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 4647484950 128>
Author
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 Topic: Top 100 Generals
    Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 14:00
Here is the new portfolio I have of James Graham.
 
97.    James Graham   (1612-1650) Marquis of Montrose

-------------------------------------------------------------------

English Royal commander

5th Earl and 1st Marquis of Montrose.

The long-awaited son and heir for the wealthy Graham family.

[SIDENOTE: Only son of six children.]

Succeeded his father as Earl at age fourteen.  1626

Attended St. Andrews University.

Married Magdalene, youngest daughter of Lord Carnegie of neighboring Kinnaird Castle.  1629

Set out on a 3-year journey to France and Italy.

Signed the Convenant protesting at King Charles Is attempt to force, Episcopalian worship, upon the largely Presbyterian people of Scotland.  1633

[SIDENOTE: Charles I attempted to impose a new Prayer book in 1637]

One of four noblemen who drew up and signed the National Covenant.  1638

Fought against King Charles I in the Bishops Wars.  1639-40

Led an army to Aberdeen, forcing the city to accept the Covenant.

Occupied Newcastle upon Tyne and cut off Londons coal supply; forcing Charles to make truce.

Became increasingly disillusioned with the policies of the covenanter, who generally sided with Parliament against Charles I.

Soon realized that Archibald Campbell, 8th Earl of Argyll, was prepared to depose of the King to extend his own power.

The Solemn League and Covenant was drawn up, but Montrose refused to sign claiming other obligations.

[SIDENOTE: He had already signed the Cumbernauld Bond against the extremes of Presbyterianism.]

Jailed in Edinburgh Castle for five months for not supporting the Scottish Parliament.

Traveled to Oxford to meet with Charles I.  1643

Offered to retake Scotland in the name of the King.

Switched sides to support Charles I.

Charles I made Montrose a Marquis.  1644

Appointed Kings Lieutenant of Scotland.

Raised the standard at Dumfries.

Forced to retreat to Carlisle.

Harassed the supply lines of General David Leslie, the commander of the Scottish army in England.

Entered Scotland for a second attempt.

Made his way to Dunkeld.  August 1644

Intercepted a message from Alistair MacDonald (Colkitto) that was, by luck or fate, intended for Montrose.

Prevented a battle from erupting.

Was able to prevent a battle between the Irish under MacDonald and the Stewarts and Robertsons of Atholl

He united the feuding factions under himself and the King.

Made Alistair MacDonald his Major General.

He led army of 3,000 men (consisted of a crack brigade of Irish Macdonnels, Highland infantry, and a handful of cavalry), using speed and surprise, he compensated for its small size.

A Covenanter army marched south to support Parliament.  1644

Led brilliant campaign marked by victories at; 1644-45

 

TIPPERMUIR    September 1, 1644

-------------------------------

Lord Elcho (6,800) vs. James Graham (3,000)

Lord Elcho had 6,000 infantry, 800 cavalry (led by Lord Drummond) and 9 small cannon.  Tippermuirs terrain is a flat plain.  The Covenant infantry were drawn up at the base of Methven Hill with cavalry on each flank.  Elcho commanded the right wing, James Murray of Gask commanded the center and Sir James Scott of Rossie commanded the left flank.  Montrose had 3,000 infantry and 3 cavalry.  He quickly deployed his men; putting Lord Kilpoint and 400 archers on the left, facing Elcho.  The Lochaber accompanied them.  Montrose commanded the left and had the Irish in the center.  Covenanters were within a hundred yards of their enemy Montrose sent Master of Madertie under the flag of truce to beg Elcho to reconsider battle.  Elcho reacted by seizing Madertie.  Elcho sent two troops of cavalry and 160 infantry to harass the Highlanders line.  Alistair MacDonald and Lord Rollo countered by sending 120 men forward and successfully halted the Covenant move.  Drummonds men were pushed back and Montrose immediately ordered a general advance.  The Covenant men handling the cannon abandoned their positions.  Elchos musketeers fired one volley into the mass of pikemen, and then charged into the fray.  Irishmen attacked at once with such ferocity, that Lord Elchos men lost their coordination, broke ranks and began to flee the field.  Sir James Scott of Rossie rallied his men at a series of ruined cottages, but was pushed back when Montrose led the Athollmen against their resistance.

2,000 Covenant killed (mostly occurred during the rout)

1,000 Covenant prisoners

2 Royalist killed (this number seems very suspicious.)

[SIDENOTE: Many of the townsfolk that came to view the battle were caught up in the retreat and massacred by the advancing Royalists.]

 

ABERDEEN      September 13, 1644

-------------------------------

James Graham (1,500) vs. Lord Burleigh (3,000)

After an initial Royalist charge the Covenanters were put to flight.  No quarter was given. 

Losses of the Covenanters side were heavy. 

Royalists losses were light.

 

INVERLOCHY    February 2, 1645

-------------------------------

James Graham (1,500) vs. Sir Duncan Campbell (3,000)

James Graham had caught wind that Argyle Campbell and William Baillie were following his northern movement.  Montroses scouts warned him of the force behind his army.  Montrose made a two-day march through inhospitable terrain to Inverlochy where they encountered the Covenant army now led by Sir Duncan Campbell (no recording of where Argyle Campbell was at the time).  The Covenants spotted the Royalist force, but assumed it to be merely a raiding party.  Montrose positioned his army for attack; placing Manus OCahan on his left, Ronald Og and his Pikemen and Musketeers on the right, and Montrose took up the position to the Royal Standard.  Colonel James (ONeill) MacDonalds musketeers backed the center.  Sir Duncan Campbell of Auchinbreck placed his army in four divisions along a ridge.  The 500 Lowland companions on each flank with 2 cannon.  The center had the Campbell men was commanded by Lairds of Lochnell.  In front of the center was a mass of Campbell Clansmen led by Gillespie son of Gillespie Og, Laird of Bingingeadhs.  Auchinbreck placed 50 musketeers to the left flank of old castle of Inverlochy.  Gillespies vanguard started the advance.  OCahans musketeers advanced and held their fire until they were mere paces from the Covenants.  They then charged, forming a solid wedge.  Alistair threw his men at Auchinbrecks left.  Gillespies men retreated to the Campbell center.  Sir Thomas Ogilvies cavalry intercepted 200 Covenant infantry as they attempted to reach the safety of Inverlochy Castle.  The Royalists collided with the Campbell center and broke through.

KIA: Sir Thomas Ogilvie (Royalist Commander)

1,500 Covenanters killed.

8 Royalists killed (another suspicious number)

 

With 1,500 Royalist Highlanders, Montrose defeated 3,000 Campbells and Lowland Covenanters.  The defeat broke the power of the Campbells for many years.

1,700 Covenanter casualties

Unknown Royalist casualties safe to assume they were light.

Plunders Dundee and evades General Baillies Covenanter army.

 

AULDEARN      May 9, 1645

-------------------------------

Urrey (? ? ?) vs. James Graham (? ? ?)

Made camp with 1750 men and 250 horses.  Covenanters were marching through the night from Inverness to fight.  Sir John Hurrys men had the advantage of surprise were they to attack at once.  He had a concern of the heavy rain and ordered muskets to be fired and reloaded.  (To prevent them from being unreliable.)  Scout from MacDonalds Irish soldiers heard the discharges.  Soldiers attacked immediately only to find themselves in a bog and in trouble.  The Gordon cavalry arrived and aided them.  Followed by Montrose and infantry.)

Completely surrounded, half of Hurrys Covenanters were killed.

 

Charles Is fortunes declined after the disastrous defeat at Naseby.  June 14th, 1645

 

ALFORD July 2, 1645 

-------------------------------

William Baillie (2,000) vs. James Graham (2,000)

James Graham defended the Gallow Hill, just west of the village of Alford.  Under pressure by the Committee of Estates, General William Baillie crossed the River Don via Mountgarrie ford.  Unknown to Baillie, the bulk of Montroses forces were drawn up on the reverse slope of Gallow Hill.  When the young Lord Gordon saw a herd of his cattle among Ballies supply train, he led his small body of Cavalry on the Royalists right flank headlong charge into Balcarres cavalry on the left of Baillies line.  Irish infantry under Laghtnan soon supported the cavalry attack.  The Royalist left, led by Viscount Aboyne, imitated their right attack using a cavalry charge that was supported by Irish infantry.  Montroses Highland infantry charged the center.  The Covenant line collapsed and the battle turned into a rout.

KIA: Lord Gordon (Royalist)

1,250 Covenant casualties

 

 

KILSYTH, STERLING    August 15, 1645

-------------------------------

William Baillie (6,800) vs. James Graham (5,000)

Montrose, after finding the whereabouts of Baillie and that he was soon connecting with another force under the earl of Lanark, moved his force of 4,250 infantry and 500 cavalry and by nightfall on the 14th of August reached a meadow near Colzium.  Baillie, hearing about Montroses maneuver, moved his force 6,000 infantry and 800 cavalry on the same night until he was at Hollinbush, three miles from Kilsyth.  His men were exhausted and arrived late.  Effectively using the local people, Baillie knew the location of Montroses force.  Baillies force approached Montroses but no action was taken.  Baillie felt that as long as he sees the enemy Montrose would put himself at a disadvantage if he attacked; if he attacked Lanark, then Baillie would assault him from the rear, if he attacked, Lanark could provide support.  Baillies decision was to be overridden by the Committee of Estates, who with Baillie at the time.  They ordered Baillie to initiate action, as they feared Montrose might escape to the Highlands.  Bailllie ordered his army to march in northern perimeter of the high ground, flanking Montroses position.  The column was led by the cavalry, which made a circuit to Banton Burn and then V-lined to the Drum Burn.  Taking this opportunity, Montrose ordered Gordons cavalry against the nose of the column and MacLeans infantry to seize the Auchinvalley farmsteadings laying between the Covenanting main body and its center.  The columns advance was stopped and it broke with a second charge.  1,000 Highlanders initiated an expected assault.  Montrose, irate, supported it by sending in a strong detachment under the Earl of Airly.  The Covenanting army was already is disarray and in rout mode.  Montrose ordered a general assault.  Baillie escaped through the notorious Dullatur Bog.  Lanarks forces were informed of the disaster at Kilsyth and soon scattered.  All of the Committee of Estates escaped.

5,500 Covenant killed

8 Royalists killed.

[SIDENOTE: During the cutting of the Forth and Clyde Canal, the bodies of several troopers, one stilled seated on a horse, were recovered from the Dullatur bog.]

 

PHILIPHAUGH   September 13, 1645

Sir David Leslie (6,000) vs. James Graham (700)

Montroses army melted away after Montrose attempted to secure political control of Scotland.  Montrose moved close the Scottish border to collect more troops.  General David Leslie, with his large army, including 5,000 cavalry, moved back to Scotland to find Montrose.  A fog near Philiphaugh assisted Leslie as he approached Montrose who was unaware of the coming danger.  Disinformation received by Montrose made him conclude he was safe as the River Ettrick protected his left flank and the wild hills of Hairhead protected his right.  Montrose reluctantly, but was persuaded to flee the battlefield.  The Irish surrendered.  No quarter was given on the part of the Covenants.  After the Irish surrendered, the Covenants massacred the 300 camp followers, all women and children, and then killed their Irish prisoners.

Few Royalists survived.

Covenant casualties were light.

 

Montrose continued ineffective campaign of guerilla warfare.  1646

Charles I ordered him to lay down his arms.

Montrose disbanded his army at Blairgowire in Perthshire.  September 3, 1646

Boarded a Norwegian ship bound for Bergen disguised as a servant.

Support for the Royalist cause in Scotland collapsed.

Made a mareschal by the Germans with similar honors from the French.

Charles I was executed.  January 30th 1649

Immediately pleaded his loyalty to the new king, Charles II.

Charles II encouraged Montrose to begin a new campaign.

[SIDENOTE: Charles II was playing a double game.  He had letters of condemning Argyle and his followers if Montrose was successful and letters disowning Montrose completely.]

Montrose persuaded Charles II to dub him Lieutenant-Governor of Scotland.

Returned to Scotland with 1200 hired Danish mercenaries to raise the Highlands for the new King.  Spring of 1650

Shipwrecked in Orkney, only 500 men made it ashore.

Recruited another 1,000 Orcadians to his cause, but these were untrained troops.

[SIDENOTE: With the exception of 50 cavalry, all were infantry.]

Crossed over to the Scottish mainland at Thurso.

Found the clans were reluctant to follow him against the Covenant.

Moved south from Sutherland towards Inverness.

 

CARBISDALE    April 27, 1650

Colonel Strachan (156) vs. James Graham (800)

Called a halt at a hill called Carbisdale, a strong defensive position.  Ordered his troops to dig in until reinforcements arrived from the Royalist highland clans.  General David Leslie ordered an experienced Covenanting cavalry force under Colonel Strachan to harass Montroses force until he arrived.  Instead, Strachan attempted to draw Montrose down form his defensive stronghold; into the open country.  Strachan hid his main force and sent forward a troop of cavalry.  Montrose bite hard, he send forward a troop of cavalry under major Lisle to drive them back.  He struck camp and advanced with his whole Brigade, abandoning his strong defensive position Carbisdale hill provided.  Strachan charged from his concealment in the woods.  The sight of such a large body of cavalry charging broke the Orcadians morale.  The battle quickly turned into a rout. 

 

He escaped the battle.

Upon reaching Loch Assynt in Sutherland, he encountered Neil Macleod whom had fought at Montroses side during the siege of Inverness.

Captured when betrayed by Neil Macleod of Assynt at Ardvreck Castle.

SIDENOTE: McLeod sold him to his enemies for ₤25,000.

At Monifieth, rescue attempted failed.

Taken to Edinburgh.

Disowned by Charles II.

Executed without a trial.  Hung and quartered at the Market Cross.  May 21, 1650

Given a proper tomb in Edinburghs St. Giless Cathedral. 1888

SIDENOTE: He is laid directly opposite his adversary, Archibald Campbell, Marquis of Argyle.

Weakness: Allowed his forces to disperse.

 

Eyewitness recording of his last words.

-----------------------------------------------

I leave my soul to God, my service to my prince, my goodwill to my friends, my love and charity to you all.

 

 

Back to Top
DSMyers1 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 603
  Quote DSMyers1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 14:33
Splendid information, Travis!

I wish we could collect the portfolios of all of these generals, but for many, the information is limited.  Particularly for the Asian generals.  I don't really have time to do research--I prefer to act as coordinator, facilitator and (mostly) un-biased ranker or the generals as I see them.
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: 23-Feb-2008 at 14:51
Originally posted by DSMyers1

I don't really have time to do research--I prefer to act as coordinator, facilitator and (mostly) un-biased ranker or the generals as I see them.
 
As you already know, you are doing a fine job.
 
For some reason, I left out my sources on this particular portfolio.  I believe I am a person who believes in organization.  However, I am finding out that I don't practice it very well.
 
The sources need to be on there and I will look to find them.  Post more later.
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: 23-Feb-2008 at 20:16
Originally posted by Travis Congleton

Temujin (Genghis Khan)
Alexander the Great
Napoleon Bonaparte
Hannibal Barca
Frederick II (of Prussia)
 


thats a top 5 i totally approve of.


I apologize for the rude statement, but anyone who really believes a strategic withdraw is a defeat lacks basic military understanding of warfare.

This subject, if further evaluation is needed, should be created in a different thread.


i didn't said that, i said "many military historians considder a strategical withdrawal after battle as a defeat."

lets not forget battles are just tools to achieve strategic aims, battles are not just fought for the sake of it, like playing chess. you never heard the saying "winning the battle but losing the war" (or vice versa)? in German there is also a nice saying that goes like "sich zu Tode siegen" which translates roughly as "to win yrslf to death".
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: 23-Feb-2008 at 20:23
Originally posted by Praetor


You forgot about Napoleons seige of Acre where the British and Ottoman forces prevailed (neither under Wellington's command nor an assualt on a french possesion)but I suppose I'm being more then a little pedantic there. Regardless Suvorov was ordered to leave Italy to assist Korsakov in Switzerland despite his victories and so he reinforced Korsakov's army with a large portion of his own, which Korsakov proceeded to lose at Zurich, so I ask again how many armies did Napoleon assign to varius generals in Iberia who then proceeded to face defeat at the hands of the Iron duke of Wellington?


Acre was won by the Ottomans, just because there was a military attachee and the British fleet outside doesn't make it a British victory. it was an oversimplyfication anyways but it holds some truth. its an evidence that the British army overall lacked behind their continental counterparts and adds to Wellingtons greatness.

No he was recalled then died (seeing as he was a general and Napoleon an emperor these are the respective moments of each end to their powers to command soldiers), I could have supplanted Napoleons abdication for his death and the point would remain equally valid, Napoleons conquest's did not outlive him, some of Suvorov's did.


Napoleond id not lose his conquests within oen year, he lost them after years of further expansion and heavy ressistance and many hard fought battles. Suvorov had the Austrians with him and still achieved nothing. though i grant you that Russia eventually recalled them but the campaign ended still in Massenas victory over the Russians at Zrich. Napoleon was nowhere near Spain after 1808 so the arguemtn is redundant. you can blame other defeats by his marshals on him but not those.

you claimed that Manstein lost every major battle and you listed Kharkov among those major battles that he lost, you were wrong.


see my post above, a tactical victory doesn't equal a strategical victory. the Red wave was stopped yes, but it caused the Soviets to regroup and take a devensive attitude.


He was the mongol commander responsible for the defeat of the Khara-Khitai under Kuchlug and along with Subedei scored a major victory over the Georgians for starters.



the latter was part of the Khalka campaign, Georgians & Armenians were defeated several times by Chormaqan. IIRC Chinggis himself was commander in the Qara-Khitay campaign.
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: 24-Feb-2008 at 17:07
Originally posted by Travis Congleton

  
Temujin (Genghis Khan)
Alexander the Great
Napoleon Bonaparte
Hannibal Barca
Frederick II (of Prussia)



I can live with the top three in that order, and most of you know my views on Hannibal, but what persuaded you to promote Frederick over Marlborough?
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: 24-Feb-2008 at 17:20
i think he will never see a top 5 without Hannibal because is lobby is too strong, but Frederick was easily above Marlborough.
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: 24-Feb-2008 at 20:17
Originally posted by Temujin

Frederick was easily above Marlborough.


Ican'tagreewiththiseither.So,baseitupon'facts'...
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: 24-Feb-2008 at 20:49
Originally posted by Temujin

i think he will never see a top 5 without Hannibal because is lobby is too strong, but Frederick was easily above Marlborough.
 
 
And both behind Wellington
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
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: 25-Feb-2008 at 06:16
Originally posted by Paul

Originally posted by Temujin

i think he will never see a top 5 without Hannibal because is lobby is too strong, but Frederick was easily above Marlborough.
 
 
And both behind Wellington

Clap
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: 25-Feb-2008 at 15:55

My oldest list had Frederick at #6 and Marlborough at #7.  The new listing I have has them both up one spot (fifth and sixth respectively).  I don't want to delve into the Top 10 list as it is simply too controversial.  I am working from the bottom up.

And at the same time, I don't want to shoot from the hip with your question.  Let me look at both commanders from a subjective point of view and see why I do have Frederick ahead of Marlborough.  Unfortunately, that may take up some time (I have many irons in the fire, some more important than others).
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: 25-Feb-2008 at 19:02
Originally posted by rider


I can't agree with this either. So, base it upon 'facts'...  


easily:

Frederick II.:
- Prussia & Britain (including Hanover, Brunswick, Anhalt & Hessen-Kassel)
vs
France, Austria, the Reich, Russia, Sweden (Spain?)
= outnumbered big time strategically
- established his country as a great power
- created an army that became model for others
- strategically very competent
- fought each battle outnumbered
- revived Epaminondas tactic and brought it to new sucess
- turned his cavalry, which was one of the poorest, into one of the best on the continent
- lost some battles, but eventually suceeded in retaining Silesia

Marlborough:
- England/Britain, Austria, Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark-Norway, the Reich, Piedmont (eventually), Catalonia & Galicia (=Habsburg loyalist Spain)
vs
France, Spain, Bavaria & Papal State (both eventually)
= strategically outnumbering his enemy big time
- was never defeated
- won most of his victories with the help of another great commander (Trkenlouis, Eugene)
- didn't entered France (as opposed to Eugene)
- failed in his initial goal to prevent Bourbon rule in Spain but 'suceeded' in preventing a Habsburg superpower by being recalled from the war
- tactically more or less along his contemporaries

Wellington:
to 1814:
- initially: Britain (incl. Hanover & Brunswick), Portugal, Spain, Sardinia-Piedmont, Both Sicilies. eventually: Russia, Sweden, Prussia, Austria (also 1809), all German principalities
vs
France (incl. Netherlands), pro-French Spain (very few), Denmark, Rhine Union, Italy, Naples, (Ottomans until 1812)
= outnumbering his enemy
1815:
- Britain, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Netherlands, all German principalities
vs
France
= outnumbering big time
- tactically undefeated
- strategically weak
- used the available ressources most efficiently
- fought a secondary theatre and had no influence on Napoleons first abdication
- in 1815 was instrumental in Napoleons final defeat but won by help of Blcher only

note: countries in bold relevant for the specific theater. as for wellington, its diffiuclt where to place the German minors (& italy), however some of those troops also participated in the Spanish campaign and were some of the French best troops as France itself only sent the B team to Spain. i also ignored more or less the war of Austrian sucession for Frederick (which was strategically balanced and he fought a secondary theater), Sedgemoore for Marlborough (rather unimportant) and Wellington in India (colonial affair which gained him a reputation as sepoy general).
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: 26-Feb-2008 at 13:25
Wink
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by rider


I can't agree with this either. So, base it upon 'facts'...  


easily:

Frederick II.:
- Prussia & Britain (including Hanover, Brunswick, Anhalt & Hessen-Kassel)
vs
France, Austria, the Reich, Russia, Sweden (Spain?)
= outnumbered big time strategically
- established his country as a great power
- created an army that became model for others
- strategically very competent
- fought each battle outnumbered
- revived Epaminondas tactic and brought it to new sucess
- turned his cavalry, which was one of the poorest, into one of the best on the continent
- lost some battles, but eventually suceeded in retaining Silesia

Marlborough:
- England/Britain, Austria, Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark-Norway, the Reich, Piedmont (eventually), Catalonia & Galicia (=Habsburg loyalist Spain)
vs
France, Spain, Bavaria & Papal State (both eventually)
= strategically outnumbering his enemy big time
- was never defeated
- won most of his victories with the help of another great commander (Trkenlouis, Eugene)
- didn't entered France (as opposed to Eugene)
- failed in his initial goal to prevent Bourbon rule in Spain but 'suceeded' in preventing a Habsburg superpower by being recalled from the war
- tactically more or less along his contemporaries

Wellington:
to 1814:
- initially: Britain (incl. Hanover & Brunswick), Portugal, Spain, Sardinia-Piedmont, Both Sicilies. eventually: Russia, Sweden, Prussia, Austria (also 1809), all German principalities
vs
France (incl. Netherlands), pro-French Spain (very few), Denmark, Rhine Union, Italy, Naples, (Ottomans until 1812)
= outnumbering his enemy
1815:
- Britain, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Netherlands, all German principalities
vs
France
= outnumbering big time
- tactically undefeated
- strategically weak
- used the available ressources most efficiently
- fought a secondary theatre and had no influence on Napoleons first abdication
- in 1815 was instrumental in Napoleons final defeat but won by help of Blcher only

note: countries in bold relevant for the specific theater. as for wellington, its diffiuclt where to place the German minors (& italy), however some of those troops also participated in the Spanish campaign and were some of the French best troops as France itself only sent the B team to Spain. i also ignored more or less the war of Austrian sucession for Frederick (which was strategically balanced and he fought a secondary theater), Sedgemoore for Marlborough (rather unimportant) and Wellington in India (colonial affair which gained him a reputation as sepoy general).
 
Where to begin? I've not time for a full reply but here's a few comments from my first read through.
 
Frederick did not create the Prussian Army, but inherited it from his father. The true creator of the army was Luipold of Anhalt-Dessau, "Die Alte Dessauer", who incidently learned his trade under Marlborough.
 
Frederick lost several battles and was on the verge of collapse in 1763 but for the timely death of Tsarina Elizabeth. Rossabach and Leuthen were major sucesses that kept him in the war in 1759 otherwise he would have been defeated much earlier.
 
The French army of the late 1600's and early 1700's was the largest, most powerful in Europe. It was well trained and well led, and Marlborough opposed it with a polyglot alliance of several countries and principalities which he manged to forge into a force capable of defeating it. Marlborough took on the French "A" team, to use your analogy, and beat them time and again.
 
Marlborough had nothing to do with the war in Spain as such. It was never his intenetion to prevent a bourbon succession, but to prevent abourbon hegemony over Europe. In this he was successfull, and to say he was "helped" by Eugene, is the same as saying Frederick was "helped" by Seydlitz, or Wellington by Picton or Crauford.
 
More later...
 
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: 26-Feb-2008 at 15:42
Not to mention that Frederick took heavy losses in the most of his battles compared to Marlborough in only one...
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: 26-Feb-2008 at 15:45
Frederick did not create the Prussian Army, but inherited it from his father. The true creator of the army was Luipold of Anhalt-Dessau, "Die Alte Dessauer", who incidently learned his trade under Marlborough.
------------------------------------
 (true)
 
Frederick lost several battles and was on the verge of collapse in 1763 but for the timely death of Tsarina Elizabeth. Rossabach and Leuthen were major sucesses that kept him in the war in 1759 otherwise he would have been defeated much earlier. 
------------------------------------
The second sentence is a rather slated one.  We are positioning these commanders based not just on normal victories, but on great ones as well.
 
 
The French army of the late 1600's and early 1700's was the largest, most powerful in Europe. It was well trained and well led, and Marlborough opposed it with a polyglot alliance of several countries and principalities which he manged to forge into a force capable of defeating it. Marlborough took on the French "A" team, to use your analogy, and beat them time and again.
------------------------------------
I would agree upon this as well.
 
 
Marlborough had nothing to do with the war in Spain as such. It was never his intenetion to prevent a bourbon succession, but to prevent abourbon hegemony over Europe. In this he was successfull, and to say he was "helped" by Eugene, is the same as saying Frederick was "helped" by Seydlitz, or Wellington by Picton or Crauford.
------------------------------------
To state that Eugene is a simpleton cavalry under Marlborough is like stating Wellington was under the directive of Blucher at Waterloo.  Most of the sources I have found do not state 'under the command' between Eugene and Marlborough.  'Counterpart' is a more common phrase.  I would hardly say Seydlitz was the counterpart to Frederick since he was Frederick's cavalry commander.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 15:57
Themosticles.  Consider:  He single handedly convinced the tight fisted Athenians to provide the capital derived from the newly discovered silver mines to go to a new navy, instead of a weeks wage to each Athenian cit., thus culminating in the defeat of Xerxes navy and ultimately his army.  How can this man NOT be on your list?  No Themosticles, no Western Civilization.
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: 26-Feb-2008 at 16:34
Originally posted by Travis Congleton

To state that Eugene is a simpleton cavalry under Marlborough is like stating Wellington was under the directive of Blucher at Waterloo.  Most of the sources I have found do not state 'under the command' between Eugene and Marlborough.  'Counterpart' is a more common phrase.  I would hardly say Seydlitz was the counterpart to Frederick since he was Frederick's cavalry commander.


Whoa! I never said Eugene was a simpleton, nor just a cavalry commander. The two hit it off from first sight and saw eye to eye on most matters. Eugene was technically under Marlborough's "command" as Marlborough was Captain-General of the alliance forces ranged against France, but the two of them co-operated with each other to an unprecedented extent. Smile
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: 26-Feb-2008 at 16:56
Originally posted by Challenger2

Whoa! I never said Eugene was a simpleton, nor just a cavalry commander. The two hit it off from first sight and saw eye to eye on most matters. Eugene was technically under Marlborough's "command" as Marlborough was Captain-General of the alliance forces ranged against France, but the two of them co-operated with each other to an unprecedented extent. Smile
ok.  I easily accept that.  Just from the statement, it appeared you were attempting to dumbdown Eugene's role in the Spanish Succession.  My apologies for misinterpreting your statement.  Wink
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: 26-Feb-2008 at 17:20
Originally posted by rhodanus

Themosticles.  Consider:  He single handedly convinced the tight fisted Athenians to provide the capital derived from the newly discovered silver mines to go to a new navy, instead of a weeks wage to each Athenian cit., thus culminating in the defeat of Xerxes navy and ultimately his army.  How can this man NOT be on your list?  No Themosticles, no Western Civilization.
 
I believe he even chose the battle location of where to fight the Persians (Salamis).  However, he was not the commander in that battle.  Legistrative is much removed from this list.  I am more inclined to have a list of 100 commanders that we can learn from their battles. 
 
Same policy with military inventions.  Mikhail Kalashnikov was a mere tank commander, however, his AK-47 weapon design, arguably the best rifle ever designed, is probably one of the most influencial tools in 20th Century warfare.  Another example would be Sir Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the Maxim machine gun that made 19th Century tactics obsolete as proven during World War I.  These could easily apply to hundreds of inventors, designers and innovators of weapons throughout our history.  However, I am wanting a list of commanders that we can learn from.  Specifically from their tactics, strategies, and weapon innovations, rather than most victories, most land, most this, most that, fewest everything else.
 
Themistocles's efforts in Salamis did save Western Civilization.  But so did a half dozen battles throughout history.  Themistocles was co-commander of the less impressive indecisive Battle of Artemisium during the Battle of Thermopylae was taking place.
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: 26-Feb-2008 at 18:35
Originally posted by Challenger2

Wink 
Frederick did not create the Prussian Army, but inherited it from his father. The true creator of the army was Luipold of Anhalt-Dessau, "Die Alte Dessauer", who incidently learned his trade under Marlborough.


he didn't created the army, he was only one of the persons who was instrumental in shaping the army. and he served primarily under Eugene (like in Italy), not Marlborough.

Frederick lost several battles and was on the verge of collapse in 1763 but for the timely death of Tsarina Elizabeth. Rossabach and Leuthen were major sucesses that kept him in the war in 1759 otherwise he would have been defeated much earlier.


the death of Elizabeth was only the reason for the Russian withdrawal from war but it was not yet the end of the war. Prussia defeated Austria in another battles to convince them to leave Silesia in Prussias hand.
 
The French army of the late 1600's and early 1700's was the largest, most powerful in Europe. It was well trained and well led, and Marlborough opposed it with a polyglot alliance of several countries and principalities which he manged to forge into a force capable of defeating it. Marlborough took on the French "A" team, to use your analogy, and beat them time and again.


i wouldn't call malplaquet a victory. the armies of the principalities might have been small but that doesn't mean they were bad.
 
Marlborough had nothing to do with the war in Spain as such. It was never his intenetion to prevent a bourbon succession, but to prevent abourbon hegemony over Europe. In this he was successfull, and to say he was "helped" by Eugene, is the same as saying Frederick was "helped" by Seydlitz, or Wellington by Picton or Crauford.


it was a common effort between britain and Austria to install archduke Charles on the Spanish throne. only after archduke charles became emperor britain stopped supporting him and lived with the lesser evil.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4647484950 128>

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 0.109 seconds.