English Generals

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Shaun Wallace

Hmm,

Some great points guys Good argument. Great Britain had some great leaders (politicians/kings as well as generals) Bear in mind that we are NOT a large country and have very few natural resources. Looking at the Brit empire and the huge supply and logistic issues fighting almost anywhere and the poor transport at that time. For a very small nation I think there is a significant world influence, with no shortage of leaders in many fields

Wonder why this discussion is being carried on in English and not Russian, Italian, German, French, Spanish etc etc, (mind u that could be changing in the US, if recent visits are anything to go by, Spanish that is lol) rather than English .....

Sulla

Now, now Sulla, don't go into the language thing. [:-] We must be pc here![8|]

As to English, I have a brother in law from Sommerset, I am having a hell of a time teaching him how to speak in an understandable way! (center reservation, no thats a left turn lane! spanner, No thats a crescent wrench!) I guess he speaks the Queens English while we speak the Kings!

Mike

[Shaun Wallace]

As to English, I have a brother in law from Sommerset, I am having a hell of a time teaching him how to speak in an understandable way! (center reservation, no thats a left turn lane! spanner, No thats a crescent wrench!) I guess he speaks the Queens English while we speak the Kings!

 
I have releations is Scotland and Newcastle and I am from the South, man do I have problems with their accents. Geordie accent is almost impossible to understand. I find most US accents pretty easy to follow. There are however SO many words common to both that have major differing meanings. Fag, Boot, Pants, gearbox, Allen key etc etc etc ....
 
Sulla

[morvwilson]

Two peoples seperated by a common language!
 
Being from the San Francisco Bay area, I definitely would not recommend that you try to "smoke a fag" here! (some of them might enjoy it too much!)[;)]

[Shaun Wallace]

Two peoples seperated by a common language!

Being from the San Francisco Bay area, I definitely would not recommend that you try to "smoke a fag" here! (some of them might enjoy it too much!)

 
That is so true mate, I have actually forgotten myself when in New York and said "just going out for a fag" took some living down ..... Also pronounciation is so funny Aluminium US version - Allooominum lmao... I have people who crack up when they here me says some common US words... Seperated by a common language is right lol.
 
Hey, don't forget after the War of Independence and the help the French gave you, who did you side with ?
 
Sulla

[morvwilson]

The both of you need help as I remember!

Sort of like calling your Bigger, younger brother to help with the neighbor hood bullies!

Mike

[morvwilson]

BTW, with the Royal family over there having soooo much money for so long, couldn't they afford some more variety in their names?(George, Edward, Charles, Henry?)

[morvwilson]

Hey, Iron Duke, just thinking about your notion that fixing an enemy with one force while another outflanks. I am not sure this is Napoleonic. Didn't the Prusians do this to the Austrians sometime in the 1760's?(Befor Nappy)

[IandMe]

I am a bit puzzled by the continental scale comment.

Name three wars the British lost on a "continental" scale?

Now name three they won.

I can think of several of the latter and as for the American revolution they lost in one theater but won in the expanded theaters of war after several powers joined in on the American side.

Also using that war as an example the US won because she managed to gain allies among the powers of Europe while Britian pretty much had to go it alone.

As for the original question,

I always thought Harold was under-rated.Sure he lost England to the Normans.He had just crushed one invasion,marched back across the country to confront another,and had nearly beaten that one if it had not been for the lack of discipline in the Fyrd rushing out of their positions.

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

Ursa, Ursa, Ursa... What are they teaching you in Hungary! John Wayne won WWII on his own! None of those other guys had anything to do with it![:D]

Alright. Forgot about the Duke.

[morvwilson]

error here, sorry!

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: IandMe

I am a bit puzzled by the continental scale comment.

Name three wars the British lost on a "continental" scale?

Now name three they won.

I can think of several of the latter and as for the American revolution they lost in one theater but won in the expanded theaters of war after several powers joined in on the American side.

Also using that war as an example the US won because she managed to gain allies among the powers of Europe while Britian pretty much had to go it alone.

As for the original question,

I always thought Harold was under-rated.Sure he lost England to the Normans.He had just crushed one invasion,marched back across the country to confront another,and had nearly beaten that one if it had not been for the lack of discipline in the Fyrd rushing out of their positions.

Maybe we could substitute "mostly land war" for continental scale, if you prefer. Also, I think that for the purposes of fair comparison the armies should be at least close tech. wise. (for instance, I would not use the GB/Zulu war as an example) As for wars that England lost, my first premise was that England was in the war on thier own.

The American Revolution fits that bill. (But you are right, the American colonies would never have succeeded without French help. This assistance was not given out of the kindness of the french heart, they simply wanted to hurt England.)

I suppose Harald's loss to the Norman's also fits the mold of a mostly land war in which England was alone and lost but this was before they had developed a navy.

As for victories on land, alone against a technological equal, Agincourt, Crecy and Poitiers. But those could hardly be considered recent. Something in the last three to four hundred years, thats a little harder for me to come up with. GB won in both world wars, the Crimea and the Napoleonic wars and, of course, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough had victories. But in all of these cases England was not alone in the land part of the war.

[morvwilson]

Iron Duke, I did a little more checking on pinning an enemy with part of your force while another part outflanks. I deffinitely would not call this Napoleonic. Julius Ceasar pulled this maneuver on Pompey. Hannibal did it to the Romans at Canea. And I think Alexander the Great used a version of this maneuver against the Greeks.
 
Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe this type of maneuver is still in use today by the infantry. The American army calls it fire and maneuver.

[IandMe]

[quoteI suppose Harald's loss to the Norman's also fits the mold of a mostly land war in which England was alone and lost but this was before they had developed a navy. ][/quote]

Was it?Harold had ships patrolling the shores for a long time before the Normans hit,unforunately for him, most had returned to port because of wear and tear when the Norman invasion came.

It was probabley best for all of us civilized English speaking folks that he lost.

Almost..just as "Author" before him did he save the kingdom from foreign invasion.Luckily for Western Civilization both failed.

Just imagine a non-Saxon or Norman England

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

ORIGINAL: IandMe

I am a bit puzzled by the continental scale comment.

Name three wars the British lost on a "continental" scale?

Now name three they won.

I can think of several of the latter and as for the American revolution they lost in one theater but won in the expanded theaters of war after several powers joined in on the American side.

Also using that war as an example the US won because she managed to gain allies among the powers of Europe while Britian pretty much had to go it alone.

As for the original question,

I always thought Harold was under-rated.Sure he lost England to the Normans.He had just crushed one invasion,marched back across the country to confront another,and had nearly beaten that one if it had not been for the lack of discipline in the Fyrd rushing out of their positions.

Maybe we could substitute "mostly land war" for continental scale, if you prefer. Also, I think that for the purposes of fair comparison the armies should be at least close tech. wise. (for instance, I would not use the GB/Zulu war as an example) As for wars that England lost, my first premise was that England was in the war on thier own.

The American Revolution fits that bill. (But you are right, the American colonies would never have succeeded without French help. This assistance was not given out of the kindness of the french heart, they simply wanted to hurt England.)

I suppose Harald's loss to the Norman's also fits the mold of a mostly land war in which England was alone and lost but this was before they had developed a navy.

As for victories on land, alone against a technological equal, Agincourt, Crecy and Poitiers. But those could hardly be considered recent. Something in the last three to four hundred years, thats a little harder for me to come up with. GB won in both world wars, the Crimea and the Napoleonic wars and, of course, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough had victories. But in all of these cases England was not alone in the land part of the war.

Yes, the whole "war on a continental scale" thing depends so much on the exact definition and I suspect there would be as many definitions as people trying to provide one. The point of my original post was that Britiain alone (without any allies at all) have never fought a "war on a continental scale" so saying that thev'e never won one ...

Incidently, Barbarossa was merely an example. I never meant that it was the entire list.

As for modern (post 1945) British victories on land - Falklands War and Dhofar to name but two.

Even in the Falklands War the British had allies to help with the logisitcs. You know it may be hard to find any war where one side didn't have some kind of support from an ally. Dhofar was an interesting campaign (if little known) as was the Malayan Emergency, the Mau Mau uprising, Muscat and Oman 58-59, Brunei and Borneo 62-66.

All these were small scale conflicts but no less important for that. Most of the stuff that the British Army has been involved in since 1945 has been either in conjunction with allies or retreat from empire. The latter was usually marked by some form of conflict not so much against the British but rival factions vying to fill the void with the British Army in the middle. Interesting that at the height of the problems in Sierra Leone there was a significant faction wishing that the British would reestablish colonial rule in that unhappy country. A terribly non-PC idea. The very thought ...

Best wishes,

[morvwilson]

I don't think the Fauklands would fit for a mostly land war. That was an amphibeous operation.
 
Reestablishing colonial rule!? Reestablishing the British Empire!? The very idea! Shocking! Horrifying! Barbaric! All of the areas where the British left are doing soooooo much better now![8|] Please chant the news media template with me now and you will be redeemed![&o] "Western civilization - Bad! Western civilization - Evil!  EEEEVVVVILLLLL! (picture mermaid man here from spongebob squarepants)"[:D]

[hueglin]

The British won the French and Indian Wars (a part of the 7 Years War), fighting an army of equal technology (the French). They were able to gain control of almost all of eastern North America.

Both sides had Indian allies and the conflict covered an area the size of western Europe.

Interestingly enough it was the taxes imposed on the Colonies to pay for the cost of "defending" them from the French and their Indian allies that partially led to the American Revolution.

[shunwick]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

I don't think the Fauklands would fit for a mostly land war. That was an amphibeous operation.

What have you got against amphibious operations? Even amphibious operations are mostly land war. In the case of the Falklands War it was about a 50-50 split between naval operations and land forces. But the Royal Navy ships could only lose the war and only the land forces could win it. That just about tips the balance for me.

Best wishes,

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: shunwick

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

I don't think the Fauklands would fit for a mostly land war. That was an amphibeous operation.

What have you got against amphibious operations? Even amphibious operations are mostly land war. In the case of the Falklands War it was about a 50-50 split between naval operations and land forces. But the Royal Navy ships could only lose the war and only the land forces could win it. That just about tips the balance for me.

Best wishes,

I don't have anything against amphib. ops. I just think that they are an expression of naval power. This is how the navy can influence land warfare. GB is one of the few countries that has this capability. As I think we have agreed, GB's basis for projecting power has been navy where Russia's has been army. Turn the tables, how many successful amphib operations has russia done? They are good at river crossings, but oceans? I can't think of any they crossed to launch amphib ops.

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: hueglin

The British won the French and Indian Wars (a part of the 7 Years War), fighting an army of equal technology (the French). They were able to gain control of almost all of eastern North America.

Both sides had Indian allies and the conflict covered an area the size of western Europe.

Interestingly enough it was the taxes imposed on the Colonies to pay for the cost of "defending" them from the French and their Indian allies that partially led to the American Revolution.

Good point!

No taxation without representation!

Another interesting thing I heard was that the representatives sent to England to settle the issue (prior to the revolution) were instructed not to accept any deal for representation in the parliment.

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

Hey, Iron Duke, just thinking about your notion that fixing an enemy with one force while another outflanks. I am not sure this is Napoleonic. Didn't the Prusians do this to the Austrians sometime in the 1760's?(Befor Nappy)

I may have been unclear. I'm not saying Nappy invented it, merely that he frequently practised it. Lee was another who deserves the term Napoleonite because he came after Nappy and favoured this sort of bold plan.

Regards,
IronDuke