Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: English Generals Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: English Generals - 1/4/2007 7:40:27 AM   
morvwilson


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


quote:

ORIGINAL: IandMe

I am a bit puzzled by the continental scale comment.

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

Now name three they won.

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

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

As for the original question,

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

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

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

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

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


< Message edited by morvwilson -- 1/4/2007 7:50:27 AM >

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 91
RE: English Generals - 1/4/2007 7:46:49 AM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
Iron Duke, I did a little more checking on pinning an enemy with part of your force while another part outflanks. I deffinitely would not call this Napoleonic. Julius Ceasar pulled this maneuver on Pompey. Hannibal did it to the Romans at Canea. And I think Alexander the Great used a version of this maneuver against the Greeks.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe this type of maneuver is still in use today by the infantry. The American army calls it fire and maneuver.

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 92
RE: English Generals - 1/4/2007 11:18:33 AM   
IandMe

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 12/12/2006
Status: offline
[quoteI suppose Harald's loss to the Norman's also fits the mold of a mostly land war in which England was alone and lost but this was before they had developed a navy. ][/quote]

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

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

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

Just imagine a non-Saxon or Norman England

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 93
RE: English Generals - 1/4/2007 4:34:38 PM   
shunwick


Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson



quote:

ORIGINAL: IandMe

I am a bit puzzled by the continental scale comment.

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

Now name three they won.

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

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

As for the original question,

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes,



< Message edited by shunwick -- 1/4/2007 4:49:06 PM >


_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 94
RE: English Generals - 1/4/2007 7:25:10 PM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
I don't think the Fauklands would fit for a mostly land war. That was an amphibeous operation.

Reestablishing colonial rule!? Reestablishing the British Empire!? The very idea! Shocking! Horrifying! Barbaric! All of the areas where the British left are doing soooooo much better now! Please chant the news media template with me now and you will be redeemed! "Western civilization - Bad! Western civilization - Evil!  EEEEVVVVILLLLL! (picture mermaid man here from spongebob squarepants)"

(in reply to shunwick)
Post #: 95
RE: English Generals - 1/4/2007 10:28:09 PM   
hueglin


Posts: 297
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Kingston, ON, Canada
Status: offline
The British won the French and Indian Wars (a part of the 7 Years War), fighting an army of equal technology (the French). They were able to gain control of almost all of eastern North America.

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

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

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 96
RE: English Generals - 1/4/2007 10:49:39 PM   
shunwick


Posts: 2426
Joined: 10/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

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



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

Best wishes,


_____________________________

I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 97
RE: English Generals - 1/5/2007 12:00:20 AM   
morvwilson


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

ORIGINAL: shunwick


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

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



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

Best wishes,


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

< Message edited by morvwilson -- 1/5/2007 12:31:26 AM >

(in reply to shunwick)
Post #: 98
RE: English Generals - 1/5/2007 12:44:25 AM   
morvwilson


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: hueglin

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

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

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

Good point!

No taxation without representation!

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

(in reply to hueglin)
Post #: 99
RE: English Generals - 1/6/2007 4:53:13 PM   
IronDuke_slith

 

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

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


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

Regards,
IronDuke

_____________________________


(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 100
RE: English Generals - 1/6/2007 7:53:32 PM   
morvwilson


Posts: 510
Joined: 11/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
Maybe Nappy was being "Romantic"? He was french after all!(yes I am a smart a55)

P.S. Feel free to Punnish me in return!

< Message edited by morvwilson -- 1/7/2007 8:10:05 AM >

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)
Post #: 101
RE: English Generals - 1/7/2007 2:34:19 PM   
hueglin


Posts: 297
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Kingston, ON, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

Maybe Nappy was being "Romantic"? He was french after all!(yes I am a smart a55)

P.S. Feel free to Punnish me in return!



Actually, one might argue that Napoleon was not French at all, but rather a rather "coarse" Corsican. Apparently he spoke French with quite a thick accent.

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 102
RE: English Generals - 1/8/2007 6:54:41 AM   
Vanguard


Posts: 7
Joined: 10/11/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
I think this whole topic needs to be looked at from a different perspective:

As far as a consistent and long-term military record (land and sea) England's record is second to none. However this record is not reliant on any individuals - it is reliant on the inate things that make the English English - 1)the well structured class system and 2) The grit, training and determination of an English soldier/sailor faced by insurmountable odds.

On both sea and land the English usually seem to be outnumbered, have inferior equipment and have no real charismatic leadership - but still seem to average a very high win rate over a long period of time (1,000 years).

I will be contentious and say that England has not really needed outstanding leaders in its history - as long as the guy is vaguely competent, the English culture/psyche does the rest. Other nationalities, I believe, have more of a need for charismatic leadership of their military forces and therefore this plays a bigger part in the battle outcomes and therefore these individuals are idolized in the history books more - hence the quick list of US generals.

Sure, there are famous English leaders/generals, but I feel they are more famous for the strategic outcome of the battle/conflict, rather than for their own individual skills & talents. This is more of a discussion about military cultures rather than individuals. The English tend to incompetently blunder their way into an underdog position and then against all odds fight their way out - the American military culture tends to amass superior fire power and create herioc leadership figures as a rally point.

This is why if you were to ask and average brit and american to name their famous generals (or admirals) from any period of history you would get about 3 on the English side if you were lucky and at least 8-10 on the US side. No reflection on the skill pool in each country - just a reflection of the different military/national cultures.

Cheers
James

(in reply to hueglin)
Post #: 103
RE: English Generals - 1/8/2007 11:25:03 AM   
morvwilson


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

A strong people do not need strong leaders!

(in reply to Vanguard)
Post #: 104
RE: English Generals - 1/8/2007 4:22:09 PM   
Jevhaddah


Posts: 626
Joined: 11/24/2005
From: Scotland
Status: offline
Hey Guys, sorry if I open a can of worms here but is the...

Topic about English Generals .. ie Generals Born in England that commanded UK, Commonwealth and Dominion troops?

Or...

UK Generals that commanded UK troops, Commonwealth and Dominion troops?

or...


English Generals that commanded English troops before the union of the crowns?

Sorry, I'll get my coat

Warning this is a light hearted poke at 'Johnny Foreigner' who thinks England is the UK.

Our History is very complicated and gives me a headache at times

Edit added Commonwealth and Dominions

Cheers

Jev



< Message edited by Jevhaddah -- 1/8/2007 4:37:00 PM >


_____________________________

I am really quite mad yoo know!

(in reply to morvwilson)
Post #: 105
RE: English Generals - 1/8/2007 10:54:01 PM   
ezzler

 

Posts: 863
Joined: 7/4/2004
Status: offline
Garnet Woolsey , doesn't he get a mention ? Napier too { william and charles} Lord Roberts of Khandahar

A lot of very able colonial war leaders balanced about 50 - 50 with abysmall colonial war leaders .

{We didn't abolish the purchase your rank system until the 1870's}



As for the Montgomery debate.. a teacher of mine who was a colonel on Monty's staff once told a Leadership story.
He said Rommel was a 'Chessplayer who could only move when he was absolubtely certain that everything was ready and had studied all the options , while his own boss, Montgomery, would seize any opportunity to exploit an enemy , would attack a a moments notice and cause confusion.

This from a member of his own staff !!

What it does show is Monty had a very very good propaganda and press corps

(in reply to Jevhaddah)
Post #: 106
RE: English Generals - 1/8/2007 11:25:27 PM   
Sardonic

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/1/2005
Status: offline
The thread has mutated far beyond what I intended.

I wanted to talk about at MOST, Commonwealth Commanders.

Because England has the most interesting history of losing at the start, and winning at the end.

So from Arthur to today was game.

American Generals are immpossible to discuss because there are so many boosters.

I notice none of you mentioned Yamashita for example.

Just as well, he isnt an ENGLISH General.

How about Elphinstone or Lucan?

Is there an English version of Custer?

Is Flashman right? The entire officer corps can stay home and the army will muddle on just as well?

(in reply to ezzler)
Post #: 107
RE: English Generals - 1/8/2007 11:57:24 PM   
Jevhaddah


Posts: 626
Joined: 11/24/2005
From: Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

Because England has the most interesting history of losing at the start, and winning at the end.


Its me again...

Before the union of the crowns Its English Generals and the English Army.

But after the Union it's the British Army with British Generals, be they Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish or English.

Later on we expand into the armies of the Commonwealth and Dominions commanded by Austrialian, Canadian and New Zealanders etc.

I think, though cannot be certain that the inherent racisim in the system precluded Indians etc from attaining officer rank.

Its important to realise that we are a collection of Nations that make up a whole.


Cheers

Jev


_____________________________

I am really quite mad yoo know!

(in reply to Sardonic)
Post #: 108
RE: English Generals - 1/8/2007 11:58:24 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

Is there an English version of Custer?



Splitting your force and having part of it annihilated = Chelmsford
Mutilation post-combat = Pulleine

(in reply to Sardonic)
Post #: 109
RE: English Generals - 1/9/2007 2:28:21 AM   
Vanguard


Posts: 7
Joined: 10/11/2006
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
I'd have to add Boadicea (Boudica) - she may have lost in the end but she did it in a stylishly sexy, naked breasted, Braveheart type of way!






< Message edited by Vanguard -- 1/9/2007 2:39:00 AM >

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 110
RE: English Generals - 1/9/2007 5:47:20 AM   
morvwilson


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

The thread has mutated far beyond what I intended.

I wanted to talk about at MOST, Commonwealth Commanders.

Because England has the most interesting history of losing at the start, and winning at the end.

So from Arthur to today was game.

American Generals are immpossible to discuss because there are so many boosters.

I notice none of you mentioned Yamashita for example.

Just as well, he isnt an ENGLISH General.

How about Elphinstone or Lucan?

Is there an English version of Custer?

Is Flashman right? The entire officer corps can stay home and the army will muddle on just as well?


Kinda like herding cats huh?

(in reply to Sardonic)
Post #: 111
RE: English Generals - 2/9/2007 4:05:46 PM   
Roads

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: massachusetts
Status: offline
You have a whole thread on English Generals without mentioning Wolfe!

OK it's hard to evaluate his strategic sense, but he was an excellent tactitian, and a superb leader. Who know how things could have turned out if he hadn't died at age 32.

And I think people on this thread aren't giving Clive his due either.

(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 112
RE: English Generals - 2/9/2007 8:58:37 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardonic

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

Marlborough
Cromwell
Wellington


Some new names I believe, besides those above:

General Sir Richard O'Connor was certainly good, I think he would have equaled Rommel had fate been kinder.

General Sir Henry Rawlinson I thought was a very good modern general during the Great War.

Richard the Lionhearted, very formidable general of the Crusades. And very much a fighting general.

The best team of English generals of all time: Arthur and Merlin

(in reply to Sardonic)
Post #: 113
RE: English Generals - 2/9/2007 9:08:51 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

The best team of English generals of all time: Arthur and Merlin



BlackAdder and Baldrick.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 114
RE: English Generals - 2/9/2007 9:22:56 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

BlackAdder and Baldrick.


"He certainly is a spiffing bloke"




Attachment (1)

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 115
RE: English Generals - 2/12/2007 12:56:08 PM   
NefariousKoel


Posts: 2930
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Murderous Missouri Scum
Status: offline
Someone needs to make a poll. 

Best Brit general? 

I would've voted Marlborough on the first 3 choices of the original poster.


_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 116
RE: English Generals - 2/12/2007 1:09:20 PM   
Trower44

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 2/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

My two cents. Slim was one of the best commanders of WW2.


One of the few who deserves the epithet 'great'.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 117
RE: English Generals - 2/12/2007 2:54:17 PM   
Kevin E. Duguay

 

Posts: 1044
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Goldsboro, North Carolina
Status: offline
Wellington, hope I spelled it right!

Montgomery was a twit!!!

< Message edited by Kevin E. Duguay -- 2/12/2007 3:07:03 PM >


_____________________________

KED

(in reply to Trower44)
Post #: 118
RE: English Generals - 2/12/2007 8:58:56 PM   
Ironclad

 

Posts: 1924
Joined: 11/22/2006
Status: offline
Yes I agree with the above. My list in order would be 1 Marlborough 2 Wellington 3 Slim.

I would like to place Montrose highly but like Cromwell he was never tested against a first class continental army.

Montgomery has always been overrated but his best work may well have been Normandy despite the criticism.


(in reply to Kevin E. Duguay)
Post #: 119
RE: English Generals - 2/14/2007 4:33:00 PM   
Sardonic

 

Posts: 215
Joined: 12/1/2005
Status: offline
I am hardly a Monty booster, but....he never lost a battle.

Pesonally I favor the Auk.

(in reply to Ironclad)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: English Generals Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

1.156