re: Ulysses S Grant is the Undisputed GOAT US General

quote:

---

Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force

---

And never once commanded in the field. A better example from World War II would have been a general like Patton. He was actually commanding troops on the battlefield while Eisenhower sat in a headquarters building in Reims.

I’m not sure you understand the term “undisputed” lol. Grant was a much better General than most Southerns give him credit for but you are now seeing the pendulum swing the other way and people are starting to revise history to lift Grant to levels he never achieved. The History Channel special on him last year is a perfect example. If you remove all southern generals since they fought against the US, Grant is probably top 5

quote:

---

people are starting to revise history to lift Grant to levels he never achieved.

---

He won the Civil War. That's a pretty high level.

Grant is basically John Pershing with stronger logistical backing.

I like Ike as much as the next guy, but when you have guys like Omar Bradley, George Patton, Mark Clark, Hap Arnold, and Bernard Montgomery working for you, it's like being manger of the 1927 New York Yankees. You don't have to manage much; just cut them loose.

What made Eisenhower great was his ability to hold it all together, balancing political egos, military egos, and De Gaulle.

quote:

---

Grant built his reputation beating shitty generals in the West.

---

And Lee built his reputation by beating shitty generals in the East.

- George McClellan: brilliant administrator, terrible battlefield commander and tactician.

- John Pope: an arrogant windbag who had not the first clue what he was doing. Lincoln transferred him to the frontier where he wouldn't do any more damage to the war effort.

- Ambrose Burnside: in the running for the worst battlefield commander in American military history.

- Joseph Hooker: brilliant division and corps commander, sub-par army commander who began doubting his own plan when Lee didn't do what he wanted him to do.

- George Meade: the only competent and decisive general Lee ever faced at the army command level. Defeated him at Gettysburg and remained in command of the Army of the Potomac until the end of the war.

Maybe, especially in the East, but his exploits in the west were extraordinary. What he did with Vicksburg against both Pemberton and Johnston is pretty ballsy and his exploits at Chattanooga are pretty astounding. He kicked an established dug in army off a mountain. I don't know if he was THAT. But he was better than Lee.

Lee surrendered to him. Overall, I would go with Patton. He liked to fight.

If there had been a competent general in command to start with instead of Pemberton Grant might not have ever made it East.

Grant was making ZERO progress against the fortifications there, but Pemberton had made practically ZERO preparations to hold the place against a protracted siege.

Fill those warehouses in advance, dig in deep, evacuate the non combatants, and let Grant have at it. In the meantime instead of wasting time in an invasion of the North, send troops to the relief of Vicksburg.

Johnston had scraped up 30-35K, but what if a large part of the Army of Northern Virginia shows up in Mississippi? Or even just Hood or Longstreet?

Grant is one thing, but are we really going to sit here and try to glorify Sherman, who is famous for committing war crimes?

quote:

---

And Lee built his reputation by beating shitty generals in the East.

---

Did I miss the thread stating Lee is the undisputed GOAT?

It’s also why I mentioned Grant vs Jackson