Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

English Generals

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> English Generals Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
English Generals - 12/19/2006 8:43:24 PM   
Sardonic

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/1/2005
Status: offline
Using all of history as a pool......

Marlborough
Cromwell
Wellington


The only true genius is Marlborough, just look at his Rhine Campaign

Cromwell, like Shaka and Rommel, knew how to inspire men to win.

Wellington had a large reserve of common sense. He simply would NOT be bullied into doing stupid things.


Now this is all on the Strategic level. Tactical is different.

To claim that Wellington is better than Nappy.....your really just saying that he was not rash.

Post #: 1
RE: English Generals - 12/19/2006 8:52:58 PM   
ktotwf

 

Posts: 182
Joined: 6/25/2004
Status: offline
No, Wellington was not a better General than Napoleon.

Put Wellington in Napoleon's place...could Wellington have done the things that Napoleon did? I sincerely doubt it.

Could Napoleon have done the things Wellington did? He did a couple times.

Wellington is just overrated, and mostly because of Waterloo, which is itself ironically overrated.

(in reply to Sardonic)
Post #: 2
RE: English Generals - 12/19/2006 9:30:21 PM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

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

Marlborough
Cromwell
Wellington


The only true genius is Marlborough, just look at his Rhine Campaign

Cromwell, like Shaka and Rommel, knew how to inspire men to win.

Wellington had a large reserve of common sense. He simply would NOT be bullied into doing stupid things.


Now this is all on the Strategic level. Tactical is different.

To claim that Wellington is better than Nappy.....your really just saying that he was not rash.



Using all of history as a pool for British leaders and you only come up with three?
GB was made by navy not army. Their leadership on the ground is greatly overrated!
Try these names, Greene, Washington, RE Lee, Longstreet, Grant, Sherman, Pershing, Lem Sheperd, Roy Gieger, Patton, MacCarthur, Eisenhower. There are many other names I know I have missed and this is only the US army and Marine Corps. over a span of about 200 years.

Just so you know, Lem Sheperd was a marine vet of wwI and came up with how to combat load troop transports after the Guadal Cannal operation.
Roy Gieger is the man responsible for starting Marine corps aviation and is the only man ever to command air, marine and army units is a single battle.

And no I am not a a Marine

(in reply to Sardonic)
Post #: 3
RE: English Generals - 12/19/2006 9:50:04 PM   
Joisey

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/3/2006
From: Montgomery, New Jersey
Status: offline
Britain does NOT get to take credit for AMERICAN generalship, certainly not since the American Revolution and arguably even before that.  Don't they teach history in California anymore?

_____________________________

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 4
RE: English Generals - 12/19/2006 9:50:19 PM   
Sardonic

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

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

Marlborough
Cromwell
Wellington


The only true genius is Marlborough, just look at his Rhine Campaign

Cromwell, like Shaka and Rommel, knew how to inspire men to win.

Wellington had a large reserve of common sense. He simply would NOT be bullied into doing stupid things.


Now this is all on the Strategic level. Tactical is different.

To claim that Wellington is better than Nappy.....your really just saying that he was not rash.



Using all of history as a pool for British leaders and you only come up with three?
GB was made by navy not army. Their leadership on the ground is greatly overrated!
Try these names, Greene, Washington, RE Lee, Longstreet, Grant, Sherman, Pershing, Lem Sheperd, Roy Gieger, Patton, MacCarthur, Eisenhower. There are many other names I know I have missed and this is only the US army and Marine Corps. over a span of about 200 years.

Just so you know, Lem Sheperd was a marine vet of wwI and came up with how to combat load troop transports after the Guadal Cannal operation.
Roy Gieger is the man responsible for starting Marine corps aviation and is the only man ever to command air, marine and army units is a single battle.

And no I am not a a Marine



First all of that is NOT, ENGLISH.

Second I am of the opinion that Leadership at sea, is more of an art form.
I am not willing to gainsay Nelson.

I was refering to English Generals on the ground.

But including English Kings if you wish.


(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 5
RE: English Generals - 12/19/2006 10:02:39 PM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
I think maybe I confused you. I did not mean that Britian gets to claim credit for American leadership. I was merely pointing out that most of the British army leadership was merely adequate with a few exceptions. Sardonic was "Using all of history as a pool" and only came up with three names. I used a period of time of 200 years and came up with twelve names from just one country and could come up with many others.

So, no, the list was not english and was not meant to be. It was meant to reinforce my point that GB was made by thier navy not their army.
Anyone ever hear of a guy named Nelson?

BTW They don't teach much of anything in the public schools in CA anymore!

< Message edited by morvwilson -- 12/19/2006 11:14:05 PM >

(in reply to Sardonic)
Post #: 6
RE: English Generals - 12/19/2006 10:56:03 PM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
As to leadership at sea, it is as technical if not more so than leading on the ground. A warship is a fighting machine whether it is powered by oar, wind steam or turbine. Every captain not only has to know his own ship's capabilities and weaknesses he has to know his enemies ships just as well.
Look into the battle of Trafalgar. Instead of lining up the Ships of the Line next to the FR/SP fleet, Nelson broke the fleet up into three ship groups and sailed directly through the FR/SP line effectively crossing the "T" in several places at once. That was not art, that was thinking outside the box!

Also lets not forget one other thing.

"Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics!" is the old addage. As I heard Colonel(ret) David Hackworth say it "Beans and bullets". It holds true at sea and land. Warships do not accomplish much staying in port. If I remember right, the British were resuppling their warships at sea even at Nelson's time. Even today, there are few Navies able to do this.

If we include English Kings that gives a few more good names to add:
Edward the Elder(see AngloSaxon Cronicles),
Henry II,
Henry V,

This seems like a short list for 1000 years of history.
Who am I missing?
Maybe Ashbery76 can help?





< Message edited by morvwilson -- 12/19/2006 11:22:52 PM >

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 7
RE: English Generals - 12/19/2006 11:51:24 PM   
ktotwf

 

Posts: 182
Joined: 6/25/2004
Status: offline
How about the Black Prince of Wales? Richard the Lionheart?

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 8
RE: English Generals - 12/20/2006 1:09:09 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
As to leadership at sea, it is as technical if not more so than leading on the ground. A warship is a fighting machine whether it is powered by oar, wind steam or turbine. Every captain not only has to know his own ship's capabilities and weaknesses he has to know his enemies ships just as well.
Look into the battle of Trafalgar. Instead of lining up the Ships of the Line next to the FR/SP fleet, Nelson broke the fleet up into three ship groups and sailed directly through the FR/SP line effectively crossing the "T" in several places at once. That was not art, that was thinking outside the box!


And this tactic was not even Nelson's but Adm. Richard "Black Dick" Howe's. Add such notables as Henry Morgan, Francis Drake, Sir Walter Raleigh and you can see the Royal Navy was not all Jelicoes.

On land you forgot Clive, Cornwallis (US went bad but Far East did not) and Tarleton (US went well, he was just ignored like Longstreet at Gettysburg).

And these are just examples from the early colonial era.

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 9
RE: English Generals - 12/20/2006 1:36:21 AM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
ktotwf, thanks for the Black Prince (Edward IV ?) I could not remember who was at Crecy.
But Richard the Lionheart? He was mostly a figment of his own imagination. When he took the thrown England stretched from the Scottish frontier to the Pyrennese mountains. When he came back from the Crusades, his kingdom was in a shambles. He did ok in the holy land but all in all he should have stayed home and kept us from having to deal with the french we have today!

Murat, thanks for cumming up with Clive, Corwallis and Tarleton, but again, these men were merely adequate for their time and defeat in the American Colonies, I beleive, pretty much ended thier carriers. But again, English leadership has been strongest at sea as your list shows five more names for the sea and only three for land. (BTW Jelicoe did a good job, Beaty was the problem. Could not get his signals straight. Check out Battle of Daugher(sp?) Bank)

So, out of 1000 years of history and only 11 names of note for land warfare?

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 10
RE: English Generals - 12/20/2006 1:38:40 AM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
BTW Murat brings up a good point that many I think loose track of. Most planning is done at the Major - Colonel (Leutennant Commander - Captain for Navy)grades with those plans being approved or disaproved by the commanding officers.

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 11
RE: English Generals - 12/20/2006 5:24:28 AM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
Well Howe was Nelson's commander during the American Revolution. Clive made his name before the American Revolution. Tarleton retired in a crappy mood for being ignored feeling that if he had been listened to England would have won and Cornwallis got promoted and, as I pointed out, strengthened the Empire in the Indian Ocean.

< Message edited by Murat -- 12/20/2006 5:33:58 AM >

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 12
RE: English Generals - 12/20/2006 6:01:30 AM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
woulda, coulda, shoulda.

The English army seems to do just enough to get by, but their serious successes were at sea.

Thier navy is the way England was able to project power around the world. Thier army could never achieve that.

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 13
RE: English Generals - 12/20/2006 6:49:28 AM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
Roy Gieger is the man responsible for starting Marine corps aviation and is the only man ever to command air, marine and army units is a single battle.


Diga me hombre, does the above qualify someone to the best generals ever?

They seem to teach even less in CA than you imply. A littlepun intended. [:P]


_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 14
RE: English Generals - 12/20/2006 7:23:56 AM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
Actually, yes it does. When in command of the Cactus Air Force in 8/42 on Guadal Canal some of his newer pilots told him that it was not possible to take off from the cratered runway (the Japanese were routinely shelling the airfield from the air and sea). Gieger had a dauntless loaded with a 500 lb bomb, got in the plane, took off and dropped the bomb on Japanese positions that were only a few miles away on the same island, (this was after the Navy had deserted the marines on the island) then landed the plane weaving in and out of the craters on the runway.  At the time he was around 50 years old.

They call that leadership by example! Try picking up a book called "Leatherneck Legends" by Dick Camp.

BTW If it wasn't for Arkansas, California would have the worst schools in the country!


(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 15
RE: English Generals - 12/20/2006 7:32:45 AM   
Sardonic

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/1/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

ktotwf, thanks for the Black Prince (Edward IV ?) I could not remember who was at Crecy.
But Richard the Lionheart? He was mostly a figment of his own imagination. When he took the thrown England stretched from the Scottish frontier to the Pyrennese mountains. When he came back from the Crusades, his kingdom was in a shambles. He did ok in the holy land but all in all he should have stayed home and kept us from having to deal with the french we have today!

Murat, thanks for cumming up with Clive, Corwallis and Tarleton, but again, these men were merely adequate for their time and defeat in the American Colonies, I beleive, pretty much ended thier carriers. But again, English leadership has been strongest at sea as your list shows five more names for the sea and only three for land. (BTW Jelicoe did a good job, Beaty was the problem. Could not get his signals straight. Check out Battle of Daugher(sp?) Bank)

So, out of 1000 years of history and only 11 names of note for land warfare?


Well genius is where you find it.
And to be fair, it isnt a common trait.

Richard never acted like an English King. He acted like a FRENCH King.
But he had an ability to use a medieval army.

But being am Admiral is totally different. Its like being an artist. You either can do it, or you cant.
Britain is blessed with some of the best.


(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 16
RE: English Generals - 12/20/2006 7:38:16 AM   
Joisey

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/3/2006
From: Montgomery, New Jersey
Status: offline
Cornwallis oversaw the humuliating defeat of the British at Yorktown.  This effectively ended the war and lost the colonies for England.  Whatever the excuses that might be given for Cornwallis' defeat, defeats don't get you rated as one of history's great generals.  PERIOD.

Howe, the General, not the Admiral, was the idiot who managed to get defeated (strategically) by the colonials at Bunker Hill, which defeat he really had to work for, since the Colonials had stupidly invested a fortified hill on an isthmus of land, and could have easily been cut off and decimated by the British if they had just attacked Bunker Hill from the Landward side.  But, no, General Howe had his troops ferried by long boat to the end of the Isthmus, and then attacked the hill from the Seaward side, attaining a pyrrhic victory that allowed the bulk of the Colonials to get away and fight another day.

Howe's lasting contribution to military history was to create a dispute that will never be fully resolved between those who thought that he acted stupidly, and those apologists who theorize that he didn't want the war to end too quickly, since he belonged to the poltical party who was not then in power and didn't want to see his political adversaries credited with a swift military victory over the insurgency---kind of like the Democrats today who root for their own country to lose in Iraq just so they can see President Bush politically destroyed.

_____________________________

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 17
RE: English Generals - 12/20/2006 7:41:57 AM   
Joisey

 

Posts: 161
Joined: 8/3/2006
From: Montgomery, New Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

ktotwf, thanks for the Black Prince (Edward IV ?) I could not remember who was at Crecy.
But Richard the Lionheart? He was mostly a figment of his own imagination. When he took the thrown England stretched from the Scottish frontier to the Pyrennese mountains. When he came back from the Crusades, his kingdom was in a shambles. He did ok in the holy land but all in all he should have stayed home and kept us from having to deal with the french we have today!

Murat, thanks for cumming up with Clive, Corwallis and Tarleton, but again, these men were merely adequate for their time and defeat in the American Colonies, I beleive, pretty much ended thier carriers. But again, English leadership has been strongest at sea as your list shows five more names for the sea and only three for land. (BTW Jelicoe did a good job, Beaty was the problem. Could not get his signals straight. Check out Battle of Daugher(sp?) Bank)

So, out of 1000 years of history and only 11 names of note for land warfare?


Wasn't it Edward V who was at Crecy/Agincourt, whose victories were later celebrated by Shakespeare's work of the same name and the St. Crispins Day speech of the "Band of Brothers"?

While we're at it, wouldn't Edward Longshanks deserve to be billed as one of England's better generals, having had considerable success in France?


_____________________________

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."
- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 18
RE: English Generals - 12/20/2006 10:19:11 AM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
It was Henry V at Agincort. That was the one Shakespear did a play on. In that play Crecy is metioned. I know it was the "Black Prince of Wales" who dealt the defeat to the french and that the battle happened befor Agincort. I think it was Edward IV but am not sure.

As for Edward Longshanks, I could buy that addition.

That makes 12 names.

(in reply to Joisey)
Post #: 19
RE: English Generals - 12/21/2006 2:29:15 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline
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!

_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 20
RE: English Generals - 12/21/2006 3:25:06 AM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 21
RE: English Generals - 12/21/2006 3:35:28 AM   
ktotwf

 

Posts: 182
Joined: 6/25/2004
Status: offline
Napoleon was an enormous micromanager, didn't hurt him any.

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 22
RE: English Generals - 12/21/2006 5:49:27 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline
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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson


quote:

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.



_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 23
RE: English Generals - 12/21/2006 6:33:56 AM   
ktotwf

 

Posts: 182
Joined: 6/25/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 24
RE: English Generals - 12/21/2006 7:04:07 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline
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.

quote:

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.



_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to ktotwf)
Post #: 25
RE: English Generals - 12/21/2006 8:12:18 AM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 26
RE: English Generals - 12/21/2006 5:06:54 PM   
qgaliana

 

Posts: 311
Joined: 4/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 27
RE: English Generals - 12/21/2006 5:53:08 PM   
malcolm_mccallum

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 10/29/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to qgaliana)
Post #: 28
RE: English Generals - 12/21/2006 7:52:10 PM   
ASHBERY76


Posts: 2136
Joined: 10/10/2001
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________


(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 29
RE: English Generals - 12/21/2006 8:16:05 PM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to ASHBERY76)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> English Generals Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.641