Posted on 11/14/2004 5:23:06 PM PST by Cyropaedia
I happen to think they were both great generals.
I don't agree with Lee detractors like Connally. His defensive war during the Overland Campaign of May-July 1864 was nothing short of brilliant: anticipating Grant's every move, always matching him in the nick of time, despite the depletion of his officer corps, generally erratic corps commanders, inferior numbers, and a weakening cavalry arm and terrible logistic support from Richmond. Lee had a couple of bad days at Gettysburg, some very bad luck before Antietam and tended at times to place too much trust in questionable senior commanders. But on the whole, his record at the head of the ANV is magnificent. Not overrated.
The knock against Grant...we all know. Superior numbers and logistics, attrition, yadda yaddda yadda. To which I respond: His Vicksburg campaign is considered by many experts to be the most brilliant single offensive campaign of the entire war - yet it's largely forgotten because it wasn't in Virginia. Let us not forget that before Lincoln called Grant East, he had managed the surrender of two entire Confederate field armies and had chased a third clean over the horizon. Grant's effectiveness in Virginia was hampered by being saddled with some incompetent (Butler, Burnside, Ledlie) and lacadaisacal (Smith, Warren) commanders that he didn't have to put up with out West. Opportunities to destroy Lee were repeatedly cast away by bungling by various commanders in 1864. Only Cold Harbor stands out for criticism, both for the assault and also Grant's refusal to ask for a truce to retrieve his wounded.
I'd round out my Civil War Top Five with Jackson, Forrest, and maybe a tossup between Gordon, Sheridan, Longstreet, Jo Shelby and Richard Taylor for the last spot.
Beyond that I'd like to single out Subedei, chief general of Batu Khan during his invasion of Russia and Europe in the 1240's, as one too often overlooked. His campaign essentially conquered a third of Eurasia in just a few years time.
Ah! Great! That one is new to me.
************
I'll add another to the list. Chief Osceola in the 2nd Seminole Indian Wars. For evading armies, guerilla warfare, and general evasiveness throughout the state of Florida.
The only way Col Jesup caught him was to capture him in a ruse of "peace discussions" under a flag of truce.
A little less-known, def. not the greatest of all-time, but an admirable leader against a greater opponent. Out-gunned, out-manned, but not out-manuevered. Osceola.
I assumed the way I'd used commas in that sentence would make it sufficiently clear to most people...
Giuseppe Garibaldi.
I'm ready to give detailed reasons why, for each one.
Well, I have a friend who pointed out that there was no stirrup in Alexander's time, but Mongol armies had them.
Makes a big difference for cavalry, of course.
Again the problem is people are far more familiar with Alexander than Jenghis Khan or the Mongols.
To this day "Horde" is used to designate a multitude of people, when it actually was a (fairly small) Mongol military unit.
The Mongols were outnumbered in basically every battle they ever fought, often by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1. Thing is those defeated tried the PR move of exaggerating the number of Mongols to make their defeats look less bad.
OK, explain Louis Davout.
Priceless!
There is a quite vocal contingent on FR which will basically baldly assert that slavery had NOTHING to do with the Civil War........routinely crack me up. As if the war would have been fought entirely over tariffs or something. It's a ridiculous overreaction to the somewhat inaccurate portrayal of the Civil war as ONLY being about slavery.
No, it's true. Bligh was a master seaman, but other than that he was a tyrant and a crook.
Good choice. He's the one American general that the commies were worried about.
I always liked Andy Jackson. The British have not given us any trouble since the Battle of New Orleans.
Grant?? Ok... I'll give you he would fight. Heck... He killed more yankees than all the Johnnie Rebs put together. He was the only general Lincoln could find that would fight. The only thing was any and all losses were fine with him.
Real answer... Nathon Bedford Forrest & Georgie Patton
Except for his blunders of ego that led to his defeat at Yorktown...I say Cornwallis. He was one of the great military minds of his time.
General Lee was anything but "flashy."
I've always thought that Marshal Davout was a tactical wizard -- at least on a par with his boss.
Overall, though, its got to be Alexander. The guy excelled tactically, operationally, and strategically. He won on all types of terrain, and showed himself to be a master of siege warfare as well. Plus, he has balls the size of basketballs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.