- 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: I asked Grok to rank the Top 10 greatest U.S. Generals in our 250 years of history...
Posted on 1/31/26 at 2:38 am to HarryBalzack
Posted on 1/31/26 at 2:38 am to HarryBalzack
quote:
you want me to weight pure battlefield generalship more (and institution-building less), I can re-rank—e.g., elevate Lee, Jackson, Thomas, Patton;
Doing this should lower Lee, not elevate him.
The biggest knock against Lee is this: while he was a good tactician and developed strategic and effective battle plans pre-battle, once the battle began, he pretty much became a spectator, having the belief that he had done his best to prepare for victory and it was now in God's hands.
He made the plan, and then he put the responsibility and his faith in the outcome on the shoulders of his officers and God's will.
Lee's reputation of a great tactician and General is mostly because of the quality of his officers. He could develop a plan probably better than anybody, but once the battle started, he couldn't adjust. He needed his officers to make battlefield adjustments for him, and he had almost all the best at doing that fighting under him.
One of the few times Lee made a change to his original battle plan was Pickett's Charge. His plan was failing and he panicked instead of deciding to accept defeat and falling back.
That didn't happen often with him, but when it did, it revealed his weakness of not being able to improvise a battlefield.
Now this criteria would elevate Grant, as he was engaged in all areas of the battlefield and making adjustments to his plans based on the flow of the battle.
Shiloh is the perfect illustration of his Battlefield Generalship.
0
Posted on 1/31/26 at 2:44 am to Jobu93
quote:
Not a fan of Grant on the list.
His was a war of attrition and he probably lost more men and material than he should have.
Just going to put this here:
quote:
Robert E. Lee (CSA): Approximately 209,000 casualties (killed, wounded, captured, missing) over the course of the war. His 1863 campaign into Pennsylvania alone resulted in 28,000 casualties.
Ulysses S. Grant (USA): Approximately 154,000 casualties, although he inflicted 191,000 on Confederate forces. His 1864 Overland Campaign was noted for high, yet strategic, losses.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 6:13 am to magildachunks
Lee was generally fighting a numerically superior force= more shots fired at him.
Lee also fought many different commanders throughout the course of the war and the number of battles every general fought is not equal. Just googling Lee, it says he was in 26 major battles. Not sure about Grant.
Lee also fought many different commanders throughout the course of the war and the number of battles every general fought is not equal. Just googling Lee, it says he was in 26 major battles. Not sure about Grant.
This post was edited on 1/31/26 at 6:20 am
Posted on 1/31/26 at 6:38 am to Monahans
quote:
Nathan Bedford Forrest is the GOAT.
Eighth grade education and his tactics are taught at West Point. That’s the best General ever.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 6:52 am to TuckyTiger
quote:
Lee was generally fighting a numerically superior force= more shots fired at him.
And usually doing it via costly frontal assaults. Gaines's Mill, Malvern Hill, Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg all involved massive frontal attacks that cost Lee thousands of casualties that he could ill afford to lose.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 6:55 am to RollTide1987
Lee was born an American, but was he an American general?
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:10 am to TuckyTiger
quote:
Lee also fought many different commanders throughout the course of the war
Grant fought and won multiple campaigns in different theaters.
Lee fought in one theater, and lost.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:26 am to Strannix
No Alex "buffet" Vindman? List invalid.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:30 am to Lonnie Utah
He was a general in the Confederate States of ……..America
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:32 am to TuckyTiger
quote:
He was a general in the Confederate States of ……..America
Right. The question posed was "rank the Top 10 greatest U.S. Generals"
U.S. = UNITED States....
Confederate =/= United States.
This post was edited on 1/31/26 at 7:33 am
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:40 am to magildachunks
Grant was just fortunate enough to have and endless supply of of whatever he needed. Step back and look at what Lee did to this massive US war machine with the limited, ever shrinking amount of resources he had is astounding.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:45 am to Lonnie Utah
You have a point there.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 8:00 am to TuckyTiger
quote:
Grant was just fortunate enough to have and endless supply of of whatever he needed.
Grant created that fortune for himself. The U.S. Army under his leadership became a logistical juggernaut on a scale the world had never seen before. His strategic and logistical brilliance is what won the war for the Union.
quote:
Step back and look at what Lee did to this massive US war machine with the limited, ever shrinking amount of resources he had is astounding.
He didn't do much when the Union finally focused its resources into a single unified campaign aimed against the Confederacy. The Army of the Potomac crossed the Rapidan River on May 4, 1864, and had Lee's army besieged south of the James River within six weeks.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 8:02 am to TuckyTiger
quote:
Grant was just fortunate enough to have and endless supply of of whatever he needed. Step back and look at what Lee did to this massive US war machine with the limited, ever shrinking amount of resources he had is astounding
Every other Union General had the same endless supply, yet they all failed.
It's not that Grant was given an advantage that wasn't given to anybody else, the difference was that he understood what he had and how to use it to his advantage.
But by only focusing on the way Grant operated the Army after being put in charge is a disservice to his abilities to command a battlefield that he displayed numerous times before being promoted to Lieutenant-General.
And by continuing to glorify Lee because of the "limitations" he had to work with is ignoring his (and other Confederate Generals) complete failure to influence how the Confederate Congress waged war.
They allowed politicians with no military experience design the military structure and the military operations, instead of insisting that they put it all in the control of the highly skilled, experienced, and West Point trained leaders who committed treason for them.
Instead of having one organized entity, the Confederacy thought it was best to have 3-4 separate armies working against each other to achieve the same goal.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 8:05 am to RollTide1987
quote:
He didn't do much when the Union finally focused its resources into a single unified campaign aimed against the Confederacy. The Army of the Potomac crossed the Rapidan River on May 4, 1864, and had Lee's army besieged south of the James River within six weeks.
July 4th, 1863 is the date that South lost the war.
Most people claim the reason was Gettysburg.
Nah. That's the day that Vicksburg fell, and Grant and Sherman could turn their attention East.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 8:18 am to TurkeyThug
quote:
I’d rank Hal Moore up there although he was a lieutenant general. I’m pretty sure scharwtzkof came up under moore
Good call here.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 8:53 am to Strannix
Forrest is my personal favorite, but Grok only compiles the published opinions of historians. Nathan B had limited education and was a soldier for only 4 years. He was able to muster an army, rally them, win many fights while maintaining a secret government in occupied W. Tn. Many historians can't get past that organization's transition to the Klan. "Rode with Forrest".
Posted on 1/31/26 at 8:59 am to Tree_Fall
quote:
but Grok only compiles the published opinions of historians.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 9:02 am to RollTide1987
Robert E Lee isn’t American and all he did was play defense against a green Union army. Once it got time to be. Big boy, he got his arse kicked.
This post was edited on 1/31/26 at 9:04 am
Posted on 1/31/26 at 9:07 am to Tree_Fall
quote:
Many historians can't get past that organization's transition to the Klan. "Rode with Forrest".
I mean...Lenin, Castro, Mao.. pretty much most revolutionaries were able to do the same. Then they that control and power they achieved to do deplorable shite.
We don't overlook the deplorable shite so we can admire how they accomplished it.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News