Check These Out: Buddy Finder | Videos | SpouseBUZZ | My Friend Network | News | Military Equipment


Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Military History  Hop To Forums  Civil War    Who was the best general of the Civil War
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Moderators: strobelvets, USNVet940
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
Basic Training
Posted
What makes a general great? Did the best general fight on the losing side? Was the best general of the Civil War one of the least known?

It would be interesting to hear who people consider to be the best General of the Civil War and why.

Who gets your vote?



While you are deciding, I invite you to visit my web site.

History of War Online
 
Posts: 7 | Registered: Wed 02 August 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Member
Posted Hide Post
Believe there is already an ongoing thread with this very subject. Perhaps some of your questions could be answered by checking it?
 
Posts: 859 | Registered: Tue 31 July 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Member
Picture of TeamAmerica
Posted Hide Post
I would say Stonewall Jackson. He only lost one battle IIRC.
 
Posts: 2400 | Registered: Sat 17 December 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Basic Training
Posted Hide Post
Thank you both for your replies.

I will look for the ongoing thread on this issue.
 
Posts: 7 | Registered: Wed 02 August 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
30 day warning 20 july
NEMESIS
Picture of Proudformermarine
Posted Hide Post
Without a doubt the best General of the Civil War was Robert E. Lee. Look at 2nd Manassas, Chancellorsville, The Wilderness, and the Siege of Petersburg. Not to mention the stopping of McClellan during the Peninsula Campaign. His troops REVERED him, and as has been written before, his middle name might as well be Audacity. (I forget who wrote that.) Although, Patrick Cleburne (the Stonewall Jackson of the West) and Nathan Bedford Forrest run a close 2nd and 3rd, "Marse Robert" was without question the best.

Duane A. Brinson Waikoloa, Hi.
U.S.M.C. 1985-1989
 
Posts: 1047 | Registered: Tue 13 December 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Disruptive posts 10 days suspension 13 Oct 06 dmuhler
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ua45x:
What makes a general great? Did the best general fight on the losing side? Was the best general of the Civil War one of the least known?

It would be interesting to hear who people consider to be the best General of the Civil War and why. there were many majors who were able to do more then thomas jackson had they been given just a little more help. gilmor would have taken baltimore in 64 had he been given the 1500 men romised. he tried it anyway with just under 200. then you have mosby and white. and pelham. forrest was probably by far better then jackson due to what he had to work with and what he got done. lets not forget about james stuart. just so you al know ****** jim was t jacksons best and dearest freind, who also relayed his orders from him.

Who gets your vote?



While you are deciding, I invite you to visit my web site.

History of War Online
 
Posts: 190 | Registered: Thu 10 August 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Basic Training
Posted Hide Post
definitely Lee!!! That man was awesome. The north had so many problems with their generals that I am surprised they even won that war. I became interested in the civil war, by doing genealogy. My husband always bragged about how his family was waiting for the pilgrims, and had a notebook filled with names. One day, I decided to research my grandmother's family from Maine. Now he's jealous! My son used to be a re enactor, for the south. In school, he always did reports on Lee. He was his hero! I think we need more generals like Lee.
 
Posts: 48 | Registered: Wed 26 July 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Disruptive posts 10 days suspension 13 Oct 06 dmuhler
Posted Hide Post
robert lee was brilliant. he could see extreme talent. his fault lays at not being able to see ones decline of ambition before it brought disaster. then also, he became very slow after may 1863 in making prompt decisions.
 
Posts: 190 | Registered: Thu 10 August 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Basic Training
Posted Hide Post
Grant by far.

No other general sucessfully commanded the at the level and scope which he did. From the Unit-to Corps-to Army-to Theater-to National Level, no one did this except he.
 
Posts: 91 | Registered: Fri 21 January 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Disruptive posts 10 days suspension 13 Oct 06 dmuhler
Posted Hide Post
now study grants battle plans at cold harbor.
 
Posts: 190 | Registered: Thu 10 August 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Basic Training
Posted Hide Post
Now study Grant's Operational Plans for the entire Confederacy.

You need to get outside of the box of just looking at one small aspect of what was happening on a single battlefied; look into the entire scope of theater and national operations. Grant was performing a turning movement on the entire confederacy.

At the campaign level, didn't he maneuver Lee out of his defensive postions to a point where Grant had two divsions that could have walked into Petersburg. Grant's subordinates didn't act or have the initiative to pick that ripe plum. Also, if you drill into the plan for Cold Harbor, I think you'll find that subordinate commanders did not comply/act IAW the time synch of the plan.

Now tell me, what was Grant's objective in facing Lee?
 
Posts: 91 | Registered: Fri 21 January 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Disruptive posts 10 days suspension 13 Oct 06 dmuhler
Posted Hide Post
grants objective was to tie down lees army so it could not invade tth north again. period. the next objective was to nuetralize it by throwing bodies at it. the first objective failed. early in md. the second one succeeded.
 
Posts: 190 | Registered: Thu 10 August 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Basic Training
Posted Hide Post
Grant's objective was actually to grab Lee by the nose and kick his azz by maneuvering Sherman and Sheriden against the rest of the confedercy.

A good critical analysis of Grant is by JFC Fuller.
 
Posts: 91 | Registered: Fri 21 January 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Disruptive posts 10 days suspension 13 Oct 06 dmuhler
Posted Hide Post
had gilmor been given the 1,500 horsemen as promised this country wouldnt be in the mess it is now. had my relatives been 15 minutes earlier in western maryland , wow, wouldnt this be a nice place to live.
 
Posts: 190 | Registered: Thu 10 August 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Basic Training
Posted Hide Post
I would have to say Gen, Hirem S. Grant as his plans was 1: keep the south from invading the north. 2: split the south in half 3: tie Lee into defensive operations and take away Lee's abilities of offensive operations. 4: Strip the south of their ability to aquire rations and material with large force thrusts (pulling valuble man power away from the trenchs to stop the thrusts).5:Forget the politians objective of Richmand and concentrate on the field armies. 6: Discontinue prisoner exchanges
7: Use of colored troops to bolster manpower
8: Bring this bloodletting to a quick end.
 
Posts: 139 | Registered: Fri 24 February 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Disruptive posts 10 days suspension 13 Oct 06 dmuhler
Posted Hide Post
its a shame j. wilkes booth didnt wack that ahole 4 years sooner
 
Posts: 190 | Registered: Thu 10 August 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Basic Training
Posted Hide Post
Shame that it took 3 years to get a general with Grant's ability in the East...

Lee probably would have never had the opportunity to butcher his people in places like Gettysburg
 
Posts: 91 | Registered: Fri 21 January 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Disruptive posts 10 days suspension 13 Oct 06 dmuhler
Posted Hide Post
grant wasnt that great. cold harbor. i dont have to say anymore.
 
Posts: 190 | Registered: Thu 10 August 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Basic Training
Posted Hide Post
quote:
grant wasnt that great. cold harbor. i dont have to say anymore.


The pot calling the kettle black.

-Malvern Hill
-Stones River
-Gettysburg
-Franklin

The first and third are Staint Lee's stupendous blunders.
 
Posts: 10 | Registered: Mon 28 August 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Disruptive posts 10 days suspension 13 Oct 06 dmuhler
Posted Hide Post
i never said lee was great. pelham, gilmore, mosby, white, and james stuart were. forrest, daniel hill, and richard taylor were better at leading divisions. thomas jackson was great at leading a corps. george thomas was probably the best at leading an army. although taylor kept banks locked up in 1865. any southern general with the odds in his favour, like the union enjoyed at almost every engagement, would have been succesful. lee at gettysburg with 95 k to meades 55 k would have slaughtered him.
 
Posts: 190 | Registered: Thu 10 August 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
 

Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Military History  Hop To Forums  Civil War    Who was the best general of the Civil War

© 2008 Military Advantage, Inc.