Best American General of All Time?

[brewster]

Do you think that the Civil War was a fundamentally "Lost Cause" for the South? I have looked at graphs that showed the disparity between Northern and Southern industrial production in other books, and many historians are of the opinion that the whole campaign was doomed from the start, also taking into account the fact that the British were unwilling to purchase the South's cotton because they had their own source in India and Egypt, thus cutting off a major trading partner. Do you believe that with the right leadership and lucky breaks, the South could have achieved it goal? Also, if that had happened, how do you see relations between the two countries today? Are you of the opinion, that our current situation would be better if we had simply split up into 2 more homogenous nations/cultures in the late nineteenth century?

Aren't there already Civil War Alternate history threads? My opinion is a breakup in 1861 would simply have delayed a war, not averted it. Not enough room on the continent for 2 aggressive, expansionist nations.

[Fife]

I ended up purchasing that Queer is Man book by Percy based on your recommendation in the Kekule (language problem) thread.

Do you think that the Civil War was a fundamentally "Lost Cause" for the South? I have looked at graphs that showed the disparity between Northern and Southern industrial production in other books, and many historians are of the opinion that the whole campaign was doomed from the start, also taking into account the fact that the British were unwilling to purchase the South's cotton because they had their own source in India and Egypt, thus cutting off a major trading partner. Do you believe that with the right leadership and lucky breaks, the South could have achieved it goal? Also, if that had happened, how do you see relations between the two countries today? Are you of the opinion, that our current situation would be better if we had simply split up into 2 more homogenous nations/cultures in the late nineteenth century?

Entire forests of trees have died to print the books that have been written about those questions. My general feeling is that the CSA would have needed official recognition and involvement by Britain and France to have pulled off a negotiated peace.

As for the "lost cause" thing, that's a rather academic question in any event, considering the North invaded the South. It was either fight or surrender at that point.

[heydaralon]

Do you think that the Civil War was a fundamentally "Lost Cause" for the South? I have looked at graphs that showed the disparity between Northern and Southern industrial production in other books, and many historians are of the opinion that the whole campaign was doomed from the start, also taking into account the fact that the British were unwilling to purchase the South's cotton because they had their own source in India and Egypt, thus cutting off a major trading partner. Do you believe that with the right leadership and lucky breaks, the South could have achieved it goal? Also, if that had happened, how do you see relations between the two countries today? Are you of the opinion, that our current situation would be better if we had simply split up into 2 more homogenous nations/cultures in the late nineteenth century?

Aren't there already Civil War Alternate history threads? My opinion is a breakup in 1861 would simply have delayed a war, not averted it. Not enough room on the continent for 2 aggressive, expansionist nations.

do you have a link to those threads?

[brewster]

do you have a link to those threads?

Hmm, can't find, could be that was lost with the DCF. Start a thread!

[heydaralon]

I'll vote for Washington. Unlike most subsequent American generals he didn't have a huge MIC behind him, and plenty of tax dollars (excepting those of the South of course). He didn't even have nation to use nationalism to rally the troops. He had to scramble the whole time just to keep his army together, in the field, and supplied, never mind get them to a battlefield at the right place and time. And unlike most General officers, his neck was on the line if he lost, he'd have been hung as a traitor.

Washington had some balls, and he was putting his neck out, so he has to be somewhere near the top of any list. I remember a thread awhile back where someone was discussing his overall record, and brought up his mediocre performance during the French and Indian war. I don't know much about that conflict, but I don't think he shone during it. I think this was the (possibly troll) thread where it was insinuated that he was gay. This might have been a Smitty one.

[brewster]

I remember a thread awhile back where someone was discussing his overall record, and brought up his mediocre performance during the French and Indian war. I don't know much about that conflict, but I don't think he shone during it.

GW was 25 or so when his early military career ended in 1758. Nothing like 18 years to think about your errors to do better when you get another chance, right?

[C-Mag]

Tough one without further criteria. Great administrators like Ike and Nimitz win wars, but aren't sexy. Cowboys like Patton and Halsey made great headlines, not entirely without intention. I don't know if any Civil war general can be fairly judged, particularly southern, there was simply too much spin antebellum.

I'll vote for Washington. Unlike most subsequent American generals he didn't have a huge MIC behind him, and plenty of tax dollars (excepting those of the South of course). He didn't even have nation to use nationalism to rally the troops. He had to scramble the whole time just to keep his army together, in the field, and supplied, never mind get them to a battlefield at the right place and time. And unlike most General officers, his neck was on the line if he lost, he'd have been hung as a traitor.

+1 Hey Day give us some criteria.

In the Civil War there is only one guy that absolutely stands out and doesn't end up having cheerleading squad after the dust settles, that's Farragut. Without his ability to control all the waterways at sea and inland it would have been a very long slog for the Union, and northern support of the war was erroding.


I get where you are coming from on Washington, they are valid points. But he sucked at using his forces, he really only has 2 victories, Trenton and Yorktown. Refused to see or use the value of militia and native americans.

[heydaralon]

Tough one without further criteria. Great administrators like Ike and Nimitz win wars, but aren't sexy. Cowboys like Patton and Halsey made great headlines, not entirely without intention. I don't know if any Civil war general can be fairly judged, particularly southern, there was simply too much spin antebellum.

I'll vote for Washington. Unlike most subsequent American generals he didn't have a huge MIC behind him, and plenty of tax dollars (excepting those of the South of course). He didn't even have nation to use nationalism to rally the troops. He had to scramble the whole time just to keep his army together, in the field, and supplied, never mind get them to a battlefield at the right place and time. And unlike most General officers, his neck was on the line if he lost, he'd have been hung as a traitor.

+1 Hey Day give us some criteria.

=

Which general was best all around? So Brewster differentiated between sexy and unsexy generals. Some generals are quite sexy in achieving victory, and some win but don't appear sexy. Some generals are quick and some take awhile to set up (recall the Death Throes ep where he compared Caesar's speed with Patton's and Pompey's slow deliberate planning with Montgomery's). Some can think on their feet. Also, many generals like Grant and Zhukov won major victories but lost a lot of men in doing so, whereas some were able to win and were hesitant to waste their soldiers' lives like Sherman.

An ideal general I guess would combine all these aspects. One who can plan ahead, but is rapidly able to change their plans if the situation calls for it. One who is willing to take risks, but not expend needless lives. One who can mobilize and move an army quickly if need be, but not overstretch supply lines. Probably needs to play the political game some, but is not so political that they are detached from their men and do not observe realities on the ground.

Anyway, there is no general that perfectly embodies all of my criteria, but if you had to serve under a historical general, in a battlefield that you did not know about in advance, which general would you trust your life to? Which one would you be most certain could win, and would value your contribution to the conflict?

[brewster]

I get where you are coming from on Washington, they are valid points. But he sucked at using his forces, he really only has 2 victories, Trenton and Yorktown. Refused to see or use the value of militia and native americans.

You have to give him points also as CiC, Ike never led troops into battle. GW sent forces from Mass to GA but personally operated only in the Mid-Atlantic states.

As for the "who would I serve under", I'd say Nimitz. Fought a hell of a war over thousands of miles against a ruthless opponent, with only a few real fuckups like Peleliu. I think it's harder to say about actual field commanders, separating their actions from the overall nature of the theater. Like Sherman looks great, but had the luxury of doing what he's most noted for late in the war against a worn down opponent.

[Fife]

GW was pretty effective leading federal troops even after becoming POTUS. Especially considering he rode ahead of federal troops marching on American civilians.

:goteam: