Stonewall was the best general of the american civil war
The only time he did really good was his Valley campaign, everything else was middling at best, but just as often it was absolutely awful. The guy was in no way fit for anything but independent command, he was at least as bad of a field commander as Sherman.
>mfw the southern aristocracy had him assassinated because they knew he'd lead a successful coup
Has America produced even a single great general?
>>302312
patton
abrams
macarthur
warlord petraeus
>>302326
>macarthur
I'll admit, you almost had me
>>302312
Winfield Scott for being dropped into a logistically impossible situation with little support and still never losing a battle.
U.S. Grant, because for all the crying over frontal assaults he actually managed to capture two Confederate armies in their entirety through maneuver warfare.
George Marshall for building, training, and organizing an army of 8,000,000 from scratch then deploying them across several continents with unbroken success.
Matthew Ridgeway for taking a second-rate demoralized army and turning them into a battle hardened force that preserved the ROK.
He was autistic.
>>302360
>Matthew Ridgeway
Now he was the ideal soldier general. There are few commanders in history who were as capable as him from any nation. It's just in Korea he had an unwinnable situation after the Chinese intervened.
>>302312
Robert e Lee probably the greatest American general imo
>>302638
This, a literal god amongst men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sanders
>>302492
This is actually true
Doesn't help that being a former artillery officer and a teacher of artillery doctrine at a military academy enforced all his autistic beliefs on battle doctrine that he applied to infantry warfare.
Still a good general just based on the age old metric of "he actually drilled his troops"
>>302251
>>302251
>>302642
Fredericksburg
Fredericksburg
Fredericksburg
Fredericksburg
Fredericksburg
RIP
>>302326
>warlord petraeus
I saw CIA Director Petraeus speak at my uni.
He was much thinner and more bookish looking than I had expected and he had bad posture.
In his defense, during the Q&A I asked him about the "disposition matrix" and the moderators tried to take the mic from me but he stopped them and allowed me to finish my question before responding that he "could neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a thing."
>>302642
What is Antietam
>>304059
Did this guy really get done in for banging some broad? Is that all it takes to derail a successful career?
>>304076
>Is that all it takes to derail a successful career?
idk ask Clinton
>>304076
King David had a lot of enemies/rivals just looking for an excuse imo. He's still top spook too so it's not like his career is over.
>>304084
I mean in the military tho. Did his intelligence peeps leak that to the press?
>>304086
Did he do anything in particular to make enemies? Or is it just standard ladder climbing bullshit?
>>304086
Ahctually Michael Morell is CIA director now.
>>304094
>just standard ladder climbing bullshit?
My guess is this but I don't know.
>>304096
John Brennan retard.
>>304094
>Or is it just standard ladder climbing bullshit?
Ask any of your friends who were NCOs or just grunts and they'll tell you all about how much the officers nip at each others' failures. It gets worse the higher up you go. American Generals are as much politicians as any president
>>302312
I swear to fucking god, if anybody says Pershing, I'm gonna murder somebody
>>302312
Pershing.
>>304282
Pershing did an alright job, nothing special but good enough. The AEF was thrown into France with nothing but uniforms and rifles with poor logistic support. They needed an expert administrator and they got it. His tactical doctrine sucked but everyone else in the AEF thought the same way, in that regard he was just a cog in a broken machine.
>>302228
George Henry Thomas and Patrick Cleburne are strong contenders. Even Longstreet doesn't get enough love.
>>304298
Pershing was like a spoiled child, throwing a fit everytime something didn't go his way.
>>304330
Okay.
>>302312
Daniel Morgan. He deserves far more recognition than any other general in the American Revolution
>>302228
idk but Foote called Nathan Bedford Forrest one of the 2 "true geniuses" that the civil war produced (Lincoln being the other.)
Like I say, I'm not an expert but I'm inclined to believe Foote over random losers on the internet.
Does zach taylor count or was mexico too much of a meme to be considered a war?
>>302228
Pickett was pretty good so long as you're from the North.
>>304369
hey mexico was powerful at that time, zach was a good general who died 2 years into his presidency somehow
>>304366
>Nathan Bedford Forrest
shit, he was only a lt. gen, but still.
>>304380
>who died 2 years into his presidency somehow
>somehow
It was the fucking Taco-Assassins.
>>302228
That's not Longstreet.
When the Duke of Wellington learned about Winfield Scott's successful campaign ending in the capture of Mexico city he called Scott the "Greatest living general".
It's a shame that Polk drove Scott through the mud by subjecting him to bogus tribunals because he was paranoid about a Whig general stealing the glory of the Mexican War and running for president, as fate would have it, Zachary Taylor did just that.
>>302228
You misspelled Sherman
>>302312
Washington
Dude was basically master chief
Pfft, Sherman, Grant, Eisenhower, Norman Schwarzkopf.
Seriously, I'm a commie, but why don't Bush Snr and Schwarzie get more love?
The hero we need but not the hero we deserve.
We hate him because he can take it.
>>304608
>>304663
>>304668
>Sherman
While I understand his purpose, I find his treatment of civilians and non-combatants in-excusable.
Aside from that, he never had any real challenges as a general. He either fought completely overpowering his enemy (Vicksburg, every campaign in 1864-5), or he was mediocre (first mannasas, Shiloh).
>Grant
Good strategist but abysmal tactician. He managed to nearly loose or get take ridiculous casualties in every battle he fought. His only real talent was in being able to keep on going after taking a beating. He played the hand he was dealt but didn't really do anything spectacular. Vicksburg was a messy, shitty campaing imho before someone brings it up.
>Eisenhower
Legit genius at logistics and overall operations, but not really a field general. I would say he was a good organizer but didn't basically do any actual "generaling"
>Stormin Norman
I actually agree with this. One of the most underrated commanders of all time. Managed to beat one of the largest armies on Earth with a third the number in a matter of weeks. Granted, he had superior tech, but it's still an amazing accomplishment. His combined arms strategies are something to be studied.
>>304615
as much as I love the Father he was a mediocre general at best.
>>304380
Cholera is one hell of a drug
>>304683
>Treatment of civilians inexcuseable
That's the reason he's important, he introduced inhumane, demoralizing tactics into modern war.
>opposing army is strong
>Opposing gov't has popular support
>Steal their shit and burn down the rest
It makes sense.
>>304784
As I said, I understand why Sherman did what he did, and I will agree that is was the fastest way to end the CSA. I just don't agree with it on an ethical basis. I think that any General who will stoop so low as to burn and loot private property while leaving civilians and non-combatants with literally no means of survival is not a man at all.
Whether it ends a war faster or not, picking on the defenseless is a low, dirty thing to do. Wars should be fought on the battlefield, not in people's homes.
Pic not really related to this post, but fits the thread.
>>304385
"Only a Lt. General"
That's exactly as high a rank as Jackson ever achieved.
Forrest and Stonewall were both great, of course. I don't think the yankees had an equal for either of them.
>>302312
Bradley
Sherman
Andrew Jackson
>>304784
adjusted value for "strong" to mean "less than 50% your size" in this case
But rebels are spooky I guess
>>304307
>Cleburne in charge of having an independent command
I mean he's a really meme division commander but the best case that can be made for him is he ran a tight division and followed his orders very efficiently. He was divorced from most of the decisions we look at to evaluate a general's skill.
>>302312
Patton
Jackson
Zach Taylor
Harrison
McArthur
>>304683
I disagree re Grant being a bad tactician. I think he was a good tactician, but the problem he faced was the he had to attack against the Confederates who had time to build fortifications and had internal lines of movement. The entire '64 offensive in the east is Grant trying to outflank Lee, and Lee keeps managing to shift troops into place just in time.
Also, Lee suffered twice as many casualties in an army one third the size during the Seven Days Battle
>>305055
Lee gets a lot of flak for the seven days. It's true he fought a bloody campaign, but he never planned one.
His first day on the job was with the enemy outnumbering him massively outside his nation's capital- The campaign had been planned by Johnston, and he was put in a position to alter little more than tactics. His subordinates were all new to him as well.
In spite of all that, he extricated the Confederacy from the very bad strategic situation his predecessor had left him in. With a free hand to conduct his own campaigns and a massive shuffling of subordinates, subsequent campaigns went far better.
That said, I agree with the substance of this. Grant was in fact not a bad tactician, and Lee consistently suffered more casualties than was necessary. That's writ large across the entire confederacy, though- a stunning majority of the field engagements of the war were confederate tactical offensives for dumb cultural reasons.
>>302312
Is this one of those butthurt small country things where you pretend your military has a quality over quantity advantage over us?
>>305211
I'll take your word about the seven days campaign, it's not something I know much about.
Re the Confederates going on the offensive, I totally agree, and would add the strategic offensive as well. A draw would've meant independence, i.e. victory for the South. But noooo, not only do we have to waste time, energy and resources attacking the north, we will continue going on the tactical offensive as well.
>>305484
but m-muh elan
Have to show those pasty-faced mechanics and foreign hirelings they cannot cope with Southern manhood anon
>>302228
AD MORTEM PRODITORES
