Matrix Games Forums

Maybe Nappy was being "Romantic"? He was french after all!(yes I am a smart a55)[:)]

P.S. Feel free to Punnish me in return!

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

Maybe Nappy was being "Romantic"? He was french after all!(yes I am a smart a55)[:)]

P.S. Feel free to Punnish me in return!

Actually, one might argue that Napoleon was not French at all, but rather a rather "coarse" Corsican. Apparently he spoke French with quite a thick accent.

I think this whole topic needs to be looked at from a different perspective:

As far as a consistent and long-term military record (land and sea) England's record is second to none. However this record is not reliant on any individuals - it is reliant on the inate things that make the English English - 1)the well structured class system and 2) The grit, training and determination of an English soldier/sailor faced by insurmountable odds.

On both sea and land the English usually seem to be outnumbered, have inferior equipment and have no real charismatic leadership - but still seem to average a very high win rate over a long period of time (1,000 years).

I will be contentious and say that England has not really needed outstanding leaders in its history - as long as the guy is vaguely competent, the English culture/psyche does the rest. Other nationalities, I believe, have more of a need for charismatic leadership of their military forces and therefore this plays a bigger part in the battle outcomes and therefore these individuals are idolized in the history books more - hence the quick list of US generals.

Sure, there are famous English leaders/generals, but I feel they are more famous for the strategic outcome of the battle/conflict, rather than for their own individual skills & talents. This is more of a discussion about military cultures rather than individuals. The English tend to incompetently blunder their way into an underdog position and then against all odds fight their way out - the American military culture tends to amass superior fire power and create herioc leadership figures as a rally point.

This is why if you were to ask and average brit and american to name their famous generals (or admirals) from any period of history you would get about 3 on the English side if you were lucky and at least 8-10 on the US side. No reflection on the skill pool in each country - just a reflection of the different military/national cultures.

Cheers
James

Well put!
 
A strong people do not need strong leaders!

Hey Guys, sorry if I open a can of worms here but is the... [:D]

Topic about English Generals .. ie Generals Born in England that commanded UK, Commonwealth and Dominion troops?

Or...

UK Generals that commanded UK troops, Commonwealth and Dominion troops?

or...


English Generals that commanded English troops before the union of the crowns?

Sorry, I'll get my coat [8|]

Warning this is a light hearted poke at 'Johnny Foreigner' who thinks England is the UK. [:D]

Our History is very complicated and gives me a headache at times [;)]

Edit added Commonwealth and Dominions

Cheers

Jev

Garnet Woolsey , doesn't he get a mention ? Napier too { william and charles} Lord Roberts of Khandahar

A lot of very able colonial war leaders balanced about 50 - 50 with abysmall colonial war leaders .

{We didn't abolish the purchase your rank system until the 1870's}



As for the Montgomery debate.. a teacher of mine who was a colonel on Monty's staff once told a Leadership story.
He said Rommel was a 'Chessplayer who could only move when he was absolubtely certain that everything was ready and had studied all the options , while his own boss, Montgomery, would seize any opportunity to exploit an enemy , would attack a a moments notice and cause confusion.

This from a member of his own staff !!

What it does show is Monty had a very very good propaganda and press corps

The thread has mutated far beyond what I intended.

I wanted to talk about at MOST, Commonwealth Commanders.

Because England has the most interesting history of losing at the start, and winning at the end.

So from Arthur to today was game.

American Generals are immpossible to discuss because there are so many boosters.

I notice none of you mentioned Yamashita for example.

Just as well, he isnt an ENGLISH General.

How about Elphinstone or Lucan?

Is there an English version of Custer?

Is Flashman right? The entire officer corps can stay home and the army will muddle on just as well?

Because England has the most interesting history of losing at the start, and winning at the end.

Its me again...[;)]

Before the union of the crowns Its English Generals and the English Army.

But after the Union it's the British Army with British Generals, be they Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish or English.

Later on we expand into the armies of the Commonwealth and Dominions commanded by Austrialian, Canadian and New Zealanders etc.

I think, though cannot be certain that the inherent racisim in the system precluded Indians etc from attaining officer rank.

Its important to realise that we are a collection of Nations that make up a whole.


Cheers

Jev

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

Is there an English version of Custer?

Splitting your force and having part of it annihilated = Chelmsford
Mutilation post-combat = Pulleine

I'd have to add Boadicea (Boudica) - she may have lost in the end but she did it in a stylishly sexy, naked breasted, Braveheart type of way![X(]

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

The thread has mutated far beyond what I intended.

I wanted to talk about at MOST, Commonwealth Commanders.

Because England has the most interesting history of losing at the start, and winning at the end.

So from Arthur to today was game.

American Generals are immpossible to discuss because there are so many boosters.

I notice none of you mentioned Yamashita for example.

Just as well, he isnt an ENGLISH General.

How about Elphinstone or Lucan?

Is there an English version of Custer?

Is Flashman right? The entire officer corps can stay home and the army will muddle on just as well?

Kinda like herding cats huh?[8D]

You have a whole thread on English Generals without mentioning Wolfe!

OK it's hard to evaluate his strategic sense, but he was an excellent tactitian, and a superb leader. Who know how things could have turned out if he hadn't died at age 32.

And I think people on this thread aren't giving Clive his due either.

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

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

Marlborough
Cromwell
Wellington

Some new names I believe, besides those above:

General Sir Richard O'Connor was certainly good, I think he would have equaled Rommel had fate been kinder.

General Sir Henry Rawlinson I thought was a very good modern general during the Great War.

Richard the Lionhearted, very formidable general of the Crusades. And very much a fighting general.

The best team of English generals of all time: Arthur and Merlin [;)]

ORIGINAL: Big B

The best team of English generals of all time: Arthur and Merlin [;)]

BlackAdder and Baldrick.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

BlackAdder and Baldrick.

"He certainly is a spiffing bloke"

Someone needs to make a poll. 

Best Brit general? 

I would've voted Marlborough on the first 3 choices of the original poster.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

My two cents. Slim was one of the best commanders of WW2.

One of the few who deserves the epithet 'great'.

Wellington, hope I spelled it right!

Montgomery was a twit!!![:D]

Yes I agree with the above. My list in order would be 1 Marlborough 2 Wellington 3 Slim.

I would like to place Montrose highly but like Cromwell he was never tested against a first class continental army.

Montgomery has always been overrated but his best work may well have been Normandy despite the criticism.

I am hardly a Monty booster, but....he never lost a battle.
 
Pesonally I favor the Auk.