I would say General MacArthur. I wished he would return again to finish what he started. We wouldn't have alot of the world problems we have today, if only he could have finished his work, before the President forced him to retire...
2006-08-22 16:46:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by 345Grasshopper 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
The term favorite does not necessarily imply best - While I recognize the leadership and capabilities of Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Attila, etc., my personal favorites are Daniel Morgan and Francis Marion. These two individuals were instrumental in establishing new battle tactics and strategy which led the Americans to victory over the British. These two veterans of the French and Indian Wars had natural and instinctive leadership skills coupled with the ability to adapt to the environment tactically. You can consider Marion an expert in guerrilla warfare. For information on these two outstanding soldiers, reference The American Revolution, Battle of the Cowpens and the Southern Campaigns (Swamp Fox).
2006-08-23 00:23:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by historybuff 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
General or not, Sir Arthur Currie: First Canadian commander of the Canadian Corps during World War One. He had a great respect for life, and valued his men, which is more than could be said for British and French generals of the time. He helped orchestrate the success at Vimy Ridge, one of the first decisive victories for the Entente on the Western Front. He would object to commands issued by his British superiors (notably concerning Passchendaele and Mons). He believed in special roles for soldiers, which led him and the Corps to victory at the Canal du Nord. Currie is generally (no pun intended) considered to be among, if not the greatest Canadian commander since the CF's inception.
2006-08-23 00:33:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mal 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
tough question, especially with so many choices. How about Grant, not for winning the civil war, but for serving and staying when he wasnt really wanted at the start of the war. His perseverance and drive kept the war going, he was the only union general in the begining that was successful, and his leadership helped another great rising general who revolutionized warfare at the time in General Sherman and the concept of total war.
2006-08-23 12:06:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by dewey2412 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hannibal first Wellington a close second. Hannibal was a strategic master. He defeated several Roman armies. He only lacked the support to attack the city. Rome came to adopt many of his tactics.
2006-08-23 01:16:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by Woody 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Fieldy Marshal Erwin Rommel by far.
2006-08-23 02:42:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by majorcavalry 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I love Napoleon, too, though he was not the best general. He was from the island of Corsica, which rocks. He fired upon a crowd of peasants, giving them "a whiff of grapeshot", and he took the country from fat ol' Louis XVIII twice, both times all of Europe had to come in to stop him.
2006-08-23 00:08:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by . 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Alexander the Great was the most brilliant general in history. All generals since have compared themselves to him.
2006-08-22 23:56:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Bubba Zanetti 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
hmmmmm...so many to choose from Omar Bradley? Patton? Swartzkoff??? Powell? McCarthur??? For some reason I guess we all like IKE maybe it was that catchy slogan he had when running for President. We Like Ike. So simple but hard to get out of your mind....I have to say Dwight D. Eisenhower. (Darn catchy slogan)
2006-08-22 23:42:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by mrraraavis 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I have to agree with you, not any man can face a whole batallion sent to aprehend him and order them to stand aside or march behind their Emperor.
2006-08-23 00:11:35
·
answer #10
·
answered by Pablo 6
·
1⤊
0⤋