Greatest general ever?

Masada · Mar 10, 2012

innonimatu said:
How is that relevant to his point? I think he's right in that the french did got the sucky portion of Africa, and a somewhat more desirable piece (but harder to subdue) in Indochina. Even the germans grabbed some better land, in Tanzania.

Africa was as a whole worthless as an economic enterprise. The choice was always going to be between a serious drain the finances and a serious drain on the finances. In the longer run some colonies paid (limited) dividends but balanced against the cumulative losses up until that point I doubt a single one broken even. The exception might have been something like the Cape.

Also, 'Indochina' was a bad acquisition, the sole piece worth holding was Cochinchina and that became profitable only after the Mekong Delta was opened to agriculture. The remainder - Annam, Tongking, the Khmer and Lao - were conquered to secure Cochinachina against other Europeans. What economic rationale that were suggested were really just fables to justify conquests in a manner that was palatable to the metropole.

(This isn't to say that it wasn't profitable; it was, just that it would have been more profitable had not the costs of conquering, administering and defending the worthless parts not been involved).

For that matter no Asian colonial venture taken as a whole makes economic sense. The VOC for instance wasted inordinate amounts of blood and treasure defeating Mataram for no economic gains whatsoever. The actual cost of the war sent the VOC all but bankrupt. The net result of which was Dutch commitments withered - profitably - on the vine for a quarter of a century.

The Brits did the same when they consolidated their position in Malaya. Really, all that was needed to hold the Peninsula in fetters was (1) Malacca, (2) Penang and (3) Singapore, the rest was expensive window-dressing that did nothing to add to revenue and everything to do with adding to costs.

Pangur Bán said:
Australia was also much more worthwhile than France's desert-dominated regions because Australia did not have large populations of agriculturists who, had they existed in Australia would have required management and subjugation, and would have made the region prohibitively unattractive. This was also the reason Russia benefitted from Siberia significantly more than France benefitted from North-West Africa.

Eh? Australia cost more to defend than it was worth until like 1952 when the British gave up.

west india man said:
Plus Australia happens to have gold, and could be conveniently used as a vast penal colony, where it was very difficult for prisoners to return to Britain.

Yeah, no. Gold wasn't discovered until way into the future; and the convict issue increased costs, acted as a disincentive to more productive settlers settling and gave little back for the effort. Moreover, the majority weren't hardened criminals but either first or second time offenders for minor crimes. There were some hardened criminals but those spent were sent to Tasmania or Norfolk Island.

innonimatu · Mar 11, 2012

Masada said:
Africa was as a whole worthless as an economic enterprise. The choice was always going to be between a serious drain the finances and a serious drain on the finances. In the longer run some colonies paid (limited) dividends but balanced against the cumulative losses up until that point I doubt a single one broken even. The exception might have been something like the Cape.

By the end of the colonial period and if we were to make a balance, I agree. Especially for the 19th/20th centuries. And before it was only profitable for some periods while doing trade from fortified coastal outposts. The Cape may have been one of those, but by the late colonial period if we were to factor in the Boer Wars and the several wars against the other africans I think the UK also did a rotten deal there.

Masada said:
For that matter no Asian colonial venture taken as a whole makes economic sense. The VOC for instance wasted inordinate amounts of blood and treasure defeating Mataram for no economic gains whatsoever. The actual cost of the war sent the VOC all but bankrupt. The net result of which was Dutch commitments withered - profitably - on the vine for a quarter of a century.

The Brits did the same when they consolidated their position in Malaya. Really, all that was needed to hold the Peninsula in fetters was (1) Malacca, (2) Penang and (3) Singapore, the rest was expensive window-dressing that did nothing to add to revenue and everything to do with adding to costs.

I didn't knew that, but it looks like the same situation as in Africa. Possibly in Asia both the losses and the profits were bigger than in Africa as the local situation changed. But there must have been long runs of profits in Asia?
I know that India turned a tidy profit for the portuguese crown when it just went about recruiting mercenaries in Flanders, getting the genovese to underwrite part of the costs of the expeditions there, and trading and doing some piracy and pillaging around the Indian Ocean while based only at a few ports there. It was the escalation of wars that ate away the profits later and make most outposts a loss. Keeping those strategic ports let to entanglement in local wars, and to fighting against other europeans also looking for bases. Conquering more land around the bases to secure them was the usual answer to these threats, elevating the war costs! In Africa such efforts inevitably failed due to endemic diseases that killed off all the soldiers and convicts or free colonists foolish enough to settle there. In Asia they often failed when faced against much larger local states, like Mughal India or Safavid Persia. But I had the impression that the VOC had actually managed to subdue some islands and tax them to hell to turn a profit over a couple of centuries before modern colonialism started. And that the british holdings in India at least were similarly profitable.

Regarding modern colonialism, it's a funny coincidence that I'm reading a little book by a Paul Bairoch where the author comments that during the whole colonial era the european centers involved in it were usually net exporters of resources to their colonies.

privatehudson · Mar 11, 2012

No, I haven't been trying to demonstrate that it matters. The point is didactic

In the modern sense of the term it certainly is yes.

Although that is interesting, since if you only raised it to point out a fact that means that in essence you have advanced almost no evidence to support your point that France was Europe's pre-eminent power in 1800. Well none beyond vague references to it being historical consensus - which you haven't demonstrated yet.

England and France have very similar populations today, so it is worth pointing out to those who don't realise that in Napoleon's time England was less than a third of France's size. Make of that what you will. You guys are trying to say it doesn't matter; to me that's very obviously misguided, but I don't really care and am happy enough to leave it to each poster's judgment.

The issue I have is that you appeared to raise the figures in support of the argument that France was "Europe's Collosus" and so far, apart from references to sources you have yet to provide have advanced no other argument to demonstrate this claim. Despite being mentioned several times since then you ignore requests to discuss related points such as the financial state of France before Napoleon seized control in any great depth.

This could all be solved by taking the time to direct people to sources to back up your claim, which if it is so well held should be easy enough.

I've actually outlined my argument several times at this stage, it's just that many of you here have poor focus. Here we go again, Russia, strategic incompetence, Waterloo THEREFORE Napie not greatest ever nor one of greatest. What's not being understood?

Debate consists of discussion, preferably without ignoring specific questions and points raised, not repeating like a parrot the same statements over and over again. I understand your central claim perfectly well, but trying to debate it is not proving terribly easy.

Not really, you've been bringing up all sorts of other irrelevant and personal stuff

Uhmm... actually I raised pretty much that same point at least once before. If the discussion so far has fixated on the population point or your claims about the French Empire that's because you often haven't responded in any depth to most of the other points.

Egypt is the area around the Nile (forget the modern political maps), which is not desert.

Ahh I see, interesting definition to suit your point.

Looking from the point of view of the year 1800, France really got nothing of any worth, basically what the English didn't have time for. England also controlled the world's seas, and all oversees territories were held pretty much at England's tolerance, and thus France was essentially a junior partner to England is a multilateral world system of European political expansion. France individually was forced to target poor or hard targets. Economic and technological growth actually made England's areas of less relative worth in the early 20th century than they would have been in the early 19th century, but it's just plain ignorance to claim that France's empire was on a par with England's.

I'm intruiged why you used the term England throughout this post, especially since you always choose your words carefully. Using Britain would make much more sense frankly.

But leaving that aside for a moment I have never claimed that the French empire was on a par with the British Empire. I questioned how a country doomed to mediocrity could wind up with the second largest colonial empire in the world. Athough having had time to think about it I guess third largest if Russia is thrown into the mix.

Masada · Mar 11, 2012

privatehudson said:
Despite being mentioned several times since then you ignore requests to discuss related points such as the financial state of France before Napoleon seized control in any great depth.

It wasn't much better under Napoleon for that matter. If anything, the whole blood-sucking Vampire horsehockyck was old news. The Girondins and Montagnards pioneered it in Belgium, the Netherlands and on the left bank of the Rhine.

Pangur Bán · Mar 11, 2012

privatehudson said:
In the modern sense of the term it certainly is yes.

Although that is interesting, since if you only raised it to point out a fact that means that in essence you have advanced almost no evidence to support your point that France was Europe's pre-eminent power in 1800. Well none beyond vague references to it being historical consensus - which you haven't demonstrated yet.

The issue I have is that you appeared to raise the figures in support of the argument that France was "Europe's Collosus" and so far, apart from references to sources you have yet to provide have advanced no other argument to demonstrate this claim. Despite being mentioned several times since then you ignore requests to discuss related points such as the financial state of France before Napoleon seized control in any great depth.

This could all be solved by taking the time to direct people to sources to back up your claim, which if it is so well held should be easy enough.

Debate consists of discussion, preferably without ignoring specific questions and points raised, not repeating like a parrot the same statements over and over again. I understand your central claim perfectly well, but trying to debate it is not proving terribly easy.

Uhmm... actually I raised pretty much that same point at least once before. If the discussion so far has fixated on the population point or your claims about the French Empire that's because you often haven't responded in any depth to most of the other points.

Ahh I see, interesting definition to suit your point.

I'm intruiged why you used the term England throughout this post, especially since you always choose your words carefully. Using Britain would make much more sense frankly.

But leaving that aside for a moment I have never claimed that the French empire was on a par with the British Empire. I questioned how a country doomed to mediocrity could wind up with the second largest colonial empire in the world. Athough having had time to think about it I guess third largest if Russia is thrown into the mix.

OK, so here we are with a bunch of gamer history enthusiasts debating which of the 5 or 6 "great generals" familiar to them are the "best in history", and generally using particularistic and highly dubious criteria to decide (very little discussion has gone into how we know what we do about such generals, nor how we know about the processes by which they made decisions and who was actually responsible). My opinion of this question I have given (I agree with traitorfish), and have pointed out very obvious absurdities for claiming such an honour for Napoleon.

Indeed France was Europe's colossus in 1800 as I've said. The main importance of the point made by LS is that it highlights his misunderstanding of the significance of public debt in this era, but he is so rude I have no interest is responding to him any more.

Its population relative to other countries (not simply England) should be enough to indicate to most of you why France was a bigger deal in 1800 than in 1900, but it's the kind of point meaning that you either know about the era or you don't. As google scholars why not search something like <France eighteenth century most powerful Europe> for some quotes more authoritative than mine ...if your scepticism is actually made in good faith?

People still want to dispute that then that's up to them, but no significant challenge has been raised, just arrogantly and annoyingly phrased demands that I for some reason have to go into more detail whenever it pleases another. I'm not in the habit of spending significant time helping people with the kind of childish and poisonous "styles" of discussion offered by certain posters here.

privatehudson · Mar 11, 2012

I've published one book already and I'm in the middle of proofing the index for my second. This has involved spending the last four years researching local archives, travellling around the area, checking through umpteen sources and taking hundreds of photographs. So I am no google scholar thank you.

Believe me, if I had much interest in the economic and social history of the period I would probably own a book on it and would have rooted it out by now. My main interest in the Napoleonic period however lies in the military history. If for example you want to know the best theory on what Cambronne did or didn't say, then I'll dig up my copy of the Waterloo Companion. But I'm not going to google a highly selective term to demonstrate a different point to what you have been making for the last few pages.

The essence of debate means that if you make a claim and it is challenged, you should return with evidence to support your claim. If you find this concept poisonous and demanding then this discussion really is pointless, so I'll get back to something more profitable.

Pangur Bán · Mar 11, 2012

privatehudson said:
Believe me, if I had much interest in the economic and social history of the period I would probably own a book on it and would have rooted it out by now. .

You can hardly say anything useful about military history if you have no interest in social and economic history. One might as well play with action sets as "debate" the topic.

What's your book btw?

privatehudson said:
The essence of debate means that if you make a claim and it is challenged, you should return with evidence to support your claim. If you find this concept poisonous and demanding then this discussion really is pointless, so I'll get back to something more profitable.

And you wasted it further by making pointless like comments like this. I've actually given you a lot of my time already, but you seem most interested in making little comments telling me about my own posts or lecturing me on what you think "debate" is. In this case, either you have significant problems obtaining information from written text (doubtful), or you are misunderstanding the comment in bad faith for reasons relating to your own pride. Get it clear here: "poisonous "styles" of discussion offered by certain posters here" referred to precisely that and that alone.

And actually I have responded to claims that have been "challenged", but I do not accept that I need to. I have explained the omissions already, thank you (above posat).

If you or anyone wants to "challenge" the France behemoth in 1800 sub-argument, you have to recognize that this is pretty accepted by historians specializing in the era, and then you'll need to come up with some pretty strong historiographic or analytic reason this opinion is misguided. And the trouble is that anyone arguing that Napoleon was great has to acknowledge that France was the most powerful country in the era anyway, though convince us all that Napoleon was responsible for it.

At best, you would offer something to think about, not necesarily something worth responding to ... this expectation that everyone responds to every little point everyone makes is not a reasonable one. Part of good discussion is to listen to well-informed people and reflect on it, not take dogmatic stances and abuse people you know nothing about just because they disagree with you. In your case you have admitted you have no interest in the topic and will not be rooting out any books ... so this clearly is not going to happen in your case anyway, and you are just wasting time.

privatehudson · Mar 11, 2012

You can hardly say anything useful about military history if you have no interest in social and economic history.

I never said I had no interest in those subjects, I just don't find them fascinating enough to buy books that deal primarily with them. Many overall period histories and campaign books will go into some basic details on those aspects and I feel no great need to look much further most of the time. So I do not posess any books to root out in the first place, especially since I am more interested in the latter parts of the war than the earlier.

But that aside I'm fairly sure an in depth knowledge of the economic history of Napoleonic France is not a prerequisite for understanding say the intricacies of the battle of Austerlitz.

What's your book btw?

My first is Liverpool Blitzed, the second due out this year is Merseyside Blitzed.

And you wasted it further by making pointless like comments like this

And you've wasted your own time further by repeating yourself, still offered no supporting evidence and suggested failures in others that you then go on to repeat yourself.

So yeah, I think we're done here, so won't waste any more time responding to you unless you want to ask more about the books I've written.

Pangur Bán · Mar 11, 2012

privatehudson said:
But that aside I'm fairly sure an in depth knowledge of the economic history of Napoleonic France is not a prerequisite for understanding say the intricacies of the battle of Austerlitz.

The wider picture is vital for interpreting the significance of the battle. Certainly you can't say anything about Napoleon in relation to this question by ignoring the context ... which is why I likened it to playing with actions sets.

Lord Baal · Mar 12, 2012

Pangur Bán;11326254 said:
The wider picture is vital for interpreting the significance of the battle. Certainly you can't say anything about Napoleon in relation to this question by ignoring the context ... which is why I likened it to playing with actions sets.

Yet you haven't offered any concrete details at all, just over-generalised, unsupported statements. So how about you offer up some actual arguments, besides just reiterating that France was a colossus, with no evidence to support such a claim?

Pangur Bán · Mar 12, 2012

"Over-generalized"? What does that mean?

Anyway, something like this has already been asserted, and I've already responded. If I'm not being understood then very sorry, but c'est la cfc history forum.

Lord Baal · Mar 15, 2012

Pangur Bán;11327855 said:
"Over-generalized"? What does that mean?

Anyway, something like this has already been asserted, and I've already responded. If I'm not being understood then very sorry, but c'est la cfc history forum.

I hereby make this unsubstantiated claim, provide no sources other than a nebulous reference to some outside authority, whom I do not name, then when pushed I refuse to reveal my sources, then claim that the onus is on others to disprove my claims, even though I have not substantiated them in any way. Then, I threaten to leave on the grounds that I'm being picked on, before attempting to change the subject, then eventually leaving while claiming that I've already answered the question, even though I have never once answered it. I am great at debating.

Pangur Bán · Mar 15, 2012

You're just saying the same things over and over again and trying to get an extra rise by inventing stuff to be midly insulting. All I can say is try reading all my comments again, and if that's not enough, then I'm afraid you'll just have to endure a life where you don't understand stuff Pangur Ban says. Hard, but you'll survive I'm sure.

Mouthwash · Mar 15, 2012

God, some people take world history a way too seriously. I didn't intend for this to be a flame war when I started this thread.

schlaufuchs · Mar 16, 2012

Mouthwash said:
God, some people take world history a way too seriously. I didn't intend for this to be a flame war when I started this thread.

Dude. You started a "Greatest General EVAR" thread in WH with a poll. What else were you expecting?

Personally I've been rather enjoying reading this thread, although it got significantly less entertaining when Dachs and LS left.

HannibalBarka · Mar 16, 2012

None of the listed above. Khalid ibn Al Walid is the greatest of all generals

Mouthwash · Mar 17, 2012

HannibalBarka said:
None of the listed above. Khalid ibn Al Walid is the greatest of all generals

That's been brought up in this thread already...

Lord Baal · Mar 17, 2012

Pangur Bán;11336859 said:
You're just saying the same things over and over again and trying to get an extra rise by inventing stuff to be midly insulting. All I can say is try reading all my comments again, and if that's not enough, then I'm afraid you'll just have to endure a life where you don't understand stuff Pangur Ban says. Hard, but you'll survive I'm sure.

I thought you'd left the forum. :rolleyes:

Pangur Bán · Mar 18, 2012

LB, I don't know what you are talking about now, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with "greatest general ever".

Dachs · Mar 18, 2012

Pangur Bán;11326254 said:
The wider picture is vital for interpreting the significance of the battle. Certainly you can't say anything about Napoleon in relation to this question by ignoring the context ... which is why I likened it to playing with actions sets.

I don't think you need to have a particularly deep understanding of social or economic history to understand the significance of Austerlitz. Few enough individual battles have an impact on either of those things anyway.

Obviously context is everything, and understanding the international situation at the time and the effects of Austerlitz on the subsequent Peace of Pressburg is important, but social and economic history?

Greatest general ever?

Best general?

Genghis

Napoleon

Alexander

Caesar

Frederick

Hannibal

Belisarius

Subutai

Koi-san!

the resident Cassandra

The Ultimate Badass

Koi-san!

Deconstructed

The Ultimate Badass

Deconstructed

The Ultimate Badass

Deconstructed

Deity

Deconstructed

Deity

Deconstructed

Escaped Lunatic

Break My Heart

We are Free

Escaped Lunatic

Deity

Deconstructed

Hero of the Soviet Union

Similar threads