- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Greatest military commander (any branch of service) in U.S. history?
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:25 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:25 pm to RollTide1987
Nathanael Greene - Arguably the most underrated and overlooked historical American military commander. He was the Quartermaster General of the Continental Army when Washington appointed him as the commander in charge of all Continental forces in the South in 1780 to stop Cornwallis's invasion.
He conducted a brilliant campaign that ultimately led to the British retreat from South Carolina through North Carolina and ultimately to Yorktown, Virginia where Cornwallis surrendered, ending the war and establishing the United States of America.
He conducted a brilliant campaign that ultimately led to the British retreat from South Carolina through North Carolina and ultimately to Yorktown, Virginia where Cornwallis surrendered, ending the war and establishing the United States of America.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:28 pm to RollTide1987
William Tecumseh Sherman. British military historian B. H. Liddell Hart famously declared that Sherman was "the first modern general"
Although Sherman is most remembered for his "March to the Sea", his true contribution to history occurred before that. Sherman literally changed the course of history of the United States. His capture of Atlanta was virtually the only event that could gotten Abraham Lincoln re-elected President.
If not for that, McClellan would almost certainly have been elected President on a platform of "peace at all cost"...which would have ensured a divided country along the Mason-Dixon Line.
And about that "March to the Sea"...not since the armies of Attila the Hun had a modern army marched through enemy territory completely cut off from it's supply base and triumphed.
Although Sherman is most remembered for his "March to the Sea", his true contribution to history occurred before that. Sherman literally changed the course of history of the United States. His capture of Atlanta was virtually the only event that could gotten Abraham Lincoln re-elected President.
If not for that, McClellan would almost certainly have been elected President on a platform of "peace at all cost"...which would have ensured a divided country along the Mason-Dixon Line.
quote:
For much of 1864, Lincoln himself believed he had little chance of being re-elected. Confederate forces had triumphed at the Battle of Mansfield, the Battle of the Crater, and the Battle of Cold Harbor. In addition, the war was continuing to take a very high toll in terms of casualties. The prospect of a long and bloody war started to make the idea of "peace at all cost" offered by the Copperheads look more desirable. Because of this, McClellan was thought to be a heavy favorite to win the election.
And about that "March to the Sea"...not since the armies of Attila the Hun had a modern army marched through enemy territory completely cut off from it's supply base and triumphed.
quote:
Sherman's March to the Sea is the name commonly given to the military Savannah Campaign in the American Civil War, conducted through Georgia from November 15 to December 21, 1864 by Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman of the Union Army. The campaign began with Sherman's troops leaving the captured city of Atlanta, Georgia, on November 15 and ended with the capture of the port of Savannah on December 21. His forces destroyed military targets as well as industry, infrastructure, and civilian property and disrupted the South's economy and its transportation networks. Sherman's bold move of operating deep within enemy territory and without supply lines is considered to be revolutionary in the annals of war.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:31 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
Southerners typically aren't fans of Sherman.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:34 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Southerners typically aren't fans of Sherman.
Indeed they aren't. Northerners weren't fans of the invasion of Pennsylvania by Robert E. Lee.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:41 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
Indeed they aren't. Northerners weren't fans of the invasion of Pennsylvania by Robert E. Lee.
I agree about Sherman and I am an Atlantan. I actually a few months ago had to write a 15 page research thing on Sherman and his tactics in the siege of ATL, ATL campaign, and march to the sea and how while at the time a lot of the tactics were cruel they were the foundation of modern warfare and without them so many of dominos could have fallen, such as Lincoln losing the election fo 1864, that in the end it was almost justified. Still, Sherman can lick my sack.
That said, idk if I'd compare Lee raiding PA/MD to Sherman's march
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:41 pm to RollTide1987
<<<< at least honorable mention for this man
Lt Gen Richard Taylor
Lt Gen Richard Taylor
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:42 pm to RollTide1987
I like stonewall jackson. Just seems like a badass
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:44 pm to Damn Good Dawg
quote:
Also, the answer earlier of U. S. Grant also is overrated. All he did was what Lincoln asked and kept the pressure on the South. All he did was win a battle of attrition.
Completely disagree. Most people focus on his engagements vs. Lee in 1864-65 and completely ignore what he did in 1861-1863. Grant's Vicksburg Campaign is a thing of majestic beauty and trumps anything Lee did during the war.
As to Grant's campaign against Lee in 1864, you have to remember that he was advancing on a very narrow front against an entrenched enemy. He really had no other choice but to attack Lee head on. Grant attempted to flank around Lee and get between his army and Richmond, but Lee's army was smaller and faster and thus able to block Grant from outflanking him.
Grant didn't want to play the numbers game against Lee, he was forced to.
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 10:47 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:46 pm to Damn Good Dawg
quote:
That said, idk if I'd compare Lee raiding PA/MD to Sherman's march
I've never understood the reluctance to compare the two. Lee's army operated in much the same way Sherman's did...by living off the land, destroying enemy assets along the way, and reducing the enemy's will to continue the war. What you call a "raid" was an all-out campaign for Confederate victory. Success at Gettysburg would have led to the Confederate occupation of Washington, DC.
The two campaigns are more alike than they are different. Sherman just took the concept farther.
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 10:52 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:50 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
The two campaigns are more alike than they are different. Sherman just took the concept father.
This coupled with the scale of the two leads to
quote:
reluctance to compare the two
i figure at least. Sherman's damages to GA reverberated for generations and what he did in SC was even worse.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:50 pm to Damn Good Dawg
Saw a list one time of the ten greatest commanders in Western military history. Napoleon was # 1 and Julius Caesar was on the list as was Frederick the Great. But, oddly, there were three Americans: George Washington, Robert E. Lee and George Patton. Pretty strange. However, George Patton seems to make a lot of these type lists.
This post was edited on 2/16/14 at 10:52 pm
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:50 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
Lee is to Sherman as Napoleon is to Hitler
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:51 pm to Damn Good Dawg
Saw a list one time of the ten greatest commanders in Western military history. Napoleon was # 1 and Julius Caesar was on the list as was Frederick the Great. But, oddly, there were three Americans: George Washington, Robert E. Lee and George Patton. Pretty strange. However, George Patton seems to make a lot of these type lists.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:52 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
I've never understood the reluctance to compare the two. Lee's army operated in much the same way Sherman's did...by living off the land, destroying enemy assets along the way, and reducing the enemy's will to continue the war.
The two campaigns are more alike than they are different. Sherman just took the concept father.
The purpose of Lee's first invasion of the North in 1862 was to try to persuade Maryland to join the Confederacy. They were definitely not burning houses and destroying crops.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:52 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
Another name no one has mentioned is General Winfield Scott of the Mexican-American War. He led an army of 12,000 men, completely cut off from its supplies and communication, from an amphibious landing at Vera Cruz to the streets of Mexico City. And he did it all while being outnumbered by Mexican troops in every single battle he fought along the way.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:54 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Completely disagree. Most people focus on his engagements vs. Lee in 1864-65 and completely ignore what he did in 1861-1863. Grant's Vicksburg Campaign is a thing of majestic beauty and trumps anything Lee did during the war.
No I get that and I don't hold it against him. I said he was overrated, not incompetent.
And
quote:
As to Grant's campaign against Lee in 1864, you have to remember that he was advancing on a very narrow front against an entrenched enemy. He really had no other choice but to attack Lee head on. Grant attempted to flank around Lee and get between his army and Richmond, but Lee's army was smaller and faster and thus able to block Grant from outflanking him.
Grant didn't want to play the numbers game against Lee, he was forced to.
I don't disagree with his tactics. That's what HAD to be done. I was saying that Grant used attrition more than anything in that campaign coupled with tenacity with continually hitting Lee's flanks until he was forced into Petersburg. I wasn't saying that was wrong but ultimately that's what he did and I know he wanted to avoid another drawn out siege like Vicksburg like with the Battle of the Crater but ultimately was forced into that. I also know it bothered him the rest of his life how many men he lost and how he detested his butcher nickname.
Still, I think there are better suggestions than Grant who merely used his resources far more effectively than his predecessors.
Posted on 2/16/14 at 10:54 pm to Damn Good Dawg
quote:
a lot of the tactics were cruel they were the foundation of modern warfare
More than just the foundation of modern warfare, they set the stage for the growth of power of the federal government and put us on the path we are today.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News