I would have added Mathew B Ridgeway as one of our great generals. He helped develop the Airborne. He commanded at the Divisional level and Corp level in WW2 in an exemplary fashion. And his turning around the Eighth Army in Korea was remarkable. And he was an outstanding Army Chief of Staff.
Thanks. Fully agreed, particularly regarding Korea. When Ridgeway took over in Korea, our road-bound, peacetime Army was really struggling against highly mobile Chinese light infantry, who were veterans of a long civil war against the Nationalist Chinese. Ridgeway pulled things together, halted the Chinese, and boosted morale. When he replaced MacArthur in Tokyo a year later, Ridgeway had turned the tide on the Korean Peninsula.
Agree with Washington being number 1. Given the obstacles he face (political and military) his success as a General was even more remarkable. The Siege of Boston The Battle of Trenton 1 and 2 as well as the Battel of Princeton illustrated this. He was an innovator in his use of night movements, converging columns and the use of watches to coordinate actions. It is a shame his military ability was more appreciated by foreign leaders like Napoleon that his own countrymen. While he did not win every battle he accomplished the most important task when lost- keeping his Army in the field.
Washington had two things very important for a leader, IMO. Yeah, he lost a fair share of tactical battles, but he always kept his eye on the big strategic picture. Which was to keep an army in the field and wear down British resolve. This is what, btw, makes him so much better than Lee, who won a lot fo tactical battles, but almost never kept the big picture in mind. He also had a great eye for spotting talent, promoting it, and listening to it when it counted (Greene, Lafatyette, Hamilton etc etc. He was wrong about not wanting to go to Yorktown, but submitted to better reasoning from his subordinates)
MacArthur was actually against island hopping. He felt it was wasteful and caused too many casualties. Island hopping was Nimitz. And Grant was the first Lieutenant General since George Washington.
"Capturing georgia and south carolina" if you call capturing burning it to the ground then i suppose he did. I'd say thats more war crime than achievement but thats just me
I think because he was given the role of the great organizer, basically inventing an army of ~10 million from a starting point of 300k in about 18 months or so it isn't as flashy as winning the battle of this or that. However, he picked all the top commanders. Gen'l Marshall never voted and was completely apolitical which is why Congress trusted him so. Naturally, any top general must interact with the political apparatus often made up of perhaps well-meaning folks, but who have never served. I think he is one of the greatest men of the 20th century yet he died in 1959. Certainly many thought so. In a story told by Gen. Omar Bradley, Gen. Marshall as head of the US delegation to the Coronation of QE2, presented his credentials at the Abbey and began the long walk down the nave to his seat. He noticed people beginning to rise. He looked back to see which king or queen had entered. There was no one in particular. It was seredipitously for him, a man who through is brilliant mind guaranteed their freedom and then fed them afterward. Whatever his place on a list of generals, he should never be forgotten.
I've been to Cowpens battlefield. Recommend a visit if anyone's ever in the area. One thing that jumps out is the terrain advantages Morgan used were slight. He needed a sharp eye to notice and use them. Morgan made brilliant use of terrain and troops. However, I have to reluctantly say that one brilliant battle does not a top ten general make.
I think Nathan Bedford Forrest should have been accountable for the actions of his army and not have been on that list. You omitted several generals : Marshall, Puller, Eisenhower, Bradley, who honorably served their country, not against it.
Enjoyed the video, but really have to dispute Douglas MacArthur being on this list. He screwed up the Phillipine defense even worse than the admirals screwed up Pearl Harbor, and he screwed it up worse with about 18 hrs more notice. He then moved the main body of troops away from their supplies, guaranteeing a fast collapse. If he hadn't been politically connected, he would have been sacked right there. He then had a hard time working with his own navy for the next two years. Then used his political connections again to get Nimitz's much better Formosa plan nixed in favor of his PHillipine route. Sure, the phillipines had little strategic value, especially compared to NImitz's plan, and sure, he got hundreds of thousands of filipinos killed for little, but hey, he got to stand in front of the press and go on about how he kept his word after he ran for it in 1942. Then in Korea, his "inchon miracle" was more the result of MacArthur's gift for self-promotion than what happened on the ground. On the ground, the inchon landing was barely opposed. Then he managed to push so close to China, he got the Chinese involved. Then his bright idea was to nuke the other side to solve the problem he'd created. The question isn't "why was he fired?" It's why wasn't he fired a hell of a lot sooner.
@@richardmonroe4208 Obviously agree with you about MacArthur. On Marshall, maybe it's me, but I have a hard time labeling anyone as a top general when they did not really make their points commanding combat troops. It's why I'd have a hard time with people like Eisenhower, Marshall, or Nimitz. Good administrators, sure. Kept the wheels going, yeah. Necessary, probably. But "top general list" material... meh.
@@jonathanbrown7250 Yeah MacArthur should’ve been a little lower I guess. He did have great success with operation cartwheel but he had a lot of failures, like with Luzon as you mentioned.
@@richardmonroe4208 Eisenhower I put as honorable mention cause I like his presidential ad. “I like Ike, you like Ike, everybody likes Ike for President. Hang up the banner, beat the drum, we’ll take Ike to Washington!” I know it doesn’t have much to do with the list but personal bias I guess. 😅
@@HiroshimaKarthus I guess this is where we part company. I believe a general who performed so poorly at the beginning he would have been sacked and sent to the rubbish bin except him mommy knew "the right people" should not be on a top ten list. To be fair to you, you're not alone in thinking Operation Cartwheel is some piece of brilliance. But I personally don't see it. Capture runways closer and closer to Japan, and don't bother to fight for islands you don't need for that, and will be cut off from supply anyway. Ooooohh, 300 IQ needed to come up with that. And considering Nimitz's Formosa plan was so much better than MacArthur's Mess Around in the Philippines plan, I have full confidence if Dugout Doug hadnt' been there, someone would have come up with Cartwheel, or something else even better.
I can’t disagree with your list. Personally, I might have them in different order than you did but that’s really not significant. I do however think you should have included general Nathaniel Greene on that list. A remarkable general who lost every battle he commanded but succeeded in his strategic goals.
dang he's a pretty interesting general. I didn't expect him to be as successful as he was, so I didn't put him on the list. Thanks for letting me know.
@@WyomingTraveler :( it takes forever to make video and I don’t have motivation to upload rn cause school. But I’ll add him to the notable mentions in the description
@@HiroshimaKarthus How long does it take you to produce a video? I produced about three videos a month. If I really put my ass in gear I could do one a week. I do, however, understand the issues of motivation and school.
@@WyomingTraveler I can make a video in about a day or two. But I'd have to spend the whole day on the video. I made this video from about 4pm-6am. That included research, Script, recording voiceover, and editing.
There were actually two clans. The first in which Forrest was involved was formed mainly to stand against the harshness of the Union’s joke of reconstruction.
I commend you for putting Washington at No 1. There's a revisionist temptation to downgrade him bc he lost more battles than he won. However, Washington, unlike everyone else on the list except maybe Forrest, had nothing to work with. He build, equipped and trained his army from the ground up. He had a great eye for putting the right people in teh right positions, and listening to others when they made sense. And possibly most importantly, Washington understood his strategic big picture goals and kept them firmly in mind. This is how you lose some battles and still end up winning what you want.
Yeah Washington was incredibly good at winning the most valuable and game changing battles. My personal favorite is Forrest but there’s a lot of people who don’t like him cause of his other activities.
@@HiroshimaKarthus I'm with you on Forrest. It's not a "Top ten nice guys" list. 'It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sumbitch or another. -- Malcolm Reynolds' Most civil war generals couldn't figure out the "charge-n-give-them-the-bayonet" tactics they were using at the time were at least 10 years out of date. Meanwhile, this guy is Inventing tactics that would have been at home 80 years later. Seems top-10 worthy to me.
Wrong. GW had 20,000 men to work with on Long Island and lost 18,000 of them. He idiotically rejected the offer of 50 CT farmers to act as cavalry scouts on his open left flank. They would have discovered the British flanking maneuver which rolled up his position. Usually an execrable battlefield CO, except for Trenton and to some extent Monmouth. But kept the army together and the rebellion going, and had a good spy service. Benefitted from French aid at Yorktown.
The best general is usually the one with the best PR. For instance, Patton got a majority of his fame by being a poster boy for the United States, the big brave Cavalryman, who wore pearl handled revolvers and spoke boldly and dirty was much better for the papers because her personified America. Whereas a soft-spoken Omar Bradley was a simple infantryman, wore glasses, and didn't have a facade to wear. So, he didn't make the headlines as often. He still was in charge of more American troops than anyone else, leading the men in Operation Overlord and making sound decisions along the way.
The British chose (general) Sherman as the name of the tank (the British tank commission) ordered from Detroit in 1940. They ordered from North American and named the P51 Mustang too. British love naming things
Ditch Dugout Doug for Nathaneal Greene, victor in the Revolutionary War. Frederick Funston should be on the list, but can't say whom he should replace.
He was very arrogant and had his shortcomings, but he had good battle plans notably operation cartwheel. He is still a great general overall, in my opinion, despite all the flaws
What he did after Inchon brought China into the war ruining any chance of victory. If he hadn’t defied the president Korea could have been united and there would be no nuclear threat from North Korea.
The generals on this list were fighters. George C. Marshall was a brilliant strategist, but behind the scenes. The "Organizer of Victory" did not lead troops in battle, so I can see why he was omitted.
MacArthur wasn’t the architect of island hopping. See War Plan Orange. And FADM Nimitz. The Philippines shouldn’t have been invaded. Should have gone to Formosa. Also, missed Nathanial Geene.
@@HiroshimaKarthus Inchon was followed by not paying attention and escalating a limited war. MacArthur isn’t all he’s cracked up to be. His ego was bad.
Yikes! MacArthur does not belong on this list as he was unprepared against the Japanese in the Philippines even though he had advanced knowledge his aircraft was destroyed on the ground. He failed to support the Bataan Peninsula which he easily could have. Properly supplied he could have held out for much longer. He failed to train the Philippine army even though he was paid handsomely. For this he received the Medal of Honor? His performance is spotty the rest of the Pacific war. He duped a lot of people through his press releases which did not tell the truth. One must only look at what his subordinate line generals thought of him. train the Philippine army,
Well now, a nice novice approach, but this diatribe is rife with huge errors, omissions and gaffs..... NBF was not the first grand wizard (note small caps), he was the last and shut the Klan down completely by 1867. His artillery officer, Morgan was the first G.W. NBF's tactics and deployment were studied by Heinz Guderian. Doug Out Doug failed miserably with the beginning of WWII/Philippines.... Doug abandoned preset doctrine plans, failed to garner the supplies to consolidation, spread his forces thin and panicked in the first 36 hours. He also failed in not allowing the air force to engage Formosa and did not recon the ocean as the IJN approached for landing. The battle did NOT last Years... Dougie debased Wainwright and left him out to dry in propaganda during the war, and after. Doug also abused veterans and led the action to attack veterans camps during a protest on Washington for WWI back-pay. D.M's invasion of Inchon, left out was one of the biggest gambles in American History. You left out Daniel Morgan, the only general of either army involved in the American Revolution to have an original thought and executed tactics, terrain, and manpower with precision during the Battle of Cowpens. The action which turned the tide for the American Revolution as the rally to end the war at Yorktown. Andrew Jackson; he never lost a battle and was responsible for defeating world powers in Spain and Great Britain. His actions secured the already signed Peace Accords of the War of 1812. His leadership secured the Jefferson Purchase, created the State of Florida, and finalized the borders of Alabama and Mississippi. He was the author of Manifest Destiny which was the blueprint for the United States Continental borders today. Jackson also snuffed out John C. Calhoun's attempt to start the C.W. in 1829. Had the war begun during this period, the outcome to the 75% would have been a Confederate victory. Curtis LeMay who "bombed Japan back to the Stone Age" and was the Dean of American Strategic Air-force Doctrine. John T Wilder later became a General and the Mayor of Chattanooga and one of the founders of Chickamauga-Chattanooga Battlefields Parks. Wilder led the Wilder's/Lighting Brigade during the C.W., Western Theater and became the master of creating heavy mounted infantry and the forerunner of Panzer Grenadiers. Wilder's deployment of the Spencer RIFLE, as a cavalry weapon was the first use of repeating arms at the engagement of Hoover's Gap, Tennessee. JTW was also studied by Guderian.... Ignoring Jackson is egregious.....
NBF was the first grand wizard and he did shut down the first iteration of the KKK. I personally believe NBF shouldn’t have been so criticized to the point where he was forgotten by history, cause he did attempt to right his wrongs. Douglass MacArthur has one of the most iconic military photographs of all time with the Japanese emperor Hirohito. He also kept his promise to the Philippines when he said he would return, gaining respect. He was solely responsible for the success of Operation Cartwheel, where he conquered Rabaul, the strongest Japanese defense in the southwest pacific. His approach to modern naval warfare emphasized the need for mobility and largely contributed to his successes. He didn’t butcher his troops; he always checked with Daniel Barbey (the amphibious commander), ensured he had the protection of Adm Kinkaid’s ships, and never fought a battle without the support of general George kenney’s bombers. He made mistakes sure, but what’s really egregious is that you are destroying the legacy of MacArthur by omitting all of his accomplishments with minor issues. Andrew Jackson on the other hand, committed several atrocities that were much much more significant than MacArthur, which you conveniently left out. He forced the native Americans to move west, in the trail of tears. He called it the “Indian problem”. Mind you, there were no noble ambitions, this was to secure land for white settlers to grow cotton. He ignored the Supreme Court’s decision in Worcester v Georgia, overriding the system of checks and balances. manifest destiny simply led to further persecution and genocide of the natives, rather than gradual assimilation. As a general, He spent years campaigning against creeks and seminoles to secure more land for white farmers. If you use logic, the increase in arable land in the south would invariably lead to a greater amount of slave plantations, giving the south more resources to wage war. One of the foremost reasons why the C.W. began was through manifest destiny and if the south chose to secede before Jackson’s term, it would have been a much more one sided war with way less casualties. Jackson also destroyed the Bank of the US, contributing to the Panic of 1837. As for Curtis LeMay, his entire bombing campaign was against civilians. He single handedly caused the deaths of at least 300,000 civilians. John T Wilder is a relatively less accomplished general, and wouldn’t make sense taking someone out of the top 10 to put him in. Heavy mounted cavalry have existed for centuries, with the Parthian and Persian cataphracts. The idea of heavy cavalry is not new and it doesn’t take a genius to equip them with a carbine. To end my response, just remember that I’d have to leave someone out to put someone in, and I firmly believe that the generals I’ve put in are the best. I might have removed Washington and put in Eisenhower, but I cannot see any other changes that make sense.
@@HiroshimaKarthus, sorry Bopper, but you are amiss on the first Klan's beginning and end with NBF. Doug Out Doug and his ego, fired by Truman is a product of his own glorification. AS to the Hanging Fruit, Island Hopping was a communal strategy of all the Joint Chiefs of Staff with King, Marshall and FDR; just not the creation of Dougie... The Trail of Tears resulted in the salvaging the "Civilized Nations", had they not, the other tribes that are no more would echo the Creeks and Cherokees. The business of pushing into Cherokee lands was the first Gold Rush of Dahlonega. GA and not cotton expansion..... The debunking of Manifest Destiny would mean the United States would just be the 13 colonies; wonder where you reside?? The Southern participation in the Mexican War was just a sample of what would have happened with an earlier C.W. with the lack of immigrants and industrialization. One also argue Zackary Taylor into the mix, but this is the problem, there is to much conflict of period, material culture, events and technology to just consider 10. Hap Arnold, Chester Nimitz, George Thomas, Nathaniel Green...... Wilder did not employ a carbine, as state RIFLE, so allied with an entirely different Cavalry/Infantry Doctrine. If you glorify W.T. Sherman and deride Laymay for the same tactics, Total War then volumes are spoken again.
@@ridgerunner5772 I stand by Douglass MacArthur being the sole reason for success during operation cartwheel. The “salvaging” of the creeks and cherokees would result in the deaths of 15% of them on the trail of tears alone. The purpose for clearing occupied Indian land was to make room for white settlers. This included cotton expansion as well as gold rush. I was wrong about the carbine. At the time cavalry were often equipped with spencer carbines, but wilder used the rifles. I do not disagree with total war but the target is not supposed to be civilians. Sherman’s March freed an upwards of 25000 African Americans on his march. The casualties inflicted were solely on confederate troops at 1,300. Some “bummers” did loot civilians, but did not kill them. Curtis LeMay directly caused the deaths of at least 300,000 civilians. Sherman and Laymay are not the same. It is actually due to the fact that 50% of deaths in WW2 were civilian deaths, that the Geneva convention of 1949 would disallow the targeting of non-combatants.
@@HiroshimaKarthus There's another good reason for Lemay to not be on the list. Putting aside questions of morality or civlian casualties. It's not certain that bombing achieved the objectives it set out to. The Germans had diminished capacity for all kinds of reasons. Bombing was probably part of it, but it's not clear how much a part. For the resources expended, it's not clear bombing was the best use of those resources. I don't see how it would make sense to include anyone on a top ten generals list when it's not clear how much the thing they were in charge of accomplished.
@@HiroshimaKarthus I'd have the same problem putting Andrew Jackson on the list as Daniel Morgan. Yes, they both did a great job at one important battle (New Orleans and Cowpens). But one important battle does not a top 10 general make - especially with so many long-term competitors on the list.
@@TheRennDawg fair point but I’d still consider them to be American. They got to their position when we were United, they happened to be on the seceding side. after the war they remain American citizens
@HiroshimaKarthus would you say the same about Benedict Arnold? Washington thought he was the best general under his command. He was an American general before turning traitor.
It's an unpopular choice because Lincoln relieved him of command, but I think General McClellan was brilliant. He won repeatedly with ingenious tactics and had casualties avoidance as one of his top priorities, which made his command very efficient. Lincoln was frustrated, because he figured McClellan could have and should have delivered a knockout blow to the Army of Virginia, but McClellan wisely allowed Lee to escape and in so doing, minimized Union casualties which produced a stronger and more professionally experienced Army of the Potomac. Lincoln replacing McClellan with Burnside only showed that Lincoln didn't have the aptitude for waging war that McClellan and Grant had. I have ancestors who fought on both sides (different branches of my family).
P.S.--- My favorite American general of all was Patton. My uncle fought in Patton's Third Army defeating the Germans in relief of units mauled by the Battle of the Bulge. Uncle Joe said every soldier under Patton would gladly follow him into battle because they were convinced he was the smartest, toughest, winningest, and most caring general in the world. He said between actions Patton liked to have men fall in line at attention for inspection, at which time Patton would walk the line telling random soldiers how proud he was of their fighting spirit and say things to them like, 'You are the finest men I have ever led.' Patton thumped a button on my uncle's chest and looked him in the eyes then smiled. 'We all adored the General and were ready to do the impossible, if he commanded us to, and sometimes he did.'
Yeah I guess he minimized casualties but the north needed a victory when McClellan was being overly cautious. It’s probably also why they called grant a butcher even though he won almost every major battle he commanded
I would not have put Grant, Pershing or MacArthur, on this. Grant merely took advantage of his manpower and material advantages to engage in a war of attrition which takes no great military skill or genius. Pershing: When your military expedition (Mexico) is not a success it is a failure. He was the subject of a congressional investigation for ordering American troops to continue to attack and die till that last second when the Armistice was gong to take effect effect. Pershing excuse was that he was "following orders", not hallmark of great leadership. MacArthur should have suffered at least the same punishment as Admiral Kimmel and General Short after Pearl Harbor. He had more time to prepare was still caught by surprise. His one "genius" move in the Kora war (Inchon) was more than offset by being caught by surprise (again) by the Chinese, the retreat of his forces that turned into a near route. Plus their was his insubordination
So, can't agree with you about Grant. First, he won about every battle won in the western theater the first two years with some, but not overwhelming, numbers advantages. This while about everyone else wasn't doing as well. Statistically, with all the union generals running around, a crazy high percentage of the union wins were from Grant. Second, yeah, he used superior numbers against Lee, but part of that was because there was a political as well as military aspect to consider here. He needed to pin Lee down ASAP before the war became too unpopular. The British won a lot in the Revolutionary War with not much bloodshed, and look where all that winning and light bloodshed got them. And yeah he had more numbers and supplies than Lee. And so had the six or so generals before Grant. It didn't get any of them anywhere.
Do sort of agree with you about Pershing. Always seen him as overrated. Can't see, and it's never been pointed out, what brilliant thing he did in WW1, or any reason any reasonably competent general wouldn't have also won in his place. Could not agree with you more about MacArthur. I have a comment where I made the same points. If Kimmel deserved to be sacked after pearl Harbor, MacArthur double deserved the same sacking after the Philippine defense. But it paid to have better political connections.
Pershing trained and commanded 2 million mostly inexperienced soldiers to combat readiness on the Allied front in ww1. MacArthur had his moments in Inchon and in the Pacific, in my opinion, allow him to be top 10. Grant was a steadfast general who never doubted his plans and committed to them. This led to high number of losses but he basically pioneered the idea of a war of attrition, something unheard of at the time.
@@jonathanbrown7250 US troops in ww1 were almost completely inexperienced, so Pershing was leading a million man army of recruits. That takes some level of organization and skill.
Pershing and MacArthur don't belong here; Forrest is questionable. Ridgeway, Longstreet, and Benedict Arnold should be the replacements. Worst ever? Gates and McClellan, honorable to Benjamin Lincoln, William Hull. Biggest rotter: James Wilkinson.
Forrest is literally the greatest American cavalry commander of all time. All the replacements you mentioned are not worthy. Benedict Arnold was a traitor, ridgway didn’t do anything unique or special, and Longstreet is barey significant.
@@HiroshimaKarthus Before Arnold turned traitor, he won the decisive battle of the war at Saratoga and a remarkable naval victory at Valcour Island. Ridgeway merely completely saved our butts in Korea after MacArthur had screwed everything up, and that after a distinguished record in WW2. And Longstreet may have been the best corps commander of the Civil War, which isn't exactly damning with faint praise. And they had much higher level commands than Forrest, which is where my "questionable" came from; I didn't say he wasn't good. And you could argue that Sheridan was better anyway.
Sherman so horribly overrated & no biz on this list; so many generals that should be ahead of him.. & his greatest success lacked just one important thing.. an opposing army, as well (lil unknown fact) Most popular general ever who NEVER won one single battle of his own. Funny have seen MacArthur on Best 10 & Worst 10 ever haha. As a historian I lean towards the 1st more than latter. Good video
Your list includes "Douglas momas boy MacArthur " who ran from the Phillipines, having been beaten by inferior numbers of Japanese. A horrible choice. Sherman thought Forrest the best general on either side, including himself, so he should rate higher than Sherman or Grant. Washington, lost as many battles as he won so he shouldn't rank in the top 5. Lee lost and Gettysburg was his greatest loss. Ever been to Gettysburg? Have you seen the field of pickets charge? Not a good choice either.
Omar Bradley is the finest U.S. General ever. He was an accomplished mathematician and a college level teacher of math. He was a former enlisted man, he understood logistics and how important they are. He was quiet, humble and hated war. Bradley was promoted OVER and above Patton, for very good reasons.
Bradley was promoted over Patton for BS reasons, including Patton's having slapped a soldier. Bradley was a terrible Army and Group CO, worse than Dugout Doug. He let the German 15th Army get away at Falaise, worst mistake of the campaign in NW Europe, next to Ike's approving Monty's hare-brained Market-Garden scheme.
On offense, Lee sucked without Jackson. Lee's plan for summer 1863 proved disastrous. Longstreet's plan was far supeior, ie send his corps West over the rickety rail system to fall on Grant's rear at Vicksburg, leaving Lee's other two corps to threaten DC, holding down the Army of the Potomac, or enticing it yet again to attack CSA positions in N. VA, likely to its destruction, or at least another defeat.
Ditch Patton and Grant, not sure about Pershing. Nathaniel Greene, and Philip Sheridan definitely should go in; you should probably add Benedict Arnold (sorry). If you want to talk Indian fighters, Mackenzie, Miles, Crook, and (yes) Custer all belong, as would Robert Rogers and Old Hickory.
Ok bro how tf are you gonna say ditch Patton and grant?? But not MacArthur?? Grant is literally the goat never lost major battles and saved the north’s ass. Patton literally the goat and model officer.
George Thomas is easily the most underrated American general of all time, as well as one of the most underrated generals in all of military history.
A list of great Americans
I would have added Mathew B Ridgeway as one of our great generals. He helped develop the Airborne. He commanded at the Divisional level and Corp level in WW2 in an exemplary fashion. And his turning around the Eighth Army in Korea was remarkable. And he was an outstanding Army Chief of Staff.
Thanks for the suggestion. He seems pretty interesting!
Thanks. Fully agreed, particularly regarding Korea. When Ridgeway took over in Korea, our road-bound, peacetime Army was really struggling against highly mobile Chinese light infantry, who were veterans of a long civil war against the Nationalist Chinese.
Ridgeway pulled things together, halted the Chinese, and boosted morale. When he replaced MacArthur in Tokyo a year later, Ridgeway had turned the tide on the Korean Peninsula.
Agree with Washington being number 1. Given the obstacles he face (political and military) his success as a General was even more remarkable. The Siege of Boston The Battle of Trenton 1 and 2 as well as the Battel of Princeton illustrated this. He was an innovator in his use of night movements, converging columns and the use of watches to coordinate actions. It is a shame his military ability was more appreciated by foreign leaders like Napoleon that his own countrymen. While he did not win every battle he accomplished the most important task when lost- keeping his Army in the field.
Washington had two things very important for a leader, IMO. Yeah, he lost a fair share of tactical battles, but he always kept his eye on the big strategic picture. Which was to keep an army in the field and wear down British resolve. This is what, btw, makes him so much better than Lee, who won a lot fo tactical battles, but almost never kept the big picture in mind.
He also had a great eye for spotting talent, promoting it, and listening to it when it counted (Greene, Lafatyette, Hamilton etc etc. He was wrong about not wanting to go to Yorktown, but submitted to better reasoning from his subordinates)
I agree. Washington was an incredibly efficient commander considering how little he had to work with.
@@jonathanbrown7250 yeah I agree with that 100%. He was an irreplaceable leader during the revolutionary war
MacArthur was actually against island hopping. He felt it was wasteful and caused too many casualties. Island hopping was Nimitz. And Grant was the first Lieutenant General since George Washington.
Yeah Nimitz did island hopping but MacArthur still had some good plans like with Inchon
100 per cent incorrect. His amphibious commander suggested it and Mac Arthur quickly adopted it. lookup Operation Carthwheel.
I thought his position was called commander of the union armies.
"Capturing georgia and south carolina" if you call capturing burning it to the ground then i suppose he did. I'd say thats more war crime than achievement but thats just me
I loved this, I have some differences in opinion but liked how you included many from the Civil War.
Why is George C. Marshall always forgotten
He is more so known for his economic restoration with the Marshall plan than his military tactics.
@@HiroshimaKarthus Agreed, he was more of a potlician and a statesman. Same for Eisenhauer
Who? 🙂
I think because he was given the role of the great organizer, basically inventing an army of ~10 million from a starting point of 300k in about 18 months or so it isn't as flashy as winning the battle of this or that. However, he picked all the top commanders. Gen'l Marshall never voted and was completely apolitical which is why Congress trusted him so. Naturally, any top general must interact with the political apparatus often made up of perhaps well-meaning folks, but who have never served. I think he is one of the greatest men of the 20th century yet he died in 1959. Certainly many thought so. In a story told by Gen. Omar Bradley, Gen. Marshall as head of the US delegation to the Coronation of QE2, presented his credentials at the Abbey and began the long walk down the nave to his seat. He noticed people beginning to rise. He looked back to see which king or queen had entered. There was no one in particular. It was seredipitously for him, a man who through is brilliant mind guaranteed their freedom and then fed them afterward. Whatever his place on a list of generals, he should never be forgotten.
@@henrivanbemmel o think McNair deserves most of the organizational credit/blame. I think Marshall gets credit for assigning the people to do it.
General Daniel Morgan Battle of Cowpens, South Carolina
Yeah but I wouldn’t swap him out with any other general
I've been to Cowpens battlefield. Recommend a visit if anyone's ever in the area. One thing that jumps out is the terrain advantages Morgan used were slight. He needed a sharp eye to notice and use them. Morgan made brilliant use of terrain and troops. However, I have to reluctantly say that one brilliant battle does not a top ten general make.
Now that I think about it there are no generals from the Spanish American War of '98
Eisenhower?
Ehh… honorable mentions.
I think Nathan Bedford Forrest should have been accountable for the actions of his army and not have been on that list. You omitted several generals : Marshall, Puller, Eisenhower, Bradley, who honorably served their country, not against it.
Nathan Bedford Forrest was the greatest cavalry commander in American history
Enjoyed the video, but really have to dispute Douglas MacArthur being on this list. He screwed up the Phillipine defense even worse than the admirals screwed up Pearl Harbor, and he screwed it up worse with about 18 hrs more notice.
He then moved the main body of troops away from their supplies, guaranteeing a fast collapse. If he hadn't been politically connected, he would have been sacked right there.
He then had a hard time working with his own navy for the next two years. Then used his political connections again to get Nimitz's much better Formosa plan nixed in favor of his PHillipine route. Sure, the phillipines had little strategic value, especially compared to NImitz's plan, and sure, he got hundreds of thousands of filipinos killed for little, but hey, he got to stand in front of the press and go on about how he kept his word after he ran for it in 1942.
Then in Korea, his "inchon miracle" was more the result of MacArthur's gift for self-promotion than what happened on the ground. On the ground, the inchon landing was barely opposed. Then he managed to push so close to China, he got the Chinese involved. Then his bright idea was to nuke the other side to solve the problem he'd created. The question isn't "why was he fired?" It's why wasn't he fired a hell of a lot sooner.
I am scratching my head on MacArthur being one of the ten and Eisenhower as Honorable Mention.
@@richardmonroe4208 Obviously agree with you about MacArthur.
On Marshall, maybe it's me, but I have a hard time labeling anyone as a top general when they did not really make their points commanding combat troops. It's why I'd have a hard time with people like Eisenhower, Marshall, or Nimitz. Good administrators, sure. Kept the wheels going, yeah. Necessary, probably. But "top general list" material... meh.
@@jonathanbrown7250 Yeah MacArthur should’ve been a little lower I guess. He did have great success with operation cartwheel but he had a lot of failures, like with Luzon as you mentioned.
@@richardmonroe4208 Eisenhower I put as honorable mention cause I like his presidential ad. “I like Ike, you like Ike, everybody likes Ike for President. Hang up the banner, beat the drum, we’ll take Ike to Washington!” I know it doesn’t have much to do with the list but personal bias I guess. 😅
@@HiroshimaKarthus I guess this is where we part company. I believe a general who performed so poorly at the beginning he would have been sacked and sent to the rubbish bin except him mommy knew "the right people" should not be on a top ten list. To be fair to you, you're not alone in thinking Operation Cartwheel is some piece of brilliance. But I personally don't see it.
Capture runways closer and closer to Japan, and don't bother to fight for islands you don't need for that, and will be cut off from supply anyway. Ooooohh, 300 IQ needed to come up with that. And considering Nimitz's Formosa plan was so much better than MacArthur's Mess Around in the Philippines plan, I have full confidence if Dugout Doug hadnt' been there, someone would have come up with Cartwheel, or something else even better.
I can’t disagree with your list. Personally, I might have them in different order than you did but that’s really not significant. I do however think you should have included general Nathaniel Greene on that list. A remarkable general who lost every battle he commanded but succeeded in his strategic goals.
dang he's a pretty interesting general. I didn't expect him to be as successful as he was, so I didn't put him on the list. Thanks for letting me know.
@@HiroshimaKarthus Yes, you will have to revised episode
@@WyomingTraveler :( it takes forever to make video and I don’t have motivation to upload rn cause school. But I’ll add him to the notable mentions in the description
@@HiroshimaKarthus How long does it take you to produce a video? I produced about three videos a month. If I really put my ass in gear I could do one a week. I do, however, understand the issues of motivation and school.
@@WyomingTraveler I can make a video in about a day or two. But I'd have to spend the whole day on the video. I made this video from about 4pm-6am. That included research, Script, recording voiceover, and editing.
You forgot Storming Norman! The numbers speak for itself…
There were actually two clans. The first in which Forrest was involved was formed mainly to stand against the harshness of the Union’s joke of reconstruction.
His clan wasn’t harmless. His klansmen killed hundreds of free African Americans
I commend you for putting Washington at No 1. There's a revisionist temptation to downgrade him bc he lost more battles than he won. However, Washington, unlike everyone else on the list except maybe Forrest, had nothing to work with. He build, equipped and trained his army from the ground up. He had a great eye for putting the right people in teh right positions, and listening to others when they made sense.
And possibly most importantly, Washington understood his strategic big picture goals and kept them firmly in mind. This is how you lose some battles and still end up winning what you want.
Yeah Washington was incredibly good at winning the most valuable and game changing battles. My personal favorite is Forrest but there’s a lot of people who don’t like him cause of his other activities.
@@HiroshimaKarthus I'm with you on Forrest. It's not a "Top ten nice guys" list.
'It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sumbitch or another. -- Malcolm Reynolds'
Most civil war generals couldn't figure out the "charge-n-give-them-the-bayonet" tactics they were using at the time were at least 10 years out of date. Meanwhile, this guy is Inventing tactics that would have been at home 80 years later. Seems top-10 worthy to me.
Wrong. GW had 20,000 men to work with on Long Island and lost 18,000 of them. He idiotically rejected the offer of 50 CT farmers to act as cavalry scouts on his open left flank. They would have discovered the British flanking maneuver which rolled up his position.
Usually an execrable battlefield CO, except for Trenton and to some extent Monmouth. But kept the army together and the rebellion going, and had a good spy service. Benefitted from French aid at Yorktown.
I don’t; Washington shouldn’t deserve a place on any greatest generals list.
I agree MacArthur should not have been on this list or even considered
Nah he’s good
Should have been on a list of worst. The only thing he was good at was playing the press.
My GGGrandfather (7th Tenn Cav) died at Brice's Crossroads. He enlisted with the General in Memphis.
Wow that’s interesting
The best general is usually the one with the best PR.
For instance, Patton got a majority of his fame by being a poster boy for the United States, the big brave Cavalryman, who wore pearl handled revolvers and spoke boldly and dirty was much better for the papers because her personified America.
Whereas a soft-spoken Omar Bradley was a simple infantryman, wore glasses, and didn't have a facade to wear. So, he didn't make the headlines as often. He still was in charge of more American troops than anyone else, leading the men in Operation Overlord and making sound decisions along the way.
Fair point
The British chose (general) Sherman as the name of the tank (the British tank commission) ordered from Detroit in 1940. They ordered from North American and named the P51 Mustang too. British love naming things
Interesting
Where was Chesty Puller?
I don’t really know who that is
Sorry. Thanks for doing this and I wanted to watch it, but the narration was so hard to understand, I had to stop.
Sorryyy. Was low effort cause it was for a project for my history class.
@@HiroshimaKarthus Are you in high school? This was a noble effort.
James Longstreet, Omar Bradley and Nathanael Greene could easily have been on this list.
Nah not good enough
Ditch Dugout Doug for Nathaneal Greene, victor in the Revolutionary War. Frederick Funston should be on the list, but can't say whom he should replace.
Can't believe you've got do nothing Doug on the list
He was very arrogant and had his shortcomings, but he had good battle plans notably operation cartwheel. He is still a great general overall, in my opinion, despite all the flaws
That idiot lost the Philippines as well as attacking the bonus marchers. Macarthur was a complete screw up
Inchon wasn’t bad
What he did after Inchon brought China into the war ruining any chance of victory. If he hadn’t defied the president Korea could have been united and there would be no nuclear threat from North Korea.
Eisenhower should of been on here
grant by far fought a real war and his tactics are still used
Yes I agree
The Butcher was not that great…winning by losing massive troops shit anyone can do that!
Like... US versus Vietnam?
Forrest would piss off in front of George Thomas, Thomas literally destroyed his cavalry and they literally became guerilla
OP Smith!
Unconditional Surrender Grant!
I'd rate Winfield Scott higher than Patton and I would put George C. Marshall on this list somewhere. Not a criticism, just my two cents.
Seems reasonable
The generals on this list were fighters. George C. Marshall was a brilliant strategist, but behind the scenes. The "Organizer of Victory" did not lead troops in battle, so I can see why he was omitted.
MacArthur wasn’t the architect of island hopping. See War Plan Orange. And FADM Nimitz. The Philippines shouldn’t have been invaded. Should have gone to Formosa.
Also, missed Nathanial Geene.
Inchon >>
@@HiroshimaKarthus Inchon was followed by not paying attention and escalating a limited war.
MacArthur isn’t all he’s cracked up to be. His ego was bad.
I must disagree with General Black Jack Persing being one of the best Generals in US History.
Yikes! MacArthur does not belong on this list as he was unprepared against the Japanese in the Philippines even though he had advanced knowledge his aircraft was destroyed on the ground. He failed to support the Bataan Peninsula which he easily could have. Properly supplied he could have held out for much longer. He failed to train the Philippine army even though he was paid handsomely. For this he received the Medal of Honor? His performance is spotty the rest of the Pacific war. He duped a lot of people through his press releases which did not tell the truth. One must only look at what his subordinate line generals thought of him.
train the Philippine army,
Well now, a nice novice approach, but this diatribe is rife with huge errors, omissions and gaffs..... NBF was not the first grand wizard (note small caps), he was the last and shut the Klan down completely by 1867. His artillery officer, Morgan was the first G.W. NBF's tactics and deployment were studied by Heinz Guderian. Doug Out Doug failed miserably with the beginning of WWII/Philippines.... Doug abandoned preset doctrine plans, failed to garner the supplies to consolidation, spread his forces thin and panicked in the first 36 hours. He also failed in not allowing the air force to engage Formosa and did not recon the ocean as the IJN approached for landing. The battle did NOT last Years... Dougie debased Wainwright and left him out to dry in propaganda during the war, and after. Doug also abused veterans and led the action to attack veterans camps during a protest on Washington for WWI back-pay. D.M's invasion of Inchon, left out was one of the biggest gambles in American History. You left out Daniel Morgan, the only general of either army involved in the American Revolution to have an original thought and executed tactics, terrain, and manpower with precision during the Battle of Cowpens. The action which turned the tide for the American Revolution as the rally to end the war at Yorktown. Andrew Jackson; he never lost a battle and was responsible for defeating world powers in Spain and Great Britain. His actions secured the already signed Peace Accords of the War of 1812. His leadership secured the Jefferson Purchase, created the State of Florida, and finalized the borders of Alabama and Mississippi. He was the author of Manifest Destiny which was the blueprint for the United States Continental borders today. Jackson also snuffed out John C. Calhoun's attempt to start the C.W. in 1829. Had the war begun during this period, the outcome to the 75% would have been a Confederate victory. Curtis LeMay who "bombed Japan back to the Stone Age" and was the Dean of American Strategic Air-force Doctrine. John T Wilder later became a General and the Mayor of Chattanooga and one of the founders of Chickamauga-Chattanooga Battlefields Parks. Wilder led the Wilder's/Lighting Brigade during the C.W., Western Theater and became the master of creating heavy mounted infantry and the forerunner of Panzer Grenadiers. Wilder's deployment of the Spencer RIFLE, as a cavalry weapon was the first use of repeating arms at the engagement of Hoover's Gap, Tennessee. JTW was also studied by Guderian.... Ignoring Jackson is egregious.....
NBF was the first grand wizard and he did shut down the first iteration of the KKK. I personally believe NBF shouldn’t have been so criticized to the point where he was forgotten by history, cause he did attempt to right his wrongs. Douglass MacArthur has one of the most iconic military photographs of all time with the Japanese emperor Hirohito. He also kept his promise to the Philippines when he said he would return, gaining respect. He was solely responsible for the success of Operation Cartwheel, where he conquered Rabaul, the strongest Japanese defense in the southwest pacific. His approach to modern naval warfare emphasized the need for mobility and largely contributed to his successes. He didn’t butcher his troops; he always checked with Daniel Barbey (the amphibious commander), ensured he had the protection of Adm Kinkaid’s ships, and never fought a battle without the support of general George kenney’s bombers. He made mistakes sure, but what’s really egregious is that you are destroying the legacy of MacArthur by omitting all of his accomplishments with minor issues. Andrew Jackson on the other hand, committed several atrocities that were much much more significant than MacArthur, which you conveniently left out. He forced the native Americans to move west, in the trail of tears. He called it the “Indian problem”. Mind you, there were no noble ambitions, this was to secure land for white settlers to grow cotton. He ignored the Supreme Court’s decision in Worcester v Georgia, overriding the system of checks and balances. manifest destiny simply led to further persecution and genocide of the natives, rather than gradual assimilation. As a general, He spent years campaigning against creeks and seminoles to secure more land for white farmers. If you use logic, the increase in arable land in the south would invariably lead to a greater amount of slave plantations, giving the south more resources to wage war. One of the foremost reasons why the C.W. began was through manifest destiny and if the south chose to secede before Jackson’s term, it would have been a much more one sided war with way less casualties. Jackson also destroyed the Bank of the US, contributing to the Panic of 1837. As for Curtis LeMay, his entire bombing campaign was against civilians. He single handedly caused the deaths of at least 300,000 civilians. John T Wilder is a relatively less accomplished general, and wouldn’t make sense taking someone out of the top 10 to put him in. Heavy mounted cavalry have existed for centuries, with the Parthian and Persian cataphracts. The idea of heavy cavalry is not new and it doesn’t take a genius to equip them with a carbine. To end my response, just remember that I’d have to leave someone out to put someone in, and I firmly believe that the generals I’ve put in are the best. I might have removed Washington and put in Eisenhower, but I cannot see any other changes that make sense.
@@HiroshimaKarthus, sorry Bopper, but you are amiss on the first Klan's beginning and end with NBF. Doug Out Doug and his ego, fired by Truman is a product of his own glorification. AS to the Hanging Fruit, Island Hopping was a communal strategy of all the Joint Chiefs of Staff with King, Marshall and FDR; just not the creation of Dougie... The Trail of Tears resulted in the salvaging the "Civilized Nations", had they not, the other tribes that are no more would echo the Creeks and Cherokees. The business of pushing into Cherokee lands was the first Gold Rush of Dahlonega. GA and not cotton expansion..... The debunking of Manifest Destiny would mean the United States would just be the 13 colonies; wonder where you reside?? The Southern participation in the Mexican War was just a sample of what would have happened with an earlier C.W. with the lack of immigrants and industrialization. One also argue Zackary Taylor into the mix, but this is the problem, there is to much conflict of period, material culture, events and technology to just consider 10. Hap Arnold, Chester Nimitz, George Thomas, Nathaniel Green...... Wilder did not employ a carbine, as state RIFLE, so allied with an entirely different Cavalry/Infantry Doctrine. If you glorify W.T. Sherman and deride Laymay for the same tactics, Total War then volumes are spoken again.
@@ridgerunner5772 I stand by Douglass MacArthur being the sole reason for success during operation cartwheel. The “salvaging” of the creeks and cherokees would result in the deaths of 15% of them on the trail of tears alone. The purpose for clearing occupied Indian land was to make room for white settlers. This included cotton expansion as well as gold rush. I was wrong about the carbine. At the time cavalry were often equipped with spencer carbines, but wilder used the rifles. I do not disagree with total war but the target is not supposed to be civilians. Sherman’s March freed an upwards of 25000 African Americans on his march. The casualties inflicted were solely on confederate troops at 1,300. Some “bummers” did loot civilians, but did not kill them. Curtis LeMay directly caused the deaths of at least 300,000 civilians. Sherman and Laymay are not the same. It is actually due to the fact that 50% of deaths in WW2 were civilian deaths, that the Geneva convention of 1949 would disallow the targeting of non-combatants.
@@HiroshimaKarthus There's another good reason for Lemay to not be on the list. Putting aside questions of morality or civlian casualties. It's not certain that bombing achieved the objectives it set out to. The Germans had diminished capacity for all kinds of reasons. Bombing was probably part of it, but it's not clear how much a part. For the resources expended, it's not clear bombing was the best use of those resources. I don't see how it would make sense to include anyone on a top ten generals list when it's not clear how much the thing they were in charge of accomplished.
@@HiroshimaKarthus I'd have the same problem putting Andrew Jackson on the list as Daniel Morgan. Yes, they both did a great job at one important battle (New Orleans and Cowpens). But one important battle does not a top 10 general make - especially with so many long-term competitors on the list.
Any Confederacy general should not be on this list. This should be a list of American generals. Traitors shouldn't be included.
@@TheRennDawg fair point but I’d still consider them to be American. They got to their position when we were United, they happened to be on the seceding side. after the war they remain American citizens
@HiroshimaKarthus would you say the same about Benedict Arnold? Washington thought he was the best general under his command. He was an American general before turning traitor.
@ i haven’t read enough about his capabilities as a commander, but I don’t think he would be top 10
Left out America's most important WW Two General- Marshall. Also the only soldier ever to win the Nobel Pease Prize.
Ah good catch
I would add Sam Houston, James Longstreet, Courtney Hodges, and Omar Bradley.
It's an unpopular choice because Lincoln relieved him of command, but I think General McClellan was brilliant. He won repeatedly with ingenious tactics and had casualties avoidance as one of his top priorities, which made his command very efficient. Lincoln was frustrated, because he figured McClellan could have and should have delivered a knockout blow to the Army of Virginia, but McClellan wisely allowed Lee to escape and in so doing, minimized Union casualties which produced a stronger and more professionally experienced Army of the Potomac. Lincoln replacing McClellan with Burnside only showed that Lincoln didn't have the aptitude for waging war that McClellan and Grant had. I have ancestors who fought on both sides (different branches of my family).
P.S.--- My favorite American general of all was Patton. My uncle fought in Patton's Third Army defeating the Germans in relief of units mauled by the Battle of the Bulge. Uncle Joe said every soldier under Patton would gladly follow him into battle because they were convinced he was the smartest, toughest, winningest, and most caring general in the world. He said between actions Patton liked to have men fall in line at attention for inspection, at which time Patton would walk the line telling random soldiers how proud he was of their fighting spirit and say things to them like, 'You are the finest men I have ever led.' Patton thumped a button on my uncle's chest and looked him in the eyes then smiled. 'We all adored the General and were ready to do the impossible, if he commanded us to, and sometimes he did.'
Yeah I guess he minimized casualties but the north needed a victory when McClellan was being overly cautious. It’s probably also why they called grant a butcher even though he won almost every major battle he commanded
I would not have put Grant, Pershing or MacArthur, on this. Grant merely took advantage of his manpower and material advantages to engage in a war of attrition which takes no great military skill or genius. Pershing: When your military expedition (Mexico) is not a success it is a failure. He was the subject of a congressional investigation for ordering American troops to continue to attack and die till that last second when the Armistice was gong to take effect effect. Pershing excuse was that he was "following orders", not hallmark of great leadership. MacArthur should have suffered at least the same punishment as Admiral Kimmel and General Short after Pearl Harbor. He had more time to prepare was still caught by surprise. His one "genius" move in the Kora war (Inchon) was more than offset by being caught by surprise (again) by the Chinese, the retreat of his forces that turned into a near route. Plus their was his insubordination
So, can't agree with you about Grant. First, he won about every battle won in the western theater the first two years with some, but not overwhelming, numbers advantages. This while about everyone else wasn't doing as well. Statistically, with all the union generals running around, a crazy high percentage of the union wins were from Grant.
Second, yeah, he used superior numbers against Lee, but part of that was because there was a political as well as military aspect to consider here. He needed to pin Lee down ASAP before the war became too unpopular. The British won a lot in the Revolutionary War with not much bloodshed, and look where all that winning and light bloodshed got them.
And yeah he had more numbers and supplies than Lee. And so had the six or so generals before Grant. It didn't get any of them anywhere.
Do sort of agree with you about Pershing. Always seen him as overrated. Can't see, and it's never been pointed out, what brilliant thing he did in WW1, or any reason any reasonably competent general wouldn't have also won in his place.
Could not agree with you more about MacArthur. I have a comment where I made the same points. If Kimmel deserved to be sacked after pearl Harbor, MacArthur double deserved the same sacking after the Philippine defense. But it paid to have better political connections.
Pershing trained and commanded 2 million mostly inexperienced soldiers to combat readiness on the Allied front in ww1. MacArthur had his moments in Inchon and in the Pacific, in my opinion, allow him to be top 10. Grant was a steadfast general who never doubted his plans and committed to them. This led to high number of losses but he basically pioneered the idea of a war of attrition, something unheard of at the time.
@@jonathanbrown7250 I agree. Grant 100% deserves to be top 10 cause he was definitely talented and capable as a general.
@@jonathanbrown7250 US troops in ww1 were almost completely inexperienced, so Pershing was leading a million man army of recruits. That takes some level of organization and skill.
Pershing and MacArthur don't belong here; Forrest is questionable. Ridgeway, Longstreet, and Benedict Arnold should be the replacements. Worst ever? Gates and McClellan, honorable to Benjamin Lincoln, William Hull. Biggest rotter: James Wilkinson.
Forrest is literally the greatest American cavalry commander of all time. All the replacements you mentioned are not worthy. Benedict Arnold was a traitor, ridgway didn’t do anything unique or special, and Longstreet is barey significant.
@@HiroshimaKarthus Before Arnold turned traitor, he won the decisive battle of the war at Saratoga and a remarkable naval victory at Valcour Island. Ridgeway merely completely saved our butts in Korea after MacArthur had screwed everything up, and that after a distinguished record in WW2. And Longstreet may have been the best corps commander of the Civil War, which isn't exactly damning with faint praise. And they had much higher level commands than Forrest, which is where my "questionable" came from; I didn't say he wasn't good. And you could argue that Sheridan was better anyway.
Gj
damn you still watch my vids. thanks man, this took 5 hours to make
@@HiroshimaKarthus ye np
Terrible narrator - does the poor fellow have swollen gums ir a loose dental plate?
fortunately I don’t have either of those issues and instead have a very bad microphone
HAHAHAHA, MACARTHUR IS ON THIS LIST 😂😂😂😂
Sherman so horribly overrated & no biz on this list; so many generals that should be ahead of him.. & his greatest success lacked just one important thing.. an opposing army, as well (lil unknown fact) Most popular general ever who NEVER won one single battle of his own. Funny have seen MacArthur on Best 10 & Worst 10 ever haha. As a historian I lean towards the 1st more than latter. Good video
Sherman is the goat
Your list includes "Douglas momas boy MacArthur " who ran from the Phillipines, having been beaten by inferior numbers of Japanese. A horrible choice. Sherman thought Forrest the best general on either side, including himself, so he should rate higher than Sherman or Grant. Washington, lost as many battles as he won so he shouldn't rank in the top 5. Lee lost and Gettysburg was his greatest loss. Ever been to Gettysburg? Have you seen the field of pickets charge? Not a good choice either.
dougie is the goat though
Eisenhower, Marshall, Thomas, Ridgeway & Longstreet are every bit the Equal of any on the list..that said..cool list
Omar Bradley is the finest U.S. General ever. He was an accomplished mathematician and a college level teacher of math. He was a former enlisted man, he understood logistics and how important they are.
He was quiet, humble and hated war. Bradley was promoted OVER and above Patton, for very good reasons.
Yea but Patton is much more good looking
Bradley was promoted over Patton for BS reasons, including Patton's having slapped a soldier. Bradley was a terrible Army and Group CO, worse than Dugout Doug. He let the German 15th Army get away at Falaise, worst mistake of the campaign in NW Europe, next to Ike's approving Monty's hare-brained Market-Garden scheme.
Robert E Lee 🥇
Yeah he’s up there but imo gotta pay respects to Washington who was able to win significant battles with a barely functional army
On offense, Lee sucked without Jackson.
Lee's plan for summer 1863 proved disastrous. Longstreet's plan was far supeior, ie send his corps West over the rickety rail system to fall on Grant's rear at Vicksburg, leaving Lee's other two corps to threaten DC, holding down the Army of the Potomac, or enticing it yet again to attack CSA positions in N. VA, likely to its destruction, or at least another defeat.
ZazTropica better militararay Tbh
Idk who zaztropica is.
OHHH. yeah i remember
It would have been worth mentioning MacArthur's effective plan to land at Inchon in the Korean war thereby cutting the DPRK's supply lines..
Yeah Inchon is his moment of genius
Ditch Patton and Grant, not sure about Pershing. Nathaniel Greene, and Philip Sheridan definitely should go in; you should probably add Benedict Arnold (sorry). If you want to talk Indian fighters, Mackenzie, Miles, Crook, and (yes) Custer all belong, as would Robert Rogers and Old Hickory.
Ok bro how tf are you gonna say ditch Patton and grant?? But not MacArthur?? Grant is literally the goat never lost major battles and saved the north’s ass. Patton literally the goat and model officer.
George Washington being at the top of your list is idiotic. Great leader, yes...Great general, no
You are idiotic
NONE....period.
Lmao
The new cow update is sux
True
Eisenhower?
More of a politician than a general
I would add Sam Houston, James Longstreet, Courtney Hodges, and Omar Bradley.
Thanks for the suggestion!
Courtney Huertgen Woods, Bulge Hodges - one of the worst.