MSU Red Cedar Message Board

I agree with most of the choices here, but I think that Hannibal deserves more credit due to how well regarded he has been throughout history. And his influence on the Roman Republic/Empire's battle strategy for years to come.

The battles of Cannae and Trebia were resounding victories despite being outnumbered, and Lake Trasimine was probably the greatest ambush of all time. He's gotta be top 3, and arguably #1 in the history of western warfare.

Also... Does Schwarzkopff (?) get any votes? I know it was an inferior foe, but the tactics (especially the feint) were amazing.

I guess we can rule out Cornwalis.

General Motors and the V-8 Horde

Julius Caesar
Wellington
Washington
Napoleon
Montgomery
Rommel
Hannibal
Others already mentioned.

Here's my defense on R.E. Lee as one of the greatest generals of all-time.

As general of an Army, he was tasked with not only strategic military responsibilities, but also political, economic, and moral responsibilities that your typical Corps commander (Lstreet and Jackson) didn't have to be responsible for nearly as much. Remember that the Confederate Army at that time was a make-shift band of troops that were usually more loyal to their states and their regiments (made up by location) than to the Confederacy and certainly the Confederate Army. That was part of the genius of Lee, he formed a group of people with varying interests and loyalties into a coherent army.

Second, the South was going to lose the war. Eventually, the North would (and did) flex its industrial might and overpowered the South. Defending that wide of a territory with poor communications, rail transportation, and varying topography was impossible and his defense of Northern Virginia prolonged for years, an otherwise clear Northern victory.

Third, defending NoVa is a tough role for any commander. It is flat, vulnerable to navy support / amphibous landings in the East and the Shennandoah Valley in the West, if lost, offered an avenue for an attacking enemy to outflank his left with relative ease.

He defended all all of those areas and in addition, launched offensive campaigns against a superior army and won more than lost. Gettysburg was going to happen eventually - his army was going to be eventually overpowered. Now you can argue that he shouldn't have fought on that ground (blame JEB Stuart for that), but he didn't fight there it would have been somewhere else and they would have lost. He didn't have the troops or the material for an extended offensive campaign. It was a hail mary and it failed, which was inevitable.

Now people mentioned his lieutenants and they were of course legendary. But Lee gave them the freedom of control to act as they did. Jackson was able to seperate from the main body of the AONVa because Lee gave the order. He defended the Shenandoah at Lee's order. You can't give Jackson and LStreet credit without sharing it with Lee.

There, I said my peace, now enjoy your day.

As long as we're doing Admirals...

What about William the Conquerer? Few single events in Western History had the long-standing impact of the the Norman Conquest.

Atilla the Hun is another that has gotten little, if any, mention in this thread.

Another I'll throw out there that I don't think has been mentioned is Alaric, the Germanic tribal leader who sacked Rome. To be honest, I don't know if tactically he's up there or not, but sacking Rome in the 5th century (even a Rome in decline) is still impressive.

Besides, it occurred to me that the better the record keeping of a given time, the more likely someone is to have gotten a mention in this thread. Therefore, I think the dark ages, and Ancient, non-Greek/Roman times are probably severely under-represented.

To be honest, I find it too difficult to rank Generals because so many were in different circumstances at different times with different resources. It's similar to the problems of comparing athletes of different eras, but about 1000 times worse. Interesting, nonetheless, just as a discussion of who are among the best, but when it gets to saying, "I'd rank this guy from the 100 BC 3rd and that guy from 1700 AD 5th," it's really not a good comparison.

. . . Greatest General of all time. . . I cast my vote for George Marshall. . .

I'm surprised Henry V isn't included more seeing that he nearly conquered France before his untimely death at only 35. Per the Treaty of Troyes, he was recognized as regent and heir-apparent to the French throne upon the death of Charles VI. However, Henry V died 51 days prior to Charles VI's and thus the two kingdoms were never united. Had he lived a longer life, Europe's political landscape would be drastically different.

#1 Patton.

Then explain Shiloh

Shiloh when I was young, I used to call your name...