English Generals

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: 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!

I know you are trying to defend Wellington, but it seems to me your defense merely exposes his short commings.

You began talking about his leadership style, bold etc. This is just good sense when you are outnumbered. Nothing outstanding there.

You correctly point out that he was a micromanager. This is a sign of a poor executive. The main job of an executive is to pick the right man for the job and them let him do it. A micromanager or someone who constantly shuffles his staff proves himself to be incapable of this function.

You say correctly that he was great with a small disciplined army. Why do you suppose that junior officers are put in charge of platoons, companies and batalions? Because it is easier than running a regiment or division.

So again, Wellington seems to be simply adequate for the job he had.

[ktotwf]

Napoleon was an enormous micromanager, didn't hurt him any.

[denisonh]

It is easy to judge after the fact, as they say: "hindsight is 20 20".

The man achieved excellent results. That is far more important. You can talk about being good, but being good is another story. Denigrating a man's achievements after the fact is simply too easy.

Qualifying his success is way to easy given hindsight.

Let's talk about good sense.

You began talking about his leadership style, bold etc. This is just good sense when you are outnumbered. Nothing outstanding there.

How many generals did not show "good sense" when outnumbered? More than did I can tell you that. That is an easy judgement to make as an armchair general.


As for micromanagers, I wil not disagree, as the impetus for micromamagers to continue is achieving success. Wellington was successful as a micromanager with a small army, and more than likely would have failed with a larger force. But do not make the mistake of thinking that it was not "adequate to the task". HE ACHIEVED THE DESIRED RESULTS. That goes farther than any kind of theoretical discussion after the fact.

History is rife with examples of "adequate generals", but it is less than appropriate to ascribe that decsription to one who achieved superoir results consistently over a time period that exceeded that of WWII.

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

ORIGINAL: 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!

I know you are trying to defend Wellington, but it seems to me your defense merely exposes his short commings.

You began talking about his leadership style, bold etc. This is just good sense when you are outnumbered. Nothing outstanding there.

You correctly point out that he was a micromanager. This is a sign of a poor executive. The main job of an executive is to pick the right man for the job and them let him do it. A micromanager or someone who constantly shuffles his staff proves himself to be incapable of this function.

You say correctly that he was great with a small disciplined army. Why do you suppose that junior officers are put in charge of platoons, companies and batalions? Because it is easier than running a regiment or division.

So again, Wellington seems to be simply adequate for the job he had.

[ktotwf]

I don't think anyone is saying Wellington WAS NOT a good general. I just think the truth is he was overrated, and nothing when compared with Napoleon.

[denisonh]

Napoleon had some serious situational advantages with respects to politics. Being the head of state and Commander in chief makes decision making, and hence risk taking, a whole lot easier.

Wellington did not have that advantage.

Evaluate performance given the circumstances of command. I would say Wellington could not do what Napoleon did any more than Napoleon could do what Wellington did. Each situation called for a different approach.

No question that each was successful on the battlefield.

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

I don't think anyone is saying Wellington WAS NOT a good general. I just think the truth is he was overrated, and nothing when compared with Napoleon.

[morvwilson]

The thing to remember about the armies of Europe of this time is that commissions were bought and paid for with family money and social position. Promotion did not nomrally happen due to superior ability.
 
What made the french army so much better than the rest was that they promoted men based on ability and not based on family economic and social status. That to me is what made warfare in this time frame so interesting. Leadership by devine right vs leadership by ability.
 
The other thread I was talking about, which appears to have been lost by denisonh, is that I think British generalship throughout history has been overrated. From Wellington, Beresford and Moore to Monty and Alexander. Despite excellent quality troops, the British high command has never understood how to fight a land war on a contenantal scale. 
 
From the time of Henry Tudor VIII until present Nappy is the only French leader to actually win some wars. That definitely in my mind makes him the best french leader in a long time and is what makes him interesting to me.

[qgaliana]

Cast my vote for Edward the Black Prince as well, by reputation.
 
O'Connor as the could've been if he hadn't been captured in North Africa.

[malcolm_mccallum]

Sir Sydney Smith.

If we're using all of history then I do think Montgomery gets consideration. Had Market Garden worked (and it might have) he'd have been a hero for the ages.

[ASHBERY76]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
Try these names, Greene, Washington, RE Lee, Longstreet, Grant, Sherman, Pershing, Lem Sheperd, Roy Gieger, Patton, MacCarthur, Eisenhower.

The majority of that list are bullies who really couldn't lose a war.Washington is the only one who merits consideration to history's greats,he dealt with adversity and won,the rest are meh.

[Murat]

Meh? Greene was amazing. Corwallis would not have even been at Yorktown if it wasn't for Greene. Little battle called Cowpens was his too. Washington you admitted. Lee had 1 bad battle in his career, and yes I am including Mexico. Longstreet is iffy (and I really like Longstreet). He served under Lee who took the laurels for the ANV and Longstreet's contribution is hard to separate from Lee's. His only independent field command was iffy and he seemed to be affected by the same bug that got Jackson during Seven Days (who, oddly, is not listed and also only had 1 bad battle in the War of Northern Aggression). Grant was excellent in the west, adequate in the East - hard to give him a lot of credit for basically deciding on a war of attrition that required him to only keep moving south and allow to pick the battlefields. But I still think outside of the US there were none better at the time. Sherman basically has the same situation as Grant - war of attrition, some excellent battles, but no real innovation (OK I do not really like Sherman, he burned too much including areas with no combatants, including the home of his childrens' nanny, which was demonic behavior in a time before the total warfare concept, and he followed that up with indian massacres). Pershing was mediocre, Pancho Villa and the Kaiser were really not good opponents so maybe he never really got a chance to shine. Shepherd got vaulted for 1 good idea? Not really meritorious. Gieger on the other hand was very innovative and is underappreciated. Admittedly small command but excellent leadership in small command allowed us the ranger/special forces concept of warfare which has proven highly effective, especially for the US. Patton was brilliantly reckless. His lucky star prevented him from being majorly embarrassed but the posibility was always there as he overran his supply lines constantly yet managed to get the wins. MacArthur did not deserve his WWII CMOH. Yet he really did great things after 1942 and he had the right plan in Korea but let his ego get in the way and usurped chain of command. Eisenhower got a hard knock lesson from Rommel but learned quickly and well. The Normandy Invasion was a master stroke and well executed in spite of numerous setbacks from the plan. I like Ike, he kept us moving in North Africa and France. Candidly, since our creation I think only Germany has been blessed with a greater abundance of brilliant leadership both on land and at sea.

[morvwilson]

Being from South Carolina I can see how you would not have much love for Sherman. But admittedly, when I made the first list of 12 american leaders it was only a few names off the top of my head. There are many others which could be named I am sure. Like Nathan Bedford Forest and Stuart.

As for Lem Sheperd, the method of loading transports enabled all the following amphibeous operations later in the war to succeed including Normandy. Lem later became Commandant of the Marine Corps btw.

As for combat leadership, I guess the biggest blessing or curse comes from who you have to face!

As for German leadership, on land I agree with you but who were you thinking of at sea? Because they seem to have had a major problem keeping their comunications secure in both world wars and the high command never caught on.

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

Sir Sydney Smith.

If we're using all of history then I do think Montgomery gets consideration. Had Market Garden worked (and it might have) he'd have been a hero for the ages.

Personally I considered Monty and regected the idea. He would only attack if he had 3:1 odds in his favor as his 8th army did in africa. That does not take much talent to win with those odds. With Market garden, his own intel guys were telling him there was a panzer unit in the area and he ignored them. Then he dropped the British paras ten miles from the bridge they were supposed to capture.

Sorry, I have to stay with Monty being overrated.

Don't recall Sydney Smith can you inform me?

[Norden_slith]

Good grief what a jumble-tumble "discussion". I read most of it, couldn't make neither heads nor tails of it, as you are mixing all kinds of military (strategic, tactical, administrative, logistics) virtues together and then try to compare and finally have a lot of nonsense, like no generals outside the US in the 1860' worth mentioning, yeah right.

The very greatest generals usually come with an exceptional army as well, i.e. the Romans, the Swedes, the Prussians, the French and so on...

So here is my list, without any regard to what virtues are asked for. For most of history, generals needed to be experts in many areas, usually they were emperor/king, organizers and politicians besides beeing generals. Napoleon probably beeing the last (succesfull) of this breed.

My personal and totally subjective list:

WW2-era:
Guderian,
Manstein,
these guys defined Blitzkrieg(although the idea is british) and mobile warfare, the rest are copycats, usually with total air superiority and odds of better than 3 to 1 on the ground... [;)]


WW1-era:
no one really, honorable mention to the duo " Hindenburg and Ludendorff" in their early years.

1820 to 1900:
Moltke the elder
R.E.Lee
Shaka

Napoleonic era:
Napoleon, hey, the man has his own era

Era of enlightement:
Frederik the great
Marlborough, the best damn english general ever
Karl XII

30 years war:
Carl Gustav, great reformer and organizer

Medieval and Renaissance:
Jan Zizka,
Genghis Khan,
Charlamagne,
Belisarius,

Ancient:
Trajan,
Marius,
Hannibal Barca,
Alexander the great,


There are many others worth mentioning, no doubt. What would Napoleon be without Berthier, for instance?
And lots and lots of leaders, doing fantastic job without changing the course of history (Lettow-Vorbeck). Hell, the longer I dwell on this, the more futile it becomes. So I'm back where I started in this post, we need some clear definitions to be able to compare this people and probably also by era.

Norden

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

ORIGINAL: 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!

I know you are trying to defend Wellington, but it seems to me your defense merely exposes his short commings.

You began talking about his leadership style, bold etc. This is just good sense when you are outnumbered. Nothing outstanding there.

You correctly point out that he was a micromanager. This is a sign of a poor executive. The main job of an executive is to pick the right man for the job and them let him do it. A micromanager or someone who constantly shuffles his staff proves himself to be incapable of this function.

You say correctly that he was great with a small disciplined army. Why do you suppose that junior officers are put in charge of platoons, companies and batalions? Because it is easier than running a regiment or division.

So again, Wellington seems to be simply adequate for the job he had.

I disagree with you on several points.

Firstly, he rallied a nation (or their army) and gave them victories. Consistently. He did this with poor allies (sorry), with poor governmental support, generally bad supply, in bad terrain, and often outnumbered. Doesn't sound like "mediocre" to me.

Secondly, I disagree the "good sense when outnumbered" stuff. You work with the hand your dealt. To not lose an army (John Moore) that is outnumbered is GOOD. To win with them and win consistently is better than good.

Thirdly, micromanagement is a modern term and applied in a modern business sense, you are correct. The goal is the get good people under you to do the job. That is not always the case though, and definitely not NECESSARILY true for combat. As another poster stated, Napoleon was an EXTREME micromanager. If this is the sole or main consideration, then he is a bad general too... So, if Welly didn't have good Generals under him and had to deal with what he had to deal with, then this makes him BETTER not worse. BTW: he did have good generals under him. He put together a good Brit fighting force, despite the fact that people could buy an officership.

Thus, I disagree with your assessment that he is "adequate". Adequates don't win EVERY BATTLE THAT THEY FIGHT. Period. PERSONAL OPINION TIME: Louis Frederick, Mack, Bernadotte, any Spanish leader of the time would be "adequate" or worse. Wellington does NOT fall in that category.

As a side note, hi, I'm Jason. I'm a Yank living in the UK and my favorite general of the Napoleonic period is ... (putting flame retardant suit on) ... Suvarov followed by Kutusov. Fire away! Kutusov is a bit "above average", but Wellington is a much better commander.

Jason

[Joisey]

I would add Scipio to the Ancients era.

[morvwilson]

As Norden said a lot of names pop up but few land leaders seem to be English.

[anarchyintheuk]

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

[morvwilson]

Check this out, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/john_Churchill,_1st_duke_of_Marlborough
 
According to this the 1st Duke of Marlborough (John Churchill direct ancestor of Winston Churchill) started his carreer as a Marine officer in Admiral's regiment during the Anglo-Dutch wars in the 1670's.
 
I like Marlborough too but does this mean that the Navy via The Marines can claim the 1st Duke of Marlborough?

[Paper Tiger]

Wellington, retired undefeated, even his campaigns in reverse were emphatic victories.
 
But one or two points on leaders.
Julius Ceaser
Attilla the Hun
Zhukov the man who stopped the third reich, great leader.
 
And if you want a British leader Leigh Mallory, and just because he fought in Asia don't forget General Slim.
Then again don't forget the far east many Chinese generals could be included even The emperor Chin, or Mao Tse Tung, or indeed Tokugawa Ieyasu.
 
Oh and how do you forget George Washington?[8|]
 

[Norden_slith]

ORIGINAL: Paper Tiger

Wellington, retired undefeated, even his campaigns in reverse were emphatic victories.

But one or two points on leaders.
Julius Ceaser
Attilla the Hun
Zhukov the man who stopped the third reich, great leader.

And if you want a British leader Leigh Mallory, and just because he fought in Asia don't forget General Slim.
Then again don't forget the far east many Chinese generals could be included even The emperor Chin, or Mao Tse Tung, or indeed Tokugawa Ieyasu.

Oh and how do you forget George Washington?[8|]

I thought of these three too, of course. Ceasar and Attila both blessed with fantastic armies as well. Zhukov even did without this superior army, but on the other hand this man had such a disregard for his soldiers...


Norden