Comparing Generals, Then and Now

[pamc153PA]

I'll start out by saying this will be a learning experience for me. Although my Civil War generalship knowledge is fair, after that, as history marches toward the present, my knowledge of more recent generals is admittedly sketchy--which is why I'd appreciate the input of the rest of you more knowledgeable than I.

So. My question is: taking into account the differences in what Civil War generals knew and had available to them in terms of technology, strategy, etc., how would some of them--let's say, the Biggies like Lee, Grant, Sherman, Joe Johnston, Forrest, Cleburne, etc.--compare to more recent "successful" generals, from later wars on up the present? Are there any that seem similiar in style, or situation, or record? Did any of the 20th century general perhaps learn from their 19th century peers? Or is it impossible to draw comparisons?

Interested to see what comes up.

Pam

 

[larry_cockerham]

I would think Omar Bradley and Willie Sherman must have had shared genes. Both were capable commanders with a goal and determination to see it through. Grant and Eisenhower, both winners, though Ike with a bit more skill perhaps and a rather larger challenge. Forrest and Patton, perhaps.

 

[The Iron Duke]

Pam,

The style of warfare and circumstances are so dramatically different that it's really hard to compare the two. I can't think of any general that seems to have had a 20th century clone but there are generals that share some traits.

For example, Grant and Lee were very good at managing their egotistical subordinates and getting them to work together as a team. Think Eisenhower.

Thomas reminds me of Bernard Montgomery in that circumstances have to be near perfect with all his ducks in a row before he commits himself. Both were very methodical.

Sherman and Nimitz were extremely good at logistics.

Both Forrest and Patton were very aggressive and didn't suffer fools gladly.

Just some thoughts...

 

[CChartreux]

Er....um....


Pam -


Perhaps this is outside the purview of what you were looking for, but I feeled compelled to say it all the same.

To that end, I regret that I have nothing to offer for your interesting thread topic (which is a great question, by the way).

But I will say this...we tend to forget today that Army generals - and perhaps Navy Admirals - are responding to their situation as they know it to be at the time it's happening. We tend to think of them 'being great' after the fact and the fear has subsided and we know the outcome of events and we know that so-and-so's offensive was successful or a failure, etc., and so on. Knowing the outcome of events has a tendency to skew our understanding of them insofar as we know (now - and from our perspective) what they were up against, what the enemy was actually doing, and the actual constraints they were dealing with (even if they didn't fully know them at the time).

I know this doesn't add much to your very interesting question. But, I would say that people like Petraeus, for example (still alive and in command), are in the same exact position that people like Grant, Sherman, Lee, etc., were in - they're dealing with their situation as they know it to be. Whether they're successful or not...time will tell. He'll go down as a hero or a buffoon - we don't know (the same way that people then didn't exactly know...until the war was over: Grant was a 'gamble' until the results proved the soundness of the decision to put him in command). You know what I mean?

I don't know...the more I read, the more I talk to combat-experienced veterans in my midst...the more appreciation I have for the sentiment 'what was actually going on for these guys when they were in command'...not what we know about it today and all that entails (i.e., we know what the enemy is up to, we know the constraints., etc.). IMHO, a general (or leader) should be judged by what he had available at the time he was in command and what sort of knowledge/constraints he had to work with. In other words - the actual picture is nearly always 20 times more difficult than the history books would suggest.

Anyway - a small diversion from your thread topic here, but I still felt compelled to say it. The styles of warfare may be very different, but the reality of combat and warfighting (i.e., the decisions that need to be made in an incredibly short span of time, etc., and so forth), are pretty much the same.


Just some $.02. (The economy is bad...so $.01).







CC

 

[M E Wolf]

Dear PamC153PA;

Ma'am, I do agree with CChartreux's post and several others who gave good comparing individuals from the big wars of the past, e.g. Civil War and WWII. (which are the two most studied wars Americans seem to be drawn to)

I bumped into a Air Force Major General, who had walked from the Pentagon over to a Subway sandwich shop, while I was there. He was behind me.

I thanked him for his service, to which took him by total surprise. I told him how rare it is to talk face to face with a General, especially a two-star Major General but--it is necessary for him to know how much I appreciated his service. I can't put into words that would do justice to the moment. But, I think he was so very grateful for the kind word and appreciation expressed. I whispered to the cashier that I would pay for his sandwich and anything else he purchased. While he was waiting for his sandwich, I mentioned I was studying the American Civil War; and how I struck I was about some of the Generals and their staff. He seemingly was a history buff and small talked about the Generals of the time.

He agreed with me in total, that each General must make instant judgment calls for the situation before him. He is dependent on the information provided by several supporting branchs, such as in the ACW, the reports from picket, videttes, patrols, signal stations, locals, and everybody up the chain of command, quarter masters and engineers as well. Every minute is precious. With training and instinct, a General must make a choice of deployment and worry about the judgment of others for another time. In summary--you have to be in their shoes.

He also agreed, that though historians do a good job of writing about history; he said to understand Generals you have to be one. It isn't as easy as its portrayed. It isn't as glorious as it looks and Generals are under the microscope every moment on and off duty. They are to be the epitome of military service, duty and protocol. One mistake can ruin your reputation and your service record, which affects their future and retirement.

He had to rush off as he only had a certain amount of time for lunch.

I too had to rush off, as to pick up my charge from the doctor's office, as we went there in haste and the check up a quick one.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

 

[ole]

The style of warfare and circumstances are so dramatically different that it's really hard to compare the two. I can't think of any general that seems to have had a 20th century clone but there are generals that share some traits.

Characteristically insightful, Duke, as usual.

 

[Henry]

Given that most of the folks who wind up in positions of military leadership, then and now, have a commonality in education, be it VMI, West Point or Annapolis, it is a certainty that the past plays a part in operations presently. It is my opinion that the present war in Afghanistan calls for a modification of venue. Instead of troops meandering around the countryside offering themselves as targets the national interests of both countries might be better served by a usage of blockade. In this case that means control of the road net near near the borders. The insurgency will not last long in strength with a scant amount of narcotic products leaving Afghanistan and less money and weapons, along with foreign cadre, coming incountry. The Jihadists will attack; it will come on ground of our choosing.

Some of the men who fielded and did it well without benefit of the years of training amaze me. Richard Taylor and Nathaniel Bedford Forrest are two who come to mind at present, though Taylor's early life is one who was steeped in a military tradition through his family.
Neat question.

 

[Elennsar]

One thing that was circulating in my brain is a comparison of Stonewall Jackson to Rommel.

I'm not sure if it holds water, which is why it never really got beyond thinking if it makes any sense, but its a thought.



In WWI, Allenby
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/people_allenby.html

was apparently influenced by teachings about Jackson, but I don't know if they shared anything in common.

MacArthur seems to have had McClellan's full level of ego - but not the timidity.

 

[The Iron Duke]

Pam,

I've been trying to think of a Cleburne comparison for you and the best I can think of is John Monash. Like Cleburne, he was not a professional military officer and a bit of an outsider because he was a Jew. But he had an ability to think outside the box and by the time the war ended he was one of the most highly regarded generals on either side.

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

I on e read in a Fred Reinfeld book on chess about a travelling master who was beaten by a rube at some podunk exhibition.
"I see you never moved you knights," said the master.
"Oh," said the rube, "That's because I don't know what they do."

While some are gifted with a particular genius for command, today's generals, I think, have raised the study of war to a level not considered possible in the 19th century.
Sherman seems to have been the closest to American military doctrine of the back half of the 20th century.

Q: could the patrician Lee have existed without Arlington? He might find it difficult n an integrated army.

Jackson was eccentric enough that he too might have real difficulties.

 

[larry_cockerham]

One thing that was circulating in my brain is a comparison of Stonewall Jackson to Rommel.

I'm not sure if it holds water, which is why it never really got beyond thinking if it makes any sense, but its a thought.



In WWI, Allenby
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/people_allenby.html

was apparently influenced by teachings about Jackson, but I don't know if they shared anything in common.

MacArthur seems to have had McClellan's full level of ego - but not the timidity.

If you compare Rommel and Jackson for their exhibited mobility, how would you compare Patton to those two? Maybe a threesome?

 

[Severon]

The Beauregard/McClellan Comparison

Has anyone else seen the connection between McClellan and P.G.T. Beauregard? Beauregard is called the "Little Napoleon" while McClellan is referred to as the "Young McClellan."

 

[Elennsar]

If you compare Rommel and Jackson for their exhibited mobility, how would you compare Patton to those two? Maybe a threesome?

I think Patton had more in common with Forrest - a somewhat unpleasant and disagreeable buttkicker.

"War means fightin'. And fightin' means killin'." is a theory of war both acted on.

Not that I object to comparing Jackson and Patton, or Patton and Rommel, but that's my reasoning.

 

[Glorybound]

I like the 'Forrest/Patton' comparison and also the 'Jackson/Rommel' linkup. My WWII history is sorely lacking but from what I have learned about Patton through the movie and some reading is his personality seems close to what Forrest's may have been from what I've read about Forrest.

I consider Forrest to be brilliant, perhaps possessing an element of genius in his field and think the same of Rommel as well, so there's room for a linkup there too in my opinion. Off the subject somewhat - didn't Rommel take his own life towards the end of the war due to some stupid things done by the Nazi High Command or am I thinking of a different German General?



Lee

 

[ole]

That was Rommel. He had fallen out of favor ... perhaps linked to the attempt on Hitler's life ... and was given the opportunity to off himself rather than face trial.

Ole

 

[larry_cockerham]

I think Patton had more in common with Forrest - a somewhat unpleasant and disagreeable buttkicker.

The thing that made Forrest perhaps a little different was that his temperment could go very quickly from one extreme to the other. He was a man who loved children, was kind to ladies and those in need of a little help on many occasions, but who could, on a moment's notice, go into the state of a raging warrior, described as face turning red, bulging veins and into the battle. If Patton kept that silly dog as protrayed in the movie, then perhaps he shared similar traits. Interesting, I hope.

 

[Nytram01]

I'd argue properly but I'm feeling horible today, got a very bad cold, so I'm not in the mood to do so but I want to say that I object to Patton being compared with Jackson or Rommel.

The only moment I can think of during his service in the war that made him famous (WWII) that could be comparable to anything Rommel or Jackson did was what he accomplished at the Battle of the Buldge. Other than that Patton's service record is one of arriving too late to participate in the main effort, being consigned to the flanks and areas of secondary importance and taking the easiest avenue of advance, one case of getting bogged down in a scrap around Metz and another case of wasting lives, time and resources trying to rescue his Son-in-Law.

While a good general despite his relative bit-part in the Allied Campaigns there is little tactical genius or mastery displayed in his service that could justify comparing him to Jackson or Rommel.

 

[The Iron Duke]

Other than that Patton's service record is one of arriving too late to participate in the main effort

As opposed to Montgomery's dawdling during Salerno?

being consigned to the flanks and areas of secondary importance and taking the easiest avenue of advance

How are these things his fault?

one case of getting bogged down in a scrap around Metz

Sounds like Montgomery in Sicily. And at Caen. And at the Scheldt.

 

[The Iron Duke]

I can see the Jackson/Rommel comparison in that both were able to maneuver their forces very well. But I think the comparison stops there; Rommel was a much better tactician than Stonewall ever was.

 

[Elennsar]

I'd argue properly but I'm feeling horible today, got a very bad cold, so I'm not in the mood to do so but I want to say that I object to Patton being compared with Jackson or Rommel.

Since I don't know nearly enough about WWII to contest this (I'll leave that for the WWII students), I'm going to settle for the other half of this post:

Get well soon.

I can see the Jackson/Rommel comparison in that both were able to maneuver their forces very well. But I think the comparison stops there; Rommel was a much better tactician than Stonewall ever was.

Agreed.

Both were good manueverers and very aggressive.

I think Rommel also was more chivalrous than Jackson ("Shoot them all, I do not wish them to be brave." - Jackson), but that's getting into personality and not generalship.