I think that is Dwight D. Eisenhower because he made the right decisions when they had to be made, he trusted his subordinates to do their jobs which worked for the most part, he was usually able to control his sbuordinates, and he chose good subordinates. He organized and wa the commander of the invasions of north africa and normandy. he managed his resources well. he had good counter intelligence strategies. he was a major factor in the defeat of Germany in world war II which was by far the most important and influential war in history. tell me why i am wrong. who is the best general.
Best of all time is a tall order as the technology and training are all over the place. I thought Alexander did a pretty good job cleaning out the Persians, and whoever was in charge of the Ethiopians against the Italians did a pretty damn good job seeing as his troops had spears, arrows and a few ancient rifles up against armor, aircraft, mustard gas and artillery. Other possibilities Hannibal, Genghis Khan, Hans Guderian, Zhukov, etc. Really too hard to pick.
i don't think rommel was the best general. being a good tactician isn't all that counts in being a good general. eisenhower was not as good of a tacticain but he was better at organizing and designating his subordinates.
not even in your wildest dreams. ike is the best no one will ever top him. although he isn't the military leader that contributed most to germany's defeat. it was actually this one dude named hitler or something.
i'm not so sure because my dreams are pretty wild, just last night i dreamt i was commanding starship enterprise...and then i had to run to the bathroom at warp 8.8
Patton was a very good general but Eisenhower had to make decisions and deal with officers from other nations who disagreed with his strategy. Eisenhower faced more challenges and responded well to them.
I have to lean towards Ike, as he was the best all-around commander. Other [American] Generals like Patton and McArthur had their strong points, but both had a common minus; their egos. Rommell was a good tactician, but as previously posted, Patton kicked his butt good. McArthur would rate higher on my list, but he forgot one thing in Korea; his mission objective. His orders were to push the N. Koreans back on their own side of the fence, so to speak. But he decided that wasn't good enough. He had to drive them back so far North that China almost gave us a bigger war. And when Pres. Truman recalled him to Washington to call him on the carpet, his reply was something to the effect of "I don't have time to go to Washington, I've got a war to fight. Well Truman took care of that, and the rest is history. One General, not the best, but high on my list, is "Stormin' Norman" in Desert Storm. He performed his mission and that was it. Many DS Vets I talk to were gung-ho to keep going into Baghdad, but realized that "that was not our mission." Our mission was two-fold: To drive Saddam out of Kuwait, and cripple his forces so as to make him unable to wage war for a good period of time. He did both, and if they ever do a "Top 10 Generals" program, he should be on it.
Hmm. Too many to throw into the mix. Hattusilis, Rameses, Kurash, Hannobaal, Scipio, Alexander, Pericles, Attius, Belisarius, Charlemagne, Saladin, Temujin, William of Orange, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederich II, Napoleon, Lee, Grant and so on. The surface hasn't even been scratched on candidates. Rommel was very good but he petered out in the end. Patton was also very good but had serious flaws (his concept of logistics was not so strong). Bradley and Ike both lacked flair but they did their jobs about as well as could have been done. Ike's was particularly tough and he had difficulty balancing military and political requirements, which resulted in some battlefield neglect. He's a good choice though.
