Foreign Policy
National Security
-
North Korea
How Fed Up is China?
-
U.S. Military
Make Your Soldiers Feel Like Family
-
Junior Officers
Stop Griping and Take Care of Your Soldiers
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks
Monday, September 27, 2010 - 7:48 AM
Share
The most underappreciated general in U.S. history, according to readers who responded by e-mail or in the comments section, is Nathanael Greene, a hero of the Revolutionary War, who got more than twice as many votes as any other candidate.
I like "RPM'"s reasoning in explaining in the comments why he went with Greene: "If you combine the 'unknown/under rated' label with 'most critical to victory in a really important war' then the easy answer is Nathanael Greene. The British had conquered the South and were aggressively moving north. Without Greene's victories in NC the Revolution might have been a bust."
Here are the top 10 most underappreciated generals in American history, according to you all:
1. Nathanael Greene
2. O.P. Smith
3. George Thomas
4. John Buford
5. Winfield Scott
6. Lucian Truscott
7. George Crook
8. George Kenney
9. George Marshall
10. John Reynolds
That's a good spread, with a lot of interesting choices. Clearly Greene had a good strategy here -- as the only candidate from the Revolutionary War, he was able to be the standard bearer for that party, while the more popular wars dissipated their votes, with the Civil War and World War II each posting three finishers. (I hereby dub this "the Ken Burns effect.") Given the competition, I was impressed that Truscott finished so high. I thought Crook and Pete Quesada would have done better, but the Indian Wars are obscure and have a taint to them. And I suspect that in Quesada's case, the readers of this blog tend to be ground-centric, as I am. Also, it apparently helped to be a general named "George," who account for 40 percent of the list.
Thanks to all who voted and discussed. I was impressed by the e-mailers who wrote in to say that they had nominated one general, but on reflection had decided to vote for another. I think we've demonstrated that there are a whole lot of underappreciated generals out there. It makes me think I need to read a good book on the American wars against the Indians/First Peoples. Any recommendations?
Among the most interesting write-ins were Raymond Odierno, Sir John Dill, and Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt (Rolling Thunder) AKA Chief Joseph, who got two votes despite some questions about his citizenship. And, of course, good old Galusha Pennypacker.
Pretty good list and Greene certainly deserves top billing. Personally, I believe that Matt Ridgeway (his contribution alone in the Korean war vastly outweighs most on the list) and should be listed at the expense of John Reynolds who badly fumbled the ball at Fredericksburg at a key moment. The outstanding George Marshall’s placement on the list I question since he is hardly under-appreciated at least by people with a modicum of interest in military history.
Not to be a problem here but Benedict Arnold is the true father of the Navy fighting its first battles on a fleet he had constructed. He captured Fort Ti which allowed Knox and Washington to bring cannon to Dorchester Heights to force the British to evacuate Boston. Not to mention that at Saratoga he personally impacted the outcome of the battle. A victory that was the driving factor for foreign aid. Then he did that other thing....
Dammit.
Indian Wars: The Campaign for the American West by Bill Yenne.
Seemed more comprehensive than most books. Most of the books on this subject seem to focus on one event such as Little Big Horn or Wounded Knee. I enjoyed it.
Sir John Dill?
A distinguished combat officer in the First World War, CIGS in the Second until Churchill kicked him out of that job and across the Atlantic as a military liaison in Washington. The value of his service there as a member of the Combined Chiefs during the war, and the devotion with which he pursued it, are well spoken for by his burial at Arlington. As far as I know, Dill is the only foreign general to be accorded that honor.
Having said all that, I should point out that the original post on this subject referred to "underrated" generals. Dill was anything but underrated by the Americans he worked with during World War II. George Marshall, who makes an appearance on Tom Ricks's list, was compared to George Washington upon his retirement from the Army, and rated so highly with the public that the American plan for reconstructing postwar Europe was deliberately given his name rather than that of the President he served. Other names on this list -- Truscott is one -- were well enough known and respected as long as men they had served with were alive.
This isn't to say some generals haven't been underrated, but I wonder if that phrase should refer to talents and accomplishments obscured for good reasons or those that are only obscure to Americans who never learned much about their own country's history.
ZATHRAS, I am very, very familiar with Dill. I only questioned Dill’s presence in Tom's blog because he was not an American. If Tom's contest were open to under appreciated generals from all countries then his list would look very different. Dill was an inappropriate choice as CIGS largely because he was indecisive, and could not seem to form a successful relationship with Churchill who wore the hats of both PM and Minister of Defense. Alan Brooke was a much tougher and more demanding officer (and better physical condition) who had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Churchill in his most wayward moments. Fortunately, Dill found a perfect slot for his talents in Washington.
I Second TVLJR's recommendation!
I would second TVLJR's recommendation on Bill Yenne's book for all to read (someday, at least). In the grand scheme of U.S. history, it didn't happen that long ago.
Additionally, a good overview (and overview only) would be Winning the West: The Army in the Indian Wars, 1865-1890, which I believe is available to read on line.
How come I never hear about these things until they're over?
I'd've written-in George "Long Knife" Rodgers Clarke, who spent his own money raising and equipping an army that drove the British and Indian allies from the NW Territory (MI/OH) and never got paid back by the feds. Of course he was a bit of a genocidaire.
I also think Marshall should be much higher on the list, since his greatness is only appreciated by historians/buffs.
I guess my favorite, Pershing, didn't make the list because he's not underated enough--which I like to see.
tactical defeats can be strategic victories
Nat Greene seems a good choice, if indeed his rear-guard "tactical defeats/strategic victories" bested 'Cornwallis of India', and leveraged Washington's strategic stalemate, for a victorious Revolution.
Re the frontier wars to protect the natives from savage settlers, I highly recommend "On The Border", written by Crook's long-time adjutant John Bourke (CMOH), who was a piece of work himself. I need to search out Bourke's other diaries, but 'Border' surveys both plains and AZ campaigns.
"The Life and Adventures of Frank Grouard", a Tahitian-American captive-cum-warrior in the camps of Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, who became Gen. Crook's Chief of Scouts after saving the Army's ass at the Rosebud, overlaps Bourke's Plains War accounts. Gruard's 'gump-like' presence at so many significant events would be unbelievable, if not for substantial corroboration.
Ditto Crook & George Rogers Clark. Hugh Mercer and Frederick Funston also deserve to me on the list, although Crook and Funston would certainly be the victims of political correctness, that tends to skew the Indian and Philippine Wars in a somewhat pejorative light.
Funston, though, really was an impressive figure...Cuban insurrecto; Colonel of the "Fighting 20th Kansas" in the Philippines (he was awarded the MOH for his actions in the Islands); the man who capture Insurrecto leader Alguinaldo,; Officer Commanding the Presidio who deployed the Army in earthquake ravaged San Franciso in 1906, and Pershing's superior in the Punitive Expedition of 1916. Some believe he would have commanded the AEF in 1917 had he not died of a heart attack in San Antonio.
Crook was the unsung hero of the Indian Wars, and the anthesis of all of the portrayals of Custer as a genocidal maniac in Hollywood films.
I have been reading "1776" by David McCullough and was surprised by what was said of Nathanael Greene, mainly because I am from the Providence, RI area and did not know much about him. I found it interesting that he commanded one of the most organized and disciplined groups of Americans in the Colonies, and that he is not as widely known around this area as he should be.
I do think that it's unfortunate that the majority of people that actually grew up and live in the same vicinity that Nathanael Greene grew up in, do not know of him and do not take great pride in what he has done for the progression of this country. I wish it were well known, as it is an amazing and fascinating story of the true beginning of the United States of America. The lack of local knowledge about such a historic subject is in itself, a great example of being under-appreciated.
Greene's post-war story is more complicated than I thought...
If you start at the linked excerpt beginning at p.208 (Yorktown), thru the birth of Caty Greene's fifth child and Nathaniel's return to Charleston, it's a wonder he survived malaria and stress over the personal post-war debt incurred in feeding his unsupplied army.
'American' historians might well like to forget that Yankee Quakers owned slaves too, and that our own army was left naked and starving. In the economy and armed prejudice as the shooting war cooled off, a freed slave might well have to sell his family back into bondage to feed them, if it was done that honestly.
Nathanael Greene: a biography of the American Revolution By Gerald M. Carbone
http://books.google.com/books?id=8SOXLUlcTyoC&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=Did+Nathaniel+Greene+own+slaves%3F&source=bl&ots=D9jLphRG69&sig=-SJnMMA3Rm5X2y27nZK5HROWzOg&hl=en&ei=HIShTI2cHYz2tgOVm9G9AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false
Revolution Phase 4 was a very near thing, it would appear. The postwar US economy was built on the backs of slaves working in increasingly desperate conditions, as more seized native lands were cleared to the Gulf and Mississippi River.
Greene led a segregated Rhode Island black brigade to victory
Nat Greene led a segregated Rhode Island black brigade to victory over Brit regulars, which is really something, if you think about it. If I read it right, these troops were still slaves, which is also something.
In his Southern lowlands campaigns, Greene proposed raising black regiments (African-americans being the majority in S. Carolina) with a promise of freedom. But the slave state legislatures smelled general emancipation in that, and would have none of it. Instead they offered slave labor and artisan service against their obligation to provide troops, on a 1:1 basis.
The Brits did use some 'liberated' (non-Torrie) slaves as Torrie troops in the South, and a few saw the 'fight for freedom' promises made to them fulfilled, or resettled in Canada. I suspect that the Crown's threat of seizing and emancipating slaves backfired, and was part of Greene's success in securing loyalty from the white Southerners.
I was struck by a similar thought with regard to O.P. Smith. I've always heard about him, but whenever I checked out his Wikipedia page after reading this post, I realized that he was born in my very tiny hometown (1500 population) of Menard, TX! Growing up, there was never a single mention of him.
Greene is a great choice...while on my most recent deployment I took the time to read "Washington's General: Nathanael Greene and the Triumph of the American Revolution" ...I would recommend it to anyone looking to learn more about the man I call "The out of nowhere General"
I suggest that the most unapprrciated general in US history comes from the bullpen of the enemy's general staff or national leadership who takes their nation on a self destructive course of a strategic nature - Tojo, Hitler, Kaiser W II, Lee, Davis come to mind.
Best, most underrated General is...
Marine General Smedley Butler. Two time Medal of Honor winner. He blew the whistle on war itself as being a "racket". And so it has been shown to be.
the battle that brought the French in and kept the Brits from a strategic split. Benedict Arnold, how does he fit. No more a traitor than Lee, Hood, Stewart or even Burr.
And now, America's Worst General
I know, I know, you can name 10 or so in the current era, and many might go right to Custer and Little Big Horn, but has anyone heard of the Battle of Fort Recovery. Led by General Arthur St. Clair, American forces lost 832 dead in this one battle. That beats Custer by about 500 or so yet it's covered in the dust and moss of forgotten history.
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/02/the_worst_general_in_american_history?page=1
Tom, I have an idea, how about a book that tells the story of the lead up to the War in Iraq and all the failures that followed, you could then write one about the new Strategy and the efforts that went into the surge. I think they would do well.
Warm Regards,
DEVILDOG0300
I guess this is off topic but I would nominate George S Patton as at least a general some these days would prefer to forget, as opposed to being under-appreciated, which is a different thing.
He was just a bigger murderer than the Nazi murderers and the only allied General the Nazis had any respect for. Unfortunately this does beg the question for some of us as to the exact point of the Allied victory in WWII and how much moral leverage the United States has actually possessed in the eyes of the rest of the world in the last sixty or so years.
@everyone:
If you were to build a dream team of generals for your next war, kind of like a football fantasy draft, how would you build your team, for example:
JTF Commander: Washington
J3: Weidermeyer
J4: Greene
J5: Eisenhower
Chief of Staff: Grant
Land Forces Commander: Patton
Maritime Commander: King
Air Component Commander: Mitchell
Army Chief of Staff: Marshall
Navy Chief of Staff:Nimitz
Air Chief of Staff: Lemay
Marine Chief of Staff: Puller
Bill Yenne's "Indian Wars: The Campaign for the American West" is a good introduction to the US Army's 50-year campaign to subdue the country west of the Mississippi, as several others noted. The book focuses on the Army at the expense of the Indian side of events.
Robert Utley and Wilcomb Washburn take a broader perspective in their "Indian Wars." Their book ranges in time from the first fight between English settlers and Indians in1622 to Wounded Knee in 1890 while describing how Indians reacted to the pressures of Anglo-American settlement. It should be noted that the Indian wars in the East were bloodier and far more dangerous to the survival of Anglo-American settlement than the better-known wars in the West and deserve greater .
T. R. Fehrenbach, the author of the classic Korean War history "This Kind of War," also wrote the terrific "Comanches: The History of a People." The reader will learn far, far more about Indian wars and culture in general than the title suggests. Drawing on his histories of Mexico and Texas, Fehrenbach places the Comanches in context of the broader cultures of American Indians and explains how the Spanish, Mexicans, Texans, and Americans--as well as other Indians--struggled to contain the Comanche threat. Do not miss this history.
Another enjoyable read--with a tighter focus on a single tribe--is Hampton Sides' "Blood and Thunder: An Epic of the American West," which covers Kit Carson's career as a mountain man, scout, and the US Army officer most responsible for the suppression of the Navajo.
No votes, not a single one, for Smedley Butler?
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(26)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE