"Best American Commander" Topic

1) Lee
2) Patton
3) Arnold (in the beginning)
4) Pershing
5) Nathan Forrest
6) Preble
7) Perry
8) Stonewall Jackson
9) Longstreet (one of my favorites)
10) Nimitz
11) Creighton Abrams
12) Stormin Norman
13) McClellan (just couldnt attack)
14) Washington (won the last battle anyway)

Custer ACW
Arnold (would have been remembered totally different)

Arnold got a bad rap because of the politics after Saratoga but thats the way it goes sometimes. He was probably one of the best of the Revolution. But when you take into account the complexity of modern warfare can you even consider anyone before the 20th century as the best??

Sheridan?
Sherman?
Halsey?
Eisenhower?
John Paul Jones?
Again what are the criteria?

Stormin Norman? Really?
Competent, sure, but the best? It was his turn to command. Like ALL modern generals, he was competent, did not make any major mistakes and played politics well.

I like Nathaniel Greene. The most important criterion is that his campaign won the war.

McClennan's in but not Sherman?

I vote for the all ones with tanks named after them.

AFAIK there's never been a Custer tank…

Grant. Unlike any other general of his time, the man knew how to win.

Jubilation E. Cornpone

Thanks, John the OFM. Greene is in my opinion the most overlooked commander in US history. Nevermind the Yorktown battle – without Greene, it never would have gotten that far!

And we have to second Grant – almost criminal that McClellan is on the list but not Grant(although he sure doesn't make the list of best presidents!!)

Lee when asked the best Union General he faced, answered McClellan.

Patton

Winfield Scot.
Grant.

Bradly?

Pershing?

Mitchell?

Hap Arnold?

Nimitz?

Leonard Wood?

Decatur?

Perry?

Like was mentioned above, what is the criteria? There is practically no end of successful American commanders each had his own niche.

If you narrow things down to a single war, time period, or some other criteria we could talk about this. As is, this is apples and oranges.

mjc

Winfield Scott.
Our economy=massive control over logistics.

FreddBloggs "Lee when asked the best Union General he faced, answered McClellan."

From Lee's perspective, McClellan undoubtedly was the best.

Nimitz

What about Reagan? He won the cold war, didn't he? With few casualties too. He was commander in chief. Does that count?

So what should the criteria be. That is probably the better question to start with.

How about:

1) more wins than losses (especially campaigns)

Sherman.

Kicked ass, …took names, and even got a Tank named after him. I will "Grant" you the tank wasn't the best, …but it was definitely better than its predecessor: the Grant. Will

How about Sheridan.

Sherman was also way ahead of his time. He was so adamant that the war would be a long and bloody one that they locked him up in an insane asylum for awhile. Eccentric might be another requirement for great general. Like Patton who believed he was reincarnated 5 times.

Washington.

I am increasingly impressed by the way he kept an army in the field despite all the factors against him. I think this makes him the better commander if not the better general

With hindsight he made lots of tactical errors, but I think these have less significance in the long-run.

The effect of Trenton/Princeton should not be underestimated either.

Grant. Unlike any other general of his time, the man knew how to win.

I dont know about that. A lot of other generals won a lot of battles without the butchers bill he ran up. He seems to be of the Nelson, "never mind tactics, just go straight at them" mentality.

I would not have wanted to be in his army at Cold Harbor. They knew they were doomed before they even went the first time. They were so discouraged they were pinning pieces of paper to their shirts with their names on them.

Maybe that should be criteria 3) would want to serve in that generals army (McClellan would get high marks there).

He won the war. That's what he got that really neat third star for.

Well. this might become a Grant Debate.

My father-in-law does not believe Grant was a great commander, but look at all he accomplished. The Civil War was won by him, not after he came east but before. He succesfully split the confederacy, freed the Mississippi(can't spell), aand helped Sherman overcome a suicidal depression.

One of the things that irks me (no offense to any here) is when people say

"Anyone can win with more troops."

Yet all of the commanders fared poorly against Lee, all with more troops. Had Grant been in command at Antietim, Chancellorsville, possibly even Gettysberg – the war would almost certainly have been over after those battles.

There is also a lot of talk about poor tactics -yet he successfully melded amphibious assualts and land action several times in the West. And as bloody as it was – his tactics – hard, continuos assaults on Lee's army – was the right tactic because it denied Lee to utilize the aspect he ws best at: suprise manuvuer, and ultimately won the Eastern theater.

To me the best indicator is that Grant managed to beat Lee, who was undoubtedly a better commander. Grant might not be the greatest commander in US history – but give him his due – he was great. He unquestionably deserves to be considered on this list!

A few more that I haven't seen to add to the list:

Chesty Puller
MacArthur
Eisenhower
Farragut

Grant is definitely a great commander but that doesnt make him the best. Just as McClellan was a great commander but even with overwhelming odds he couldnt win a battle decisively.

Patton on the other hand took great risks and even when outnumbered won great battles with less casualties then he inflicted, usually. Metz wasnt an example of this. Sicily was.

MacArthur and Eisenhower (especially Eisenhower) were not that hot as military commanders but were great as politicians.

Another one not mentioned who deserves at least a nod: Curtis LeMay.

I agree with the original post. It looks about right.

Can anyone tell me how Pershing qualifies. I know he was involved in the First World War but didn't do a lot because the Americans were really set up for the 1919 campaign that never came. Did he do stuff elsewhere that I am unaware of?

psiloi "To me the best indicator is that Grant managed to beat Lee, who was undoubtedly a better commander. Grant might not be the greatest commander in US history – but give him his due – he was great. He unquestionably deserves to be considered on this list!"

I really cannot agree that Lee was better. He was exactly what he was, a general who could win battle after battle and still lose the war. He was no great strategist, was way too parochial about Virginia, and after the death of Jackson his performance drops considerably, indicating that much of Lee's success was really the success of his subordinate.

Much of Lee's success was that he could get commanders who hated each others guts to work together without killing each other. That and his ability to get greatness out of mediocre commanders under him. Patton had the same ability IMHO.

Pershing did a great job keeping the American Army from being piecemealed out, not to mention creating it from nothing and launching it successfully into several battles of increasing complexity IMHO.

My list for best American commanders.
Winfield Scott – 3 Wars – reinvented the army
Chief Joseph – Did the most with the least
George Washington – Held the Army and country together
David Glasgow Farragut – Destroyed the Confederacy's only hope for victory when he captured New Orleans
Stephen Decatur – Won a war with one ship.
George S. Patton – Sicily, France, The Ardennes
Chester Nimitz – Pacific Campaign
Many more listed above.
As for the Grant/Lee debate. Why does Grant always get the "butcher" label. If we make the criterion something like failed to maneuver, and relied to much on the frontal assault, then I think Lee is just as guilty as Grant. Assaulting the batteries at Malvern Hill, Hood at Antietam, the last bayonet assaults at Chancellorsville, and, of course, the frontal assault on McPherson's Woods (July 1st, 1863, which could have been bypassed)and Pickett's charge. It is more than a simple matter of how many troops were killed in unsuccessful assaults. The troops Lee lost early in the war were veterans who could not be replaced. Whereas in 1864 Grant was trying to bring a speedy end to a war in which he had enormous advantage in manpower. I estimate that Lee lost 10-15000 veteran troops, in unnecessary bayonet charges by July 3rd, 1863. Could an extra 15000 veterans have broken the center at Gettysburg?

No one ever said Lee was perfect. His mistake at Gettysburg was not listening to Longstreet and maneuvering between Meade and the capitol and letting him attack them. Lee thought he could do at Gettysburg what he did when he broke the center during the Seven Days.

Grant won the war it is true but with all the finesse of a sledge hammer. He didnt do very well at Shilo either. He wasnt perfect either but when you consider how badly the North outnumbered the South they should have won a lot sooner anyway. Grants best quality was what Shelby Foote called 5am courage. He didnt panic no matter what happened. Like at Shilo even though he was beaten the first day he didnt panic as so many did in the same situation.

LHMGKodiak "Grant won the war it is true but with all the finesse of a sledge hammer. He didnt do very well at Shilo either. He wasnt perfect either but when you consider how badly the North outnumbered the South they should have won a lot sooner anyway. Grants best quality was what Shelby Foote called 5am courage. He didnt panic no matter what happened. Like at Shilo even though he was beaten the first day he didnt panic as so many did in the same situation."

Grant was from the Midwest, fighting on unfamiliar terrain, and still managed to run rings around the Southerners at Vicksburg, which they should have held a lot longer, given the homefield advantage.

Remember that this was also an enormous advantage to the Confederates everywhere else in the war, and when they lost it (as Gettysburg) they tended to lose battles very badly. While there is a lot to be said for numbers, there is also a lot to be said for a situation in which every civilian is a potential spy/saboteur/scout for the enemy.

None of which is to say that Lee was not a great general. He was an excellent tactician, and, as has been noted, capable of getting alot out of unruly subordinates who tended to see themselves more as independent barons than as soldiers, but better than Grant? Not in my humble opinion, for the reasons stated.

Ben Butler.

No one, no one even mentions Dan Morgan? Gees!

link

And a question I have begun to ask myself lately – what battles did Grant ever lose? I only ask because none come readily to mind.

Exactly. Lee not only lost battles but campaigns. And he was unable to exploit his decisive victories.

Other than that, he's one of the greatest American commanders.

"Grant won the war it is true but with all the finesse of a sledge hammer."

So what?! He still won, didn't he? You asked for best American Commander, not best American Commander with style points.

Grant would be my first choice. Nimitz would be my second. Anyone who buys into the myth that that drooling loony Patton was an outstanding commander of men is either misinformed or deluded; the ignominious end of his Sicilian campaign should serve to illustrate what the men under his command really thought about him.

Grant lost at Cold Harbor and admitted it was a mistake.

I'd go with Washington or Sherman.

Did Patton ever loose a battle? Grant did. So did Lee.

Though I am a big fan of Custer he cannot be considered the best American General, maybe one of the best field commanders.

Pres. Grant has to be the best. Of all the generals trying to get Lee's sword, only he got it.

Rex Bellator "Though I am a big fan of Custer he cannot be considered the best American General, maybe one of the best field commanders."

Cavalry commanders are in a class by themselves, and can't be rated on the general scale. Given Arnold, Custer, Stuart, Patton (I suppose he counts), Murat, Montrose and many others, I'd say that one of the necessary qualities was to be a confirmed nutcase.

I'd go with grant. Lee always said Grant was the best general he ever faced. Remember, of the four Confederate armies that surrendered during the War, Grant captured three of them.

I like Washington as well. He may not have won a lot of battles but he knew what it took to win the war. That included choosing good subordinates and fighting with Congress all the way.

I think McArthur would have to be excluded as best, after all he is the only American General to loose an entire army in battle.

So I would rate the best as:

1) Patton
2) Grant
3) Longstreet

While there is a lot to be said for numbers, there is also a lot to be said for a situation in which every civilian is a potential spy/saboteur/scout for the enemy.

Not actually true, though often assumed. The South was hardly "solid." Large areas of Unionists civilians existed throughout the South, and not just among the slave population. Much of Northern Alabama and the mountain regions of Tennessee were pro-Union, and supplied volunteer troops and scouts to the Union forces. I have the figures somewhere, but it's estimated that if the number of Southerners who fought for the Union had instead fought for the Confederacy, the Confederacy would have actually had the numerical troop advantage during the war!

We now return you to your regular discussion.

Oh, and my favorite General: Washington. True leadership in an almost impossible situation. Good grief, the man actually won the war, when by anyone's estimation at the start the revolution didn't stand a chance.

Most brilliant strategist: Nathaniel Greene. Did the most with the least. (But Washington was the one wise enough to assign him the task, so he should get co-credit.)

Most brilliant battlefield tactician: Tie between Nathan B. Forrest (got there first with the most ) and Stonewall Jackson.

Most beloved leader: Tie. Washington and Lee.And there's something to be said for that, in a commander of men. Can you imagine any other general's men taking hold of their commander's reins and shouting "Lee to the rear!" in the midst of a battle?