Greatest American General

Who do you believe was the greatest General in US history.?
My vote would be Winfield Scott.
His brilliant landing at Vera Cruz and overland March on Mexico City is reminiscent of the the US army’s march from Kuwait to Baghdad in gulf war 2.
He implemented the anaconda plan at the outset of the Civil War that resulted in the eventual Union victory.
He had the strategic foresight to know that the Civil War was going to last far longer than his contemporaries.
 
George Henry Thomas. Was tragically underutilized in the Civil War, but grasped modern combined arms tactics faster than his contemporaries.
 
Ulysses S. Grant. The architect of the Union's overall victory, through personal victories with his own army in the west, and his strategic direction of the Union war effort later in the war. From start to finish, here was a man who understood the enemy had good reason to be afraid of him. Grant may have lost a engagement here and there, but never a campaign. Three armies surrendered to Grant during the war, an unparalleled feat.
 

Md139115

Banned
We can't count Lee, can we? I mean, the man was good, but he was just bonkers! There is no way on earth that Chancellorsville should have worked, but it did. He is either the greatest or most insane American general ever.
 
We can't count Lee, can we? I mean, the man was good, but he was just bonkers! There is no way on earth that Chancellorsville should have worked, but it did. He is either the greatest or most insane American general ever.
Eh, Chancellorsville was more a case of the Federals losing the battle than Lee winning it. Had Hooker stayed for Lee's final attack, the Federals would have dealt a very bloody nose onto Lee's forces. That isn't to say that Marse Lee was a bad general, on the contrary, he was certainly one of the best. I think the Second Bull Run/Manassas Campaign was Lee's true 'Austerlitz', highlighting his excellent operational capabilities.
 
William Sherman, the most unorthodox and badass of all pre WW2 American generals. His march to the Sea was the most daring and foolhardy campaign of the civil war.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Nathanael Greene. Rarely have commanders done so much with so little. He was completely self-trained, rising from a militia foot-soldier to Washington's most gifted subordinate. He essentially saved the Southern Theatre. He often gets underrated, and that's just a crime.
 
Ulysses S. Grant. The architect of the Union's overall victory, through personal victories with his own army in the west, and his strategic direction of the Union war effort later in the war. From start to finish, here was a man who understood the enemy had good reason to be afraid of him. Grant may have lost a engagement here and there, but never a campaign. Three armies surrendered to Grant during the war, an unparalleled feat.
In addition, he had a solid grasp of logistics (being a former Quartermaster during the Mexican war) and worked well with the Navy on combined operations. He was also not afraid of failure.
 
Nathanael Greene. Rarely have commanders done so much with so little. He was completely self-trained, rising from a militia foot-soldier to Washington's most gifted subordinate. He essentially saved the Southern Theatre. He often gets underrated, and that's just a crime.

He was even better than Washington himself actually.
 
Pre-1900 I'd say U. S. Grant for having the will and the vision to win. As his failed predecessors show it doesn't do you much good to have the numbers and materiel if you aren't able to fully use them.

For the 20th century I'd say Matthew Ridgway. Salvaging the UN effort in Korea had to be the most thankless job in military history but he did just that. I also like that he did so replacing MacArthur, the most overrated general in American history.
 
I immediately would agree that Scott, Lee, Jackson, and Greene are great contenders. What Scott did during the Mexican-American war is truly amazing and Wellington said it best calling him the ""the greatest living general" (Or soldier). Lee also throughout his career in both small tactical situations, as well as larger strategy showed amazing skill in face of great odds. But, I still would have to give the nod to Washington for overall greatest given what opposed him, what little he had to work with, and all the intangibles he brought to the table. The little faults found in some of these other great contenders would have been enough to sink them if placed in the situations and conditions Washington dwelt in. IMHO where they would have failed, Washington succeeded.
 
I immediately would agree that Scott, Lee, Jackson, and Greene are great contenders. What Scott did during the Mexican-American war is truly amazing and Wellington said it best calling him the ""the greatest living general" (Or soldier). Lee also throughout his career in both small tactical situations, as well as larger strategy showed amazing skill in face of great odds. But, I still would have to give the nod to Washington for overall greatest given what opposed him, what little he had to work with, and all the intangibles he brought to the table. The little faults found in some of these other great contenders would have been enough to sink them if placed in the situations and conditions Washington dwelt in. IMHO where they would have failed, Washington succeeded.

Washington was a terrible tactician, he didn’t know how to effectively employ cavalry, the New York campaign was an utter disaster for the Americans, and he was lucky Cornwallis wasn’t that much better than him or he would have finished the job in New Jersey. For the rest of the war he was constantly obsessed with recapturing New York while neglecting the Southern theater, which luckily for the Americans Nathanael Greene salvaged. Washington had charisma, he knew how to mantain order and morale, but comparing him to Lee, Scott? It’d be like comparing George McClellan to Grant and Sherman.
 
I immediately would agree that Scott, Lee, Jackson, and Greene are great contenders. What Scott did during the Mexican-American war is truly amazing and Wellington said it best calling him the ""the greatest living general" (Or soldier). Lee also throughout his career in both small tactical situations, as well as larger strategy showed amazing skill in face of great odds. But, I still would have to give the nod to Washington for overall greatest given what opposed him, what little he had to work with, and all the intangibles he brought to the table. The little faults found in some of these other great contenders would have been enough to sink them if placed in the situations and conditions Washington dwelt in. IMHO where they would have failed, Washington succeeded.

Lee and Jackson are overrated generals, IMO. Jackson was a competent corps commander with a unique ability to inspire his men, a good quality to be sure but he was widely disliked by his subordinates because he was terrible at communication. He would have been a disaster at any level above a corps.

Lee frequently beat inferior opponents despite setting himself up for destruction. His army should have been smashed to pieces at Chancellorsville and Antietam but on both occasions the Union commanders lost their nerve.

It must be remembered that the mystique of Jackson and Lee are almost entirely inflated by post-war Lost Cause mythologizing that resulted in their elevations to exalted status at the expense of other generals like Longstreet, who was reviled for supporting Reconstruction.
 
Lee and Jackson are overrated generals, IMO. Jackson was a competent corps commander with a unique ability to inspire his men, a good quality to be sure but he was widely disliked by his subordinates because he was terrible at communication. He would have been a disaster at any level above a corps.

Lee frequently beat inferior opponents despite setting himself up for destruction. His army should have been smashed to pieces at Chancellorsville and Antietam but on both occasions the Union commanders lost their nerve.

It must be remembered that the mystique of Jackson and Lee are almost entirely inflated by post-war Lost Cause mythologizing that resulted in their elevations to exalted status at the expense of other generals like Longstreet, who was reviled for supporting Reconstruction.

Never said either Jackson or Lee were that great, just said, or rather implied, that Lee was better than Washington, which he was. Personally I think both Lee and Washington are grossly overrated, and Jackson was just a cavalry commander, we’ll never know if he would have been a competent general.
 
Top