Matrix Games Forums

What is your thoughts about the Generals during WWI? Who were the outstanding Generals? Who were complete failures? Any nation had commanders that were better than average? Or worse?

I want to know what you think of the Military Leaders during WWI. Do you have a favourite? If you do then why is he your favourite?

ORIGINAL: Orm

What is your thoughts about the Generals during WWI? Who were the outstanding Generals? Who were complete failures? Any nation had commanders that were better than average? Or worse?

I want to know what you think of the Military Leaders during WWI. Do you have a favourite? If you do then why is he your favourite?

warspite1

Interesting topic Ormster [:)]

Obvious failures of the highest order:

von Moltke
Conrad von Hotzendorf
French

Failure among the failures - Luigi Cadorna

4 Isonzo offensives: 250,000 casualties for a big fat zero gains
Highest point in military career: Caporetto, 275,000 surrendered to Central Powers

Unbeatable.

There were some surprisingly competent generals on the Russian side. Granted, Samsonov caused a disaster at Tannenberg, but Ruszky and Brussilov did excellent work, which contributed greatly to the failure of the Von Schliffen plan. When you consider the poor state of equipment and training in the Tsar's army, their achievements are impressive indeed.

On the British side, Allenby comes to mind as one of the better generals of history. He might eventually have gone all the way to Istanbul if Turkey hadn't sued for peace -- there wasn't much left to stop him after the Battle of Meggido and its aftermath.

Lions led by donkeys.
I still have this impression even when some contemporary historians want to discredit this.

The best in my view Allenby, Brusilov, Birdwood, Foch, Petain, Byng, Liman von Sanders and Pershing.

Probably the most important was Petain. His leadership was crucial in Verdun. And Verdun was one of the most important, like the first Marne, battles of WWI.

This is an extremely complex question. Due to the myth of lions led by donkeys that became fashionable during the sixties..or go back earlier to the great depression when the War became pointless to those who served when stuck queuing for soup. Add people like Lloyd George ripping apart the generals whilst distancing himself from any blame and totally discounting the actual situation at the time.

There are some Generals who did come out of the War with a good reputation..Currie...Fock...Monash..Plumer..Brusilov... Hindenburg and a fair few others. Then you had Haig who become the scapegoat fueled by Lloyd George waffle. Once you study Haig and WW1 and appreciate the actual difficulties and pressures during the War you start to see Haig was no worse than many others and infact alot better than some like Hamilton. The War was a long process of trail and error until all that was learned over the years came together for the famous last 100 days.

Haig got treated unfairly by history, as did Jellicoe (although the latter has been redeemed somewhat), when Beatty and French were the real failures.

Agreed. Jellicoe did what he had to do [&o]. It wasn't exciting, but it was effective. Beatty on the other hand.....[8|]

General Charles Emmanuel Marie Mangin "The Butcher"

Any French general that can piss off the Germans so much they destroy his statue during ww2, is A-OK in my book.

Not a General, but Lt. Col. Ernest Swinton of Britain. Spearheaded the invention of the tank. (Probably has to share the concept with Colonel Jean Baptiste Estienne of France, but Swinton was the one who ran with the idea).

General Oskar von Hutier of Germany. Stosstruppen tactics.

It wasn't what he did during the war it is what he did after in the French occupation of the Rhineland and it's only fitting that they melted his statue to make bullets.

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

General Charles Emmanuel Marie Mangin "The Butcher"

Any French general that can piss off the Germans so much they destroy his statue during ww2, is A-OK in my book.

I think John Pershing gets very little credit but he stood up for American troops and demanded he command them and not the French or British .

Arthur Currie. The assault on Vimy Ridge was an example of how a battle could be won given the tools at hand.
The cost was high by later standards but miniscule compared to what was acceptable in 1917.
He balked at being ordered into the Third Ypres offensive and told Haig to the thousand how many men it would cost his corps.
Forced against his will to continue he delivered the assigned objectives at the cost projected. He then told Haig to never
ask him to do anything like that again or he would resign.
His performance was exceptional in the Hundred Days offensive.

Here's an interesting article on WW1: 10 myths debunked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836

I have to admit, I've always thought of WW1 as the most dreary and pointless war ever. However, it seems like opinions may be changing somewhat on the topic.

Yeah and ignored all the advice from the Brits and French and then carried out the War like the French and Brits did near the start..ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK and the fighting spirit will win through, also the machine gun was over rated (He thought the Allies had become defeatist and where over thinking and exagerating it all). A huge number of Americans died and a fair few may well have survived if he had listened and not been so arrogant.

To Conquer Hell by E Lengel. The book is superb..it only has three stars as it seems Americans aren't happy on what he says about Pershing etc. He isn't in the same mold as Lions led by DOnkeys at all as he is actually in the new camp with regards to thoughts on WW1. Even the recent military historians will say the original tactical and operational was ill suited to the new weapons that where becoming available esp the MG and many many lives where thrown away in the first French attacks which showed elan isn't enough.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/To-Conquer-Hell-Battle-Meuse-Argonne/dp/0805089152/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1393067235&sr=8-2

ORIGINAL: rogo727

I think John Pershing gets very little credit but he stood up for American troops and demanded he command them and not the French or British .

So what do you guys think of General Lanrezac?

All I know is the Marines were Magnificent.

A low opinion. Though Joffre also had some say in the matter.

Liaison 1914: A Narrative of the Great Retreat by Edward Spears is a book a very highly recommend with regards to the start of the War and Lanzerac. Expensive but if you can get a good copy second hand i's well worth the top end of the price scale for military history book. I had no idea the book was out of rpint and the price was so high. I see certain books as investments these days:)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Liaison-1914-Narrative-Great-Retreat/dp/0304352284/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393073292&sr=1-1&keywords=liaison+edward

Edward Spears is also featured alot in interviews in the superb Great War series from the sixties.

ORIGINAL: Orm

So what do you guys think of General Lanrezac?

Your men fought very well indeed. Similar to the Canadians and Anzacs, strong brave lads.

I think you'd enjoy two books I have...

Through The Wheat: The U.S. Marines in World War I by Edwin Simmons

Towards the Flame by Hervey Allen (not marines but US soldiers)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Through-Wheat-U-S-Marines-World/dp/1591148316/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393072996&sr=1-1&keywords=through+the+wheat

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Toward-Flame-Memoir-World-War/dp/0803259476/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393073071&sr=1-1&keywords=towards+the+flame

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

All I know is the Marines were Magnificent.