http://nationalinterest.org/feature/masters-the-battlefield-the-five-greatest-us-generals-11541
I like it. Grant has always been a favorite of mine. The case can be made that the superiority of men and materiel the Union enjoyed would have allowed almost anyone to win in the long term, but, Grant showed an intestinal fortitude required to commit said resources at the right place and the right time.
Washington and Grant are easy to agree with. Marshall I know more by reputation, but am willing to allow he very possibly deserves a spot on the list.
Scott and Ridgeway are interesting choices. I'd never considered either of them before as being among America's "best", although I was aware -- in a very vague/general way -- of what they're credited with having accomplished.
Some interesting food for thought DicedT. :)
As wartime generals go, they are all pretty good choices. Personally, I might make the case for Lee over Grant, but your reasoning for Grant is pretty sound.
However, I think Donn Starry is someone who gets majorly undersold in reshaping the US Army. As the head of TRADOC in the late-70s / early-80s, he developed and implemented the AirLand Battle doctrine, and his training reforms (including the current ARTEP standards) and the opening of NTC under his watch were all huge contributors to the success of the Army from Grenada thru Desert Storm and beyond. Even the official US Army history of Desert Storm (Certain Victory) credits Donn Starry's initiatives for building the Army that won that war.
If memory serves, Martok, it was Winfield Scott's, Anaconda Plan that the North used to win the war. And if you're interested about Scott's Mexican campaign, there's a book called, 'Rebels From West Point,' that covers the major generals of the War Between the States from their time at West Point, through the Western expansion and the Mexican war right up through the Civil War. I really enjoyed the insight.
I like the inclusion of Ridgeway. A general who cut his teeth in WWII as a paratrooper, he drove around Korea with two hand grenades clipped to his field jacket and an extra pair of gloves in his pocket to give to privates he met who had misplaced theirs. Cornelius Ryan speculates a little that if he had planned the airborne component of Market-Garden it might have succeeded (iirc he was commander of XVIII Airborne Corps at the time).
Quote from: MetalDog on October 25, 2014, 12:21:24 AM
If memory serves, Martok, it was Winfield Scott's, Anaconda Plan that the North used to win the war.
My memory is that is worked a little bit but wasn't key to winning the war?
If Scott had been a younger man, Lincoln would have no doubt given him command of the armies of the North from the beginning. And for that, I suspect the war would have been shorter by a year or more.
I'm a Texan and love Lee, but it's difficult to argue against Grant. Lee was far from perfect, as Gettysburg proved, and the South could not afford a battle of attrition. The North could, and Grant used that fact to his advantage while showing superior strategic ability over previous Northern commanders.
I especially love the addition of Marshall. Marshall would have done well as Allied Commander, but his moves as Army Chief of Staff and military adviser to FDR set the table for Allied victory. He badly wanted to command Overlord, but FDR valued him as his right hand and felt he couldn't be replaced in Washington.
A great article.
Quote from: bbmike on October 25, 2014, 07:59:16 AM
Quote from: MetalDog on October 25, 2014, 12:21:24 AM
If memory serves, Martok, it was Winfield Scott's, Anaconda Plan that the North used to win the war.
My memory is that is worked a little bit but wasn't key to winning the war?
You may very well be right. My memory is suspect on may things *walks away whistling*
Quote from: MetalDog on October 25, 2014, 12:21:24 AMAnd if you're interested about Scott's Mexican campaign, there's a book called, 'Rebels From West Point,' that covers the major generals of the War Between the States from their time at West Point, through the Western expansion and the Mexican war right up through the Civil War. I really enjoyed the insight.
Thanks,
MD! That does indeed sound like a book I could get into -- and one I'd like to read sooner than later. :coolsmiley:
Quote from: bbmike on October 25, 2014, 07:59:16 AM
Quote from: MetalDog on October 25, 2014, 12:21:24 AM
If memory serves, Martok, it was Winfield Scott's, Anaconda Plan that the North used to win the war.
My memory is that is worked a little bit but wasn't key to winning the war?
The Anaconda Plan, as originally conceived & executed, was generally considered a failure/not workable (with the exception of the Union naval blockade). However, the plan was re-implemented later in the war by Grant & Sherman, albeit in a somewhat different (and/or more aggressive) form.
That being said, I believe
MD is correct in that credit for the overall concept still goes to Scott.
Lee wasn't fighting a battle of attrition, though. He was seeking to win enough to gain the Confederacy the legitimacy such that it would be recognized by foreign powers...which likely would have ended the war with two countries.
I would pick Lee over Grant.
Those are some seriously obscure picks...it's hard for me to argue persuasively for other generals because I know you guys are going to shut me down. I might have put Petraeus in there, though, instead of one of those guys...
I thought Ridgeway a good choice. Quite often a very underrated General.
Other contenders might have been James Longstreet, or Thomas Jackson for the South, or William Sherman, or George Thomas for the North.
More modern contenders might have included Omar Bradley, Norman Schwarzkopf, or General Petraeus. My $0.02.