Top 10 Civil War Generals

[Il-Principe]

1. Robert Edward Lee

Needs no introduction.

2. William Tecumseh Sherman

His march through Georgia and the Carolinas crippled the Confederacy as it left its heartland either destroyed or occupied. He also anticipated the rules of modern total war.

3. Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

He successfully campaigned in the Shenandoah Valley 1862. With less than 17 000 men, he was able score several victories against Union formations, which numbered more than 60 000 men. Overall over 100 000 Yankee troops were pinned down.

4. Abraham Lincoln

Not a general, but his tenacity and moral strength as commander-in-chief ultimately secured victory for the union.

5. Patrick Cleburne

He scored several defensive victories against superior Union forces, which earned him the name "Stonewall of the West".

6. Winfield Scott

At the start of the war he was the general-in-chief. He was too old and fat to lead a command personally, but he developed the "Anaconda Plan", which ultimately brought the Confederacy down. The anaconda should slowly strangle the South to death. Ports were blockaded and an attack down the Mississippi should split the South.

7. Ulysses Simpson Grant

I'm not sure, if he qualifies as great general as his attacks always led to terrible losses. However the capture of Vicksburg in 1863 and the pinning down of Lee's North Virginia Army in 1864 ultimately secured victory.

8. Nathan Bedford Forrest

One of greatest Southern cavalry commanders. He was the master of mobile warfare, which earned him the name "Wizard of the Saddle".

9. George Brinton McClellan

A controversial figure. He was a hesitant leader, but he was a great organizer. He built up the Army of the Potomac, which would defeat Lee in the end.

10. William Clark Quantrill

Technically not a general. The infamous leader of a band of irregular forces waged a brutal and distractive guerrilla warfare against Yankee invaders and their allies in Missouri.



Your thoughts?

[Farnan]

No Longstreet?

No Mosby?

No Buford?

No Reynolds?

No Wilder?

No Hancock?

My list:

1). Ulysses S. Grant - His strategy of attrition warfare ushered in a new era of warfare that would continue to the Second World War, successfully used by both the United States and Soviet Union.

2). James Longstreet - A defensive general whose realization that defense was now stronger than offense would hold true till WWI. Was ahead of his time and brilliant.

3). Winfield Scott - As stated above.

4). Sherman - His campaign in the South destroyed Southern morale and began the era of Total War. His successes saved Lincoln from losing his election.

5). Lee - Well a good Napoleonic General.

6). Stonewall Jackson - Another good Napoleonic General.

7). John Reynolds - Regarded as the best Union commander in the Army of the Potomac till his death at Gettysburg. Was extremely successful wherever he went.

8). Philip Sheridan - Excellent, excellent cavalry commander. Probably best on either side.

9). John Buford - Arguably the second best cavalry commanders of the war. His actions at Gettysburg saved the Union.

10). Winfield Scott Hancock - An exceptional leader who held firm at Gettysburg and was respected by both Union and Confederate generals. Known as Hancock the Superb.


Honorable Mention:

John Wilder - His Lightning Brigade, an idea conceived by him, was easily the equivalent to a Confederate division, however was only a general shortly before having to leave for medical reasons.

John Mosby - Excellent guerrilla leader, but was only a colonel.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Lee may have been a great tactician, but he was no strategist. Grant, on the other hand, was a mediocre tactician (he didn't go far beyond the frontal assault, as far as tactics go) but he ultimately knew what won wars. I therefore disagree with Grant being so low on the list.

[Juvenal]

Agree with everyone's top picks: R.E.Lee, Grant, Sherman, Longstreet, Jackson

But how about, Joe Johnston, his campaign to delay Sherman was magnificent. Who knows what might have happened if he hadn't been replaced by Hood when he was about to make his attack at Peachtree Creek?

George Thomas was incredible: the Rock of Chickamauga, and destroyer of Hood's army at Nashville (literally on the eve of Grant replacing him with Ord for taking his time to prepare a decisive attack).

Rosecrans was a fine commander, he knew how to build and maintain a healthy army, he was unlucky at Chickamauga.

Sheridan achieved incredible things in the Shennandoah, and during the Appomatox campaign (which he precipitated with his victory at Five Forks).

Phil Kearny could easily have become commander of the Army of the Potomac had he survived 2nd Bull Run.

PS. Oddly I think of Lee as a great strategist, but tactically suspect because of Malvern Hill, Pickett's Charge and a similar attack he planned against Hooker after Chancellorsville; luckily Hooker withdrew before it could be launched.

[Farnan]

In my edit I put up my list.

Thinking about I may have to put Sheridan on the list, and move Wilder to an honorable mention (Wilder wasn't a general to right before he left the military).

[War&Politics]

McClellan refused to fight, constantly squabbled with his Commander in Chief, and when he did fight he was forced to retreat even though facing inferior forces. None of those attributes seems to make him a "top" general in my eyes.

[El Brujo]

Lee may have been a great tactician, but he was no strategist

Lee had a better idea than anyone else what it would take to win the war for the South on a strategic level. It didn't work out because on the tactical level he was too aggressive and the margin for error was too small.

[Farnan]

Lee had a better idea than anyone else what it would take to win the war for the South on a strategic level. It didn't work out because on the tactical level he was too aggressive and the margin for error was too small.

Well he had a good idea, but Longstreet had a better idea.

Lee was a Napoleonic general, and an excellent one. However, the Napoleonic era was ending and a new era was being born. Grant was a new era, attrition warfare leader.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Lee had a better idea than anyone else what it would take to win the war for the South on a strategic level. It didn't work out because on the tactical level he was too aggressive and the margin for error was too small.

How so? The man was obsessed with northern Virginia, and he was very reluctant to allow resources to be diverted towards the West, where they were sorely needed. Furthermore, the aggressive nature of his strategy was, as you point out, self-defeating as the South couldn't afford to sustain continued losses; their best hope was to hold out.

[Farnan]

How so? The man was obsessed with northern Virginia, and he was very reluctant to allow resources to be diverted towards the West, where they were sorely needed. Furthermore, the aggressive nature of his strategy was, as you point out, self-defeating as the South couldn't afford to sustain continued losses; their best hope was to hold out.

Lee only commanded in Northern Virginia till 1945.

About Winfield Scott:

When the Duke of Wellington, victor of Waterloo, learned that Scott had succeeded against alarming odds in capturing Mexico City, he proclaimed Scott, "the greatest living general."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfiel...n-American_War

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Lee only commanded in Northern Virginia till 1865.

Yes, but by the time he became commander-in-chief it was too late for him to change the course of the war.

[Hanny]

Lee only commanded in Northern Virginia till 1945.

I know he was good, but also winning ww2 as well is stretch neh?.

[El Brujo]

How so? The man was obsessed with northern Virginia, and he was very reluctant to allow resources to be diverted towards the West, where they were sorely needed. Furthermore, the aggressive nature of his strategy was, as you point out, self-defeating as the South couldn't afford to sustain continued losses; their best hope was to hold out.

The South couldn't hold out. The North had them in a tightening vice and the loss of the Mississippi meant that the long-term integrity of the Southern interior was compromised. The best hope was to score a decisive victory on Union soil in the hope that the political fallout would bring an end to the war.

[Il-Principe]

I thought quite a while about including Longstreet or not. I ultimately decided against him, because of his questionable performance at Gettysburg. I also admit that I have included a few controversial generals to stir up a discussion.

On the one hand Joseph Johnson's Atlanta campaign was just brilliant as he opposed superior Union forces under Sherman and inflicted higher casualties on them and was able to preserve his forces. On the other hand he failed to achieve his objective and Atlanta fell. So he's controversial to say the least.

I didn't know, if and where to put Grant. In the end his strategy prevailed. He was fully aware that northern resources were much greater and therefore he continued pushing, even if casualties reached a 1:2 ratio. However his strategy could have easily politically backfired, when Lincoln lost the election. Also later Grant was probably one of the weaker presidents, which leads me to the conclusion that such political considerations were not his main strength.

How so? The man was obsessed with northern Virginia, and he was very reluctant to allow resources to be diverted towards the West, where they were sorely needed. Furthermore, the aggressive nature of his strategy was, as you point out, self-defeating as the South couldn't afford to sustain continued losses; their best hope was to hold out.

Lee was the commanding general of the Army of Northern Virginia, not the commander of all Confederate forces. Only shortly before the end of the war he became general-in-chief. What do you think is the job of the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia? Right, to be obsessed about Virginia...
Lee was much more of a strategist than a tactician. He didn't think much, if brigade A should attack here or there. He left such decisions to his subordinates. He cared more about the greater scheme of things. His strategy is actually very similar to the military doctrine of the German armed forces in the 19th and 20th century. It's called Auftragstaktik in German. My dictionary says that the translation is Mission-type tactics or Mission Command and is rather unknown in America. And btw Virginia first was the correct decision as the war was ultimately decided in the east.

500th post

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Lee was the commanding general of the Army of Northern Virginia, not the commander of all Confederate forces. Only shortly before the end of the war he became general-in-chief. What do you think is the job of the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia? Right, to be obsessed about Virginia...

Correct; however, to be a strategist you must be obsessed about, you know, the actual war as a whole. You needn't be the commander-in-chief to think like a strategist.

Lee was much more of a strategist than a tactician. He didn't think much, if brigade A should attack here or there. He left such decisions to his subordinates. He cared more about the greater scheme of things.

And the greater scheme of things is... Virginia?

and btw Virginia first was the correct decision as the war was ultimately decided in the east.

In fact, the scarce attention paid to the West was the Confederacy's undoing; the Union just basically made a huge left wheel starting in Kentucky and ending up in the Carolinas, leaving behind a huge string of Confederate defeats.

So... yeah.

[Il-Principe]

And the greater scheme of things is... Virginia?

Washington of course. His style as commander is best described as Auftragstaktik. See my last edit for more infos.

In fact, the scarce attention paid to the West was the Confederacy's undoing; the Union just basically made a huge left wheel starting in Kentucky and ending up in the Carolinas, leaving behind a huge string of Confederate defeats.

See it the other way. If McClellan were successful in the Seven Days Battles in 1862 and captured Richmond, the war would have lasted only one year instead of four years. And btw the Western campaigns were not so one-sided as you picture them.

[Lance-Corporal Jones]

Washington of course. His style as commander is best described as Auftragstaktik. See my last edit for more infos.

The fact that he didn't get involved in the minute details of tactics doesn't mean he was a strategist. Is ignoring the fact that the Western front was dramatically weak, and that the Confederacy's flank was being turned, sound strategy? Any sane strategist wouldn't oppose diverting some forces to the West, although the tactician would see their use locally.

See it the other way. If McClellan were successful in the Seven Days Battles in 1862 and captured Richmond, the war would have lasted only one year instead of four years. And btw the Western campaigns were not so one-sided as you picture them.

If; but the fact remains that he didn't. From then onwards it was obvious that the North had far more potential, on the long run, to replenish its losses and would be able to endure a sustained war much better. The sound thing for the South to do would have been to minimize losses and behave defensively until the North became unwilling to go on with the war.

As for the Western campaigns, I was certainly simplifying but the fact remains that the "left wheel from Kentucky to Georgia" image stands. The Confederacy was tragically weak in that area, and the Union exploited it successfully.

[Il-Principe]

@Corporal Johns

I think, we go round in circles here. Lee wasn't responsible for the Western theater. You don't dispute that.

[Farnan]

I thought quite a while about including Longstreet or not. I ultimately decided against him, because of his questionable performance at Gettysburg. I also admit that I have included a few controversial generals to stir up a discussion.

On the one hand Joseph Johnson's Atlanta campaign was just brilliant as he opposed superior Union forces under Sherman and inflicted higher casualties on them and was able to preserve his forces. On the other hand he failed to achieve his objective and Atlanta fell. So he's controversial to say the least.

I didn't know, if and where to put Grant. In the end his strategy prevailed. He was fully aware that northern resources were much greater and therefore he continued pushing, even if casualties reached a 1:2 ratio. However his strategy could have easily politically backfired, when Lincoln lost the election. Also later Grant was probably one of the weaker presidents, which leads me to the conclusion that such political considerations were not his main strength.

Longstreet performed as well as can be expected. Lost Causers however blamed him in order to avoid blaming Lee, which is a tragedy.

Hanny: Lee's defeat during the ACW meant the United States was united during WWII and was able to provide vital supplies and then troops to the Allies. That is why Lee won WWII, by not winning the ACW. Either that or a typo haha.

[Hanny]

Hanny: Lee's defeat during the ACW meant the United States was united during WWII and was able to provide vital supplies and then troops to the Allies. That is why Lee won WWII, by not winning the ACW. Either that or a typo haha.

I was just starting to like the idea of an immortal R E Lee.....