I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
-
.
-
I may just have a bad memory. But, I do not remember this post question.
I think this is the closest previous thread:
-
Lee lost,
so IMO he can’t be the greatest, plus Gettysburg…REALLY bad mistake.
Seems to me that ending a conflict on the winning side should be a prerequisite to “greatest”.
Washington, overwhelming odds, no money etc…etc. does this not work with your 1776 time frame?
-
I hope you know you could be offending thousands of Englishmen by starting with Your first President!
Lee of course, though he found it hard to adapt after the loss of his “right arm”. That son of a tanner can consider himself lucky not to have been brushed aside like all his other opponents. Illness on the North Anna saved him, as did Old Pete’s wounding in the Wilderness.
I only wish Lee could have swallowed his pride(can anyone?) and let a lesser man defend his sacred Virginia while he held a far more important West together.
JWW: winning is not everything. -
@wittman:
I hope you know you could be offending thousands of Englishmen by starting with Your first President!
Good.
I Second the Motion.
-
@wittman:
I hope you know you could be offending thousands of Englishmen by starting with Your first President!
I could care less if someone finds my valid response to this question offensive. And I am quite certain that any response to this question could be found to be offensive to SOMEONE.
The nature of war and those who participate at any level could be deemed offensive by many.
If you are lactose intollerant don’t drink milk. If critical thinking and simple conversation make you wince then don’t participate.
-
@wittman:
JWW: winning is not everything.
perhaps not but in defining the “greatest” general there should be some simple general criteria and I for one, thinking winning should be highly important.
Are we arguing which general had the greatest hygiene? Greatest strategic mind? Greatest uniform?
-
I was joking about Washington. He was the only one to start with in my opinion.
I do believe most great generals tend to lose some battles, often the last one. Hannibal lost at Zama, but surely he is ranked among the best ever.
He is certainly mine. -
The greatest American General of all time is Joseph “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell. The things the Vinegar Joe was able to achieve were remarkable when you consider the horrible terrain he had to fight in(Burma), the terrible quality of supplies he had (CBI was the lowest ranked theater for supplies on the allied priority list) and the ridiculous command structure he had to operate under (the confusing and corrupt world of KMT military “organization” with Chiang at the top) and there really is not doubt of his skill. Stilwell took conscripted Chinese warlord troops and turned them into a crack army known as “X-force”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Force
Another interesting story that shows Stilwells prowess as a field commander; During the 1940 military maneuvers in Louisiana Stilwell organized and lead (from the front) a blitzkrieg style flying column of tanks and invaded northern Louisiana (in much the same style that Guderian invaded France) at a key moment of the battle. In another instance while commanding a force of infantry with an artillery brigade, he was slated to face of against a larger force of horse cavalry. Stilwell was determined to prove that cavalry were an outdated type of unit not fit to be on the modern battlefield, and he never really cavalry officers who he felt were smug and arrogant. To get the better of them he took his infantry force, had them break down their 75mm pak arty and carry them by hand, marched in the wee small hours of the night (I believe he started his advance around 2am) in a pouring rain storm. By the next morning Stilwell force had deployed and launched an attack on their cavalry opponents at dawn, took them completely by surprise and had overrun them by later that morning. The engagement between these two forces was slated to take 5 to 7 days and Stilwell completed it in 1. Stilwell was considered to take command of all US forces heading to Europe and organize and lead operation Torch however, his previous experience as military attache in China in his youth and his ability and skill in the Chinese language got him sent to the critical CBI theater instead. I wonder how different WW2 in Europe would have been had Stilwell been in overall command instead of Ike? Given what Stilwell did when he had next to no supplies and poor troops and leaders one can really only extrapolate what he would have done with the top allied supplies and troops at his command.
-
I wonder how different WW2 in Europe would have been had Stilwell been in overall command instead of Ike? Given what Stilwell did when he had next to no supplies and poor troops and leaders one can really only extrapolate what he would have done with the top allied supplies and troops at his command.   Â
However considerable Stilwell’s military skills were, I think he would have been a bad choice for the SHAEF position in Europe because of his astringent personality. A big part of Eisenhower’s responsibility was the job of making coalition warfare work between two nations – the US and the UK – which had strongly held conflicting views about how the war in general (and the cross-Channel invasion in particular) should be run. He also had to manage high-level prima donnas like Patton and Montgomery. The SHEAF position required a general who was both a good organizer (which Ike and Stilwell both were) and a good diplomat (which Ike was but “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell wasn’t, as his nickname reflects). Stilwell had a very fractious relationship with Chiang Kai-shek, and I cringe at the thought of how he would have interacted with Winston Churchill, who was highly opinionated and had a tendency to meddle with and even bully the people under him (First Sea Lord Sir Dudley Pound being one example who springs to mind).
-
@CWO:
Stilwell had a very fractious relationship with Chiang Kai-shek, and I cringe at the thought of how he would have interacted with Winston Churchill, who was highly opinionated and had a tendency to meddle with and even bully the people under him (First Sea Lord Sir Dudley Pound being one example who springs to mind).
That’s a good point, but do keep in mind that Chiang and Churchill are worlds apart in every sense of the word. Much of Stilwell’s trouble with Chiang was because of his gross incompetence and his rampant corruption which were things he wouldn’t of had to worry about with Churchill. Stilwell wasn’t going to have to go to England to build an army from scratch with Churchill fighting him all the way like he did in China. If anything I think Stilwells personality would have gotten on rather well with the likes of Patton, as Stilwell was the no nonsense kind of commander who would have kept Patton in line. In general Stilwell got on well with most of his British allies, Bill Slim and Lord Mountbatten had much praise for Stilwell after the war and spoke very highly of him.
I will concede though that his personality would have rubbed the media the wrong way and he would have generated alot of bad press in the states. CBI was such a obscure theater of war that alot of Stilwells bad behavior went un reported by the media of the day. Still I think with access to the kind of troops and supplies the ETO commanders had, Stilwell would have been able to achieve victory in a spectacular fashion.
-
If the topic is greatest general in United States history then Robert E. Lee should not be considered. Colonel was the best he could do in the US army. If by American we mean anyone born in the Americas then Simon Bolivar is the winner hands down. If we are discussing United States history it is difficult to find one more deserving than George Washington. Without his efforts there would be no United States.
-
If by American we mean anyone born in the Americas then Simon Bolivar is the winner hands down. If we are discussing United States history it is difficult to find one more deserving than George Washington. Without his efforts there would be no United States.
So getting his arse handed to him in the French and Indian War doesn’t count against him?
If the topic is greatest general in United States history then Robert E. Lee should not be considered
Agreed…Last I checked, I think he switched sides, so whatever he did on “that” side, shouldn’t count.
I’m more of a Pershing and Schwarzkopf guy myself (although I do thank Dwight for the freeways!)
-
So getting his arse handed to him in the French and Indian War doesn’t count against him?
No this does not count IMO. At the time Washington was representing the British Empire. :lol: Seriously, Washington’s ability to hold the army together was amazing. Tough to argue against your two choices though. Those gentlemen got things done.
-
Robert E Lee is greatest general.
Washington was fighting an enemy that had a supply line the length of the Atlantic Ocean and needed French aid to win.
Lee fought a hopeless battle and was able to keep the end in question for many seasons. The fact that Lee and Davis kept the C.S.A alive for 5 years is amazing.
-
@wittman:
I was joking about Washington. He was the only one to start with in my opinion.
I do believe most great generals tend to lose some battles, often the last one. Hannibal lost at Zama, but surely he is ranked among the best ever.
He is certainly mine.oh that was sarcasm, sorry assumed that wasn’t the case. You know what happens when people make assumptions. :-D
and to your above point. Very true, Hannibal would rank right up there, Napoleon too perhaps? In fact, I think 5-6 years ago I tried to use the name Hannibal here but it was already taken.
Although, the alps and elephants….a bit of a reach.
-
wow, great subject & discussion. I read every post, quite uncommon for me here. thanks everyone
-
A case of a great man unsupported by his country when he was most successful(jealosies?) then discarded. Carthage did not deserve him and was later absorbed by Rome.
-
Hannibal is my favorite general in history. The Battle of Cannae is the greatest victory in history.
-
@ABWorsham:
Hannibal is my favorite general in history. The Battle of Cannae is the greatest victory in history.
Cannae was certainly one of the greatest tactical victories of all time, but remember that Hannibal and Carthage ultimately lost the war – so the argument can be made that tactical success without strategic success is of limited value.
Suggested Topics
