Forrest. He killed my G-G-G Grandfather in hand to hand combat. He was a colonel then. Sherman, Lee, Grant (no matter what detractors say), JEB Stuart, Jackson, Johnston.
Patton, Montie, Rommel, some ruskies, Napoleon, Wellington, Hannibal, Washington, Alexander the great.
Jane-Gus Khan.
Who was the Celtic Chick that beat the Romans in Britain.
" If you don't really understand history I can see your error in saying washington . . ."
Well, gee. . . I guess I do not understand history. Why don't you explain to me why Washington is not one of the great ones. Certainly many professional military historians -- who obviously also do not understand history -- rank him up there. He was number one in the book "The Military 100."
So take some time to give us the benefit of your wisdom and insight. I am ready to be educated. Again please compare and contrast Napoleon and Washington. Especially the difference in the strategic results of their campaigns. I await, oh great one.
True, the enemy was not on a par with the US as a whole - however Franks still saw how to take down 1 country with under 200 (I think) of our own troops on the ground, and how to really use our capabilities in a revolutionary way to take down a second country at incredible numerical disadvantage, yet with miniscule casualties. Although there was a continuous flow of troops into the Iraqi battlefield, the main thrust to Baghdad was accomplished with a relatively few thousands of troops, all the while revising plans on the fly to answer enemy tactics.
I would bet that he will be seen as one of the best CINCs we have ever produced.
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.
Washington wasn't a brilliant tactician, but it seems to me he had good strategic sense and most importantly was a great leader.