Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Which General would you have least liked to face?


Which General would you have least liked to face? - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3   
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun Sep 14th, 2008 10:35 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
41st Post
Half Moon Tune
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 14th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 6
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Defender, just read your last post. You must have posted it while I was writing! Thanks again.



You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Mon Sep 15th, 2008 02:43 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
43rd Post
Captain Crow
Proud Southerner


Joined: Sun Jul 13th, 2008
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Posts: 542
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

2nd Cabin Creek being a prime example of how NOT to do it.



 Posted: Thu Sep 22nd, 2011 04:32 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
44th Post
sgtredleg
Life NRA, CW Trust, VFW member


Joined: Mon Jul 4th, 2011
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 51
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I would have to say Gen. Forrest and Gen. Jackson of the Southern Forces. They were Winners!
Of the Yanks, I'd say Grant. Same reason.



 Posted: Wed Oct 26th, 2011 08:28 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
45th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I dont see Grant as that big of a problem, he was very aggressive and direct which can be easy to defeat given the right circumstances. I'd really hate to Fight Jeb stuart. He was a man who enjoyed battle and would attack you any time of the day.



 Posted: Sun Oct 30th, 2011 02:31 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
46th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Grant is the guy I'd hate to go up against. Despite the best efforts of Halleck to diminish him in Washington circles the guy kept producing victories. Only the intervention of Lincoln saved his career from the backstabbers in Washington. Vicksburg was considered almost impregnable. He saved the Union forces (along with my gg uncle) who were in dire straits at Chattanooga. He goes east and in just over a year bludgeons Lee into surrender. The guy just knew how to fight a war and get it done.



 Posted: Sun Oct 30th, 2011 04:26 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
47th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 867
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

In Grant vs. Lee Lee won most of the battles against Grant. But the thing with Grant was that he was a bulldog. He didn't really retreat and lick his wounds, he just changed direction and kept going forward. Even in the Western Theater Grant seemed more determined and less likely to retreat to lick his wounds.



 Posted: Sun Oct 30th, 2011 06:11 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
48th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Your admiration of Grant closely parallels mine.

He was what was needed at the time. His army was fed and equipped, and I know of only one time that he returned to his base. (Holly Springs.) He was a bulldog.

Lee might have been a better general, but even he couldn't stand against a man who simply just kept coming.

Kinda like a Rocky Marciano. Remember him? Beat his brains out and, in the last round, he was still beating out yours.

He couldn't spell "quit."



 Posted: Mon Oct 31st, 2011 12:31 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
49th Post
BobInFla
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 30th, 2011
Location:  
Posts: 16
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

There's no denying Stonewall Jackson got the most out of his command but who were his adversaries:  McDowell,  Banks, Frémont, MClellan, Pope, Hooker ? I  would not want to go up against  "The Rock of Chickamauga" George H. Thomas. He served as Buell's second-in-command at the Battle of Perryville which halted Bragg's invasion of Kentucky.  Thomas gave an impressive performance at the Battle of Stones River, holding the center of the retreating Union line and once again preventing a victory by Bragg. He once again held a desperate position against Bragg's onslaught at Chickamauga while the Union line on his right collapsed.  A dramatic breakthrough on Missionary Ridge in the Battle of Chattanooga. In the Franklin-Nashville Campaign of 1864, he achieved one of the most decisive victories of the war, destroying the army of much-touted Confederate General John Bell Hood, at the Battle of Nashville.  After the War, during the Reconstruction period, Thomas acted to protect freedmen from white abuses. Thomas also used troops to protect places threatened by violence from the Ku Klux Klan.  His record speaks for itself. A great soldier and American.



 Posted: Sat Nov 26th, 2011 10:51 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
50th Post
jojotater
Member


Joined: Sun Nov 13th, 2011
Location: Arkansas USA
Posts: 17
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Forrest

http://civilwarnovel.com

Last edited on Sat Nov 26th, 2011 10:52 pm by jojotater



 Posted: Thu May 10th, 2012 12:57 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
51st Post
Double Canister
Member
 

Joined: Wed May 9th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 4
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I agree with some of what you said ole.  I disagree that Lee beat him in "most" battles.  The Wilderness was really a Grant victory...Lee did not hold the field.  Grant marched South after that. Continued his advance.  I am VERY suspect as to the  (Confederate) numbers killed there...I betcha it was bout even.  Close but we do not know for sure.  Cold Harbor...Lee victory I reckon but, again, Grant not driven. NO Lee victories after Cold Harbor.  Actually I would argue there were no real "definitive" Lee victories after Gettsyburg. An eternal debate!  Makes it all fun and interesting.  Carry on.

Last edited on Thu May 10th, 2012 01:00 am by Double Canister



 Posted: Fri May 11th, 2012 05:18 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
52nd Post
Insecurity
Member


Joined: Wed May 9th, 2012
Location: Mullingar, Ireland
Posts: 18
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I wouldn't have liked to face U.S. Grant. He simply refuses to lose- which wouldn't go over very well with me. His morale, even while losing, was impossible to top. However, I wouldn't have liked to face Lee, either- his dangerously reckless decisions would be incredibly difficult to beat.

However, I would lose in moments against Grant.
~Insecurity



 Posted: Fri May 11th, 2012 06:17 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
53rd Post
gencuster
Tuebor


Joined: Sun Apr 22nd, 2012
Location: Monroe
Posts: 5
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I would hate to face Gen. Custer, good leadership ability and he always wanting to attack or be on the offensive.



 Posted: Sat May 12th, 2012 04:30 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
54th Post
Joel Smith
Member
 

Joined: Sat May 12th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 5
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I think it depends on the context. If Forrest knew you were coming, or could anticipate your movements and you were a bit slow or in the mud, you're done. In active warfare he was the best.

But if I were sitting back, defending my homeland, I'd fear Sherman the most. Perhaps not as bold as Grant, he'd cut my supplies without mercy and make my homeland howl before firing a shot. Forrest would come right at me, while Sherman would shrewdly destroy the countryside while I watched.



 Posted: Sat May 12th, 2012 04:30 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
55th Post
Joel Smith
Member
 

Joined: Sat May 12th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 5
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I was just thinking that Sherman parallels Stalin at Stalingrad.

Last edited on Sat May 12th, 2012 04:33 am by Joel Smith



 Posted: Sat May 12th, 2012 01:40 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
56th Post
fedreb
Member


Joined: Tue Jan 16th, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 239
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Joel Smith wrote:
I was just thinking that Sherman parallels Stalin at Stalingrad.

Sherman didn't order thousands of his own troops to be massacred after the event .
Stalin was very clever,very shrewd, he was also a genocidal maniac not a label I would put on Sherman

Last edited on Sat May 12th, 2012 01:43 pm by fedreb



 Posted: Sat May 12th, 2012 04:05 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
57th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Joel Smith-

  General Sherman's army was responsible for the destruction of a huge amount of property, but Sherman never sanctioned murder.

  In fact, General Sherman offered General Joseph E. Johnston very generous surrender terms at the Bennett Place in late April of 1865. He even provided the defeated Confederates with rations, horses, and mules.

  General Johnston was very grateful to Sherman, and they formed a lasting friendship. After the war, General Johnston would not tolerate a negative word to be said about General Sherman in his presence.

  By contrast, Josef Stalin sanctioned the deaths of many millions of his countrymen, both military and civilian, in various purges and in gulags. He was probably responsible for the deaths of more people than Adolf Hitler was.  You mentioned Stalingrad. There Stalin ordered massive reinforcements through murderous German air attacks that killed thousands, and thousands more Russian troops were slaughtered by special units if they tried to retreat from contact with the Germans.

  To compare General Sherman to Josef Stalin in any way is an absurdity.

Last edited on Sun May 13th, 2012 02:41 am by Texas Defender



 Posted: Sun May 13th, 2012 01:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
58th Post
Barlow
Member


Joined: Fri Jul 10th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 75
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

No question in my mind:    Phil Sheridan

Towards the end, even Grant was relying on Sheridan at Appommatox.  Sheridan had no quit in him and he was always the aggressor.  Even in the beginning at Stones River he gave better than he got.  Whether in the Valley, at Five Forks and Sailors Creek, he was, in my opinion a general I would not like to face.  He got rid of those generals under him who could not keep up, i.e. Warren.  He only had one gear:  forward.  

ESPN had a program where they matched great NFL teams together in simulation, i.e. Steelers of 75 vs. Bears of 85.  I would have loved to see Sheridan vs. Forrest.



 Posted: Mon May 14th, 2012 12:14 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
59th Post
JG6789
Member
 

Joined: Mon Apr 23rd, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Double Canister wrote:
I disagree that Lee beat him in "most" battles.  The Wilderness was really a Grant victory...Lee did not hold the field.  Grant marched South after that.

+1



You have chosen to ignore Savez. click Here to view this post


 Current time is 04:29 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3   
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > Which General would you have least liked to face?
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4396 seconds (9% database + 91% PHP). 31 queries executed.