Favorite US Military General?

[huskyfan]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

Can you, in your wildest imagination, see Patton issuing an order with the words 'if practicable" in it? Or Rommel? Or MacArthur? Or any great field commander, for that matter?

so true.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

Can you, in your wildest imagination, see Patton issuing an order with the words 'if practicable" in it? Or Rommel? Or MacArthur? Or any great field commander, for that matter?

You'd have to have mega-ton confidence in that subordinate commander's judgement, and those types are very few and very far between. I've been doing a lot of reading on the Civil War the last few years, and one running problematic theme I have found is commanders' misinterpetations of orders.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

You'd have to have mega-ton confidence in that subordinate commander's judgement, and those types are very few and very far between. I've been doing a lot of reading on the Civil War the last few years, and one running problematic theme I have found is commanders' misinterpetations of orders.

Obviously improvements in communication make it possible for a subordinate to report problems to a commander, who can then change the game plan.

I've mentioned Fuller's "Grant and Lee" a couple of times. And one of his observations about Lee is the man's evidently terminal politeness. "If practicable" isn't the only manifestation. Seems Lee would write very polite letters to higher ups "recommending," "suggesting" reinforcements or resupply. Grant, on the other hand, was a little more blunt in what he wanted.

 

[Almington]

You'd have to have mega-ton confidence in that subordinate commander's judgement, and those types are very few and very far between. I've been doing a lot of reading on the Civil War the last few years, and one running problematic theme I have found is commanders' misinterpetations of orders.

Add to that the Fog of War, that it was impossible to know exactly what was happening on the battlefield everywhere. They say that what allowed Nelson to achieve such decisive victories at the Battles of the Nile and Trafalgar is that he made it clear what he wanted them to do before the battle so that his signals wouldn't be misinterpreted during the battle.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

Add to that the Fog of War, that it was impossible to know exactly what was happening on the battlefield everywhere. They say that what allowed Nelson to achieve such decisive victories at the Battles of the Nile and Trafalgar is that he made it clear what he wanted them to do before the battle so that his signals wouldn't be misinterpreted during the battle.

Not only are the fog of war and misinterpetted of orders reasons for the failure and successes of battles, but also are orders that are basically ignored, like Heth and Sickles did @ Gettysburg. Heth was to go into Gettysburg and find shoes & supplies, but not to engage any forces there. When he saw Buford's forces on day 1, he should have not engaged, but this troops "got thier dander up". Sickles did not deploy as ordered on day 2, and Longstreet just about rolled the whole Union Army from that flank.

 

[Almington]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

Not only are the fog of war and misinterpetted of orders reasons for the failure and successes of battles, but also are orders that are basically ignored, like Heth and Sickles did @ Gettysburg. Heth was to go into Gettysburg and find shoes & supplies, but not to engage any forces there. When he saw Buford's forces on day 1, he should have not engaged, but this troops "got thier dander up". Sickles did not deploy as ordered on day 2, and Longstreet just about rolled the whole Union Army from that flank.

True, but at some point the overall commander has to let his subordinate who has a better grasp of the operational situation use his discretion and initiative to address the situation in front of him. Part of the reason that Napoleon lost at Waterloo is that his subordinate generals were either unable or unwilling to take advantage of opportunities that presented themselves. Gruchy was unable to keep the Prussians occupied long enough prevent them from joining up with British and Ney lacked the large scale strategic thinking that was required to beat Wellington when he wasn't supervised directly by Napoleon. Regardless of how good a field Marshall is at assessing and evaluating the overall strategic nature of the battle, if he doesn't have senior subordinates who are able to handle the tactical nature of the he will eventually fail. the "Chain of Command" is only as strong as the weakest link - many of the politically selected/appointed company, regimental and brigade officers certainly hobbled the Union war effort in the early period. When someone is appointed as a brigade commander because he is a good political ally as opposed to being a good military officer what do you expect to happen in the chaos of battle?

 

[Titleist]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

I've been following this thread with interest but frankly didn't feel like arguing about the American Civil War. However if we get to talk about the Waterloo Campaign or Napoleon, I'm in.

In defense of Napoleon, he was always operating on a different level of most of his subordinates. His greatest campaigns and victories were lead by him personally, generally when commanding a smaller army. The exception of course is Davout's victory at Auerstedt. Save Davout, Lannes, Suchet, St. Cyr, (and Massena during the early empire none of his major commanders were anything more than brave.) In fact there is a cool story illustrating this. Nap once organized a rabbit hunt that most of his marshals attended. But the rabbit counter-charged and in the words of John Elting displayed a better understand of Napoleon's tactics than their hunters. As a result Massena got shot in the eye.

With specific regard to the Waterloo Campaign, Napoleon's pool of talented senior commanders was severely limited. Davout, his best marshal, had to serve as minister of war. Lannes was dead. Suchet was commanding against the Austro-Italian-Russian advance along the Med and winning a stunning victory. And St. Cyr defected with Louis XVIII. Ney was a personal favorite of Napoleon and Grouchy was a newly appointed marshal. What killed Napoleon at Waterloo was Grouchy's failure to pressure Blucher, a job that Ney would have excelled at. Ney, an aggressive if stupid officer, would have pressured the retreating Prussians at Ligny more closely and would have marched to the sound of the guns at Wavre. Whereas Grouchy, a cavalry man, would never have launch the numerous unsupported cavalry charges against Wellington's center. This would have left plenty of reserves for the coup de grace at Mont St. Jean in the evening. Plus it rained the night before preventing an early start to the battle. To say that Napoleon's defeat was inevitable seems a bit extremely given his previous track record.

Sorry for the complete divergence, but I saw a chance to talk about Waterloo and couldn't pass it up.
Back on topic:

Favorite US General: Sheridan
Best: Sherman

 

[Timothy A]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

I've been following this thread with interest but frankly didn't feel like arguing about the American Civil War. However if we get to talk about the Waterloo Campaign or Napoleon, I'm in.

In defense of Napoleon, he was always operating on a different level of most of his subordinates. His greatest campaigns and victories were lead by him personally, generally when commanding a smaller army. The exception of course is Davout's victory at Auerstedt. Save Davout, Lannes, Suchet, St. Cyr, (and Massena during the early empire none of his major commanders were anything more than brave.) In fact there is a cool story illustrating this. Nap once organized a rabbit hunt that most of his marshals attended. But the rabbit counter-charged and in the words of John Elting displayed a better understand of Napoleon's tactics than their hunters. As a result Massena got shot in the eye.

With specific regard to the Waterloo Campaign, Napoleon's pool of talented senior commanders was severely limited. Davout, his best marshal, had to serve as minister of war. Lannes was dead. Suchet was commanding against the Austro-Italian-Russian advance along the Med and winning a stunning victory. And St. Cyr defected with Louis XVIII. Ney was a personal favorite of Napoleon and Grouchy was a newly appointed marshal. What killed Napoleon at Waterloo was Grouchy's failure to pressure Blucher, a job that Ney would have excelled at. Ney, an aggressive if stupid officer, would have pressured the retreating Prussians at Ligny more closely and would have marched to the sound of the guns at Wavre. Whereas Grouchy, a cavalry man, would never have launch the numerous unsupported cavalry charges against Wellington's center. This would have left plenty of reserves for the coup de grace at Mont St. Jean in the evening. Plus it rained the night before preventing an early start to the battle. To say that Napoleon's defeat was inevitable seems a bit extremely given his previous track record.

Sorry for the complete divergence, but I saw a chance to talk about Waterloo and couldn't pass it up.
Back on topic:

Favorite US General: Sheridan
Best: Sherman

Really great post, I'm going to have to do some reading on up on Waterloo and the characters involved. So many neat things to with one's life and so little time...

 

[UncleRay]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

Lee

Absolutely!

http://images.ask.com/fr?q=General+...ge%3D1%26o%3D102140%26l%3Ddir%26pstart%3D&qt=

 

[Titleist]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

Thanks! I was obsessed with the Napoleonic period for a long time. An excellent read on the period in general is the book I referenced in my post, John Elting's Swords Around A Throne. A great overview of the period. For Waterloo itself, One Hundred Day by Alan Schom is a good read.

 

[Almington]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

Thanks! I was obsessed with the Napoleonic period for a long time. An excellent read on the period in general is the book I referenced in my post, John Elting's Swords Around A Throne. A great overview of the period. For Waterloo itself, One Hundred Day by Alan Schom is a good read.

I agree that "Swords Around A Throne" is a great read, and I'm much more interested in the naval side of the period.

Many may dissagree with me, but for getting a basic overview of event, I have come to really like the Osprey Publishing Campaign series. Basically it is an introductions to the battle itself, a general overview of the events leading up to the culminating battle and the other associated background information and biographies of the armies and generals involved with many nice pictures and maps. It's not going to make you an expert on what happened but it will give you a foundation to learn more on (if you want too).

 

[Titleist]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

Ah, the naval period! My early obsession with the Napoleonic period has actually mutated into a far bigger obsession with the Royal Navy from 1700-1815, essentially the Second Hundred Years War. If you've not read it, The Line Upon A Wind by Mostert, is simply brilliant!

 

[Almington]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

Ah, the naval period! My early obsession with the Napoleonic period has actually mutated into a far bigger obsession with the Royal Navy from 1700-1815, essentially the Second Hundred Years War. If you've not read it, The Line Upon A Wind by Mostert, is simply brilliant!

The long 18th century (1648-1815) was such a period of dramatic change: it included the industrial, scientific, American, and French revolutions all happened.

I must also recommend "The War for all the Oceans" by Adkins, "The French Navy in the Seven Years War" and "The French Navy and American Independence" by Jonathan Dull both give a great and complete picture from the French perspective (something that is often missing) that also covers diplomatic, economic and political realities of the situation as much as the pure military aspects. Fact of the matter is that Navy's are incredibly expensive things to build, develop, and maintain, particularly given the specialized skills required to maintain, sail and fight a sail powered ship. As great of general as Napoleon was, he never understood the limitations of naval operations in the age of sail and that's a (the?) major reason that he was never able to launch his invasion of Brittan.

 

[manurespreader]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

Well here's my two cents.

I'm not a Lee fan. And though Sherman was good he was not the big boss.
I think really you have to aim for bigger fish.

In no particular order then. US Grant. If you remember Lincoln spent tons of time going thru generals, until he got to Grant.
Douglas MacArthur- Inchon was a masterpiece and he returned.
George Washington- not only a great tactician but a great politician in order to get supplies etc.
The Marquis de Lafayette- could lead and follow.Did a heck of a lot for the U.S.
George Patton- his view of the battlefield and what was going to happen, had tremendous respect from the other side.
Ira Eaker- you can look it up.( you could add in Curt Lemay too but I like Eaker better)
To go to old time generals.
Napoleon, agreed- just went to his tomb.
Scipio Africanus Major- without him we'd all be muslims.
Alexander the Great- modified the Greek Phalanx to devastating effect

my favorite military quote. "Lafayette, we have come"

 

[joecct]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

Well here's my two cents.

Napoleon, agreed- just went to his tomb.

So who has more statues, DeGaulle or Napoleon??

 

[Titleist]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

I must also recommend "The War for all the Oceans" by Adkins, "The French Navy in the Seven Years War" and "The French Navy and American Independence" by Jonathan Dull both give a great and complete picture from the French perspective (something that is often missing) that also covers diplomatic, economic and political realities of the situation as much as the pure military aspects. Fact of the matter is that Navy's are incredibly expensive things to build, develop, and maintain, particularly given the specialized skills required to maintain, sail and fight a sail powered ship. As great of general as Napoleon was, he never understood the limitations of naval operations in the age of sail and that's a (the?) major reason that he was never able to launch his invasion of Brittan.

Yeah, "Oceans" is very good as well. To which must be added Mahan's "Influence of Seapower..." And yes I agree naval thinking truly escaped Napoleon. Who would have thunk that one can't simply order a fleet to appear as one could a corps?

I'm not a Lee fan. And though Sherman was good he was not the big boss.
I think really you have to aim for bigger fish.

In no particular order then. US Grant. If you remember Lincoln spent tons of time going thru generals, until he got to Grant.
Douglas MacArthur- Inchon was a masterpiece and he returned.
George Washington- not only a great tactician but a great politician in order to get supplies etc.
The Marquis de Lafayette- could lead and follow.Did a heck of a lot for the U.S.
George Patton- his view of the battlefield and what was going to happen, had tremendous respect from the other side.
Ira Eaker- you can look it up.( you could add in Curt Lemay too but I like Eaker better)
To go to old time generals.
Napoleon, agreed- just went to his tomb.
Scipio Africanus Major- without him we'd all be muslims.
Alexander the Great- modified the Greek Phalanx to devastating effect

my favorite military quote. "Lafayette, we have come"

A few comments here. I agree about Lee, as Keegan says in "The American Civil War" a great battle winner who would have fared well in a European war of maneuver. Though In my opinion von Moltke the Elder was a superior commander from the same era. One thing that people tend to forget about Lee is that he faced VERY poor opposition and still managed to sustain a higher percentage of casualties than his opponents.

As an American a feel wrong to talk bad about Washington, but he was a very average general with a tremendous tenacity. His record speaks for itself. Outside of the Trenton Campaign, he won only a draw at Monmouth and was the nominal commander for the Sieges of Boston and Yorktown, though at the latter the French were the true architects of victory. His talent was more administration, intelligence (and counter-intelligence), and determination. For an American from the War for Independence, perhaps Greene or Morgan.

Your list of others leads to me a couple of questions, no Marlborough being the foremost? And as to Scipio, I think you are thinking of Charles Martel. Scipio defeated Hannibal at Zama in the 2nd Punic War some 200 years before Christ let alone Mohammed. Hannibal and the Carthaginians tended to worship Ba'al.

 

[Almington]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

Yeah, "Oceans" is very good as well. To which must be added Mahan's "Influence of Seapower..." And yes I agree naval thinking truly escaped Napoleon. Who would have thunk that one can't simply order a fleet to appear as one could a corps?

I prefere Sir Julian Corbett's "Some Principles of Maritime Strategy" or either of Mahan's "Influence of Seapower upon history" or "Influence of Seapower upon french revolution and Empire". I feel that Mahan focused to much on the decisive battle and ignored the importance of blockade and commerce raiding towards winning a war. As decendants of Mahan, I would recomend Peter Padfield's "Maritime Supremacy and the Opening of the Western Mind 1588-1783" and "Maritime Power and the Struggle for Freedom 1783-1851" (He also has written "Maritime Domination and the Trimuph of the Free World" 1852-2001 but I have not read it).

A few comments here. I agree about Lee, as Keegan says in "The American Civil War" a great battle winner who would have fared well in a European war of maneuver. Though In my opinion von Moltke the Elder was a superior commander from the same era. One thing that people tend to forget about Lee is that he faced VERY poor opposition and still managed to sustain a higher percentage of casualties than his opponents.

As an American a feel wrong to talk bad about Washington, but he was a very average general with a tremendous tenacity. His record speaks for itself. Outside of the Trenton Campaign, he won only a draw at Monmouth and was the nominal commander for the Sieges of Boston and Yorktown, though at the latter the French were the true architects of victory. His talent was more administration, intelligence (and counter-intelligence), and determination. For an American from the War for Independence, perhaps Greene or Morgan.

Your list of others leads to me a couple of questions, no Marlborough being the foremost? And as to Scipio, I think you are thinking of Charles Martel. Scipio defeated Hannibal at Zama in the 2nd Punic War some 200 years before Christ let alone Mohammed. Hannibal and the Carthaginians tended to worship Ba'al.

Lee, as were all the other Civil War generals, guilty of fighting the war with tactics that had not yet advanced and compensated for the technological advancement (particularly the Minni Rifle as opposed to a smooth bore musket). Lee managed to get more out of his troops than any other Confederate general, but he wasn't either a great strategic or tactical thinker. Stonewall Jackson was a great strategic and tactical thinker, Sherman was a great strategic thinker and among the better union tactical thinkers. Grant on the other hand basically used the "Army of the Potomic" like a hammer and kept pounding on the "Army of Northern Virginia" and didn't really give Lee time to regroup.

Washington wasn't fighting a war that he had (or even could) to win on the battlefield as much as he was fighting one that he couldn't afford to LOSE on the battlefield. Washington's greatest advantage was that of an "Army in Being" in that by having a army on the field the British HAD to be prepared for it to strike (and if they were not prepared, the Battle of Trenton could happen). Washington saw the larger strategic picture and while he wasn't a good battle tactician, he was able to maneuver his army out of positions where it could be destroyed. He may not have been a great battle general, but he was the right leader that the army and colonies needed at the time.

The truly great generals have more than just a great tactical and strategic mind, but a leadership charisma that allows them to get more out of the units that they command than any of their contemporaries.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

Yeah, "Oceans" is very good as well. To which must be added Mahan's "Influence of Seapower..." And yes I agree naval thinking truly escaped Napoleon. Who would have thunk that one can't simply order a fleet to appear as one could a corps?



A few comments here. I agree about Lee, as Keegan says in "The American Civil War" a great battle winner who would have fared well in a European war of maneuver. Though In my opinion von Moltke the Elder was a superior commander from the same era. One thing that people tend to forget about Lee is that he faced VERY poor opposition and still managed to sustain a higher percentage of casualties than his opponents.

As an American a feel wrong to talk bad about Washington, but he was a very average general with a tremendous tenacity. His record speaks for itself. Outside of the Trenton Campaign, he won only a draw at Monmouth and was the nominal commander for the Sieges of Boston and Yorktown, though at the latter the French were the true architects of victory. His talent was more administration, intelligence (and counter-intelligence), and determination. For an American from the War for Independence, perhaps Greene or Morgan.

Your list of others leads to me a couple of questions, no Marlborough being the foremost? And as to Scipio, I think you are thinking of Charles Martel. Scipio defeated Hannibal at Zama in the 2nd Punic War some 200 years before Christ let alone Mohammed. Hannibal and the Carthaginians tended to worship Ba'al.

Your observations about Hannibal got me to thinking about Will Cuppy's "Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody" Cuppy says Hannibal kept the morale of his men very high as they crossed the Alps:

"Whenever a thousand or so of his men would fall off an Alp, he [Hannibal] would tell the rest to cheer up, the elephants were all right. If someone had given him a shove at the right moment, much painful history might have been avoided."

 

[Titleist]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

I prefere Sir Julian Corbett's "Some Principles of Maritime Strategy" or either of Mahan's "Influence of Seapower upon history" or "Influence of Seapower upon french revolution and Empire". I feel that Mahan focused to much on the decisive battle and ignored the importance of blockade and commerce raiding towards winning a war. As decendants of Mahan, I would recomend Peter Padfield's "Maritime Supremacy and the Opening of the Western Mind 1588-1783" and "Maritime Power and the Struggle for Freedom 1783-1851" (He also has written "Maritime Domination and the Trimuph of the Free World" 1852-2001 but I have not read it).

Well Mahan was basing his views on the Royal Navy. And the Blockade, at least as we know it and I'm sure you mean was always secondary and not truly applied until Hawke in 1759 and then Cornwallis, Nelson, and Collingwood during the Napoleonic Era. And all of those wanted more than anything to fight a decisive battle. Commerce raid has a place but it cannot win a war of itself nor has it ever crippled a nation. Though German Subs and the American Silent Service came close.

Lee, as were all the other Civil War generals, guilty of fighting the war with tactics that had not yet advanced and compensated for the technological advancement (particularly the Minni Rifle as opposed to a smooth bore musket). Lee managed to get more out of his troops than any other Confederate general, but he wasn't either a great strategic or tactical thinker. Stonewall Jackson was a great strategic and tactical thinker, Sherman was a great strategic thinker and among the better union tactical thinkers. Grant on the other hand basically used the "Army of the Potomic" like a hammer and kept pounding on the "Army of Northern Virginia" and didn't really give Lee time to regroup.

All true but the brilliance of Sherman and a lesser extend Grant was understanding the new technology, adapting, and dominating. Sherman saw the changes and in his creation of the western army changed how wars would be fought. Grant, in my opinion, is saddled with a bit of an undeserved reputation as a butcher. Tactically speaking he was rather straight forward but strategically he like Sherman identified the new way to fight and attrite the rebels. Stonewall's problem was he was despised by his colleagues, save Lee. And he never gave his subordinates any idea what was happening. Finally his conduct early in the 7 days battle left much to be desired.

Washington wasn't fighting a war that he had (or even could) to win on the battlefield as much as he was fighting one that he couldn't afford to LOSE on the battlefield. Washington's greatest advantage was that of an "Army in Being" in that by having a army on the field the British HAD to be prepared for it to strike (and if they were not prepared, the Battle of Trenton could happen). Washington saw the larger strategic picture and while he wasn't a good battle tactician, he was able to maneuver his army out of positions where it could be destroyed. He may not have been a great battle general, but he was the right leader that the army and colonies needed at the time.

Agreed completely!

The truly great generals have more than just a great tactical and strategic mind, but a leadership charisma that allows them to get more out of the units that they command than any of their contemporaries.

Again agreed completely. Specifically why I think that Napoleon is history's greatest captain. I recall Wellington's quote: I used to say of Napoleon that his presence on the field made the difference of forty thousand men.

 

[state of hockey]

Re: Favorite US Military General?

Hannibal was pretty good at what he did. Too bad for him the Romans realized that if they just refuse to meet him in all-out combat he couldn't accomplish dick.