RE: English Generals (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


Sarge -> RE: English Generals (1/2/2007 4:08:20 AM)


quote:

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




IronDuke_slith -> RE: English Generals (1/2/2007 4:25:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge


quote:

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


I wasn't criticising, I was critiquing. It's standard procedure for all historical discussion. I was also developing themes that were already current.

You said it was the left that couldn't be picked on, it seems it was actually American history all along.....[:-]

The American Military stand on their own merits, and they've done a lot of the best critiques themselves. Oversensitivity on the other hand is the Mother (or Midwife at least) of all unlearned lessons. (and the enemy of all good threads).

If you take issue with any of my points, feel free to wade in. I'll be continuing to exercise freedom and criticise what I like so it may be your best avenue of attack.

It could have been gold, it wouldn't have made any difference. He needed less Blitz and more Krieg.




morvwilson -> RE: English Generals (1/2/2007 4:44:37 AM)

quote:

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

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.




morvwilson -> RE: English Generals (1/2/2007 5:21:24 AM)


quote:

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


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.




mgarnett -> RE: English Generals (1/2/2007 11:13:38 AM)

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.




morvwilson -> RE: English Generals (1/2/2007 12:59:10 PM)


quote:

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.

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.
Monty even made the list although I do think he was overrated, and not because Patton outperformed him in the Battle of teh Bulge. I think Monty was overrated due to his performance in North Africa, Sicily, Normandy and Market Garden.
In the end we have a list of twenty names for superior English leaders on land from the time of Edward the Elder to present. That seems a little thin. The reason the list of names is a little thin is because the army was never the key to Englands power, it was the Navy.




hueglin -> RE: English Generals (1/2/2007 4:15:35 PM)

I have scanned through this interesting discussion of English generals and would like to add three names for consideration:
James Wolfe who defeated Moncalm at Quebec in 1759 and effectively won Canada for the British (unfortunately died doing so). He performed a surprise amphibious landing in the face the enemy.
Isaac Brock - War of 1812 in Canada - captured Detroit, repelled US invasion of Canada (also unfortunately died doing so)
Robert Clive - defeated French and Indian forces in India and essentially won over India for the British.

All of these men displayed the ability to operate in adverse situations with limited resourcees and still secure victory. Someone in an earlier post mentioned that the British don't seem to have been capable of "getting" the idea of fighting a European land war. This idea has merits but must also be viewed in conjunction with the fact that they were very successful at gaining control, through land operations, of a very large amount of the world's land mass between the 1700 and 1900s. The Royal Navy greatly helped with this but it still took soldiers on the ground to make it happen.




morvwilson -> RE: English Generals (1/2/2007 9:42:17 PM)

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.


You might bring up the war of 1812, but this was not a victory for either GB or US. It was a stalemate. But to be fair, the US was not a serious threat to anyone in 1812. The standing army of the time was something like 5000 men and the Navy consisted of five frigates. With Nappy rampaging around Europe at the time, who do you think got the GB's attention?




SemperAugustus -> RE: English Generals (1/3/2007 3:46:40 AM)

Don't forget the Ottomans which started as a tiny ghazi state and eventually became one of the most powerful states in Asia, Europe and Africa through conquests




shunwick -> RE: English Generals (1/3/2007 3:00:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

The British simply have not won a land war waged on a contental scale since the 100 years war.



That's either a little bit sloppy or a little bit naughty. How many land wars on a "continental scale" have the British ever lost?

Best Wishes,





morvwilson -> RE: English Generals (1/3/2007 5:46:38 PM)

The British lost the revolutionary war against the US & France when they lost control of the sea to the French and Cornwallis was trapped.

All of the land wars in that GB was involved in from the rennaisance on in Europe, they had allies to help with the land part of the war.




shunwick -> RE: English Generals (1/3/2007 10:45:18 PM)

I think we differ on the definition of the phrase "war on a continental scale". The Revolutionary War certainly decided the fate of a continent. But "war on a continental scale"? Barbarossa was war on a continental scale.

Best Wishes,





Ursa MAior -> RE: English Generals (1/3/2007 11:15:33 PM)

And Monty won Barbarossa alone too.  [:D]

Sorry it was too good to miss.




IronDuke_slith -> RE: English Generals (1/3/2007 11:49:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

Thanks for straightening out my "Edwards"


Pleasure.

quote:

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.


True as far as it goes, but then we weren't a continental power, we're an Island. We were also smaller than many of the main contenders for continental power like the Germans and Russians. Those who fought on this continental scale were those with safe land access to the major theatres. When did America fight such battles? She was certainly large enough, but why would she need to? On her own continent with no powerful neighbours, there was no requirement. Russia, France and Germany on the other hand...

quote:

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)


Well Narvik was a bold strike to win. As was Galipoli. It was safer to stay at home in both instances. At Crete and Dunkirk we were faced with defeat, but to be fair, at Dunkirk it was not a defeat of our making. The only sensible soption once it was clear defeat was inevitable was to leave.

quote:

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.


But defeating what is in front of you is not necessarily an overrating. Monty's reputation is based on a body of work. We should also note that logistical problems or not, Rommel defeated a number of other British Generals sent to confront him before Monty arrived. His defensive position was a strong one, and part of Monty's genius was that he never fought a battle until he had maximised the odds in his own favour. Would we think more of him if he had taken more risks, lost more men and been defeated occasionally?

quote:

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.


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




morvwilson -> RE: English Generals (1/3/2007 11:55:38 PM)

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]

Steve, I guess you may be right. But the scale to which you refer did not happen until at least WWI (Barbarosa being WWII of course). But I heard, in such a way as to believe it, that there were one or two wars prior to 1914.[:D]




IronDuke_slith -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 12:07:14 AM)


quote:

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![;)]


Flattery will get you no where...[;)]

quote:

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.


Pershing had to learnt hem because he refused to take advice and wanted his command to fight together. Many of the mistakes were basic ones that British and French experience could have avoided for him. He also adopted frontal assaults that had proven costly in the war to date, something he must have been aware of.

The British also learned from their mistakes. Their operational method evolved throughout the war to the point where half of all prisoners taken in the latter half of 1918 were taken by the British and they won a string of battles on their way into Germany. By war's end, The British Army was arguably the most combat effective force on the continent.

quote:

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.


I have never seen the Patton attraction. On Sicily and in France, he captured large numbers of people who either wanted to surrender or penned themselves in and waited for it. He beat Monty into Messina by an hour if memory serves and Monty was supposed to be cautious. The essential point was not that he got there an hour before Monty but that both got there several hours after the Germans left.

In Lorraine he was poor. The Bulge is overrated and he was party to a couple of unsavoury incidents. One of which should (IMHO) have seen him court martialled.

quote:

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.


I think Grant was competent on the Operational plane, no more, but he was better on the strategic plane. He also had more stomach than anyone else who had commanded the Union Forces to that point and that ultimately led him to fight on past days (Wilderness, Cold Harbour) when earlier Union commanders would have turned for home. He constantly attempted to turn Lee's flank but never managed it and I suspect he was merely trying to lever Lee out of prepared positions to fight somewhere else.

Lee was better operationally, and perhaps the closest thing to Napoleon the 19th century produced. Chancellorsville and 2nd Bull Run are as classically Napoleonic as you can get. Bold, a gamble, very dangerous, he also has the benefit of solid subordinates as Napoleon had and was not afraid to usethem. But, like the Emperor, he was prone to error, and usually at crucial points.

quote:

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!


The comparison for me rests on their styles. Napoleon liked to fix whilst maneuring onto a flank. As above, Napoleon wuld have applauded bull Run 2 and Chancellorsville.

quote:

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.


Well, the direct style is very attritional, so I wouldn't agree it ends wars quickly. the quickest campaigns in WWII were waged by the Germans in France, the low countries, the Balkans etc. I think the Western Allied style in WWII essentially ground the enemy down, but there was a price to pay in blood. I think as a style it fdid get started in the Civil war, because it was by relentlessly applying combat power and grinding the enemy down with his superior resources that Grant won.

Regards,
IronDuke




IronDuke_slith -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 12:23:21 AM)


quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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




morvwilson -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 12:25:12 AM)


quote:

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


As to Monty, we can disagree on that, no big deal. I guess I have the typical american view there.[8D]
As to the evacuations, they were not the fault of the British, usually the enemy has a vote on these matters. It was not my intention to imply incompetence on the part of the British Army for these evacuations. When you are facing anihilation(sp?) from a superior force, getting out seems to be a pretty good idea.

As to logistics, alot of those tanks that Monty was driving around in the desert were Stuarts(light tank w 37mm cannon refered to as little honey by British crews) and Lee's (Large tank with 75mm in front hull and 37mm mounted in turret on top). These were not British tanks but American. During and after the Normandy invasion along with the Cromwells, Comets and Churchill's(British tanks all) there were a lot of Shermans (American tanks). During WWII the US had the advantage of not having bombers flying over head or trouble getting raw materials to the factories (battle of the atlantic?) which allowed them to operate without impediment. Without US logistical support, GB would have been in a bad way!

You are right, I do not mean to imply that GB was helpless, far from it. But in WWII GB lacked the ability to reenter the contenent. Also, we do owe a lot to British engineering and not just the mulberies. The angled flight deck and steam powered catapults were both British inventions and is what makes the nuclear aircraft carrier possible. I am proud to say I served on the USS Nimitz CVN68 from 1988-1990.

But we do seem to agree on one piont. The key to British power projection has been the Navy not the Army, just as Russia's power projection has always been Army and not Navy.

I think we may also agree on how the French performed, but in order to avoid stepping on sensitive toes[8|] I don't think we should go there.

Mike




Shaun Wallace -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 12:27:37 AM)

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




morvwilson -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 12:36:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke


quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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

we seem to be doing simultaneous postings!

My point with the US/Mex war is that it was mostly a land war and was fought and won by the US with out help. Same for the Civil war.

As to death by desease, that argument could be made for every war up untill the time of WWI. Remember the influenza epidemic?

As to world wide power projection, you are right it is not a British thing. The US Navy took a page from the British here. Maybe you heard of a guy named Mahon?

Mike




morvwilson -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 12:44:10 AM)

quote:

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 -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 12:55:02 AM)

quote:

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 -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 1:55:46 AM)

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 -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 2:00:27 AM)

quote:


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 -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 2:08:19 AM)

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 -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 2:12:02 AM)

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 -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 3:55:22 AM)

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 -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 5:07:28 AM)

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 -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 6:09:36 AM)


quote:

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 -> RE: English Generals (1/4/2007 7:37:24 AM)

error here, sorry!




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.96875