The Best American General of the War

[BenadictArnorld]

I know many will say Washington, but I disagree...talk about a loser..Look at New York..lost every battle...in the war he won only 2 battles and he fought 13. Gates isnt even on here...he and Charles Lee were the most incompitent Generals of the war. So I broke it down to the winning Generals..I pick Arnold by far..he was there at, Saratoga, Valcore Ise etc...A great general indeed...The greast I think in the entire Revolution!

[BenadictArnorld]

The Enigma of Benedict Arnold
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall97/arnold.html
This is a good read about the Greastest general of the war!

[Groucho]

I know many will say Washington, but I disagree...talk about a loser..Look at New York..lost every battle...in the war he won only 2 battles and he fought 13. Gates isnt even on here...he and Charles Lee were the most incompitent Generals of the war. So I broke it down to the winning Generals..I pick Arnold by far..he was there at, Saratoga, Valcore Ise etc...A great general indeed...The greast I think in the entire Revolution!

Washington is a great general in a similar fashion as to why George C. Marshall is a great general. George C. Marshall NEVER won a battle, h3ll he never even commanded a unit in the field in WWII, if ever, but is still one of the greatest generals in United States history. CNO Ernest J. King was another one of the great leaders in WWII and he never lead a single task force into battle. Even on the other side, Erich von Manstein is considered a great general. Not because he was brilliant at operations or leading men into combat. His brilliance (read:greatness) came from his strategic abilities. Granted these leaders are from modern times but, you can find historical examples throughout history.

Washington lost a heckuva lot more battles than he won but, he held that army together. As long as that army existed as a threat in being the British had to pay attention to him. Washington knew what the strategic picture was, and conducted operations accordingly.

I voted for Morgan. Arnold was a very good combat general. But, in the end, he lacks a couple of traits that, in my opinion, make a GREAT general. Integrity and judgement.

Just my 2 cents.

[orca]

Wasn't Arnold also there at Quebec? And while he pushed to seize Ticonderoga, he also pushed to march an army from Maine to Quebec. Clearly he was very good tactically, a great motivator, but he got caught up in ambitious plans - (including West Point of course, which was pretty unrealistic).

I voted Greene. I tend to agree that Washington had too many flaws - in addition to New York there were his many plans to amphibiously assault Boston and then New York. Of course he is the guy who won the war - as long as the army held together the continentals couldn't be beaten and he kept that army together. But Greene's campaign in the south was both audacious, and displayed an excellent understanding of his enemy.

[BenadictArnorld]

Well I am playing the Brits and Arnold finnally joins me!! I sent him South and what happens...e losses his entire army>? What happen? He is one of the best leaders of the war and I was destroyed by Gates of all generals??

[arsan]

Well I am playing the Brits and Arnold finnally joins me!! I sent him South and what happens...e losses his entire army>? What happen? He is one of the best leaders of the war and I was destroyed by Gates of all generals??

Maybe you are not so good an overall commander
Arnold statistics help but he cannot win the war for yourself. To lose hsi entire army he must be: under sieged and assaulted inside a structure or in the open but without a retreat path as your side lacks a minimum of 5% military control on an adjacent region to retreat there after a defeat.
Don't worry: it takes some practice to fully understand the game mechanics.
Regards

[hattrick]

Well I am playing the Brits and Arnold finnally joins me!! I sent him South and what happens...e losses his entire army>? What happen? He is one of the best leaders of the war and I was destroyed by Gates of all generals??

I believe Arnold turns into a spy when he switches sides.

This might explain you're losses.

[arsan]

I believe Arnold turns into a spy when he switches sides.

This might explain you're losses.

I can be wrong but for what i recall he does not turn into a spy, but into a "real" general you can use as the brits.

[lodilefty]

I can be wrong but for what i recall he does not turn into a spy, but into a "real" general you can use as the brits.

You're both right

He first becomes a spy, then later becomes a general.

Historically, the British didn't really trust him either. Can you think of a reason why?

[Jayavarman]

You're both right

He first becomes a spy, then later becomes a general.

Historically, the British didn't really trust him either. Can you think of a reason why?

[phantomfeather]

I voted for Greene only because Washington wasn't on there. Washington knew for much of the War that he couldn't stand toe to toe with the Brits. He also knew that if he held his army together that the Brits had to consider. Washington chose his spots for opportunistic battles. He was GREAT at retreating from a battle.

Greene was brilliant with much less on hand. He was Washington's choice to take over the Southern Theater but Congress forced Gates on him. When Greene went south he still didn't have much to work with but he gave Cornwallis fits.

Morgan would be my next choice. Morgan was also brilliant & was Greene's second in command in the Southern Theater. Morgan knew guerilla tactics as well as anybody. The only problem with Morgan was his health, it was NOT good. I feel that in this game his strategic rating is too high, his health interfered.

Arnold was a pretty darn good general but he had some character flaws. It,s good to see that historians have reevaluated him. He deserved more credit for the victory in Saratoga.

"Granny" Gates could be the most overrated general of the war. He was near incompetent & proved quickly so when he took the Southern Theater command. He ran for two hundred miles on horseback after his defeat.

[phantomfeather]

As to Wilhelm von Steuben it's a little difficult to tell. There's no doubt his training of Washington's army at Valley Forge was invaluable. He did many things to improve the military of the young nation but it's near impossible to rate his actual command. He was mainly a staff officer & didn't actually receive a military command until late in the war.

Artemas Ward is hard to judge also. He was names head of the Eastern Department & was the one that ordered the stand at Bunker Hill. He did very little in the way of combat command & his health forced him into retirement. Can't even see him being on this list.

Benjamin Lincoln is a little difficult to judge also. When sent to command the Southern Theater his successes were small & he suffered one of the worst defeats of the entire Revolution at Charleston, S.C. But Washington seemed to have a lot of trust in him so there had to have been some value in the military.

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette certainly had great value to the American cause. He proved to be invaluable at several battles. Like Washington, Lafayette knew how to execute an orderly retreat. And like most of the American generals he was usually outnumbered. He was greatly appreciated by his troops. There's little doubt that Lafayette was one of the better generals who held a military command during the Revolution.

Kazimierz Pułaski was a cavalry specialist. He was the primary mover into elevating the American cavalry. He performed well in his battles & eventually formed an independent corps of cavalry which performed well. He was killed in 1779 unfortunately. He definitely warrants inclusion of one of the best officers to hold a command during the Revolution.

Henry Lee III was another cavalry specialist who operated with small numbers of men during the war. He was an excellent horsemen & led his own regiment of mixed cavalr & infantry also known as a "light" regiment. Once again it's a little difficult to judge his military prowess mostly due to the fact that he didn't obtain the rank of general until later in the Revolution. He did prove to ba valuable commodity in almost every battle he participated.

[phantomfeather]

Ahh, one more post. I think the biggest mistake of this list is Richard Montgomery. He's difficult to evaluate because he killed at Quebec on the last day of 1775. Until that point he was successful in most, if not all the battles he participated. I realize we don't have much to go on concerning his military career but he seemed to be good until the assault of Quebec.

[anarchyintheuk]

Voted for Greene as well. Imo 'best general' has to include a significant independent command. His career and Washington's are remarkably similar in terms of strategic ability and lack of battlefield success. Splitting the Southern Army after its defeat under Gates at Camden took serious 'nads.

A good general uses what his troops do best and tries to avoid what it does worst. Greene certainly followed that by marching as much as possible and having his militia fight as little as possible.

It's interesting to speculate what he would have been able to accomplish given another 3 or 4 regiments of continentals.