Who are the great generals?

[Anthony Hoh]

I would have to go with General Mills, because we all know that sugar smacks rock!

But to quantify who the great generals of today are by comparing them to the standard of excellence we have known in the past is impossible.

I doubt most of the generals and leaders that you all have mentioned thus far, were held in the same esteem when they were actually in command. History has a way of making us forget faults.

I think we will have to wait another 50 years for someone else to decide who the great generals of our time really were.

[RTK]

I woudl be remiss not to mention LTG Yarborough.

I feel bad for not mentioning him now. I should have. He had so much to do with making USSF what they are.

I think we will have to wait another 50 years for someone else to decide who the great generals of our time really were.

True, but we can still remember who the douchebags of the past are as well.

Custer, Bragg, Westmoreland

[jonSlack]

True, but we can still remember who the douchebags of the past are as well.

Custer, Bragg, Westmoreland

lol

Well put.

[slapout9]

American Army
James M. Gavin I know that surprises everybody here He literally wrote the book on Airborne Warfare....the first FM was done by him and he believed the division to be nothing but an extension of the calvary division, but due to the technical limitations at the time it had to become an Airborne Infantry division. Today the term Air-Mech Division is much closer to what he had in mind. RTK you feeling me man

USMC
Chesty Puller
Tough and had tremendous common sense.

British Army
J.C. Fuller my definition of a thinking general. He wrote a great book about Generalship it's disease and it's cure. Can not remember the exact title.

German army
Erwin Rommel A professional and a leader of the highest order.

[RTK]

American Army
James M. Gavin I know that surprises everybody here He literally wrote the book on Airborne Warfare....the first FM was done by him and he believed the division to be nothing but an extension of the calvary division, but due to the technical limitations at the time it had to become an Airborne Infantry division. Today the term Air-Mech Division is much closer to what he had in mind. RTK you feeling me man

USMC
Chesty Puller
Tough and had tremendous common sense.

British Army
J.C. Fuller my definition of a thinking general. He wrote a great book about Generalship it's disease and it's cure. Can not remember the exact title.

German army
Erwin Rommel A professional and a leader of the highest order.

Your list is awesome. I agree with you on Gavin. His vision for the Airborne was that they were a supporting effort for a larger main effort. The 82nd doesn't see themselves that way anymore.

[Mark O'Neill]

American Army
James M. Gavin I know that surprises everybody here He literally wrote the book on Airborne Warfare....the first FM was done by him and he believed the division to be nothing but an extension of the calvary division, but due to the technical limitations at the time it had to become an Airborne Infantry division. Today the term Air-Mech Division is much closer to what he had in mind. RTK you feeling me man

USMC
Chesty Puller
Tough and had tremendous common sense.

British Army
J.C. Fuller my definition of a thinking general. He wrote a great book about Generalship it's disease and it's cure. Can not remember the exact title.

German army
Erwin Rommel A professional and a leader of the highest order.

Hey Slapout,

Surely, to be a 'great' general, the general should have been at general rank, and commanded troops on operations at that rank, in a war.

By my reckoning you only have one wartime general on your list.

It is my opinion that distinguished service on operations in the junior ranks , whilst noteworthy, is not the same as exercising the art of successful generalship in war.

Cheers,

Mark

[SWJED]

Surely, to be a 'great' general, the general should have been at general rank, and commanded troops on operations at that rank, in a war.

... but I'll throw General Anthony Zinni into the frying pan here - in my humble opinion a great general who may not have led CENTCOM in a 'war' (by traditional standards) but contained Saddam while picking up the diplomatic slack (in the Middle East) that the DoS could not or would not provide during his tenure.

Via Wikepedia, his career as a general officer:

His initial general officer assignment was as the Deputy Director of Operations at the U.S. European Command. In 1991, he served as the Chief of Staff and Deputy Commanding General of Combined Task Force Operation Provide Comfort during the Kurdish relief effort in Turkey and Iraq. He also served as the Military Coordinator for Operation Provide Hope, the relief effort for the former Soviet Union. In 1992-93, he served as the Director for Operations for the Unified Task Force Somalia for Operation Restore Hope. Also in 1993, he served as the Assistant to the U.S. Special Envoy to Somalia during Operation Continued Hope. Zinni was assigned as the Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia, from 1992 to 1994.

From 1994 to 1996, he served as the Commanding General, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. During early 1995, Zinni served as Commander of the Combined Task Force for Operation United Shield, protecting the withdrawal of U.N. forces from Somalia.

From September 1996 until August 1997, Zinni served as the Deputy Commander in Chief, United States Central Command. His final tour was from August 1997 to September 2000 as the Commander in Chief, United States Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. He organized Operation Desert Fox, a series of airstrikes against Iraq during December 1998, with the stated purpose of degrading Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction program.

[slapout9]

Good Morning Mark, I think the list includes two, Gavin and Rommel were both war time generals. Puller was a colonel in war WW2 and Korea I think Fuller was a Lt. Col(not sure) you may know that.

I agree and disagree with you somewhat about having to be a wartime general to be great. I think you should also take a look and how they tried to shape their respective armies when they came into positions of power that allowed them to influence and change future developments. Did he learn his lessons of war and try to improve their organizations so the lessons would not have to be relearned? Or did he just set back and rest on their laurels so to speak.? My opinion anyway.

I almost added Zhukov and he should be on the list.

[Rank amateur]

From this amateur:

Powell, though he doesn't seem too popular here.
Rommel, especially since he was involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler
Lee
Hannibal
Sun Tzu wasn't a real person but whoever wrote The Art of War should be on the list.

I think Monty was vastly over rated.

Surely, to be a 'great' general, the general should have been at general rank, and commanded troops on operations at that rank, in a war.

Not if you agree with Sun Tzu that the best outcome is too achieve your objective without fighting.

[Granite_State]

American Army
British Army
J.C. Fuller my definition of a thinking general. He wrote a great book about Generalship it's disease and it's cure. Can not remember the exact title.

As others have said, not a real wartime commander, staff officer at the tail end of WWI. Brilliant guy, but I'd call him much more of a military theorist (intellectual father of blitzkrieg) than a great general. Never mind all the fascist sympathizing and occult stuff...

[Rob Thornton]

Congress receive these days other then the CJCS? With all the Think Tank guys, paid military affairs correspondents on the media and opinions on the blog-sphere that float/filter up through staffers, how much influence does one single guy have these days?

How much influence does a COCOM have given the media, the personality of a president, the experience and comfort zone of a SEC DEF and their bias, the crisis at hand?

I'm not sure there are too many other ways to do it. I mean the President could pick his or her CJCS without worrying about which Joint Flavor of the month it is, but that too has its ills. He/She cold delegate it to the SEC DEF, but again, personal bias may enter in. I'm sure as it is, politics plays a role in the nomination, which at the level is probably some what natural - given the convergence of policy and strategy.

I guess there is also the JFK solution, but we may already have something akin to that with think tanks anyways

We've lost the ability to trust one another (I blame the personnel system but that's another thread another day. )

I'd say parochialism spawned by the acquisition system (The "whose rice bowl is it anyways" game show) typified by the debates such as the one on UAS/UAVs, and the professional lobbyers on the Hill- a necessary ill these days for sure in order to justify why we need this or that to fulfill our missions.

You know, I don't think I saw Marshall on anybody's list. It may go to our fascination with the tactical - where men die, things are blown up, and celluloid records. I think when you consider the scope of his role, the various personalities involved, and the manner in which he kept himself from becoming politicized, it is humbling. If not one of our greatest generals, he is certainly one of our greatest citizens.

Regards all, Rob

[Ken White]

"I wonder how much military advice a President and the Congress receive these days other then the CJCS? With all the Think Tank guys, paid military affairs correspondents on the media and opinions on the blog-sphere that float/filter up through staffers, how much influence does one single guy have these days?

Probably way too much from elsewhere and the President with little or no military experience is going to listen to the think tank punditocracy because the military guys either irritate or intimidate him. That, to me is why the choice of SecDef is critical. That's a hard job to fill. Few businessmen have done well as have few of the old guard of governmental high rollers. I think Schlesinger and Laird were probably the best in my lifetime -- and I served under most and knew of all of them to date; I missed only Forrestal up front and Cohen and Rumsfeld (v 2.0) on this end...

"How much influence does a COCOM have given the media, the personality of a president, the experience and comfort zone of a SEC DEF and their bias, the crisis at hand?"

Probably not much unless he's charismatic and the rather banal news types take a liking to him. That's, IMO, as it should be. I'm more worried about what he does or doesn't do downstream as opposed to media or upward influence.

"I'm not sure there are too many other ways to do it. I mean the President could pick his or her CJCS without worrying about which Joint Flavor of the month it is, but that too has its ills. He/She cold delegate it to the SEC DEF, but again, personal bias may enter in. I'm sure as it is, politics plays a role in the nomination, which at the level is probably some what natural - given the convergence of policy and strategy."

Nah, the system works almost in spite of itself -- the bureaucracy in the building is hard for any one guy to affect -- my issue is that we do not need to have the parochial battles and repeats of Eagle Claw and Urgent Fury where each service has a piece of the action but the combined advice of all the Chiefs is likely to be a better deal for the decision makers than is one guy who may or may not accurately report the group view. Theoretically, the SecDef and the CJCS go in the Tank and a position is reached and the two play honest brokers with the Prez and I'm sure that happens mostly

But do recall, I'm an cynical old Dude...
. . .

"You know, I don't think I saw Marshall on anybody's list. It may go to our fascination with the tactical - where men die, things are blown up, and celluloid records. I think when you consider the scope of his role, the various personalities involved, and the manner in which he kept himself from becoming politicized, it is humbling. If not one of our greatest generals, he is certainly one of our greatest citizens."

Regards all, Rob

Agree on that. Awesome personality and a great person. Any General that could manipulate Georgey Patton had to be a great one...

[Mark O'Neill]

My five cents:

Napoleon

Monash

Guderian

Zhukov

Giap

[SWJED]

May deserve some slack here - yea Little Big Horn was not his finest moment. That said, there are many who credit Yellow Hair with saving our Union via vs. J.E.B. Stuart at Gettysburg... Food for thouight...

[Gian P Gentile]

Levels of war (if there are such things) matter and affect choices for top generals but here is a stab:

Grant
Ike
G Washington
Frederick the Great
Napoleon
Patton
LeMay
Davout (was "DaMan at Austerlitz)
Nathaniel Greene

And yes LeMay, at the operational level during World War II he was one of the best.

Why don't we have these sorts now? Please dont attack me for saying this but we dont have big battles to fight anymore or major coalition warfare that allows generals to succeed brilliantly or fail.

[Tom Odom]

Why don't we have these sorts now? Please dont attack me for saying this but we dont have big battles to fight anymore or major coalition warfare that allows generals to succeed brilliantly or fail.

No disagreement at all. Last time was Desert Storm and as a member of the research and wrtiting team for Certain Victory, that was very much a minefield. At the operational level on Arny forces, I would put forth then LTG Fred Franks and the left hook into the RGFC. At the division level, it was 1st Armor MG Griffith and then 2ACR. Some would and I see their point would add the 101st under MG Peay because of the aiir assault. And of course, the 24th has its lobby; but neither the 101st nor the 24th ran into what the 1st Tanks and 2nd ACR did.

But above VII Corps, it got really dismal, especially when it came to the issue of synchronizing air and land power. Stormin Norman routinely changed the targeting at the 24 hour brief and then roasted folks because target lists were not perfect. Coalition was spotty and by default; we put the Arabs together into Kuwait. We kept the Brits close (but not too close). And we stuck the French way out on the flank after their first commander was sent home.

Best

Tom

[marct]

Hi Gian,

Why don't we have these sorts now? Please dont attack me for saying this but we dont have big battles to fight anymore or major coalition warfare that allows generals to succeed brilliantly or fail.

This isn't meant as an attack but, rather, an observation. I suspect the answer to your question of "why don't we have these sorts now?" is much simpler and inherent in how we actually judge a "great general". If we use the criteria of "big battles" and "major coalition warfare" as the criteria for defining great generals, then you are right. But what if we don't?

I would suggest that we should base our criteria for "greatness" solely at he strategic and grand strategic levels, and leave out the tactical and grand tactical (operational) levels - basically something that Norfolk does with his list. Within those constraints, I would argue that we need to further differentiate between functional areas: organization, operations and innovation. Admittedly, they are all inextricably linked, but I think that it is important to analytically separate them since it is quite possible for an individual to be "brilliant" in only one functional area.

Marc

[Ken White]

I believe your four conclusions are, regrettably, totally correct.

And I didn't say your post was great because you hit most all my picks in about the same order I'd have used had i not gone chronological. You did miss my boy, Galusha Pennypacker, MH, BG, USV...

[Norfolk]

I believe your four conclusions are, regrettably, totally correct.

And I didn't say your post was great because you hit most all my picks in about the same order I'd have used had i not gone chronological. You did miss my boy, Galusha Pennypacker, MH, BG, USV...

Sorry about Galusha Pennypacker, but the closest figure I could come up with to that was Ivan III Moneybags (for all I know, thay may be the same person), and I agree that Ivan Moneybags was a great general, certainly strategist, maybe even greater than his son. Likewise, I hadn't realized Subutai's import in history (I had ascribed much of that to Genmghis himself) until I saw you mention him, so I did some quick research. I will be sure to educate myself on the subject of Galusha Pennypacker's generalship!

Ken - P.S. - Ah! Galusha Pennypacker - Second Battle of Fort Fisher - youngest general in US Army (age 20).

skiguy: Yeah, I hope they give Petraeus a real chance after Iraq; he may be the closest thing to an Abrams or at least a DePuy that we're likely going to get for the foreseeable future.

[skiguy]

This opinion is not based on professionalism or experience, it's just based on what I'm seeing and hearing, and the fact that what he's doing now just blows my mind every day. Even though it's very recent history or current history, I hope he's given enough time to show his greatness even more than he already has. He deserves a nod in this thread: Gen. David Petraeus.