re: I asked Grok to rank the Top 10 greatest U.S. Generals in our 250 years of history...

quote:

---

Three Rebels are probably too many in the top 10, but a solid list nonetheless.

---

In a just society, Sherman would have been convicted of war crimes. Absolute POS

The Mexican War is where Lee built his reputation. But Scott overruled his and McClelland's plan to take Mexico City and went with the one that was suggested by Beauregard.

quote:

---

col hackworth wasnt a go but his contribution to the army and generations that followed cant be underestimated

---

Where’s admiral Rachel dolezal?

Work provides me paid access to CoPilot. I put in on deep think and asked the same question. Pretty interesting take and I like how it explains the reasons for the rankings and the distinctions made.

Great question, Harry. “American history” can mean different things, so here’s a clear, assumptions-first take:

Scope assumed: United States generals only, including Confederate officers as historical American generals (but excluding admirals). If you prefer U.S. service only (no Confederates) or want to broaden to the entire Americas, I can re-rank instantly.

How I ranked them
Weighted criteria:
-War-winning impact (decisive theaters/campaigns)
-Scale & complexity of command (joint/combined, coalition)
-Operational art & innovation (maneuver, logistics, doctrine)
-Institution-building (creating the forces and systems that win)
-Civil–military leadership & legacy

Top 10 Greatest Generals in American History (including Confederates)

1) George Washington (Revolutionary War)
Why here: Preserved the Continental Army through a war of exhaustion, balanced strategy with political statecraft, coordinated with allies at Yorktown, and set enduring civil–military norms by relinquishing power.
2) Ulysses S. Grant (Civil War)
Why here: Synchronized multi-theater pressure (with Sherman & others), executed Vicksburg—an operational classic—and pursued a relentless, war-terminating strategy against Lee’s main army.
3) George C. Marshall (World War II)
Why here: Architect of victory as Army Chief of Staff—built a global-force army from a small peacetime base, chose commanders (Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton), and designed the mobilization, training, and logistics that made Allied success possible.
4) Dwight D. Eisenhower (World War II)
Why here: Master coalition commander—North Africa to Normandy to Germany—who coordinated vast joint/combined operations, logistics, and alliance politics to deliver victory in Europe.
5) Robert E. Lee (Civil War — Confederate)
Why here: Exceptional operational/tactical generalship in the Eastern Theater (Second Manassas, Chancellorsville, early Gettysburg maneuver), often outperforming with fewer resources. Strategic limitations and the cause he served temper the overall judgment.
6) William Tecumseh Sherman (Civil War)
Why here: Pioneer of deep operational maneuver/logistics: Atlanta, March to the Sea, Carolinas Campaign—severed Confederate logistics and will, accelerating war termination.
7) John J. Pershing (World War I)
Why here: Built the AEF from scratch, preserved independent American command, and delivered at St. Mihiel and Meuse–Argonne—foundational for the modern U.S. Army’s scale and doctrine.
8) Douglas MacArthur (World War II, Korea)
Why here: Operational audacity (New Guinea campaign, Inchon landing) and consequential postwar governance of Japan; towering, if controversial, civil–military judgment in Korea.
9) George S. Patton (World War II)
Why here: The exemplar of high-tempo combined-arms exploitation—breakout from Normandy, rapid pursuit across France, and relief of Bastogne; exacting logistics discipline underwrote the speed.
10) Winfield Scott (War of 1812, Mexican–American War)
Why here: Professionalized the antebellum Army (drill manuals), executed the Veracruz–Mexico City campaign—an operational masterpiece—and sketched the “Anaconda Plan” that foreshadowed Union grand strategy.

Honorable mentions (by era)

Revolutionary War: Nathanael Greene (brilliant Southern campaign that wore down Cornwallis); Henry Knox (artillery, logistics).
Civil War (Union): George H. Thomas (“Rock of Chickamauga,” decisive at Nashville), Philip H. Sheridan (Shenandoah, cavalry transformation).
Civil War (Confederate): Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson (operational maneuver in the Valley), James Longstreet (corps-level mastery).
World Wars: Omar Bradley (steady Army Group command in NW Europe), H. H. “Hap” Arnold (airpower architect—if broadening “generalship” to include service-building air leaders).
Korea & Cold War: Matthew Ridgway (turned the war in 1951 through leadership and tactical reform).
Late 20th–21st Century: Norman Schwarzkopf (Desert Storm operational art), David Petraeus (COIN doctrine & surge in Iraq), Colin Powell (strategic doctrine as CJCS—less battlefield command).

Prefer a U.S.-service-only list (no Confederates)?
If we restrict to U.S. service, here’s a clean Top 10 (same criteria):

1. Washington
2. Grant
3. Marshall
4. Eisenhower
5. Sherman
6. Pershing
7. MacArthur
8. Patton
9. Winfield Scott
10. H. H. “Hap” Arnold (airpower institution-builder)

If you want me to weight pure battlefield generalship more (and institution-building less), I can re-rank—e.g., elevate Lee, Jackson, Thomas, Patton; if you want institutional impact, Marshall and Arnold rise. Which lens fits your class or project best, Harry?

quote:

---

Schwartzkof warrants some consideration

---

Darn straight, He had a grand master strategy that the media did their level best to convey to the enemy. He was slapping fake news around long before it was cool.

You could make the argument to swap 1 and 2.

Washington was great at keeping morale high enough to hold a completely outclassed "army" together long enough to outlast the opponent. While he had some good victories, he never had to drive the enemy army into submission, which wouldn't have been possible. He just had to last long enough for England to decide that it wasn't worth the hassle to keep fighting.


He also had the advantage of his enemy being of the belief that the colonies would eventually fail and begging to come back to the Empire.

The South didn't get that grace from the North.

Ulysses S Grant changed the entire philosophy of how to wage war. His philosophy is still the overarching philosophy of the United States Military today: wars are won with logistics.

Grant gets a bad reputation in the South, where we are taught that he was only effective because he had the numbers and he didn't care about the casualties he incurred. Lee is praised in the South as the better General who fought a glorious, heroic, and gentlemanly fight against all odds.

Lee suffered more casualties than Grant did.

Both of these views that we were taught and Southerners continue to preach are false. Grant won because he understood how armies work. He was a quartermaster in the Mexican-American War of 1848, while Lee was politicking amongst the ranks of the Officer class. Grant learned how supplies and the lack of supplies affected how armies operated, or could operate.

Lee formed his philosophy of war and strategy from the study of Napoleon's tactics, strategy, and philosophy because that is what was taught at the time as the best way to wage warfare. And he was a great student at West Point.

Grant pretty much ignored what he was taught at West Point, which is why he was a mediocre student.

But Lee didn't change warfare, and neither did Washington. The only US General who changed the philosophy of warfare is Ulysses S Grant.

quote:

---

Dwight D. Eisenhower

As Supreme Allied Commander in World War II, Eisenhower's strategic genius shone in orchestrating the largest amphibious invasion in history at Normandy (D-Day) and managing coalition forces across Europe. Tactically, he oversaw operations like the breakout from Normandy and the Ardennes counteroffensive, balancing resources and egos to achieve total victory over Nazi Germany.

---

I'd argue that Eisenhower perfected Grant's philosophy of Logistical Warfare. And he designed the final draft of the blueprint of how the US military would operate.

Eisenhower is the General who proved that Grant's philosophy not only could work in the modern age, but dominated all others. and it's still the most effective 160 years later.

quote:

---

William T. Sherman

Sherman's "March to the Sea" exemplified total war strategy in the Civil War, crippling Confederate infrastructure and morale without major battles. Strategically, he captured Atlanta, boosting Northern support for Lincoln's reelection. Tactically, his maneuvers in the Atlanta Campaign outflanked and wore down opponents, showcasing innovative logistics and psychological warfare.

7. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson

Jackson's Valley Campaign distracted Union forces with lightning marches and surprise attacks, while tactical brilliance at Chancellorsville (flanking Hooker) was legendary. His early death limited broader impact, but he maximized limited resources.

---

Arguably the greatest "What if?" In the history of war. What would have happened if these two men met on the battlefield.

I say greatest "What if?" Because unlike trying to compare Napoleon vs Caesar vs Alexander the Great, these two fought in the same war on opposite sides.

If they'd have met, who comes out on top? And do you just give them one battle, or a few?

I think if you only give them one battle, Jackson wins. But if you have them face off in a campaign, Sherman wins.

quote:

---

No Andrew Jackson?!

---

He only had one great victory against a real military force.

And that victory rightfully belongs to Jean Lafitte.


He ran a campaign against the Indians, but let's not pretend that they were an organized and disciplined military force. Best comparison would be a militia.

So you're left with his victory at the Battle of New Orleans. A victory that he gets credit for, but he wasn't responsible for. His small force was lacking proper supplies and the only arms they were provided by the armory was a few cannons.

His greatest accomplishment was being able to persuade the Choctaw Indians to fight alongside him, given his reputation for being the Indian Slayer.

And he also decided to meet with Lafitte, after dismissing Lafitte's request for an audience multiple times because he didn't think meeting with a prisoner was acceptable for an officer of the American Army.

At the meeting Lafitte told Jackson about the British forces, what they planned to do, and how they were trying to recruit or bribe the locals to help them.

He then offered Jackson 1000 men under his command, 5000 flints, and the City of New Orleans to fight alongside Jackson and his troops.

And Lafitte delivered on his promises. The night before the battle, a crew of Lafitte's took control of a British ship. They then sailed up the Mississippi to the British landing site. Once they got alongside the British supply depot at the landing, while the British army slept, they opened fire destroying a sizeable amount of artillery and ammunition, along with several casualties.

Pirates-sorry- Privateers don't really care about rules of war or honourable battle.

Then Lafitte fulfilled his promise of delivering the City of New Orleans into Jackson's service. Lafitte led his men to meet Jackson and his army on the outskirts of the city, where they were also met by the Choctaw and the Free Blacks. They then marched through the city to the battlefield.

When the citizens of New Orleans saw Jackson and Lafitte riding side by side, leading an army of American Soldiers, Pirates, Indians, and Free Blacks marching together to defend the city against an invading force, the men grabbed their guns and ran out to join them. They managed to gain an estimated 500-1000 volunteers on the March.


The British forces never stood a chance really. They didn't understand the river, had no local help or guides, and the information they did receive about the river and terrain was false, provided to them by locals under Lafitte's command. The battle lasted a little over an hour. It was a slaughter.




Jackson didn't defeat the British at Chalmette, Louisiana did. Jackson just used the victory to help him win votes in the rest of the country. Because

Forrest was the GOAT