Heavily weighting battlefield performance over overall
impact (in which case you'd put Marshall and Pershing
higher).
The case for Washington is obvious and I've already
made mine for Grant. Sherman, I think, might actually
be the most impressive military figure of the war. His tactical abilities were astonishing - his
campaigns in the South were consistently successful
and consistently inflicted very high casualties on his
opponents while his own armies took very low ones. Even more impressive (to me) is his strategic vision -
he understood that breaking the will of the South was
the only way to win the war. Finally, he was able to
do it all without bitterness - after the war he
offered surrender terms so generous that Congress
repudiated them.
I don't know enough about the non Civil War/Revolutionary War generals to have an educated opinion, but having read the McPherson, Shelby Foote and some of Caton's stuff, I have to wonder on what merits you rate Grant so highly. Tactically I'd have to rate Sherman and Stonewall Jackson higher. Grant seems to have been more of a bulldozer than anything else and Cold Harbor is a very troubling episode, IMO.
Washington's genius was his ability to avoid conflict except in sure win situations. The U.S. had no chance against the British except to wear them down.
I agree with your assessment of Greene, but my knowledge is gleaned mostly from reading Henry Lee's account of the war in the South. Has anyone else read it?
Doug
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
