Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Recently, I've decided to put together a US Marine force for FOW, and I've not long finished my Confederate army as I attempt to uphold the legitimate authority of the government in Richmond over those damn Yankees

So I'm in the mood for American military history.

And I've got time to kill, and I've been meaning to do this thread for a while - so who is America's greatest military leader?

I did think about doing British military leaders, but as they are a) superior to any American leader and b) perhaps American dakka members might not be as knowledgeable about Bitish miltary leaders, I thought it wouldn't be fair on them.

And besides, I would bet that most people on this forum are familiar with American military history, so everybody can contribute.

Anyway, I give reasons for my choice, and also discuss some honourable mentions.

Douglas MacArthur

IMO, America's greatest military leader. Lord of hats will probably be along to point out his flaws

but for my money, MacArthur gets the nod. Yes, he was fatally flawed, no argument there. But his Pacific campaigns, his masterstroke at Inchon, and his intuitive feel for combat, his verve and imagination, make MacArthur the USA's most gifted general in my book.

Crazy Horse

This is not the PC choice. After reading Stephen E Ambrose's 'Crazy Horse and Custer,' you learn what a remarkable man Crazy horse was.

The bravest of the brave, first in last out, a cunning tactician and leader. These may be cliches, but in Crazy HOrse's case, they are completely justified.

A great American warrior, and one who deserves at least the honour of a warship or fighter jet named after him or something similar.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

No Eisenhower, no Allied alliance in WW2! Simple as that!

George Washington

Washington's place in American history needs no introduction, but there is one incident that deserves attention:

During the New York campaign, after the Americans had been routed at White Shore Plain, American morale hit rock bottom. The Army was down to 1000 men or something, desertions were rife, and it was one of those rare occasions when Washington lost his cool and lashed out at his men.

Nobody believed that the Continental army could ever defeat the British. But after calming down, and composing himself, Washington still believed and the rest is history...including root beer being created


Anyway, I hope this is a fun debate, and feel free to tell me why I'm wrong or suggest your own choice.

Little Turtle.

 Ketara wrote:
Little Turtle.

A good pick actually. Little Turtle kicked a whole lot of ass.

I'm actually going to throw Benedict Arnold into the ring. He may be a traitor, but I sympathize with the guy. He was easily the most talented and capable of the Continental Army's generals, and he got treated like gak. Just check this out;

In October 1776, just after the Revolutionary War broke out, a British flotilla of 25 warships sailed down the Hudson River with enough firepower and powdered wigs to blow New England all the way back to Regular England. Our Founding Fathers watched in terror, since their own navy was, at this point, still in tree form.

Fortunately, the U.S. was blessed to have a headstrong general named Benedict Arnold, who, as we've pointed out before, was basically history's answer to Rambo. Yeah, he turned on his country, but only because he thought they were being pussies. When Arnold saw the Brits coming, he decided he would beat the Brits back if it meant strapping together a bunch of logs and paddling out there himself.

The British forces consisted of 25 armed ships, 700 sailors and almost 2,000 redcoats, Indians and Hessian mercenaries, all equipped with the best training the British Empire could provide. Arnold, on the other hand, was a general, not an admiral, and he walked into this battle with about as many warships and hours logged in naval combat as you have.

Benedict Arnold did exactly what the A-Team would do: build an ad hoc navy in the lake out of whatever fishing boats and drift wood he could find. If it could float, and could remain floating with a cannon strapped to it, it became part of the first American navy.

Despite the fact that Arnold gave the boats badass names like Royal Savage, they weren't fooling anyone at the Battle of Valcour Island. He lost almost every one of his vessels. However, the general had an ace up his sleeve: being the sly bastard that made him notorious.

Arnold slipped past the British gunboats one night following the initial bloodbath, and forced the British fleet on a wild goose-chase along the Hudson River Valley. When the Brits eventually caught up with him and started sinking his ships, they were surprised to see Arnold didn't appear to give a gak. They were probably even more surprised when he burned the last few himself with their flags still flying, dusted off his hands and declared victory.

Arnold had completely outfoxed the enemy; his bs navy had successfully stalled them long enough that it was now too late in the year for them to continue their invasion. They were forced to retreat back to Canada, blaming each other the whole way.

By the admission of Baron Riedesel, commander of the Hessian mercenaries in the battle, the American Revolution should have ended with their invasion of the Hudson River that year. Even historians acknowledge that the U.S. would have been utterly screwed by the invasion had it not been for Benedict Arnold's insane gambit.

Courtesy of Cracked.com

In an era of shifting allegiances, it's not so strange he switched sides. A true bad ass was lost

EDIT: And as for Admiral, is there really anyone to compete with Chester Nimitz? The man already ranks among the best Admirals in world history rather easily. I honestly can't name that many US admirals though.

Going with Omar Bradley.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Little Turtle.

A good pick actually. Little Turtle kicked a whole lot of ass.

I'm actually going to throw Benedict Arnold into the ring. He may be a traitor, but I sympathize with the guy. He was easily the most talented and capable of the Continental Army's generals, and he got treated like gak. Just check this out;

In October 1776, just after the Revolutionary War broke out, a British flotilla of 25 warships sailed down the Hudson River with enough firepower and powdered wigs to blow New England all the way back to Regular England. Our Founding Fathers watched in terror, since their own navy was, at this point, still in tree form.

Fortunately, the U.S. was blessed to have a headstrong general named Benedict Arnold, who, as we've pointed out before, was basically history's answer to Rambo. Yeah, he turned on his country, but only because he thought they were being pussies. When Arnold saw the Brits coming, he decided he would beat the Brits back if it meant strapping together a bunch of logs and paddling out there himself.

The British forces consisted of 25 armed ships, 700 sailors and almost 2,000 redcoats, Indians and Hessian mercenaries, all equipped with the best training the British Empire could provide. Arnold, on the other hand, was a general, not an admiral, and he walked into this battle with about as many warships and hours logged in naval combat as you have.

Benedict Arnold did exactly what the A-Team would do: build an ad hoc navy in the lake out of whatever fishing boats and drift wood he could find. If it could float, and could remain floating with a cannon strapped to it, it became part of the first American navy.

Despite the fact that Arnold gave the boats badass names like Royal Savage, they weren't fooling anyone at the Battle of Valcour Island. He lost almost every one of his vessels. However, the general had an ace up his sleeve: being the sly bastard that made him notorious.

Arnold slipped past the British gunboats one night following the initial bloodbath, and forced the British fleet on a wild goose-chase along the Hudson River Valley. When the Brits eventually caught up with him and started sinking his ships, they were surprised to see Arnold didn't appear to give a gak. They were probably even more surprised when he burned the last few himself with their flags still flying, dusted off his hands and declared victory.

Arnold had completely outfoxed the enemy; his bs navy had successfully stalled them long enough that it was now too late in the year for them to continue their invasion. They were forced to retreat back to Canada, blaming each other the whole way.

By the admission of Baron Riedesel, commander of the Hessian mercenaries in the battle, the American Revolution should have ended with their invasion of the Hudson River that year. Even historians acknowledge that the U.S. would have been utterly screwed by the invasion had it not been for Benedict Arnold's insane gambit.

Courtesy of Cracked.com

In an era of shifting allegiances, it's not so strange he switched sides. A true bad ass was lost

EDIT: And as for Admiral, is there really anyone to compete with Chester Nimitz? The man already ranks among the best Admirals in world history rather easily. I honestly can't name that many US admirals though.

John Paul Jones


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
Going with Omar Bradley.

A solid choice and a good general, but lacking that X factor to raise him to the pantheon of a great general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
Little Turtle.

It was a difficult decision to choose between Little Turtle and Crazy Horse, but despite Little Turtle's success, Crazy Horse's action were more important, because if he had lost Little Big Horn, we'd probably be looking at American banknotes with President Custer on them.

Why is dwight there he was a monster. He supported pro china to inslave taiwan, he threatened nucular war on korea ect ect. He is and was more unstable then trump could ever be. Plus never trust a general that approved the d day tanks. Lets put a blanet around a tank that will help it float.... Not my ass in it.

He is basically the reason for the problems in taiwan and korea now.

No Nimitz?

Third post in at the bottom

OgreChubbs wrote:
Why is dwight there he was a monster. He supported pro china to inslave taiwan, he threatened nucular war on korea ect ect. He is and was more unstable then trump could ever be. Plus never trust a general that approved the d day tanks. Lets put a blanet around a tank that will help it float.... Not my ass in it.

He is basically the reason for the problems in taiwan and korea now.

General Eisenhower and President Eisenhower are two completely different things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:
No Nimitz?

Not on this thread!

Truth be told, I forgot all about him


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Third post in at the bottom

Still waiting for a rebuttal against General MacArthur

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

George Washington

Washington's place in American history needs no introduction, but there is one incident that deserves attention:

During the New York campaign, after the Americans had been routed at White Shore Plain, American morale hit rock bottom. The Army was down to 1000 men or something, desertions were rife, and it was one of those rare occasions when Washington lost his cool and lashed out at his men.

Nobody believed that the Continental army could ever defeat the British. But after calming down, and composing himself, Washington still believed and the rest is history...including root beer being created


Anyway, I hope this is a fun debate, and feel free to tell me why I'm wrong or suggest your own choice.

IMHO, Washington's place is fairly well inflated... A log of the scholarship being done on him now shows that he was a mediocre, at best, field commander.

That said, he did have certain gifts that proved him to be a capable leader, and he would probably have done well in today's modern military. That was in large part due, IMO, to his intelligence apparatus. That (and a stroke of luck with weather) allowed him to get his troops out of new york and continue the war.


Re: Omar Bradley... Yeah, he was rather quiet compared to some of the Characters we've had over the years, but the truth is, he is perhaps one of the most influential commanders on modern infantry tactics. I recall from conversations with one of my more book learned Infantry buddies, that Bradley's influence can be literally seen in every infantryman today. Tactics, to mobility, how he gets supported, etc. That's some big influence.


EDIT: I voted other, in part because the General I'm thinking of deserves his place on this list... but also because I can't really decide between him and Patton...


I'm referring to "Black Jack" Pershing. While the US army may not have done all *that* much to break Germany in WW1, there is no doubting his roles in other conflicts like the Philippine Insurrection. But where he really comes out for me in WW1, is in how he fought the allied commanders to keep US forces under US commanders. He fought, unsuccessfully for that type of command, until after the Battle of Fismet, where the US lost some 900+ men due to callous European commanding. After that battle, and with successes on parts of the line where he was in command, proved to other commanders that it was probably a good thing to get Pershing his own men back.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

George Washington

Washington's place in American history needs no introduction, but there is one incident that deserves attention:

During the New York campaign, after the Americans had been routed at White Shore Plain, American morale hit rock bottom. The Army was down to 1000 men or something, desertions were rife, and it was one of those rare occasions when Washington lost his cool and lashed out at his men.

Nobody believed that the Continental army could ever defeat the British. But after calming down, and composing himself, Washington still believed and the rest is history...including root beer being created


Anyway, I hope this is a fun debate, and feel free to tell me why I'm wrong or suggest your own choice.

IMHO, Washington's place is fairly well inflated... A log of the scholarship being done on him now shows that he was a mediocre, at best, field commander.

That said, he did have certain gifts that proved him to be a capable leader, and he would probably have done well in today's modern military. That was in large part due, IMO, to his intelligence apparatus. That (and a stroke of luck with weather) allowed him to get his troops out of new york and continue the war.


Re: Omar Bradley... Yeah, he was rather quiet compared to some of the Characters we've had over the years, but the truth is, he is perhaps one of the most influential commanders on modern infantry tactics. I recall from conversations with one of my more book learned Infantry buddies, that Bradley's influence can be literally seen in every infantryman today. Tactics, to mobility, how he gets supported, etc. That's some big influence.


EDIT: I voted other, in part because the General I'm thinking of deserves his place on this list... but also because I can't really decide between him and Patton...


I'm referring to "Black Jack" Pershing. While the US army may not have done all *that* much to break Germany in WW1, there is no doubting his roles in other conflicts like the Philippine Insurrection. But where he really comes out for me in WW1, is in how he fought the allied commanders to keep US forces under US commanders. He fought, unsuccessfully for that type of command, until after the Battle of Fismet, where the US lost some 900+ men due to callous European commanding. After that battle, and with successes on parts of the line where he was in command, proved to other commanders that it was probably a good thing to get Pershing his own men back.

I've always had the opinion that Washington was a pretty average field commander, with Arnold and Gates being more capable, but ultimately out-manouvered by Washington's political skill.

He was caught napping at Brandywine and as you say, was lucky during the New York campaign, which the British should have won.

In saying that, he was not without qualities. His leadership, and his personal bravery during the French and Indian Wars are noteworthy.

As for Omar Bradley, I agree with most of it, but it's worth noting that the fiery Patton sacked less commanders than the more quieter Bradley.

I'm not a Pershing fan to be honest.

I remember reading about once incident (shortly after the Americans had arrived in Europe) where Pershing was convinced that the American infantry man's superior rifleman ship would be enough to change things...

And you've got all these veteran commanders in the room, who although they say nothing, are probably thinking, really? You don't think we've tried that these last three years?

Unfortunately for the doughboys, they would learn the hard way, but ultimately become good soldiers...

Not much of a military historian myself, but as someone who has to drive 45 miles each way to work and back, I'm gonna go with Eisenhower.

Crazy Horse is getting an entire mountain statue named after him. Of course it may take another fifty years to complete.

It's hard to judge a lot of these characters, as many operated in completely unrelatable contexts (Lee fighting an operational level conflict in command of a few tens of thousands of troops near home soil is much different from Eisenhower's command over millions spread across multiple continents on the other side of the planet). Likewise, many, like MacArthur and the other WW2 era generals but also some others, always had such massive material, intelligence, and logistical advantages over opponents that it can be difficult to separate their generalship from the other advantages they enjoyed over opponents (kinda like pitting a top level GT player with a Wraithknight/Scatterbike list against someone running a fluffy Tempestus Scion army with half the points and the Eldar player gets to see the list in advance while the Tempestus player only knows they'll be fighting Eldar, the material advantages of the Eldar army are going to be such that an overwhelming victory is assured almost no matter how well or poorly they're played).

I say that not to take away from their generalship, but that it is difficult to separate from the overwhelming advantages they enjoyed over their opponents.

Admiral Nimitz. He was a key figure in the defeat of japans' navy.

Without him the generals could not island hop.
Navy was king in the pacific.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's hard to judge a lot of these characters, as many operated in completely unrelatable contexts (Lee fighting an operational level conflict in command of a few tens of thousands of troops near home soil is much different from Eisenhower's command over millions spread across multiple continents on the other side of the planet). Likewise, many, like MacArthur and the other WW2 era generals but also some others, always had such massive material, intelligence, and logistical advantages over opponents that it can be difficult to separate their generalship from the other advantages they enjoyed over opponents (kinda like pitting a top level GT player with a Wraithknight/Scatterbike list against someone running a fluffy Tempestus Scion army with half the points and the Eldar player gets to see the list in advance while the Tempestus player only knows they'll be fighting Eldar, the material advantages of the Eldar army are going to be such that an overwhelming victory is assured almost no matter how well or poorly they're played).

I say that not to take away from their generalship, but that it is difficult to separate from the overwhelming advantages they enjoyed over their opponents.

There is a lot of sense in what you say, but ever since humanity started throwing rocks at each other, there have been traits that all generals of whatever army, of whatever age, have had in common. The presence or the absence of these traits more often or not leads to victory or defeat: leadership, tactics, innovation, getting the most out of what you've got etc etc

For example, Crazy Horse's forces were at a technological disadvantage, and yet, they still inflicted defeats upon the US Army.

Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson were up against the numerical and material superiority of the Union, but they could have won the war for the Confederacy.

And famously, Washington defeated the great superpower of the age and achieved independence for the USA.

Washington's victory in particular should not be underestimated, because very few leaders or nations have defeated Great Britain in the last 300 years...

Some of these American generals have never had the industrial might of WW2 America behind them, but they've still won battles and in Lee's example, could have won a war...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Not much of a military historian myself, but as someone who has to drive 45 miles each way to work and back, I'm gonna go with Eisenhower.

We're talking black powder, victory, defeat, war is hell - these are the key themes of this thread, not your drive to work!

Get with the system!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Crazy Horse is getting an entire mountain statue named after him. Of course it may take another fifty years to complete.

I remember this from the another thread. What's the hold up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
Admiral Nimitz. He was a key figure in the defeat of japans' navy.

Without him the generals could not island hop.
Navy was king in the pacific.

Could people stop mentioning Nimitz? It only serves to highlight my embarrassing oversight!

MacArthur was a mixed bag as a general. He blew the start of the Pacific War, then redeemed himself during the rest of the campaign, of course dependent on naval support.

The Inchon landings were a massive strategic success, but MacArthur's obsession with conquering the whole Korean peninsular and kicking the "Commies" in the nuts led to a dangerous overextension of his forces that was disastrous when China came in to support the North Koreans. Let's remember that the separation of Korea now is almost exactly where it was before the war began, and a lot of people died to make it that way.

His real success was as de facto governor of Japan starting in 1945, which was of course a diplomatic/political post. Against that, his meddling in domestic US politics helped to cause his dismissal by Truman during the Korean War.

Personally I've always had a soft spot for US Grant.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's hard to judge a lot of these characters, as many operated in completely unrelatable contexts (Lee fighting an operational level conflict in command of a few tens of thousands of troops near home soil is much different from Eisenhower's command over millions spread across multiple continents on the other side of the planet). Likewise, many, like MacArthur and the other WW2 era generals but also some others, always had such massive material, intelligence, and logistical advantages over opponents that it can be difficult to separate their generalship from the other advantages they enjoyed over opponents (kinda like pitting a top level GT player with a Wraithknight/Scatterbike list against someone running a fluffy Tempestus Scion army with half the points and the Eldar player gets to see the list in advance while the Tempestus player only knows they'll be fighting Eldar, the material advantages of the Eldar army are going to be such that an overwhelming victory is assured almost no matter how well or poorly they're played).

I say that not to take away from their generalship, but that it is difficult to separate from the overwhelming advantages they enjoyed over their opponents.

There is a lot of sense in what you say, but ever since humanity started throwing rocks at each other, there have been traits that all generals of whatever army, of whatever age, have had in common. The presence or the absence of these traits more often or not leads to victory or defeat: leadership, tactics, innovation, getting the most out of what you've got etc etc

For example, Crazy Horse's forces were at a technological disadvantage, and yet, they still inflicted defeats upon the US Army.

Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson were up against the numerical and material superiority of the Union, but they could have won the war for the Confederacy.

And famously, Washington defeated the great superpower of the age and achieved independence for the USA.

Washington's victory in particular should not be underestimated, because very few leaders or nations have defeated Great Britain in the last 300 years...

Some of these American generals have never had the industrial might of WW2 America behind them, but they've still won battles and in Lee's example, could have won a war...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Not much of a military historian myself, but as someone who has to drive 45 miles each way to work and back, I'm gonna go with Eisenhower.

We're talking black powder, victory, defeat, war is hell - these are the key themes of this thread, not your drive to work!

Get with the system!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Crazy Horse is getting an entire mountain statue named after him. Of course it may take another fifty years to complete.

I remember this from the another thread. What's the hold up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhe90 wrote:
Admiral Nimitz. He was a key figure in the defeat of japans' navy.

Without him the generals could not island hop.
Navy was king in the pacific.

Could people stop mentioning Nimitz? It only serves to highlight my embarrassing oversight!

Well you missed a admiral up there with the likes of Lord Nelson.

Nelson is a Brit though

@do I not like that: the hold up is money. It is a huge project that will dwarf Mt. Rushmore when completed. And it is being self funded b a non profit.

If the question is who would I pick to lead an army, given time to learn the current arms and tactics, at the operational level, I'd pick Lee. I think you could drop him into command of any field army and he'd get the most out of it.

For grand strategy I'd pick Eisenhower. He played a good hand well, but he's one of a very small handful of men who held together multi national alliances on multiple fronts.

Douglas MacArthur: Mac was a good general, with a good grasp on strategy, as a general with his responsibilities should have. But his biggest strength was the fact that he was an inspirational leader and popular with the troops. The main issue with MacArthur was he was a soldier first, and politics wasn't his strong suit. That bit him in the ass in Korea.


George Washington: Washington wasn't that bad as a general in the field. But as a "big picture" general, he was decidedly average. His biggest strengths were his charisma and leadership abilities, combined with his strong faith.


Ulysses S. Grant: Grant was a competent general, despite being a drunk. Unlike the pencil pushers that he replaced, he understood warfighting and strategy. His strengths and reasons for his success was the ability to pick competent subordinates, and the fact that he understood Lee better than anybody else in the Union Army.


Crazy Horse: Crazy Horse was a first rate tactician and a good leader of men. But as a general in the traditional sense, he wasn't that great. His greatest victory, at Little Big Horn, was more due to a struck of luck, and problems within Custer's command, than from any true strategic or tactical acumen. However, his feint playing the decoy during the Fetterman Massacre was a brilliant tactical move.


Robert E. Lee: One of the finest generals in American history. But one from the old school of the "gentleman soldier". This hurt him in one way, when the Union started playing hardball later in the war. He was the kind of general that was greatly respected by his troops, fellow generals, and his enemies. His charisma was his strength. His men were still willing to fight on under his leadership when defeat for the CSA was certain.


Thomas Jonathan Jackson: Stonewall was like Crazy Horse and Washington. He was a bold and gifted field commander and tactician, loved by his troops and respected by his enemies. But he wasn't that great of a strategic thinker.


George S Patton: Patton was a soldier's soldier. He was also an excellent armor commander and leader of men. But Patton, like MacArthur, didn't give a damn for political considerations or niceties. He was there to fight a war and win. That tended to get him in hot water with the top brass.


Dwight D. Eisenhower: Ike was more a politician and administrator than anything else. Which was critical on the European front, with so many disparate forces involved. Not to mention generals with incompatible personalities (i.e. Monty and Patton).


So, for me, it's hard to choose the "greatest". Each one was brilliant, and historically significant, in their own way.

 Bromsy wrote:
Going with Omar Bradley.

Yup. I was really surprised not to see him on the list.

Lewis B. Puller.

Chesty could kick the hell out of the rest on the list even after staying out all night drinking and whoring.

Remember what Chesty did after lining 100 hookers up against the wall?

I'm particular to Patton. Something to be said for the bravado and ability to overcome dyslexia.

Lee was a gentlemen in a war that was anything but. I'm reading U.S. Grant's autobiography, and his views on Lee are impressive.

I'm going to throw in a name that often gets forgotten, or is a subject of controversy: William Tecumseh Sherman. Total warfare was a controversial move, and as a tactician he was less than stellar. But his strategy of the maneuver warfare laid the ground work for the Blitzkrieg and Patton's own successes in Europe.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Thomas Jonathan Jackson: Stonewall was like Crazy Horse and Washington. He was a bold and gifted field commander and tactician, loved by his troops and respected by his enemies. But he wasn't that great of a strategic thinker.

It's sad that I have no idea who "Thomas Jonathan" Jackson is... but I know exactly who Stonewall Jackson is

For three days in July, George Meade, otherwise likely Matthew Ridgeway.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
MacArthur was a mixed bag as a general. He blew the start of the Pacific War, then redeemed himself during the rest of the campaign, of course dependent on naval support.

The Inchon landings were a massive strategic success, but MacArthur's obsession with conquering the whole Korean peninsular and kicking the "Commies" in the nuts led to a dangerous overextension of his forces that was disastrous when China came in to support the North Koreans. Let's remember that the separation of Korea now is almost exactly where it was before the war began, and a lot of people died to make it that way.

His real success was as de facto governor of Japan starting in 1945, which was of course a diplomatic/political post. Against that, his meddling in domestic US politics helped to cause his dismissal by Truman during the Korean War.

Personally I've always had a soft spot for US Grant.

The Truman administration deserves some of the blame for the Korean War - it wasn't all MacArthur's fault.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
If the question is who would I pick to lead an army, given time to learn the current arms and tactics, at the operational level, I'd pick Lee. I think you could drop him into command of any field army and he'd get the most out of it.

For grand strategy I'd pick Eisenhower. He played a good hand well, but he's one of a very small handful of men who held together multi national alliances on multiple fronts.

Agreed. I cannot think of anybody else who could have handled Patton, Monty, and Churchill turning up at your HQ on a daily basis with complaints and suggestions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RivenSkull wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Going with Omar Bradley.

Yup. I was really surprised not to see him on the list.

He sacked MacArthur, so that disqualifies him

I feel it's my patriotic duty to vote for Washington. This is a poll and a vote...he's the father of the country.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I feel it's my patriotic duty to vote for Washington. This is a poll and a vote...he's the father of the country.

Fair enough, but was Washington a great general, though?

I would argue no.

He was a great leader, and a very brave man, his courage whilst serving with the British Army during the French and Indian War (Braddock's campaign) is noteworthy, but for me, not a great general.