This is the same problem as the question relating to the bloodiest battle. In this case what is the definition of successful? Here are some alternatives that may yield different answers for each:

• Influencial on the future
• Ease of, or overwhelming Victory
• Victory (or successful defence) against the odds
• Any significant victory against skilled opposition
• Consistent rather than lucky
• Most land, population or economic value gained (absolute or relative to the period)

I recall a list a great commanders that were chosen by historians, although I think the criteria on which they are based were vague.

• Alexander the great
• Julius Caesar
• Napolean Bonaparte
• Horatio Nelson
• Ulysses S. Grant
• Georgi Zhukov

For me, it would be Alexander The Great or Julius Caesar.

Wish I could say Patton, but that does not seem to fit in here. So , I would go with Confederate General Longstreet, I like his defensive nature during the war, up to the battle of Gettysburg.

successful does not always mean the best. I would for example say that Robert E Lee was a much better commander than US Grant. However Grant was more successful due largely to the fact he had men and equipment crawling out of his ears and ass. Rommel was also a better commander than Monty however Monty beat him because of his overwhelming advantage in almost every area.

success does not equal skill.

Of course, the great Robert E Lee did first turn down the offer of command of the Union forces.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Of course, the great Robert E Lee did first turn down the offer of command of the Union forces.

Thats because Lee felt he couldn't fight against his home state of Virginia.

The great man had honour! And who wouldn't be proud of Virginia. I still love it and I am not even an American. I am also a fan of Lee.




--------------------------------------

Give me liberty or give me death.

Originally Posted by Easy-8

successful does not always mean the best. I would for example say that Robert E Lee was a much better commander than US Grant. However Grant was more successful due largely to the fact he had men and equipment crawling out of his ears and ass. Rommel was also a better commander than Monty however Monty beat him because of his overwhelming advantage in almost every area.

success does not equal skill.

Its an interesting theory as there are many that think Robert E Lee and Rommel are among the most over rated of commanders and to a large degree their continued fame is based largely around the "romanticised post war images of these men rather than their performance on the field of battle.

As for myself I am undecided I have no doubt he was an honourable man and an excellent defensive commander but I have yet to be convinced he was all that good on attack (Gettysburg would be a prime example of a very flawed battle plan).

Alexander The Great, Julius Caesar, Grant, Robert Lee.
In that order.

Grant and Robert Lee were fine American Generals during the American Civil War, but one can't help but wonder how they would have got on else where in the world