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 5657585960 128>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
antonioM View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69 		  Quote antonioM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Top 100 Generals
    Posted: 06-Apr-2008 at 04:23
So now the British are down to as low as 25%? Even the source which you provided earlier gave them 'credit' for 35%. Regarding the composition of the other armies, do you have specific information on this, or are you just assuming? In particular, what percentage of the Austrian army was actually 'Austrian' (I.e. excluding Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenians, Croats, Serbs, Poles, Italians...)? In any case, the Dutch / German contingents were integrated into Wellington's army, so it is still legit to refer to the collective whole as the 'British army'. It was Britain's national contingent, regardless of what it was composed of. In contrast, Blucher's force was a distinct separate contingent from that of Wellington's. So it would not be appropriate to refer to the combined forces as either British or Prussian.

Bad semantics.

You are also quick to highlight the foreign elements when they don't do well but they are automatically British when they do well.

The majority of Wellington's army was German so it was a German army with British and Dutch components.


I still don't follow your logic here, beyond simply arguing that the website says the French 'won' so therefore they did. Ney's original force heavily outnumbered the original British force facing them.

It is Wellington's fault that the Germans/British/Dutch did not outnumber the French. Thanks be to the Prince of Orange who had courage to take the initiative, be there and face the French with such inferior numbers. He prevented a decisive French victory despite Wellington.

I don't see that the French achieved any significant result at Quatre Bras that enhanced their chances in the overall campaign. They no doubt won a victory at Ligny, although not a total victory. However, the outcome at Quatre Bras did not assist in the outcome at Ligny, nor did it impair the ability of the British army to resist in the subsequent phase of the overall campaign.

Sigh,

what was Wellington's objective? To support Blucher as he promised.

Did he get that objective? No. Blucher had to stand alone and was defeated.

Why did he not get that objective? Because of Ney and his tiny army.

Therefore, Ney and the French won and Wellington and his German/British/Dutch army lost.

That is simple.

You left off this part of the summary, from your own source:

American military historian, Colonel John Elting writes: "Had Davout, instead of Ney, commanded Napoleon's left wing, there can be little doubt that Quatre Bras would have been a French victory."  (Elting - "Swords Around a Throne" p 644)


I am sure he means "decisive" French victory. But it was still a French victory at both Quatre-Bras and Ligny for the aforementioned reasons. Thanks to the Prince of Orange, it was not a decisive French victory, no thanks to Wellington.

And thanks be to Blucher who displayed such zeal in getting his army to support Wellington that Wellington lacked in getting his German/British/Dutch army to support Blucher, enabling Waterloo to be a decisive Allied victory.

The 100 Days campaign was a decisive Allied victory, no thanks to Wellington.

The 'would have been' appears to suggest that perhaps, as it was, the result was not such a clear cut French victory.  Since Ney's original force heavily outnumbered the British army at Quatre Bras, there was practically no prospect for the British defeating Ney and then intervening on the battlefield at Ligny.

So? By that logic there was no way the French should win the 100 Days Campaign because the Allied forces vastly outnumbered them. And yet they almost did, no thanks to Wellington.

BTW, you should make a minor correction. Ney's original force heavily outnumbered the Dutch army at Quatre-Bras, and yet the Dutch did a great job in holding back the French just enough for reinforcements to arrive.
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: 06-Apr-2008 at 04:48
Originally posted by AntonioM

The majority of Wellington's army was German so it was a German army with British and Dutch components.

Even if you grossly exaggerate the non-British composition of Wellington's army, more credit must be owed to him for achievements with foreign troops.

Originally posted by AntonioM


You left off this part of the summary, from your own source:

American military historian, Colonel John Elting writes: "Had Davout, instead of Ney, commanded Napoleon's left wing, there can be little doubt that Quatre Bras would have been a French victory."  (Elting - "Swords Around a Throne" p 644)


I am sure he means "decisive" French victory. But it was still a French victory at both Quatre-Bras and Ligny for the aforementioned reasons. Thanks to the Prince of Orange, it was not a decisive French victory, no thanks to Wellington.

And thanks be to Blucher who displayed such zeal in getting his army to support Wellington that Wellington lacked in getting his German/British/Dutch army to support Blucher, enabling Waterloo to be a decisive Allied victory.

The 100 Days campaign was a decisive Allied victory, no thanks to Wellington.

Okay, first of all, you are putting words straight into the mouth of the historian, by saying "I am sure he meant decisive victory". Well I am sure that, if he did mean that, he would have written it.

You absolve blame from Blucher, making out that credit is due solely to him for success in the campaign. Also, you added that victory was 'no thanks to Wellington'. My conscience doubts that success would have ever been imagined if Wellington didn't take part in the campaign at all.

Regards,

- Knights -
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810 		  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2008 at 07:10
Hello to you all
 
I really can't see why Allenby is on the list? He fought the worst equipt, worst lead part of the Ottoman army which was the weakest of all armies of WWI. It was the Arab allies who really made a difference in the war, they opened a huge second front behind Turkish lines and they all but destroyed them with little help from the British. They took Damascus, Jordan and southern Syria before the Brits captured Palestine. If any one who should be on the list from the mideast theater it definitely should be Colmar Von Der Goltz. He defeated the britihs twice in Iraq and nearly annihilated them despite them having an advantage over him and with the Russians opening a second front from Iran (they actually occupied Iraqi territory but were kicked out later). Also, another candidate is Nikolai Yudenich. His performance at the Caucasus campaign was excellent. The problem is that he never fought a competent enemy.
 
Al-Jassas
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: 06-Apr-2008 at 14:45
Originally posted by antonioM

Bad semantics.
 
Not sure what you're saying here.  Are you saying that your original claim of Wellington's force being only 35% 'British', and then later claiming only 25-30% is 'bad semantics'?
 
Originally posted by antonioM


You are also quick to highlight the foreign elements when they don't do well but they are automatically British when they do well.
 
Are you sure that I am quick to do that?  Please go back and quote, in my own words, where I have 'highlighted' the 'foreign elements' when they didn't do well but 'automatically' assumed they were British when they did well.  All I have done is consistently referred to the whole combined force as 'the British army'.
Originally posted by antonioM


The majority of Wellington's army was German so it was a German army with British and Dutch components.
 
No, it was a 'British army' with British, German and Dutch components.  You seem to want to hold me to a higher standard of preciseness than you follow yourself.  First you referred to the 'German' components as 'Prussian'.  Now you insist on using the collective term 'German', even though there was no 'Germany' at that time.  Rather than referring to the 'German' contingent as a collective whole, you should refer to so many Brunswickers, so many Hannoverians etc.

Originally posted by antonioM


It is Wellington's fault that the Germans/British/Dutch did not outnumber the French. Thanks be to the Prince of Orange who had courage to take the initiative, be there and face the French with such inferior numbers. He prevented a decisive French victory despite Wellington.



Originally posted by antonioM

Sigh,

what was Wellington's objective? To support Blucher as he promised.

Did he get that objective? No. Blucher had to stand alone and was defeated.

Why did he not get that objective? Because of Ney and his tiny army.

Therefore, Ney and the French won and Wellington and his German/British/Dutch army lost.

That is simple.

 
The problem is that your arguement is predicated on a number of erroneous assumptions.  Ney and his 'tiny army'?  Ney's 'tiny army' heavily outnumbered the British forces at the start of Quatre Bras.  Ney plus d'Erlons I Corps clearly outnumbered the entire British force present  by the end of the day.  Wellington had promised to join Blucher at Ligny if he was not attacked himself.  He was attacked himself, so that objective was null and void.  What Wellington did do to 'support' Blucher was hold the crossroads, prevent use of the key lateral road for the day and 'tie up' a superior French force (Ney's original forces plus d'Erlon's I Corps) for the entire day, which were therefore not available to Napoleon at Ligny.  Wellington also managed to avoid being defeated himself.  I will elaborate on this in a subsequent post.

Originally posted by antonioM

I am sure he means "decisive" French victory. But it was still a French victory at both Quatre-Bras and Ligny for the aforementioned reasons. Thanks to the Prince of Orange, it was not a decisive French victory, no thanks to Wellington.
 
So, you are 'sure' that Col. Elting actually supports your theory, but presumably he just has a little trouble expressing his support for you clearly when he writes his books on the subject?
Originally posted by antonioM


And thanks be to Blucher who displayed such zeal in getting his army to support Wellington that Wellington lacked in getting his German/British/Dutch army to support Blucher, enabling Waterloo to be a decisive Allied victory.
 
That I do not disagree with.  Blucher's support at Waterloo was critical in defeating the French
Originally posted by antonioM


The 100 Days campaign was a decisive Allied victory, no thanks to Wellington.
 
Without Wellington's support, Ney and d'Erlon's Corps would have headed down the lateral road on June 16 and finished off Blucher completely at Ligny.  There then would have been nothing preventing Napoleon's (re)-conquest of Belgium and the Netherlands.  In fact Wellington played a critical role in the decisive Allied victory in the '100 Day Campaign' (as did Blucher).

Originally posted by antonioM


So? By that logic there was no way the French should win the 100 Days Campaign because the Allied forces vastly outnumbered them. And yet they almost did, no thanks to Wellington.
 
Well, the French were outnumbered by the combined British and Prussian forces.  However, Napoleon could win by doing exactly what he tried to do, which was to concentrate on one force, then the other.  Napoleon manoeuvred himself into an advantageous position, then tried to concentrate on Blucher, but Wellington interferred at Quatre Bras, thus neither Ney's force nor d'Erlon's I Corps were able to use the lateral road to take Blucher in the rear.  At Waterloo, Napoleon tried to concentrate on the British, but Blucher's forces intervened.  So Napoleon tried to do what he needed to in order to win, and he was partially successfully.  However, ultimately both Wellington and Blucher managed to avoid allowing the French to concentrate their entire force against the other.
Originally posted by antonioM


BTW, you should make a minor correction. Ney's original force heavily outnumbered the Dutch army at Quatre-Bras, and yet the Dutch did a great job in holding back the French just enough for reinforcements to arrive.
 
No correction is necessary.  There was no 'Dutch army'.  The Dutch units first on the scene did do a great job of positioning themselves and holding those advanced positions until reinforcements arrived.  At no point have I attempted to denigrate the role played the the Dutch or 'German' components of Wellington's force.


Edited by deadkenny - 06-Apr-2008 at 14:49
"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: 06-Apr-2008 at 14:52
This is the 'elaboration' that I referred to previously regarding the objectives and impact of the outcome at Quatre Bras.
 
 

From Joseph Balkoski's article entitled Ney vs. Wellington The Battle of Quatre Bras June 16, 1815 in Strategy and Tactics magazine #74


Originally posted by joseph balkoski in Ney vs. Wellington


The Aftermath


Who won the battle? Casualties do not give the answer. In the six-hour struggle, the Allies sustained 4,521 casualties (of which 2,275 were British), while the French suffered 4,375. Perhaps it is wiser to look at the strategic objectives of the armies before the struggle. Napoleon's orders to Ney on 16 June clearly specified that he was to engage and defeat Wellington, drive down the Namur road to the east, and envelop Blucher's army at Ligny. Clearly, Ney totally failed to do this. No action taken by Ney at Quatre Bras influenced the fighting at Ligny to any degree. As a result, Blucher's army may well have been saved from total destruction on this day. However, it must be remembered that Wellington's half-hearted promise of support to Blucher was similarly nullified by the French attacks. Moreover, it might be said that no action taken by Wellington at Quatre Bras directly aided the Prussian cause. Thus, in a strategic sense, the Battle of Quatre Bras should probably be called a draw.


In a tactical sense, it is clear that the Allies had the upper hand by day's end. Once rough parity in numbers was achieved on the battlefield, the French never crossed north of the Namur road and, more importantly, never held Quatre Bras. All along the line (except for a time in Bossu Wood) the Allied line held firm and was never broken. On the other hand, a major French infantry assault and four cavalry assaults were totally repulsed. Ney's tactical handling of the battle was abysmal. Unsupported cavalry attacks (a tactic which he repeated disastrously two days later) seemed to be the limit of his tactical finesse. Some of his infantry untis were not engaged at all at Quatre Bras, yet he bitterly complained to the Emperor about the lack of reinforcements from D'Erlon's I Corps! All in all, it appears as if French artillery was the primary cause of Allied losses.


On the other hand, Wellington performed in a masterly fashion at Quatre Bras with many disadvantages. Primarily, he was forced to fight on terrain not of his own choosing, ground that was not well-suited to his typical defensive tactics. In effect, the Duke had no room for maneuver. He was dependent on an arriving army while facing an already-deployed one. For the most part, his troops were poor. Yet he held his positions steadfastly and even attacked successfully at the end of the day.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
antonioM View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69 		  Quote antonioM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2008 at 05:36
Not sure what you're saying here.  Are you saying that your original claim of Wellington's force being only 35% 'British', and then later claiming only 25-30% is 'bad semantics'?

I am saying it is not fair to consider an army by the nationality of the general. The army should refer to the nationality of the combatants. Whether it is 35 % or 25-30% British is immaterial because it still puts the British in the minority. Therefore the army cannot be called British because they did not form the majority of the combatants.

Are you sure that I am quick to do that?  Please go back and quote, in my own words, where I have 'highlighted' the 'foreign elements' when they didn't do well but 'automatically' assumed they were British when they did well.  All I have done is consistently referred to the whole combined force as 'the British army'.

When I have time, I will look back through your posts. It is possible that I might have confused you with PeteratWar and Challenger2. If that is the case, I apologize. in the meantime I will  look through you posts.

The problem is that your arguement is predicated on a number of erroneous assumptions.  Ney and his 'tiny army'?  Ney's 'tiny army' heavily outnumbered the British forces at the start of Quatre Bras.

No, Wellington's German/British/Dutch army clearly outnumbered Ney's tiny army. It is Wellington's fault that his army did not outnumber the French at the beginning because he didn't send them there. Eventually, the rest of his army arrived and outnumbered and pushed back the French. But that is only because of  the Prince of Orange and his Dutch army for having the foresight, that he didn't, for holding on to Quatre-Bras and hence preventing a decisive French victory rather than an incomplete one.

Wellington had promised to join Blucher at Ligny if he was not attacked himself.

Who was opposing him? Ney's tiny army!!! What a wimp. Blucher, on the other hand, did not let the French at Wavre and Plancenoit stop him from linking up to Welington.
Back to Top
antonioM View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 26-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69 		  Quote antonioM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2008 at 06:11
Who won the battle? Casualties do not give the answer. In the six-hour struggle, the Allies sustained 4,521 casualties (of which 2,275 were British), while the French suffered 4,375. Perhaps it is wiser to look at the strategic objectives of the armies before the struggle. Napoleon's orders to Ney on 16 June clearly specified that he was to engage and defeat Wellington, drive down the Namur road to the east, and envelop Blucher's army at Ligny. Clearly, Ney totally failed to do this. No action taken by Ney at Quatre Bras influenced the fighting at Ligny to any degree. As a result, Blucher's army may well have been saved from total destruction on this day. However, it must be remembered that Wellington's half-hearted promise of support to Blucher was similarly nullified by the French attacks. Moreover, it might be said that no action taken by Wellington at Quatre Bras directly aided the Prussian cause. Thus, in a strategic sense, the Battle of Quatre Bras should probably be called a draw.

Sure, there may be all these objectives but there are primary objectives and secondary objectives. Neys primary objective was to prevent a link up between the two armies. He succeeded. Wellingtons primary objective was to link up with Blucher. He failed. So, Ney won and Wellington lost.

In a tactical sense, it is clear that the Allies had the upper hand by day's end. Once rough parity in numbers was achieved on the battlefield, the French never crossed north of the Namur road and, more importantly, never held Quatre Bras. All along the line (except for a time in Bossu Wood) the Allied line held firm and was never broken. On the other hand, a major French infantry assault and four cavalry assaults were totally repulsed.

What he clearly neglects to mention was that Ney was outnumbered throughout most of the battle, that was why he couldnt push on. But he was able to hold on. At the end of the day, the Allies were forced to withdraw from both Ligny and Quatre-Bras. Therefore, this is a French victory in a tactical sense.

On the other hand, Wellington performed in a masterly fashion at Quatre Bras with many disadvantages. Primarily, he was forced to fight on terrain not of his own choosing, ground that was not well-suited to his typical defensive tactics. In effect, the Duke had no room for maneuver. He was dependent on an arriving army while facing an already-deployed one. For the most part, his troops were poor. Yet he held his positions steadfastly and even attacked successfully at the end of the day.

Yeah, he enjoyed a 2 to 1 advantage in numbers. What a masterful performance by Wellington. What disadvantages did Wellington have? He has always had advantages. See my earlier post about the 9 advantages that he enjoyed in Spain. He has never proven that he could handle disadvantages.

Remember this: Ney outnumbered the Prince of Orange. Wellington outnumbered Ney.

 
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591 		  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2008 at 14:23

Samara,

Not denigrating the battles you mention but it was just the Spanish Peninsular war which was being discussed and those battles were being compared solely against Bailen. However, note that the result of Salamanca was that the French were forced to abandon the whole of Southern Spain. Vittoria ensured the rest of Spain was soon free. Beethoven even composing a symphony in recognition and the Austrians being firmed up in their resolve to reopen hostilities against Napoleon.

 

AntonioM

 

I have never changed my position. No bad troops only bad officers. By the way, the attack on Baltimore by 5000 UK troops certainly failed against 20000 Americans. Again badly lead. The Battle of Lundys Lane was a strategic British victory as it stopped the invasion of Canada by America. Tactically pretty much of a draw.

 

Re Wellington and Spain, Talavera, Wellington was heavily outnumbered by the French unless you include the Spanish army (not under his control) which did nothing. At Salamanca he had a slight advantage of about 2000 troops and I agree he outnumbered the French at Vittoria. However as you said an attacking army should outnumber its opponents 2-1, it was nothing like that. So as his opponents were the first to bear witness they were 2 brilliant victories. Dismissing any others as being mere skirmishes is utterly ridiculous. They werent in the eyes of anyone. They were battles.

 

Your so-called 9 conditions are frankly somewhat childish. They have been extensively dealt with. Wellington was known and accepted by all his contemporaries as one of the foremost generals of his day. If you bother to read Napoleons memoirs and records of his conversations whilst at St Helena, you will realise I am not lying.

 

If you are asking for a full list of Wellingtons battles, I have to ask why are you in this debate if you know little or nothing of his career ?

 

With regards to Quatre Bras, Neys job was to hold off the British and attack the Prussians in the flank/rear. Had he done all that the Prussians would have been routed utterly. Instead at Ligny they suffered a defeat, but their army remained in being as a fighting force, hence as agreed they were able to march to Waterloo. Ney very nearly won Ligny as he was facing some 8000 Dutch/Belgians with some 24000 troops and cavalry. British reinforcements together with Wellington arrived to give close parity to Neys numbers if not slightly less. They were able to push the French out of all their positions which they had won earlier.

 

Napoleons intention was to defeat the Prussians and British separately and utterly. He failed because Wellington stopped Ney at Quatre Bras. The Allies had time and were able to use it. I have seen your links and they only represent one view and that not generally held. Where you get your numbers from I cannot think.
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: 07-Apr-2008 at 18:44
wow, missed out quite a few posts, and still a lot of Wellington talk...

Originally posted by Jonathan4290


I'm not doubting whether Allenby was a damn good general, only that I think some could make a better argument for a few commanders just below him.
 
I'm not sure which victory you're referring to in regards to Burma . . . the Japanese made a serious push in their U-Go Offensive which was decisively defeated by Slim at Kohima-Imphal. His performance at that battle and at Meiktela-Mandalay earn him quite a bit of credit in my books; 90s at best is all I'm suggesting.
 
Yay, someone else notices Giap's misfortune :) Mao's military greatness will grow in time, it is still early.


yeah, Allenby is maybe a little too high. abotu Slim, well the Japanese were already at the gates of India when they were stopped by the 10th Indian infantry Division. Imphal, as you notice, is well in the heart of Burma, not its borders.
as for mao, i see no real greatness in him, without Soviet support, he wouldn't have had the ressources he neede to conduct the Civil War on equal footing to the KMT. and during the Japanese occupation, he was more busy fighting the KMT rather than the actual japanese threat. in the CCW, he fought a rather conventional war, so i rather cannot agree he was a good guerilla leader.
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: 07-Apr-2008 at 18:56
Half the lands Genghis's generals, and I would like you to emphasize on the word generals, conquered were empty steppe lands where there was no real authority what soever. The Khazars were no more, the volga Bulgars were weak and divided and mongols had all the help they wanted from allies who hated their overlords. His conquest of the Khwarizmids was more out of luck and political cunning that of military genius. The governors of Fars, Al-Jibal, Azerbaijan and Isfahan all pledged allegiance before the major battles started and refused to help Jalaluddin or to give him any troops or refuge so he took refuge first in Afghanistan and then in Sindh where the mongols failed, though they could, to persue him. After that he managed to retrieve almost all his empire and then he decimated his troops fighting in local conflicts he shouldn't have been involved in the first place.


i don't get this post: those generals constantly referred to are funny. they didn't did this out of their own will, but because Genghis ordered them to do so, Genghis could have done ti all hismelf but it was part of his greatness assigning great generals to do the work for him, whats the problem? without Genghis those generals wouldn't have even been generals and faded into hisorical obscurity.
and the empty steppe you refer to is exactly where Genghis came from and started to out his vast empire, so maybe those empty steppe is not as empty...maybe Arabia is just empty sand desert afterall? at least your post makes me think so. all those failures by the Kwarazmians...are not Genghis fault. if the enemy makes an mistake, you can't blame the other general for it. pointless.
 
As for Wellington, it happens that i am now reading a book about ht peninsular war and I can tell you, the Spaniards were far more of a hindrance than a help, in Talavera, they threatened any village that gives Wellington food, they nearly helped in distroying him by failing to cover the passes when Soult was advancing from the north. They handed the british wounded to the french without much of a fight. This is just in the Talavera campaing and I will not even say anything about the other campaigns like Cadiz,Ocana and many other campaings where the juntas just gave up without a fight.
 
 
 
 
Al-Jassas


one of those fampous British biased books i guess. well, does the book also mention how immenely helpfull the Spaniards were, like intelligance from Guerillas? and thats just the tip of the iceberg. without the Spanish support, the French could have mobilized twice or trice the numbers they had against 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: 07-Apr-2008 at 19:00
Originally posted by deadkenny

You call the outcome of Quatre Bras a 'victory' for the French? What exactly did they 'win'? The British tied up Ney's forces for the day, and the fighting was intense enough for Ney to call on d'Erlon's I Corps, the bulk of which was therefore not available at Ligny. Nor were any of Ney's force free to engage at Ligny. There was no possibility of the British 'merging' with the Prussians in that position anyway, due to their divergent lines of communications. So, as I stated before, Wellington accomplished what he needed to at Quatre Bras, which was to prevent Ney from using the road to 'flank' Blucher at Ligny. Since Wellington accomplished his strategic objective for the day, I do not see the basis for 'declaring' Quatre Bras a French victory.



Ney was ordered to prevent the Army of Netherlands from linking up with Blcher. Ney, like later Grouchy at Waterloo, was never supposed to fight at Ligny. Napoleon from the outset planned to march with two columns throughout the campaign (Ney beign the left and Grouchy the right). so he achieved his goal even though not tactcially beating Orange/Wellington. thats what can be called a strategical victory.
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: 07-Apr-2008 at 19:07
That's completely untrue and based on nothing. Wellington was usually outnumbered and won often. The following numbers have been checked in The Peninsular War by David Gates. 
 
River Coa, 1810, victory for Wellington approx. 50,000 vs 65,000 French
Bussaco, 1810, victory for Wellington 50,000 vs 65,000 French
Fuentes de Onoro, 1811, victory for Wellington 38,000 vs 47,000 French
Salamanca, 1812, victory for Wellington 52,000 vs 50,000 French
Vittoria, 1813, victory for Wellington 80,000 vs 58,000 French
Pyrenees, 1813, victory for Wellington 60,000 vs 80,000 French
Nivelle, 1813, victory for Wellington, 80,000 vs 60,000 French
Nive, 1813, victory for Wellington 64,000 vs 62,000 French
Orthez, 1814, victory for Wellington 44,000 vs 38,000 French
 
As you can see, Wellington was constantly at a disadvantage in numbers until he overcame this and gained the edge in 1813 as Napoleon was forced to pull so many troops from Spain before/after the Russian Campaign.


Wellington received serious reinforcments in 1812, only after that date he was able to achieve his strategical goals at all. before that, the main French Army outnumbered him, yes, but all he did was beating them back, not defeating them. and straegically, the French were always outnubmered. its not the fault of the French if Wellington fights with lesser nubmers, there were enough Portuguese and Spanish troops to boost hsi nubmers and as youc an see the difference in numbers was never big.
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: 07-Apr-2008 at 19:16
Originally posted by DSMyers1

Typically, an army is called by the nationality of the top of the staff and more importantly the one who's paying the soldiers.  Would you not call a mercenary army by the name of the country that had hired them?  It's who they're working for that counts, not the nationality of the soldier.  As far as I've seen, that's always the way it is done.  Weren't the British the ones paying the soldiers in Wellington's Army, and it was commanded by an Englishman?  So call it a British army.  It's just semantics anyway.


the official name was Army of the Netherlands (armies back then were always called after the region they fight at). the proposed commander was the Prince of Orange but he stepped down in favour of Wellington due to his own inexperience. the Army was accurately Anglo-Dutch. the German contingents were part of either British (Hanover, Brunswick) or Dutch (Nassau) allegiances.


Edited by Temujin - 07-Apr-2008 at 19:55
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: 07-Apr-2008 at 19:18
I am very close to "locking in" the top 2 tiers, unless at some later date a very strong argument can be made to move someone into or out of these top 2 tiers.  Here is the way the top 2 tiers look right now.  Any objections that don't have a counter-argument just as strong?


i feel both Marlborough and Suvorov are too high (compared to their neighbours and wherecomparable commanders are).
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: 07-Apr-2008 at 19:22
Who of the Sikhs is a good candidate to be on the list?  I've looked at several, but don't know enough about their campaigns.  Guru Gobind Singh?  Ranjit Singh? Hari Singh Nalwa?  I don't know if any are worthy, but I recall that several people were pushing for some Sikh's inclusion.  Now's your chance!


other than Ranjit Singh, no one. and i was just pushing him compared to Shaka Zulu. what i want are Boer commanders.
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: 07-Apr-2008 at 19:27
Version 7 Alpha:


whats the reason Han Xin is so high on the list...and why exactly is he on the list at all? Confused

whoh, more things i don't like. what is the justification for any Chinese commander other than Li Shimin/Tang Taizong? and why is there Ludendorff? i mean Hindenburg, OK, but why remove Rundstedt and replace him with Ludendorff? Angry


Edited by Temujin - 07-Apr-2008 at 19:31
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: 07-Apr-2008 at 19:37
4. Alp Arslan and Muhammad of Ghor: (Ghor=Ghazni?) Mahmud of Ghazni is at 101 right now.  Alp Arslan is on the way up.


OMG how can you remove Mahmud of Ghazni from the list???? and no, mahmud of Ghazni and Mohammad of Ghor are not he same.
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: 07-Apr-2008 at 19:41
Alexander's opponents weren't great, but he, with a far smaller nation, conquered most of the known world.  In addition, he invented/perfected many, many new tactics/methods.  His was the first truly combined-arms army (light+heavy infantry+cavalry).  (It can be attributed to his father, though...  I'm no expert.  Somebody else will have to reply more fully.  In the meantime, Shapur I climbs the list.


first, mixing cavalry & infantry is NOT combined arms and second, he was not the first to do so in a longshot.
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: 07-Apr-2008 at 19:44
Is Allenby the only WWI commander worthy?


well, we have Allenby, Lettow-Vorbeck, Mustafa Kemal, how much more do you want in one of the worst conducted wars ever, if not THE worst.
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: 07-Apr-2008 at 19:48
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello to you all
 
I really can't see why Allenby is on the list? He fought the worst equipt, worst lead part of the Ottoman army which was the weakest of all armies of WWI. It was the Arab allies who really made a difference in the war, they opened a huge second front behind Turkish lines and they all but destroyed them with little help from the British.


LOL again, Arab nationalist fantasies....
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5657585960 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 0.246 seconds.