Moderator: maddog986
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
I didn't realise there was such a rule when discussing the Great Captains of History.
"Left" is also relative, is it not?
I always have fun when discussing military history.
ORIGINAL: Sarge
ORIGINAL: IronDuke
I didn't realise there was such a rule when discussing the Great Captains of History.
"Left" is also relative, is it not?
I always have fun when discussing military history.
Good,
British military stands on it own merits, there is no need to validate by criticizing American history.
BTW: IVORY not pearl
only a cheap New Orleans pimp would caring pearl handle revolvers
Thanks for straightening out my "Edwards" and for proving my point. [:)]England has been a sea power from around the rennaisance period on. England controled the sea by controling certain points that allowed them to control the trade routes during time of war. From England, they can control shipping in and out of the North sea, From Gibralter and at one time the Suez Canal, the Med. etc. All the army had to do was to hold the bases for the navy. This is why the army never really learned how to fight a war on a contental scale. They did not have to. When things turned bad, the navy would bail them out. Carunna in 1807, Galipoli during WWI, Dunkirk, Crete and Narvik during WWII. This is the basis for my point that English generals tended to be overrated. They tended to be more concerned about not loosing rather than winning. (Same problem Grant had with his staff once he moved east to face Lee during the American Civil War)ORIGINAL: IronDuke
One last thing, Edward IV was not the Black Prince. The Black Prince was the son of Edward III. His great vctory was at Poitiers not Crecy, Crecy was Edward III's victory. The Black Prince never became King as he died a year or two before his Father (Edward III) did.
Edward IV was a General during England's civil war of the 16th century, popularly titled the War of the Roses. He ruled for a number of years. His son is generally recognised as Edward V, but never took power. He was a minor when Edward IV died and he disappeared (along with his brother), the belief being they were murdered by Edward IV's brother (Richard III) who took the throne after Edward IV.
regards,
IronDuke
Now to the american generals.ORIGINAL: IronDuke
A sense of perspective and reality on the American names? [;)]
From the american point of view, many of the names so far listed strike me as strange.
Pershing? Arrived in France and promptly set about making the same mistakes everyone else had made, refusing to believe his allies (who had moved on theior techniques) had anything to teach him.
Patton? A man who was dynamite with an open road and a map in his hand, but who was somewhat less dangerous when asked to fight. His drive on the Bulge was not that impressive given it took him five days, he failed to really concentrate and his push was through a collection of Volks outfits if memory serves. He then arrives at Bastogne and has to fight for a further fortnight to clear the area. His campaign in Lorraine is a poor one, his raid on Hammelburg borderline criminal. Too many have been seduced by the pearl handled pistols and the soundbites. He was a Divisional or Corp Commander promoted one step too far.
Many of the American names were also subordinates. Longstreet and Jackson were at the sort of level that O'Connor or Dempsey were for the British and I think a lack of familiarity with that level of British command may be costing the British some names.
Of American Land Commanders, only Lee springs to mind as an operational Napoleonite, but a man who ultimately blundered. Grant reminds me of Montgomery in that he understood his limitations, those of his men, and knew what he had to do to win. That in many ways is the key question. Napoleon ultimately lost and by 1809-10 was perhaps largely shot (see his performances at Waterloo and Borodino). Grant ultimately won. Great Generals do not necessarily have to win, but one might argue that a Great Commander takes what he has, what he thinks he can do, and applies it to best effect. In which case, Monty and Grant have few peers.
I'm not familiar with the revolution (or First Civil War, however you want to phrase it [;)]) but my British list would entail the undefeated Wellington, who beat a succession of French Marshals before facing the great one himself and prevailing. I'd include Montgomery, because for all his personal faults, his strategy was probably the correct one, and it was a strategy he was ideally suited for. Slim would have to be included, and from the earlier period Marlborough and Wolfe.
I'd be tempted to include Cromwell because he understood the basic principles of war, not least that hard training and Command and control are exceptionally important. He also led from the front.
Of the English Kings, Henry V stands out, Edward I, Edward III who beat both the scots at Halidon Hill and the French at Crecy and Alfred the Great.
Part of the issue of finding more was that Britain has always been a sea power who generally paid others to take the risks on land. Our land fighting between 1815 and 1914, for example, was generally against natives of one description or another with the exception of the Crimea. This was a period of heavy fighting in America and Europe but we just don't get involved as much. After 1588, we generally produce excellent Admirals with just a few land Commanders where required.
For the US, I think Lee. He was the the closest thing to Napoleon (a frenchman who on his day was arguably the World's greatest Captain, only Hannibal I think could rank alongside). You produce a good crop of Corp and Divisional Commanders (Longstreet, Hancock, Jackson, Collins and others) but the American style of fighting has generally been very direct. I think this will produce fighters at Division and Corp level who will stand out, but fewer great operational minds in the Manstein or Napoleonic sense. Patton stands out because he liked to maneuver (whether he was good or not is a separate issue), not because he was typical of the American style of war. In this sense (and the British have been the same in the 20th century) you need less a man who is an inspired General and more an attentive Manager with an eye for detail.
Regards,
IronDuke
I did not mean that Marlborough was overrated. I think that he was the best that England has yet produced. I just think that is a little funny that the Navy could claim him since he started his career as a marine. Nor did I mean that Welly was overrated. Both of these men made the list if you look a few entries back.ORIGINAL: mgarnett
Hi morvwilson,
I don't agree with your statement "This is the basis for my point that English generals tended to be overrated". Are you saying Marlborough, Wellington et al. are all overrated or just some of them? And when you say overrated, compared to what? Just because England had an excellent Navy does not translate to poor land commanders. Wellington was an excellent general in the circumstances and politcal climate in which he operated. He knew his army, includng the unreliability of part of it (at Waterloo) and operated within those boundaries with enough skill to win against everything thrown at him in the Penninsula and then at Waterloo.
And on to Monty, do the actions of another general make you a poor one? You say "As to Patton, lets face it he was a strange duck! I do not think I would like to sit down to dinner with the guy but he did turn in results. As I recall, he did turn on the southern flank of the Bulge a lot quicker the Monty" Are you saying that because Patton turned the flank quicker, Monty is an overrated general? I don't see the connection. Monty was an excellent Brittish General. Did he make mistakes, absolutely but so has every other great general in history (or most of them). Was he perfect, nope, he had an ego you couldn't jump over. He still accomplished a great deal in WWII including the strategy behind the Normandy landings, a truly huge undertaking. I think he deserves some credit.
ORIGINAL: morvwilson
The British simply have not won a land war waged on a contental scale since the 100 years war.
ORIGINAL: morvwilson
Thanks for straightening out my "Edwards"
and for proving my point. [:)]England has been a sea power from around the rennaisance period on. England controled the sea by controling certain points that allowed them to control the trade routes during time of war. From England, they can control shipping in and out of the North sea, From Gibralter and at one time the Suez Canal, the Med. etc. All the army had to do was to hold the bases for the navy. This is why the army never really learned how to fight a war on a contental scale.
They did not have to. When things turned bad, the navy would bail them out. Carunna in 1807, Galipoli during WWI, Dunkirk, Crete and Narvik during WWII. This is the basis for my point that English generals tended to be overrated. They tended to be more concerned about not loosing rather than winning. (Same problem Grant had with his staff once he moved east to face Lee during the American Civil War)
Another example of this overrating is Monty in North Africa. One of the major factors in his victory is that the Navy cut Romels supply line from their base at Malta. It takes a lot of feul to move a single tank and at El Alamein, Rommel did not have enough feul to maneuver with.
During the world wars, England feilded an army that was capable of fighting on a contenental scale, but their leaders lacked the experience to draw upon and the logistics keep up the fighting once it started.
ORIGINAL: morvwilson
Now to the american generals.
Firstly, no I do not think you have to be american to be a good general, that just happened to be the pool of names I dipped into. There have been many good generals from many countries, even some from England![;)]
Pershing, when he first arrived in France first had to fight his allies in order to keep an american army intact at all! Both the French and British Commanders wanted to feed the American troops in peicmeal through out the line as replacements and not have a seperate american army at all. Pershing did manage to get training for his troops in trench warfare. But, some lessons can only be learned on the job. Pershing did make some mistakes but he learned from them and did not repeat them as the British and French high command did.
As to Patton, lets face it he was a strange duck! I do not think I would like to sit down to dinner with the guy but he did turn in results. As I recall, he did turn on the southern flank of the Bulge a lot quicker the Monty.
As to your comparison between Monty and Grant, that is a very hard thing to support. Sepperate wars, time and situations. Grant won on logistics plane and simple. Both Lee and Grant knew how to maneuver but Lee could not replace manpower.
Lee as and Napoleonic figure, thats funny! He was a West Point graduate and in those days do you know what that made him? an engineer! There was not all that much instruction on actual war fighting in those days at West point. Lee's own troops at first called him "the king of spades" for his fondness of entrenching. It was MacClellan that thought he looked Napoleonic. Take a look at some of his old photos. He even did the same poses!
As for the style of fighting, you are right. The american style is very direct because that is the way you end wars quickly and have less blood shed. This style of fighting, in my opinion, got its start during the American Civil War with Grant and Sherman.
ORIGINAL: morvwilson
Thanks for Brock! We already had Wolfe and Clive. That still only comes to 21 names to cover 1000 years.
The British simply have not won a land war waged on a contental scale since the 100 years war.
BTW without the Navy, England would never have achieved the Empire on which the sun never set. The British soldier was well trained and equipped but Jesus boots was not part of their uniform![:D]
Some examples of countries that have won land wars would be:
Russia, started off as a Grand Duchy centered around Moscow.
Prussia, also started off as a Grand Duchy of Poland.
US - Mexican war and Civil War.
As to Monty, we can disagree on that, no big deal. I guess I have the typical american view there.[8D]ORIGINAL: IronDuke
I disagree re logistics. I think we enjoyed the same logistical benefits the Americans did. We had mulberry, regular supplies (or as regular as could be managed given the weather and the ever increasing demands) and never failed to fire off prodigious amounts of artillery when launching offensives. In addition, tank losses were apparently made good very quickly after Goodwood so I don't necessarily see any lack of experience in these matters. We had fought across the desert maintaining better logistics than the enemy throughout, so we had some ability.
The French had plenty of experience of continental war but didn't last very long. Britain's strategy and style in NW Europe was driven by a range of factors but it was a very definite method, not one borne out of inability to come up with anything else.
Regards,
IronDuke
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 we seem to be doing simultaneous postings!ORIGINAL: IronDuke
ORIGINAL: morvwilson
Thanks for Brock! We already had Wolfe and Clive. That still only comes to 21 names to cover 1000 years.
The British simply have not won a land war waged on a contental scale since the 100 years war.
But few people have. The 100 years war was not really anything of the sort. At Agincourt, Henry V deployed around 5000 sick and hungry men, we lost four times that number killed on the first day of the Somme and 12 times that number killed wounded and missing on the first day of the Somme. Up until the 17th or 18th centuries, most wars were settled in an afternoon. Even in the 19th century, single battles could win or lose entire campaigns. I think the trick is finding any nation with large numbers of Military geniuses in the period before 1800. Prussia produced a couple, perhaps, but continental style campaigning on the early modern model was late in coming.
BTW without the Navy, England would never have achieved the Empire on which the sun never set. The British soldier was well trained and equipped but Jesus boots was not part of their uniform![:D]
Indeed, but how successful would the US Army have been in NW Europe or the Pacific without the US Navy and the Air Force? How would current American force projection fare without the dozen Super carriers she maintains? The above is more reality than a particularly British trait.
Some examples of countries that have won land wars would be:
Russia, started off as a Grand Duchy centered around Moscow.
Prussia, also started off as a Grand Duchy of Poland.
US - Mexican war and Civil War.
The US/Mexican war was fought for high stakes but combined casualties numbered around 40000. Not all that continental. Far more Americans died of disease then combat. It is also a little unfair to cite the Civil War. How were Americans supposed to lose a war they fought amongst themselves? [;)]
Regards,
IronDuke
