Who do you think the greatest American general is/was?

In my opinion, the greatest American general is either Robert E. Lee or Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Robert E. Lee was a military genius. He did a great job with what troops and supplies he had at his availability. With what he did have, he almost managed to win the war for the Confederates. He was also America's best general before the Civil War started.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was another military genius. What he did in WWII was amazing and I don't think it could be done by any of the generals we have today

This was an extra credit school project, but i feel like knowing other peoples opinions on the subject
Additional Details
im counting Lee as an American general even though he was with the Confederacy

Also, Lee was the presidents top man before he broke off and joined the CSA

wg0z

Eisenhower.
Lee's best work was NOT as an American.

Marine5

Eisenhower...how did you arrive at that choice ???
He never served a Day in Combat...not one...
He was Political only...

My choice would be "Washington"...
Did more with a lot less men and supplies...
Changed the world we Lived in...
We are Now a FREE Country...

Being a Marine...I would pick "Chesty Puller"...

BHO bows to muslims

Lee, easily. Ike was a great administrator, but his battle resume is pretty thin.

0bamarx

Robert E. Lee

claudiacake

George Patton.

Edit: Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. is no slouch, either.

Edit again: Sorry, but Ike was a paper general compared to Patton. Patton was within two days of crossing the Rhine, five weeks before the actual crossing was made, but due to the politics involved between the US, Russia, and England, Ike and Omar Bradley withheld fuel from Patton's command, causing their assault to grind to a halt. It extended the war, and it directly caused the deaths in Patton's tank division when the tanks ran out of fuel in the midst of battles.
I had two uncles who served in WWII. Both served under Patton. Both would have gone to hell and back for him (and, in all actuality, DID).
Nope, I don't care much for Ike.

Andrew

Lee was for sure the best General. If he had fought for the North, the war would have been over years earlier.

promethius9594

Oi. We have REALLY got to educate our people on their generals.

Lee was an EXCELLENT tactician... but he failed pretty badly when it came to strategy planning. As a result, he succeeded against poor generals who allowed themselves to be drawn into the tactical level of the battlescope. Grant never matched Lee in tactical planning, but he entrusted his subordinates to tackle the tactics while he controlled the strategic picture. Lee could take a single area of the battlefield brilliantly, but Grant was busy crushing all the other scopes of the field. As a result, Grant's superior strategic ability won out in the long run... Lee would have been better suited as a regiment rather than army commander, but the south had no one better.

As to Eisenhower, he did well. So did Patton, even though Patton took 3:1 losses against Rommel. If this was a "most popular general" question, I'd say Grant, Lee, Patton, or Eisenhower would win. But you asked best general:

By far the best General is Tommy Franks. It's a little obscure because it's so modern and a smaller scale war, but he invaded and conquered Afghanistan with less than 10,000 troops, and he did it in two weeks... something the russians couldn't do in ten years with fifty times that many troops. He then turned around and attacked Iraq with only 250,000 troops... outnumbered 3:1 and still going on the offensive (traditionally, that would have been suicide). He not only managed to win, he conquered THAT nation in 3 weeks with one of the lowest casualty per mile gained losses EVER recorded in history. General Frank's contributions to joint warfare and manuever combat are defining factors in almost ALL of our military doctrine today. Hands down his policies have shaped the modern US military.

EDIT: To correct what you stated, in afghanistan, the taliban controlled the national military forces. There were opposing rebel warlords as well. The strongest testimony there is the defeat of soviet russia in attacking afghanistan, even though they spent FAR longer and used more than 10 times the number of troops. As to Iraq, prior to the gulf war their army was larger than ours. While the majority of their army was not well equipped, the royal guard divisions have always been given state of the art equipment and modern weaponry. Furthermore, the baathist militants (different from current insurgents) used mujahadeen tactics... which are a form of guerilla tactics used to defeat the british. The idea that the iraqi army OR the resultant insurgency is unorganized or poorly equipped and trained is a major fallacy, they are special explosives experts and HIGHLY organized and technically equipped.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: