[quote]
U.S.butcher Grant – overlooked, but he understood how to win the Civil War better than anyone else. His Vicksburg campaign was brilliantly handled (his idea of living off the land and coming from the land was something no one else would have thought of). He also was willing to press Lee even after losing at the Wilderness. Cold Harbor was his mistake, but not as costly to the overall war than Lee’s mistakes at Gettysburg.
The butcher is mine of course. If you think a great general means he can stand to lose more men than his opponent by all means pick Grant.
Unh unh, nope, no way. George was nowhere near Berlin at the end of the war. The closest US army was the 9[sup]th[/sup] which belonged to Simpson. Although, Patton could have taken Prague.
From my screen name, it should be obvious whom I’d advocate for. I think Scipio Africanus deserves top billing. The Italian peninsula had been occupied by Hannibal for something like sixteen years, and Hannibal had been unable to break the other Italian states’ alliances with Rome, starve Rome out, or pull together enough of an army to attack the city itself. In spite of this direct threat almost literally in Rome’s back yard, S. Africanus actually convinced the leaders of Rome to let him take an army to the Iberian peninsula. Not only must he have been strategically insightful to see the futility of going after Hannibal directly, he also saw the importance of disrupting Hannibal’s supply lines. On top of that he must have had the persuasive ability to convince Rome to let him train an army and leave the country instead of fighting the enemy right there in their midst.
He was also tactically skilled. Hannibal won at Cannae by virtue of luck. If the Romans had scouted a little better, or if their infantry had a better breakfast, then Hannibal would have been crushed. Scipio didn’t win on luck. He won New Carthage (IIRC) by misdirection with a plan that risked 500 men instead of a hail mary that risked his army. In another battle in Spain he tricked the enemy into thinking that he would arrange his troops in a certain order, and then did the opposite. He was then able to crush the enemy’s light allied infantry with his heavy infantry, but keep their heavies fixed in position because they couldn’t break formation with the thread of his light infantry taking advantage of their disorganization. In the end the enemy had to sit and watch as Scipio slaughtered their light troops, finally the enemy’s heavy infantry just marched off the field before the Romans finished the Carthaginian light infantry and brought their full force to bear on them. This tactic was utilized in Iraq, by the way, when U.S. armored columns raced to Baghdad and fixed the Republican Guard in place, thus unable to protect the rest of the nation. People cried foul, saying that they armored columns going to Baghdad were under manned; however they didn’t need to fight, just hold the Guard in position.
Scipio was able to succeed in diplomacy, making allies in Carthage’s back yard when Hannibal couldn’t do the same in Rome’s back yard. He defeated elephants with minimal fighting against them. He saw the importance of food supply in winning a war and was able to effect a plan to utilize that weakness. According to what I’ve read, in one battle he shouted to his troops an order to not kill any enemy who was unarmed. Because the enemy could hear it as well, they all threw down their weapons and the battle was over.
In the end, so I have read, he even established a reasonable, workable peace that wouldn’t be prohibitively onerous on Carthage. Unfortunately, the Roman politicians demanded more and more until a third was inevitable.
That is why, IMHO, I’m voting for Scipio Africanus this November.
That’s not entirely fair. Grant did well at Shiloh, and his coordination of infantry with gunboats gave him victory at Forts Henry and Donelson.
And remember, also, that all the previous commanders of the Army of the Potomac could afford to lose more men than the Army of Northern Virginia, too. Grant was willing to follow through, though, when his predecessors weren’t.
“Rommel, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!”
Captain Amazing
I don’t know if I would say Grant did well at Shiloh, he got surprised by the Rebels, gave unclear orders to General Lew Wallace and barely survived the first day until a 200,000 man army of reinforcements arrived. SHiloh was a Union victory, but only by the slimmest of margins.
No, it’s not, it’s a symptom of revisionist “thinking” that feels compelled to diminish or minimize everything done by Americans in favor of others. Patton was across the Rhine, but on April 3rd he was ordered to hold in place. He wasn’t given the go ahead to resume offensive operations until the 17th. Zhukov and Konev launched their final assault on Berlin the 16th, with Konev entering the city on the 22nd, Zhukov a day later. If you look at the corolation of forces, Germany had many, many more troops facing the Russians. 3rd army could have sliced through what was facing them like a knife through butter and waltzed to Berlin. They were told not to. Even allowing for a pause on the 3rd to permit the 1st and 9th armies to come up on line with it, the 3rd could have renewed offensive attacks on the 5th or 6th and would easlilly have covered the 120 or so miles between where it was outside Leipzig and Berlin long before Zhukov or Konev were even close. Look at a timeline and a map and you’ll easily see that I am right here.
Somehow in that last post I juxtaposed Bradly and Montgomery, talk about a stupid mistake! :smack: :smack:
Nadir Shah for an obscure choice who was pretty good within the limits of his time and position. Not sure if he quite fits in the greatest column, but just for a change of pace.
Subedei Bahadur and Jebe Noyan were Genghis Khan’s real military geniuses - as pure generals ( as opposed to leaders ) they probably outclassed him. Genghis was very good - his greatest and most complete victory as a commander was probably his last - the campaign against the rebellious Tanguts ( or at least history seems to give him credit for that one ). But it was Jebe who made the spectacur long-range, near-bloodless campaign that took out the Qara-Qitai. It was Jebe and Subedei who won a series of stunning victories against larger armies culminating in Kalka ( against a coalition of Russian princes and the Cumans ) in their famous northern expedition. And it was Subedei, master strategist and tactician, who planned and conducted two of the most brilliantly executed large-scale invasions in history - the Khwarizm campaign and the East European campaign ( 1236-1241 ).
In Europe, one could add Charles XII of Sweden - awful statesman, indifferent strategist, but brilliant tactician. His predecessor a few generations removed, Gustaf Adolph, was a tactical innovater and very good battlefield commander. Charles X wasn’t too bad either, for that matter.
Prince Eugene of Savoy probably deserves a mention if Marlborough does.
Hmmm…Henry of Navarre? Consistently won against superior forces and only Alexander Farnese was able to face him down ( another very good commander ).
Gaiseric the Vandal? Maybe as a grand strategist ( or grand opportunist ).
Cyrus the Great certainly achieved a great deal as a conqueror of near-Alexandrian proportions, although the details of his campaigns are a little obscure.
Alexander is definitely on the list. I agree with Caesar and Africanus as well, although I think Hannibal was also pretty impressive. Someone who was not named, though, is Gaius Marius. He gets my endorsement.
Aetius did okay for himself, but he lacks… panache, somehow.
I am SO not qualified to answer this but if you put a stranglehold on your enemy’s transportation and supplies, cut their territory in two and on top of it all they call you “the Butcher” you must be doing something right.
George C. Marshall. Five-star General (Field Marshal, in other words), Secretary of State, devised the Truman Policy and the Marshall Plan. Churchill called him ‘the organizer of the victory.’ Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
To the best of knowledge, he never led troops in action (well maybe in China).
Generals who build aren’t as valeud sadly… Omar did some great stuff after the war too.
**Scipio Africanus** and **Napoleon** are the true masters. These have to be mentioned in any top list. They simply did everything against the odds. Scipio does get the first spot because he knew when to stop... and when to use diplomacy. He built and planned for the future... where Napoleons ambitions and inability to accept less blinded him.
).