[clee1]

I'm a south'rener, and I'll agree with US Grant.

Add a few more - Patton, Montgomery, Napoleon, Hannibal, McArthur, Schwartzkopf, Nimitz, Rommel, Zhukov

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

As a Southerner, you might have added Nathan Bedford Forrest.

[Cyropaedia]

My understanding is that Lee was not as good as Grant from a tactical standpoint. Grant simply understood the "mechanics" of modern warfare better.

I also understand that Patton was heavily influenced by the strategy used by Sherman in has campaign through Atlanta.

[dougd]

Patton, Montgomery, Napoleon, Hannibal, McArthur, Schwartzkopf, Nimitz, Rommel, Zhukov

Monty?? - What were his accomplishments not more attributable to Enigma than to his capabilities?

Nor do I see any real genius in Schwartzkopf. Seems rather ordinary to me.

Now, Franks, I think, ranks right up there near the top.

However, not being a military analyst, I'm open to being educated.

[RightWhale]

Agree with Zukov. Add Saladin.

[Ciexyz]

Zhukov

Good choice. The Soviet Army faced an overwhelming situation against the Nazi invaders, but the Soviet lines held.

Time to rewatch "Enemy at the Gates" about snipers in Stalingrad.

[JasonC]

Patton and Napoleon certainly, and Rommel was a good general, though he had his drawbacks (over extended many times, poor grasp of logistics, unsound plan for the defense of France). MacArthur lost his nerve, in command shock, after the Chinese intervention in Korea, as is proven by Ridgeway's superior performance with the same hand. Montgomery was mediocre - Market Garden is a telling failure, and the multiple failures in front of Caen, despite massive resources at his disposal, are not to his credit. Hannibal I addressed in a previous post, above. Nimitz was indeed a great military commander, though also one with a simply overwhelming hand. And arguably, if one is looking for flaws, 1943 was largely wasted in the south Pacific fighting, when the central pacific route taken later was already open. Schwartkopf made sound use of an overwhelming hand, only to see his forces stopped before they could save us from our present difficulties, but was never tested for real greatness by any real adversity or challenge. Zhukov was simply in charge of an eventually sound institution; he had some brilliant conceptions but also some stunning failures, and overall his record in an unimpressive one - great breakthroughs stabilized by inferior defending forces, much higher losses sustained from a position of material superiority, etc.

[superfries]

Sherman

[RinaseaofDs]

Not Montgomery or McArthur. Monty was largely responsible for the Battle of the Bulge by allowing the Germans to escape in 1943. He made mistakes all over N. Africa too.

McArthur gambled the farm on Inchon and won. Had the weather been anything other than perfection, he would have been among the worst.

Patton never lost period. He showed the world how to use armor and air power with almost precision coordination.

Washington did a whole lot with a very little. I'd have to say he's got to be up there.

[quadrant]

MacArthur has to be at the top of US military commanders. He fought against an enemy far more numerous; he fought with very meager supplies and a long way from his main source of supply; and he was the first to successfully integrate air, land, and sea power on a consistent basis. He was not afraid to take great risks and his casualties were low.