Posted on 11/14/2004 5:23:06 PM PST by Cyropaedia
In light of the upcoming film Alexander (the Great), who in your opinion were actually the greatest military commanders our world has known...?
Mine are Genghis Khan, Alexander, and U.S. Grant.
You surely were taught from the Northern History Books.
The North was JUST as guilty. They STARTED the slavery problem in the first place. And most of the soldiers that fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves. 3 of MY ancestors, for example. As a matter of fact, the only ancestor that DID was my Great-Great-Great Uncle, U.S. GRANT! :)
Most are saying Patton, but I have some problems with Patton. He was bad about outrunning his supply lines and he is probably also to blame for those troops in Belgium being ill equiped for winter fighting. They had no winter clothes because Patton assumed he could win the war by Christmas and he didn't think it was necessary for them to have winter clothes. He was a prima donna and I believe that the 3rd army was successful because of those men fighting in it and not because of Patton. He was aggressive, I give him that. But he also didn't play it smart and it ended up costing a lot of lives. If he wouldn't have outrun his supply lines and made sure the men were properly equipped, we would have still won, but without as much lives lost. That's all hindsight and it's debated that being so aggressive kept the Germans on the defensive. However, I also believe that Patton did a lot of things strictly to make Patton look good. I think his ego got in the way of clear thinking too many times.
The original thread asked for commanders and not necessarily generals. If so, I liked Norman Cota and Dick Winters. After reading Band of Brothers, Winters is the type of commander I would have wanted to serve under.
My cousin Julia Dent married him. She, BTW, was the one who brought the slaves to the marriage. She was something like 3rd cousin to my great grandmother - her father moved to Missouri I think - we are the Maryland Dents not the Georgia coast Dents (although they are all from Maryland if you go back far enough.)
I am not certain, but I believe it is from her line. My Great-Great-Great Grandmother was a Rainey, and was related somehow. I remember my Great-Grandmother telling me that her Grandmother had never told her spouse, as he was a Confederate Soldier, and hated Grant with a passion :)
Like many who posted here, I'm a bit of Civil War buff, so I think its disrepectful and disingenious for that old canard, "you were taught from the Northern history books ..." as if one can pretend that slavery was not an issue and probably the most important issue that led to the Civil War.
The North was JUST as guilty. They STARTED the slavery problem in the first place.
How can a section of the country which outlawed slavery be just a guilty for the institution of slavery as the section which practiced it and sought to perpetuate it to the territories? As for who STARTED the slavery problem, I think you have to go back to Ug the caveman who found that he could make another do his work (provided he had the bigger club.)
And most of the soldiers that fought for the Confederacy didn't own slaves. 3 of MY ancestors, for example.
Never said otherwise, in fact I was very careful to not state that.
As a matter of fact, the only ancestor that DID was my Great-Great-Great Uncle, U.S. GRANT!
True enough. Grant's wife Julia owned four slaves at different parts of her life (before the Civil War) and Grant himself owned one from 1858-59. Interestingly enough Grant freed his slave though he could have sold him for about $1,000. At this time Grant was in significant financial straits, but was unwilling to sell another human being. Grant was not an abolitionist and wrote in 1863:
"I never was an abolitionist, not even what could be called anti-slavery, but I try to judge fairly and honestly and it became patent in my mind early in the rebellion that the North and South could never live at peace with each other except as one nation, and that without slavery. As anxious as I am to see peace established, I would not therefore be willing to see any settlement until the question is forever settled."
I guess Grant was taught by the Northern history books too because there he is linking the Civil War to slavery. On the other hand since he lived through that period of time, was NOT an abolitionist, and had familial ties to the South - well maybe he just might have known more than you do about the connection between the Civil War and slavery. Now go back to your "Southern" history books ...
My family struck her out of the family Bible because she was not only married to a Yankee but THE Yankee. :-D
Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Irwin Rommel, George S. Patton Jr., and, of course - Shaka.
First:
I am a "bit" of a buff myself on the subject. I have been a reenactor for 15 years, and hold a degree in US History, from University of Texas, Austin.
There was no disrespect intended, but I find it discouraging that someone with an education (I am assuming here, again, not to insult) would believe that the WBTS was fought over Slavery. It was only one of MANY causes, and the real underlying cause had to do with States-Rights. Slavery just happened to be the issue that was used to goad Southerners with. And the first slaves were sold in New England, and New England Shipping Tycoons made their money transporting slaves,etc. They are just as guilty. In our Texas History books, we were taught just that.
Yes, I missed Ghengis Khan - the greatest of all.
Ha! I can imagine.....I can assure you that it took many years before I could come to terms and ADMIT I am related to him in any way. My Great-Grandma referred to the war as the "War of Northern Agression" :) She told me there was nothing "CIVIL" about it :)
"I guess Grant was taught by the Northern history books too because there he is linking the Civil War to slavery."
I think slavery was ONE of the reasons for the START of the Civil War - a significant one, but it certainly wasn't the primary reason Northerners fought (mainly to preserve the Union) or Southerneers fought (mainly to keep out Yankee invaders). Nor was it the SOLE reason.
"Sun Tzu"
BINGO!!
The father of Military Strategic Thought.
Lt. Cdr. Quinton McHale
Capt. Wallace Burton Binghamton
Ensign Charles Parker
I think George Washington was a great Leader, but not a great military commander.
I think the best American military commanders were Nathaniel Greene, Daniel Morgan, and Benedict Arnold. The best British military commanders were Banastre Tarleton and Howe.
General Tommy Franks conquered Baghdad in record time.
George Patton
General Hammond of Stargate Command..
I have to agree with you on that part..
One of the problems with a free-flowing thread that you can step into the middle of the discussion without full appreciating what came before. I came into this thread with the following comment (post #317):
There are several causes but if you don't include among them, the desire on the part of the Southern states to protect the institution of slavery and to perpetuate its spread into the territories, you're not being honest.
That's my story and I'm sticking with it ...
Patton, hands down.
Spruance at Leyte Gulf!
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.