English Generals

[Sardonic]

Using all of history as a pool......

Marlborough
Cromwell
Wellington


The only true genius is Marlborough, just look at his Rhine Campaign

Cromwell, like Shaka and Rommel, knew how to inspire men to win.

Wellington had a large reserve of common sense. He simply would NOT be bullied into doing stupid things.


Now this is all on the Strategic level. Tactical is different.

To claim that Wellington is better than Nappy.....your really just saying that he was not rash.

[ktotwf]

No, Wellington was not a better General than Napoleon.
 
Put Wellington in Napoleon's place...could Wellington have done the things that Napoleon did? I sincerely doubt it.
 
Could Napoleon have done the things Wellington did? He did a couple times.
 
Wellington is just overrated, and mostly because of Waterloo, which is itself ironically overrated.
 

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

Using all of history as a pool......

Marlborough
Cromwell
Wellington


The only true genius is Marlborough, just look at his Rhine Campaign

Cromwell, like Shaka and Rommel, knew how to inspire men to win.

Wellington had a large reserve of common sense. He simply would NOT be bullied into doing stupid things.


Now this is all on the Strategic level. Tactical is different.

To claim that Wellington is better than Nappy.....your really just saying that he was not rash.

Using all of history as a pool for British leaders and you only come up with three?
GB was made by navy not army. Their leadership on the ground is greatly overrated!
Try these names, Greene, Washington, RE Lee, Longstreet, Grant, Sherman, Pershing, Lem Sheperd, Roy Gieger, Patton, MacCarthur, Eisenhower. There are many other names I know I have missed and this is only the US army and Marine Corps. over a span of about 200 years.

Just so you know, Lem Sheperd was a marine vet of wwI and came up with how to combat load troop transports after the Guadal Cannal operation.
Roy Gieger is the man responsible for starting Marine corps aviation and is the only man ever to command air, marine and army units is a single battle.

And no I am not a a Marine

[Joisey]

Britain does NOT get to take credit for AMERICAN generalship, certainly not since the American Revolution and arguably even before that.  Don't they teach history in California anymore?

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

Using all of history as a pool......

Marlborough
Cromwell
Wellington


The only true genius is Marlborough, just look at his Rhine Campaign

Cromwell, like Shaka and Rommel, knew how to inspire men to win.

Wellington had a large reserve of common sense. He simply would NOT be bullied into doing stupid things.


Now this is all on the Strategic level. Tactical is different.

To claim that Wellington is better than Nappy.....your really just saying that he was not rash.

Using all of history as a pool for British leaders and you only come up with three?
GB was made by navy not army. Their leadership on the ground is greatly overrated!
Try these names, Greene, Washington, RE Lee, Longstreet, Grant, Sherman, Pershing, Lem Sheperd, Roy Gieger, Patton, MacCarthur, Eisenhower. There are many other names I know I have missed and this is only the US army and Marine Corps. over a span of about 200 years.

Just so you know, Lem Sheperd was a marine vet of wwI and came up with how to combat load troop transports after the Guadal Cannal operation.
Roy Gieger is the man responsible for starting Marine corps aviation and is the only man ever to command air, marine and army units is a single battle.

And no I am not a a Marine

First all of that is NOT, ENGLISH.

Second I am of the opinion that Leadership at sea, is more of an art form.
I am not willing to gainsay Nelson.

I was refering to English Generals on the ground.

But including English Kings if you wish.

[morvwilson]

I think maybe I confused you. I did not mean that Britian gets to claim credit for American leadership. I was merely pointing out that most of the British army leadership was merely adequate with a few exceptions. Sardonic was "Using all of history as a pool" and only came up with three names. I used a period of time of 200 years and came up with twelve names from just one country and could come up with many others.

So, no, the list was not english and was not meant to be. It was meant to reinforce my point that GB was made by thier navy not their army.
Anyone ever hear of a guy named Nelson?

BTW They don't teach much of anything in the public schools in CA anymore!

[morvwilson]

As to leadership at sea, it is as technical if not more so than leading on the ground. A warship is a fighting machine whether it is powered by oar, wind steam or turbine. Every captain not only has to know his own ship's capabilities and weaknesses he has to know his enemies ships just as well.
Look into the battle of Trafalgar. Instead of lining up the Ships of the Line next to the FR/SP fleet, Nelson broke the fleet up into three ship groups and sailed directly through the FR/SP line effectively crossing the "T" in several places at once. That was not art, that was thinking outside the box!

Also lets not forget one other thing.

"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics!" is the old addage. As I heard Colonel(ret) David Hackworth say it "Beans and bullets". It holds true at sea and land. Warships do not accomplish much staying in port. If I remember right, the British were resuppling their warships at sea even at Nelson's time. Even today, there are few Navies able to do this.

If we include English Kings that gives a few more good names to add:
Edward the Elder(see AngloSaxon Cronicles),
Henry II,
Henry V,

This seems like a short list for 1000 years of history.[&:]
Who am I missing?
Maybe Ashbery76 can help?

[ktotwf]

How about the Black Prince of Wales? Richard the Lionheart?

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
As to leadership at sea, it is as technical if not more so than leading on the ground. A warship is a fighting machine whether it is powered by oar, wind steam or turbine. Every captain not only has to know his own ship's capabilities and weaknesses he has to know his enemies ships just as well.
Look into the battle of Trafalgar. Instead of lining up the Ships of the Line next to the FR/SP fleet, Nelson broke the fleet up into three ship groups and sailed directly through the FR/SP line effectively crossing the "T" in several places at once. That was not art, that was thinking outside the box!

And this tactic was not even Nelson's but Adm. Richard "Black Dick" Howe's. Add such notables as Henry Morgan, Francis Drake, Sir Walter Raleigh and you can see the Royal Navy was not all Jelicoes.

On land you forgot Clive, Cornwallis (US went bad but Far East did not) and Tarleton (US went well, he was just ignored like Longstreet at Gettysburg).

And these are just examples from the early colonial era.

[morvwilson]

ktotwf, thanks for the Black Prince (Edward IV ?) I could not remember who was at Crecy.
But Richard the Lionheart? He was mostly a figment of his own imagination. When he took the thrown England stretched from the Scottish frontier to the Pyrennese mountains. When he came back from the Crusades, his kingdom was in a shambles. He did ok in the holy land but all in all he should have stayed home and kept us from having to deal with the french we have today!
 
Murat, thanks for cumming up with Clive, Corwallis and Tarleton, but again, these men were merely adequate for their time and defeat in the American Colonies, I beleive, pretty much ended thier carriers. But again, English leadership has been strongest at sea as your list shows five more names for the sea and only three for land. (BTW Jelicoe did a good job, Beaty was the problem. Could not get his signals straight. Check out Battle of Daugher(sp?) Bank)
 
So, out of 1000 years of history and only 11 names of note for land warfare?

[morvwilson]

BTW Murat brings up a good point that many I think loose track of. Most planning is done at the Major - Colonel (Leutennant Commander - Captain for Navy)grades with those plans being approved or disaproved by the commanding officers.

[Murat]

Well Howe was Nelson's commander during the American Revolution. Clive made his name before the American Revolution. Tarleton retired in a crappy mood for being ignored feeling that if he had been listened to England would have won and Cornwallis got promoted and, as I pointed out, strengthened the Empire in the Indian Ocean.

[morvwilson]

woulda, coulda, shoulda.
 
The English army seems to do just enough to get by, but their serious successes were at sea.
 
Thier navy is the way England was able to project power around the world. Thier army could never achieve that.

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
Roy Gieger is the man responsible for starting Marine corps aviation and is the only man ever to command air, marine and army units is a single battle.

Diga me hombre, does the above qualify someone to the best generals ever?[:-]

They seem to teach even less in CA than you imply. A littlepun intended. [:P]

[morvwilson]

Actually, yes it does. When in command of the Cactus Air Force in 8/42 on Guadal Canal some of his newer pilots told him that it was not possible to take off from the cratered runway (the Japanese were routinely shelling the airfield from the air and sea). Gieger had a dauntless loaded with a 500 lb bomb, got in the plane, took off and dropped the bomb on Japanese positions that were only a few miles away on the same island, (this was after the Navy had deserted the marines on the island) then landed the plane weaving in and out of the craters on the runway.  At the time he was around 50 years old.
 
They call that leadership by example! Try picking up a book called "Leatherneck Legends" by Dick Camp.
 
BTW If it wasn't for Arkansas, California would have the worst schools in the country![X(]
 
 

[Sardonic]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

ktotwf, thanks for the Black Prince (Edward IV ?) I could not remember who was at Crecy.
But Richard the Lionheart? He was mostly a figment of his own imagination. When he took the thrown England stretched from the Scottish frontier to the Pyrennese mountains. When he came back from the Crusades, his kingdom was in a shambles. He did ok in the holy land but all in all he should have stayed home and kept us from having to deal with the french we have today!

Murat, thanks for cumming up with Clive, Corwallis and Tarleton, but again, these men were merely adequate for their time and defeat in the American Colonies, I beleive, pretty much ended thier carriers. But again, English leadership has been strongest at sea as your list shows five more names for the sea and only three for land. (BTW Jelicoe did a good job, Beaty was the problem. Could not get his signals straight. Check out Battle of Daugher(sp?) Bank)

So, out of 1000 years of history and only 11 names of note for land warfare?

Well genius is where you find it.
And to be fair, it isnt a common trait.

Richard never acted like an English King. He acted like a FRENCH King.
But he had an ability to use a medieval army.

But being am Admiral is totally different. Its like being an artist. You either can do it, or you cant.
Britain is blessed with some of the best.

[Joisey]

Cornwallis oversaw the humuliating defeat of the British at Yorktown.  This effectively ended the war and lost the colonies for England.  Whatever the excuses that might be given for Cornwallis' defeat, defeats don't get you rated as one of history's great generals.  PERIOD.
 
Howe, the General, not the Admiral, was the idiot who managed to get defeated (strategically) by the colonials at Bunker Hill, which defeat he really had to work for, since the Colonials had stupidly invested a fortified hill on an isthmus of land, and could have easily been cut off and decimated by the British if they had just attacked Bunker Hill from the Landward side.  But, no, General Howe had his troops ferried by long boat to the end of the Isthmus, and then attacked the hill from the Seaward side, attaining a pyrrhic victory that allowed the bulk of the Colonials to get away and fight another day.
 
Howe's lasting contribution to military history was to create a dispute that will never be fully resolved between those who thought that he acted stupidly, and those apologists who theorize that he didn't want the war to end too quickly, since he belonged to the poltical party who was not then in power and didn't want to see his political adversaries credited with a swift military victory over the insurgency---kind of like the Democrats today who root for their own country to lose in Iraq just so they can see President Bush politically destroyed.

[Joisey]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

ktotwf, thanks for the Black Prince (Edward IV ?) I could not remember who was at Crecy.
But Richard the Lionheart? He was mostly a figment of his own imagination. When he took the thrown England stretched from the Scottish frontier to the Pyrennese mountains. When he came back from the Crusades, his kingdom was in a shambles. He did ok in the holy land but all in all he should have stayed home and kept us from having to deal with the french we have today!

Murat, thanks for cumming up with Clive, Corwallis and Tarleton, but again, these men were merely adequate for their time and defeat in the American Colonies, I beleive, pretty much ended thier carriers. But again, English leadership has been strongest at sea as your list shows five more names for the sea and only three for land. (BTW Jelicoe did a good job, Beaty was the problem. Could not get his signals straight. Check out Battle of Daugher(sp?) Bank)

So, out of 1000 years of history and only 11 names of note for land warfare?

Wasn't it Edward V who was at Crecy/Agincourt, whose victories were later celebrated by Shakespeare's work of the same name and the St. Crispins Day speech of the "Band of Brothers"?

While we're at it, wouldn't Edward Longshanks deserve to be billed as one of England's better generals, having had considerable success in France?

[morvwilson]

It was Henry V at Agincort. That was the one Shakespear did a play on. In that play Crecy is metioned. I know it was the "Black Prince of Wales" who dealt the defeat to the french and that the battle happened befor Agincort. I think it was Edward IV but am not sure.
 
As for Edward Longshanks, I could buy that addition.
 
That makes 12 names.

[denisonh]

Combat is funny thing, and evaluating leadership with respect to combat puts a premium on results.

Be in charge long enough and a general will experience setbacks, but the best generals will not lose thier commands in the process. I would say Wellington would rate as an effective general as any, given the results achieved with the forces given and the conditions he fought under. Not an overabundance of examples where numerically inferior forces defeated a numerically superior French Army, and he is associated with many of them.

His leadership style suited the British needs, as he was bold without being stupid, patient without being tentative, and determined to win. He was a micro manager, and the difficulties at Waterloo to a certain extent bear that out. He rarely fought a field battle in a location that he did not choose. He was great with a small disciplined Army, and most accurate modeling of his leadership will reflect that (limited span of control).

To write him off as something simply adequate is a bit of a mischaracterization of what he achieved. Let us remember that the British government's tendency to marginalize thier general's ability to operate was almost a bigger problem to overcome than the enemy itself at times!