Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Top 100 Generals

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4445464748 127>
Author
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Top 100 Generals
    Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 18:50

Looks like this response will be shorter and less detailed than I intended as events seem to have overtaken us both; the new list has been published and Rommel has deservedly dropped a few places [although not far enough in my opinion Wink]. Unless he suddenly starts to climb, I see no reason to continue with this debate, except for entertainment.


However, it's only polite to answer to your questions. As you know the 6th Australian Infantry division [which had already replaced 4th Indian] was redeployed for the expedition to Greece along with various other units not stationed in Cyrenaica. The 7th Armoured Division was also withdrawn to the delta for rest and refit. This left hardly any battle hardened troops left in Cyrenaica. The 9th Australian division that took over, was inexperienced and hadn't been trained in desert warfare. 7th Armoured's replacement was only one brigade from 2nd Armoured which had just arrived from Britain without it's tanks [one regiment was equipped with captured Italian vehicles]. Carver states there were only 47 functioning tanks opposing the 170 or so German and 80 odd Italian. However you massage the figures, that looks like a huge superiority in quantity and quality to me.

 

Rommel's "huge" reinforcement occurred during Malta's neutralisation by Kesselring's Luftflotte X in 1942. This allowed axis convoys unimpeded runs to Africa. All German units were re-equipped to almost full paper strength, and with many of the newer AFVs such as long barrelled PzIIIs and IVs, and the new PzJgr 76 (r). This also included a new division 90th Light [can't remember off hand if the 164th Light also arrived then or later, but I'm sure you'll be able to enlighten me.] Simultaneously, the British once again had to denude [I like that word] their forces in theatre to deal with the Japanese.

 

I've not ignored the effects of Ultra throughout the campaign. I just highlighted the critical set of circumstances that gave Rommel a specific timely massive advantage over the British that could have won him the campaign had he been a better general.

Lastly the sources Ive used to come to my conclusions include those Ive mentioned in previous posts and also, El Alemein, Tobruk and The Libyan Campaign 1940-42: Dilemmas of the Desert War by FM Lord Carver, Rommels Afrika Korps P Bratistelli, Desert Rats T Moreman, Tank Force and Panzer Division by Kenneth Macksey, and last but not least Decisive Battles of the Western World vol 3 by J. F. C Fuller. Ive not read or sourced Maj-Gen playfair, but most of the above do.

My work here is done!Smile

 

Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 18:53
DSmayers1, small point that might prevent you being lynched by a bunch of "men-in-skirts", James Graham, 1st Marquis of Montrose was Scottish. Big%20smile 
Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 19:02
Originally posted by rider

I know of his Italian Campaign and that was impressive. That is completely comparable to Hannibal's Alpine Campaign except for the fact that the base was further away.


Hang on, wasn't he retreating when he crossed the Alps? At least Hannibal, for all his faults, was attacking!Big%20smile

Originally posted by rider


Marlborough fought in four battles, three of which he personally commanded.


He actually fought in 10 major actions and and 29 sieges. I think you're referring to the Battle of Sedgemoor in 1685?



Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 19:05
Originally posted by Knights

I just thought I'd add my bit to the current discussion on Early Modern Generals. In regards to Marlborough, he did have some excellent strategic maneuvers, but overall I think Wellington was superior. The same applies for Suvorov -superior to Marlborough-, though of the three I mentioned, I know least about him so I may have to continue my research.

Thanks


In what ways was Wellington superior to Marlborough? I admire them both so I'm not looking for a debate, but I'm just curious.
Back to Top
Challenger2 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 28-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
  Quote Challenger2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 19:14
Originally posted by Temujin


in the modern list, i would actually replace Atatrks position with Mansteins. Atatrk had inferior forces and was in worser conditions and still won, unlike Manstein who lost every major battle (Stalingrad relief, Kursk, Kharkov). Atatrk is certainly top 5 modern.


How did Manstein lose Stalingrad? Given what he had to work with, he still got to within 30miles, and if Paulus had tried/been able to break out, he might have succeeded. Again at Kursk, Manstein made the best progress of the two pincers, and protested when the offensive was called off, citing he was almost through. I always thought he won Kharkov, spectacularly.
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 19:34
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Knights


Firstly - regarding Mr. Wellesley and Mr. Frederick. I don't see Frederick as being in the same league as Wellington to be honest.


i completely disagree of course. Wellington had all the ressoruces of Britain, Portugal and Spain on his side (they were all hostile to France) and needed ~4 years to enter Madrid and another 2 years to enter France herself while he was up against the secodn rankers, most elite troops always being with Nappy himself. Freederick II was up against France, Austria, Russia, Sweden and most German psrincipalities but his only ally was Great Britian and those principalities closely associated to both. even though he eventually ensured his achievments by luck, he created a fifth european great power, Wellington did nothign of the like.


I made an effort to read about Frederick yesterday (after that post of mine), and I have a bit of a dilemma. I was basing my initial conviction of Frederick on what I've now realised to be a very biased book about "Great Commanders" (I think it was called invincible generals). The section about Frederick painted him in a terrible light. Mind if I do some more reading before responding?

I'll get back to you about Shaka Zulu as well as some other things, and Challenger, I'll respond to your post too - but I have to go to school...

Thanks,

- Knights -




Edited by Knights - 19-Feb-2008 at 19:39
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 20:07
Originally posted by Challenger2



How did Manstein lose Stalingrad? Given what he had to work with, he still got to within 30miles, and if Paulus had tried/been able to break out, he might have succeeded.


he arguably failed to relief the city afterall, should i still give him credit for that? yeah, Paulus was part of that but the problem is the simultanous operation mars at Rzhev met with defeat even though the Soviets invested more effort in that one and Manstein was NOT present there. this one was won by Kluge/Model.

Again at Kursk, Manstein made the best progress of the two pincers, and protested when the offensive was called off, citing he was almost through.


Guderian protested the offensive was premature and predictable (both accurate). easily Hoth/Manstein made more progress than Model/Kluge because they had the German elite panzer divisions.

I always thought he won Kharkov, spectacularly.


he just threw out the troops that liberated the city in the aftermath of Stalingrad, again he had at his disposal the SS-Panzerkorps, so no big deal here. also it didn't really achieved anything strategically.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 23:27
Originally posted by Challenger2

...

Unless he suddenly starts to climb, I see no reason to continue with this debate, except for entertainment.


Well, I for one am not taking the 'rankings' very seriously.  Further I don't really see much point in any of this if not for 'entertainment'.  However, to each his own.


Originally posted by Challenger2

However, it's only polite to answer to your questions. As you know the 6th Australian Infantry division [which had already replaced 4th Indian] was redeployed for the expedition to Greece along with various other units not stationed in Cyrenaica. The 7th Armoured Division was also withdrawn to the delta for rest and refit. This left hardly any battle hardened troops left in Cyrenaica. The 9th Australian division that took over, was inexperienced and hadn't been trained in desert warfare. 7th Armoured's replacement was only one brigade from 2nd Armoured which had just arrived from Britain without it's tanks [one regiment was equipped with captured Italian vehicles]. Carver states there were only 47 functioning tanks opposing the 170 or so German and 80 odd Italian. However you massage the figures, that looks like a huge superiority in quantity and quality to me.


Well, it seems that we are reduced to semantics around the term 'denuded'.  The British rotated out one armoured division for another and one infantry division for another.  The 7th armour was pretty much 'used up' from participating in the offensive which destroyed the Italians and advanced from inside of Egypt to the border of Tripolitania.  You highlight the fact that the 9th Australian division had not been "trained in desert warfare".  However they were from Australia, so had likely 'seen' desert before and they were no worse off than the Germans who had just arrived and were no more 'trained in desert warfare' than any of the British / CW units facing them.  Similarly, the 2nd Armoured was likely no worse off than what was left of the 7th at the time they were rotated back to Egypt.  Rommel was attacking with some components of a single Panzer division 'cobbled together' and Italian units. Just doesn't add up to 'denuded' or 'huge advantage' in quality and quantity in my book.

 


Originally posted by Challenger2

Rommel's "huge" reinforcement occurred during Malta's neutralisation by Kesselring's Luftflotte X in 1942. This allowed axis convoys unimpeded runs to Africa. All German units were re-equipped to almost full paper strength, and with many of the newer AFVs such as long barrelled PzIIIs and IVs, and the new PzJgr 76 (r). This also included a new division 90th Light [can't remember off hand if the 164th Light also arrived then or later, but I'm sure you'll be able to enlighten me.] Simultaneously, the British once again had to denude [I like that word] their forces in theatre to deal with the Japanese.


Again, semantics - Rommel's units are 'almost full paper strength' isn't anywhere near comparable to the 1,000+ tanks rushed into Egypt for the British.  The British got hundreds of Grants and later Shermans, which outclassed pretty much anything Rommel ever got. Again I have to disagree with your use of the term 'denuded', which is no more an accurate description of the situation than it was in the previous case.


Originally posted by Challenger2

I've not ignored the effects of Ultra throughout the campaign. I just highlighted the critical set of circumstances that gave Rommel a specific timely massive advantage over the British that could have won him the campaign had he been a better general.


Rommel advanced to the extreme limit of a very tenuous supplyline at El Alamein, while the British were falling back to a natural 'bottleneck' position which was at the end of a  short rail line from their main supply base.  The British then received (truly) 'massive' reinforcments consisting of hundreds of the best tanks yet seen in North Africa (i.e. Shermans).  You use the outcome to fault Rommel, but do tell what any other commander could possibly have done differently to completely defeat the

British given the circumstances.  I'm not trying to claim that Rommel was 'perfect', or never made a mistake.  Not even that he was 'the best'.  However, your arguments appear to be consistently skewed, and do not constitute a 'fair' assessment of his performance.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Feb-2008 at 23:34
Originally posted by Temujin


Originally posted by Challenger2

I always thought he won Kharkov, spectacularly.


he just threw out the troops that liberated the city in the aftermath of Stalingrad, again he had at his disposal the SS-Panzerkorps, so no big deal here. also it didn't really achieved anything strategically.


If we're talking about the Third Battle of Kharkov (aka von Manstein's 'backhand blow') which took place at the tail end of the Soviets' Stalingrad offensive, then this is just so far off from correct that it's difficult to know where to start refuting it.  This German attack stopped the Soviet offensive, inflicted massive losses on the Soviet spearhead units and suffered modest losses in return.  It also convinced the Soviets that the Germans still had the edge in mobile battle, which arguably resulted in the Soviet waiting for the Germans to exhaust themselves with the Kursk offensive before launching their own '43 offensives.  Those appear to me to be signficant 'strategic' achievements. 
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Travis Congleton View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
  Quote Travis Congleton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 00:31
Originally posted by Temujin

Mahmud of Ghazni was nowhere near Constantiopel ever. i think you confused him with Mehmed II
You are right.  I will study Mahmud of Ghazni more.
 
 
Originally posted by Temujin

 Don't think he should be on the list, just because the Zulus gave the British a good beating, nothign special.
Shaka Zulu never fought the British.
 
 
Originally posted by Temujin

Pyrrhus of Epirus
actually i'm a bit dissapointed he got removed. i would have ranked him somewhere around Hannibal....wherever that would be

Strongly disagree with this.  Will explain later...
Back to Top
Travis Congleton View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
  Quote Travis Congleton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 00:47

How did Manstein lose Stalingrad?

Agreed.  Too much interference from Hitler, the man whom had no idea what was going on outside his country, but powerful enough to get everyone to say 'heil, Hitler!'

In what ways was Wellington superior to Marlborough?

Agreed as well.  Wellington was a great commander.  And very close with Marlborough in ranking.  I would pick either one, yet feel quite comfortable with a list of Marlborough higher than Wellington.

Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 17:55
Originally posted by Travis Congleton

 
Shaka Zulu never fought the British.


i didn't said so. i just fail to see any greatness in him or what he supposedly achieved.

Agreed.  Too much interference from Hitler, the man whom had no idea what was going on outside his country, but powerful enough to get everyone to say 'heil, Hitler!'


if we start crediting Hitler for the loss of Kursk (and not Manstein) we also have to credit Hitler with winning the Western campaign 1940 (and not Manstein).


Edited by Temujin - 20-Feb-2008 at 17:58
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 18:22
Somewhere it is written in this thread that less weight will be given to those of one's ethnicity or own country. Whatever!
 
How in the world does George Washington and Patton rank lower than Shaka Zulu, no matter how popular the latter is with imaginative minds? Shaka may have been an innovator in a militarily deficient culture. He gets points for that. Pit him against the tribulations that Washington had to face and one needs to ask what is so special with the African? And if inspiring revolutionairies are part of the equation, not only Washington but Ataturk deserves a better rank. He wasn't named "perfection" (Kemal) for nothing as it turned out. Heck pit any of those four warriors against another with equal numbers of soldiers and arms and I'm sure good 'ol Shaka wouldn't be a top pick.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 19:10
Originally posted by deadkenny



If we're talking about the Third Battle of Kharkov (aka von Manstein's 'backhand blow') which took place at the tail end of the Soviets' Stalingrad offensive, then this is just so far off from correct that it's difficult to know where to start refuting it.  This German attack stopped the Soviet offensive, inflicted massive losses on the Soviet spearhead units and suffered modest losses in return.  It also convinced the Soviets that the Germans still had the edge in mobile battle, which arguably resulted in the Soviet waiting for the Germans to exhaust themselves with the Kursk offensive before launching their own '43 offensives.  Those appear to me to be signficant 'strategic' achievements. 


Ok, it was a tactical victory, just like Prokhorovka. but the Soviets later retook it without much of an effort. 'so what' you say, 'the Soviets eventually retook all occupied territory'. yeah thats true, but strategically it didn't achieved anything other than the Soviets digging in which prooved one of the reasons for the failure at Kursk. At Kharkiv Hausser defeated Soviet troops that had overstreched their own lines, so it was amongst otehr things also their own failure. also the SS Panzer struggled hard in the street fighting and more than once was almost cut of themselves. so, at the end of the day, a tactcial victory yes but no strategical outcome, other than warning the Soviets for Kursk.
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 20:21
True. Temujin you can't say that some terms apply for Suvorov but the same don't apply for Napoleon. I say if a general isn't literally in command of HIS army, then the army's losses don't count.

Now, Travis, may I ask your opinion about the ranking of Suvorov?

Oh, I seriously think that Friedrich Barbarossa should be somewhere in 100-110 - after he got his touch on diplomacy in Italy, he began to understand things much better and lived to fight several battles, most of which were successful. I admit though that he was better in diplomacy.

I'm not sure it was Sedgemoor but most probably, yes.

Knights! Let's remove Alexander from the top!!!

DSMyers, perhaps a list of 25 best for several different ages would be easier? We can't really go and compare Montgomery to Pyrrhus and say that parachuters caused the failure of the Pyrrhic wars, can we?
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2008 at 21:32
Originally posted by rider

True. Temujin you can't say that some terms apply for Suvorov but the same don't apply for Napoleon. I say if a general isn't literally in command of HIS army, then the army's losses don't count.


the loss of the Army in Egypt is commonly attributed to Napoleon and not Menou? I mean it was his army, Suvorov not being in command at 2nd Zrich is a detail. what about Marengo then? officially Napoleon wasn't the superior commander but Berthier.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 02:01
Ok. my first post on 46 pages of this.
 
Alexander seems a little high, and Hannibal a little low.
 
Seems a little light on SE Asian generals on the list. What about Maha Thihathura & Chakri? Naruseun's exploits are just legend. 
 
English generals, Henry V, Edward III. How many battles did they actually fight? Surely overated. Edward III beat the soft target the French easily. Stumbled against the hard target, the Scots. Black Prince was better than either, beat the soft target the French, beat the hard target, the Spanish. And Cromwell was better than all of them.
 
How can Slim be so low? He was the only WWII allied commander (non russian) that fought a war at a disadvantage. In Europe, the allies outnumbered the enemy, out equipped the enemy were fighting second rate troops, German commanders we're hamstrung by ridiculous whims of a madman and the allies had air supremacy. Slim was outgunned, fighting the elite of the Japanese army, out equipped and fighting against air supremacy.
 
Wellington, how many battle did he fight, and how outnumbered was he? How many battles did Marlborough fight and how outnumbered was he?
 
Move Slim up, move Wellington up. Move Marlborough down. Add Cromwell and delete Henry V and Edward III from the list.
 
Patton the best US general of the 20th centuryWacko. C'mon for all his faults, eve MacArthur was better than him. And what about Rigdeway?
 
Lannes 84, Davout 20. So what battle did they actually command. Oh yeah Salfeld. If we're having subordinates I want  Berthier. Neither warrent even being on the list
 
No Sikh Generals. Finest army in the world outside Europe in the 19th century and not one included.
 
The Americas seem noticeable by their absence. No Moctezuma I, Pachacuti, Bolivar
 
 
 
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 02:12
Originally posted by Paul

...Lannes 84, Davout 20. So what battle did they actually command. Oh yeah Salfeld. If we're having subordinates I want  Berthier. Neither warrent even being on the list...
 
Berthier was indispensible with regard to staff work, but stumbled badly when actually in command in Germany in 1809.  If choosing my staff officer, it's Berthier hands down.  Commander of an 'independent wing', Davout.  Admittedly the Prussians weren't exactly 'inspired' at Auerstadt, however, Davout did manage to fight off fully 2/3 of the entire Prussian army with his single corps.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 02:43
Originally posted by Temujin

if we start crediting Hitler for the loss of Kursk (and not Manstein) we also have to credit Hitler with winning the Western campaign 1940 (and not Manstein).
 
Who 'credited' von Manstein with the victory in France in 1940?  I know the 'story' about how von Manstein 'introduced' the concept for the new approach to Hitler.  However, if anything 'credit' for that victory 'belongs' to Guderian.
 
Originally posted by Temujin


Ok, it was a tactical victory, just like Prokhorovka. but the Soviets later retook it without much of an effort. 'so what' you say, 'the Soviets eventually retook all occupied territory'. yeah thats true, but strategically it didn't achieved anything other than the Soviets digging in which prooved one of the reasons for the failure at Kursk. At Kharkiv Hausser defeated Soviet troops that had overstreched their own lines, so it was amongst otehr things also their own failure. also the SS Panzer struggled hard in the street fighting and more than once was almost cut of themselves. so, at the end of the day, a tactcial victory yes but no strategical outcome, other than warning the Soviets for Kursk.
 
The flaw in your argument is that it's 'retrospective'.  In other words it is taken from the perspective of know the eventual outcome.  The problem with that view is that then nothing done by Germany during WWII constitutes a 'strategic' victory, because they ultimately lost.  At Prokhorovka, the Germans did inflicit a 'tactical' defeat on the Soviets, in that with the additional reserves available to the Soviets it did not directly lead to a wider defeat for the Soviets. 
 
The key difference with the Third Battle of Kharkov is that at Kharkov the Soviet spearheads were defeated and there were not 'replacement' reserve forces immediately available.  The Germans stopped the Soviet offensive, gained a key position and in effect regained the 'initiative' until the Kursk offensive was called off.  This defeat at Kharkov did not 'warn the Soviets for Kursk'.  What 'warned' the Soviets was a combination of the 'obviously' vulnerability of the Kursk bulge in the wake of the defeat at Kharkov, combined with the prolonged German build-up and strategic intel gained by the Soviets. 
 
Originally posted by Temujin

the loss of the Army in Egypt is commonly attributed to Napoleon and not Menou? I mean it was his army, Suvorov not being in command at 2nd Zrich is a detail. what about Marengo then? officially Napoleon wasn't the superior commander but Berthier.
 
Napoleon led the expedition to Egypt, then 'abandonded' it to its fate.  MacArthur was 'responsible' for the defeat in the Philippines, in spite of the fact that he left.  Napoleon was likewise 'responsible' for the loss of the army in Egypt.
 
Berthier was nominally the army commander (certainly not superior to Napoleon!) but in effect Napoleon was in command, with Berthier acting as Chief of Staff.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3224
  Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 06:06
I think I'm going to comment on Paul's post, because it is so very wise Smile

Originally posted by Paul

Alexander seems a little high, and Hannibal a little low.

Agreed. I think Rider thinks this is the case too.
 
Originally posted by Paul

English generals, Henry V, Edward III. How many battles did they actually fight? Surely overated. Edward III beat the soft target the French easily. Stumbled against the hard target, the Scots. Black Prince was better than either, beat the soft target the French, beat the hard target, the Spanish. And Cromwell was better than all of them.

I don't know enough about Cromwell in comparison to the other 3 you mentioned, but I believe the Black Prince's record outweighs Edward III's and Henry V's.
 
Originally posted by Paul

How can Slim be so low? He was the only WWII allied commander (non russian) that fought a war at a disadvantage. In Europe, the allies outnumbered the enemy, out equipped the enemy were fighting second rate troops, German commanders we're hamstrung by ridiculous whims of a madman and the allies had air supremacy. Slim was outgunned, fighting the elite of the Japanese army, out equipped and fighting against air supremacy.

I have a soft spot for Slim. He, as I've heard it been put, performed a reversed blitzkrieg through the Burmese Jungle. Though this is a bit generalised, his achievement was astounding. I would thoroughly support the upping of Slim.
 
Originally posted by Paul

Wellington, how many battle did he fight, and how outnumbered was he? How many battles did Marlborough fight and how outnumbered was he?


In response to Challenger also, and for the benefit of others, here is a brief(ish) overview of Wellington:

Early career: Wellington served as a foot soldier in an early French/Belgian campaign (eg. Boxtel).

India: Led a division in the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War, leading to the siege of Seringapatam and then fought a guerilla suppression campaign around Deccan against Khoondiah. Throughout, he was outnumbered vastly but did have superior troops. His only loss in India was a repulsion when doing a night-time reconnaissance against a native rocket-fortified position. Upon gaining full command, his war against the Marathas was a success too - he won 2 key engagements at Argaum and Assaye, outnumbered greatly, then taking Gawilghur.

Peninsula War: Initially outnumbered by overall French force in Spain/Portugal. Won engagements at Rolica and Vimeiro. Recalled to UK for Court trial. Returns to Portugal and wins at Grijo then Porto, followed by an arduous struggle at Talavera. And so on - he won 21 or so major battles and sieges in the Peninsula War, along with guerrilla offensives and skirmishes. His first loss as overall commander came at his retreat from the siege of Burgos.
There was of course then the Waterloo campaign, where he commanded at Quatre Bras and Waterloo.

Wellington is my specialty, so I don't know as much about Marlborough. Though, I believe reading in this thread that he was at 10 or so battles, and 20 or so sieges. Upon reviewing Marlborough and Wellington I have concluded that Wellington's innovative tactics, success against a wide range of armies in different conditions, good siege record and success against a force that was overrunning all other allied armies in Western Europe, place him above Marlborough. In saying this, there is always more to learn, and I still have Marlborough in my top 20 for sure.

I hope this answers Challenger2 as well Smile

Originally posted by Paul

Move Slim up, move Wellington up. Move Marlborough down. Add Cromwell and delete Henry V and Edward III from the list.

I agree with everything you have said there Paul.
 
Also, pretty much the rest of your post, I agree with or don't know enough about to comment. Do you have mind reading powers? Tongue

Regards,

- Knights -
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4445464748 127>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.313 seconds.