive it was either under direct orders from Lee (Antietam, Fredericksburg) or was just about the best defensive position held by either side until the time of mass entrenchments (Second Bull Run, also Fredericksburg).

I actually think that this whole question is semi-pointless. A famous historian said that "General Thomas (the best Western Defensive General) never lost a battle, and General Sherman (the best Western Offensive General) never won a battle or lost a campaign". You need both, but it is the offensive general who is usually simply more memorable. It's not that defensive people aren't appreciated, just that they get rewarded quietly, as opposed to "Unconditional Surrender" Grant, et al.
 
I think most of us remembering the offensive generals comes from the fact that being on the offense wins wars. I mean you can turtle up with forts and win battles and never lose that way, but you don't win. Like McClellan beat Lee at Antietam, but didn't destroy the army and it wasn't destroyed until Grant came down and crushed it in the wilderness. Then there's also just we like guys who can go out and just kick the crap out of our enemies.
 
I would agree with other people who point out that offensively minded generals are more remembered because their accomplishments tend lend themselves to glory much more easily than those of defensive-minded ones. Defensive battles are rarely decisive, war-winning clashes, and when they are it is often due to the defensive victory being followed by a swift and powerful counter-attack/pursuit.

Usually defensive battles are only remembered if the defenders face impossible odds, which is why many famous defensive battles like Thermopylae were also last stands.
 
I would like to toss out Bradley as a canidate for a defensive General. He definitely was not a Napoleon.

No, but he won the ETO.

In all fairness, this is not a uniquely American trait. Most nations tend to become fixated on the glory of the advance, the dashing caalry charge and toujours l'audace. In my opinion it is a good way to win battles and lose wars, but that's neither here nor there. A good defensive general just doesn'tv have the dash and media appeal. Unless your country is facing imminent invasion, there are few opportunities for one to amass glory. Cautious advances, careful logistics, meticulous planning and unglamoropus success don't play well, it looks like anyone could have done it. Similar to trying to get a competent fiscal politician and tax policy wonk elected - a good idea, but a tough proposition.
 
Canada for example has Brock and yes I know he was British, he is often called the greatest defensive general in N.A history. Hmmm I have a TL idea.....
 
In all fairness, this is not a uniquely American trait. Most nations tend to become fixated on the glory of the advance, the dashing caalry charge and toujours l'audace. In my opinion it is a good way to win battles and lose wars, but that's neither here nor there. A good defensive general just doesn'tv have the dash and media appeal. Unless your country is facing imminent invasion, there are few opportunities for one to amass glory. Cautious advances, careful logistics, meticulous planning and unglamoropus success don't play well, it looks like anyone could have done it. Similar to trying to get a competent fiscal politician and tax policy wonk elected - a good idea, but a tough proposition.

True, the cult of the offensive was around before the even was a United States. As I recall US doctrine historically tends to be somewhat more defensive-minded, given it's focus on building up massive superiority before launching a cautious, measured advance.

Another good defensive general whose name hasn't come up yet: Vauban.
 
Perhaps it's not about America being offensive, but about Europe being defensive;

European nations and the British commonwealth had a wealth of Offensive generals in the First World War, and they achieved little for the loss of literally millions of men. As a result we get the French Maginot line, and cautious commanders like Monty who are more concerned about preserving the lives of their men then going all-out. Of course we also have Rommel and Guderian, but I'd say they're the exception to the rule.

And then of course there's the 50 years of 'wait until the Soviets fall upon us, and defend to the last'.
 
So you need a defensive General that is celebrated by the US?

Easy this General commanded in only one battle, it was however the most famous defensive stand on the Western front during WWII.

I type of General Anthony McAuliffe commander of the defense by the Battling Bastards of the Bastion of Bastogne.

I dare say he has recieved some praise for this action.
 
Top