Who is the greatest military leader of all-time?

[Chris 62]

If this was worst leader, I would say Braxton Bragg, a man with almost magical ability to turn victories into defeats.

[monkspider]

How about McClelland? I always found accounts of him to be absolutely comical. Or some of the British generals in north africa before Monty showed up. They were pretty laughable as well.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Did Lee have anything to do with Vicksburg? AFIK, he was the commander of the eastern CSA army. I don't think Vicksburg was his military decision. Wasn't that the CSA government's fault?

Lee was commander of the army of Northern Virginia after Joe Johnston was wounded. He had nothing to do with Vicksburg.

The Confederates were hopelessly outgunned at vicksburg, which was a siege, rather than a battle of the kind seen before 1863. Blame Grant for Vicksburg, unless you want to consider the string of defeats leading up to the siege the place of blame.

Rommel never managed to take Egypt, despite the ineptitude of ome of the Brittish commanders.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by monkspider
How about McClellan? I always found accounts of him to be absolutely comical. Or some of the British generals in north africa before Monty showed up. They were pretty laughable as well.

He wasn't an awful General, just a timid one.

Ambrose Burnsides, on the other hand...

[Boris Godunov]

McClellan was brilliant in regards to training and organization of the Union army. He really did whip them into a good fighting force. He was just afraid to use them. He was too interested in cultivating good will among his men rather than winning battles. Unfortunately for him, winning battles is probably the best way to cultivate good will among your men, hence his election defeat in 1864.

I think Lincoln put it best when he referred to the Army of the Potomac as McClellan's personal body guard. He also called him "The Great Northern Turtle," and is rumored to have asked him if he might borrow his army so he could fight a war...

[DinoDoc]

Didn't McClellan harbor somesort of pathological fear of Lee after thier initial encounter?

[Boris Godunov]

Possibly, DD, but I think his slow movement was much more deep-seated than that. He was always slow. He was very timid about engaging in actual combat unless he was certain the odds were overwhelmingly in his favor. Some say he was just unwilling to have his men be killed, but I think that's BS. Any general knows that's going to happen. I think it was just that he was afraid of losing and that he, subconsciously at least, knew he wasn't a good tactitian.

If you want a great comical read, just look up the Peninsular Campaign. This fiasco is a real hoot, especially how Pinkerton (alas, a relative of mine) was such a horrible scout for the Union. The Confederate army fooled him into thinking they had twice as many men by simply going in circles around him...

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Arrian
One of the South's major mistakes was the failure to choose a Supreme Commander until it was pretty much over (1865 - Lee). Jefferson Davis fancied himself a good strategist, and figured he could handle things. The South never really had a coordinated strategy, and suffered because of it. The North, after a terrible start, got its act together.

Lee was merely the commanding general of the Army of Northern Virginia (he refused to be posted anywhere else, IIRC). So you can't blame Lee for Vicksburg, unless you argue that he should have accepted a command anywhere. You CAN blame him for insisting on invading PA, choosing to fight at Gettysburg, and ordering Picket's charge.

-Arrian

I agree and would also like to add one other point that may be overlooked. Now remember,I live in the South now, but was born a Yankee from the Great State of Maine..seen a few posts of Great Generals from there too!! ..but one other thing that kinda screwed up the Southern Farces..I mean Forces..was messing with a bunch of Yankees whom knew how to fight and were outclassing the Southerners!!..I can say that, I am an American..Yankee Born, Southern by the Grace of God!!

Troll

[Dan Severn]

The name says it all.

[Ned]

A poll like this without Belisarius or Hannibal? Most of the generals here cannot compare to either in terms of accomplishments.

This said, Julius Ceasar is my top choice. He meets all my criteria – he won against great odds, responded to surprise attacks and beat a proven opponent itself lead by a legendary general.

Scipio Africanus is my second choice.

Napoleon is my third.

Hannibal and Belisarius are next.

Lee “won” every battle until Stonewall Jackson was killed. He lost every battle after that. What does this say about Lee’s generalship?

Grant was obviously a better general.

It is funny that one includes Alexander but doesn’t even mention Timor the Lame. Each conquered roughly the same territory. In a head to head battle, it is not clear who would have won; but, Timor was very, very good.

[Arrian]

Troll I'm a Connecticut Yankee and I know that the Confederates outclassed the Union man-for-man right up until the end.

The Peninsular Campaign was freakin' hilarious. But the North had many more inept commanders than McClelland (Burnside, Banks, Hooker*, among others). If one could have taken McClelland's organizational abilities and Grant's killer instinct, you would have had one kickass general. Grant was McClelland's polar opposite with regard to accepting casualties.

-Arrian

*Hooker was doing fine until he ordered a frontal assault on a fortified position. But I should cut him some slack because without him, we wouldn't have the term "hooker" for prostitute. That's leaving your mark on the world

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Arrian
we wouldn't have the term "hooker" for prostitute. That's leaving your mark on the world

I thought hooker came from the activity that they performed, as in hooking men.

[Ned]

It turns out that Germany's greatest commander served Rome.

From Procopius:

"Now Belisarius was a native of Germania."

[Arrian]

Sagacious Dolphin,

The Army of the Potomac had a large contingent of camp girls, also known as "Hooker's girls" because he was notoriously lenient about the men getting laid before a battle. I was told that this gave rise to the term "hooker." It could be urban legend... someone correct me if I'm wrong.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Arrian, You are entirely right.

Hooker also lost the battle of Chancellorsville. Here is a quote:

It was fought from May 1-5, 1863, and when it was all over, more than 30,000 Americans were either killed, captured, or wounded at Chancellorsville. But the loss of one man was irreplaceable to the Confederacy; Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. His tragic death marked the beginning of the end for the elite level of commanders in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.

Without [Lee's] stunning victory, Gettysburg never would have happened. His defeat of Joe Hooker was a stepping-stone for the invasion of Pennsylvania in late June of 1863.