The Best General in History

[privatehudson]

Ah, choose 1812 for your "All French" comparison when Nappy really scrapped the barrel to go after Russia taking with his people from every continental country in Europe, especially Polish (some 150,000)

Actually, you could equally look at 1809 for example where the army had entire corps of foriegn troops in it's ranks. Some foreign contingents fought in Spain also, and the army at Leipzig and the campaigns of 1813 contained many thousands of Germans, Dutch, Poles and so on. Italian troops featured extensively in Napoleon's plans though usually under other commands such as the army of Italy. The campaign of 1812 is only the exception for foreign troops because of the extraordinarily high volume, but not an exception in terms of their contribution. Napoleon's allies made possible many of his campaigns, without them he would have had a much harder time.

I agree that Wellington was continually hampered by having to use whatever he had been sent, troops and generals, but it's untrue to say Napoleon's armies were almost entirely French. To illustrate this fact, I suggest we look at the composition of the Grand Army on 1st June 1809 for which I'll draw from Napoleon's War Machine by P Haythornewaite*:

"French" Corps or formations
2nd had 22,599
3rd had 36,284
4th had 25,374
Reserve Cavalry had 10,903
Army of Dalmatia had 9747
Army Reserve had 17,786
Total 122,693

"Foreign" Corps or formations

7th (Bavarian) corps had 21,329
8th (Wurtemberg) corps had 18,510
9th (Saxon) corps had 20,365
10th (Westphalian but included Dutch) corps had 14,264
Army of Italy had 56,963 (many of whom were French to be fair though IIRC)
Polish Army had 11,164
Total 85,632 without the Italians, 142,595 with them

Basically speaking, in this first one campaign, if we count 1/2 the Italians as French and half Foreign, we have 151,174 French troops to 114,113 non-french out of a total of 265,287 men. This means a conservative estimate of Foreign troops is roughly 43% of the total in the army Almost enough to put the French in the minority

Of course this isn't totally conclusive, French soldiers served in Foriegn units and vice-versa either as individuals or formations, but it does give an idea of the sheer scale of which Napoleon fell back on allies at even this stage of the wars.

For the most part extremely good? For the most part indifferent, the Hannoverians being a bright spot, admist the okay Portuguese, and dodgy Spanish, Belgian and Dutch.

The portugese consistently performed well in the peninsula, especially their skirmishers who operated in a similar fashion to the British (ie companies of rifleman dispersed amongst the Brigades). The Dutch and Belgians get an unfairly bad reputation from Waterloo which I have dealt with in the past. The Brunswicker's were the equal of the Hanovarians. Just because they are ignored in contemporary accounts by the British doesn't mean they weren't good

When he had to deal with Nappy at Waterloo, the best British troopers were in Canada, what he was left with was the dregs, tough, generally obiedient, but not who you'd want your daughter to marry nor trust to look after your silverware.

Incorrect. Some troops served at both New Orleans and Waterloo. Many battalions in Wellington's British contingent served in the Penninsula. Generally speaking, with some events like Badjadoz to tar the reputation, the British footsoldier had a good reputation amongst civilians used to the systematic looting and theft that accompanied the French troops when they moved through a region. The British were almost welcomed in Southern France at the end of the penninsula wars by a war weary population sick of their own troops eating off the land. Officially the British army paid for what it took, and the difference was enough to show in civilian reaction.

*From which I am leaving out altogether the Guard for the purposes of this equation as it would take a while to work out French from foreign units.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Lennart Torstensson(1603-1651) Swedish Field Marshal in the Thirty Years War.
A general of Gustav II Adolf and commander of the artillery Torstensson took over the leadership of the Swedish army after Johan Baner's death in 1641. At that time the army was on the brink of mutiny due to Baner's lax leadership, but Torstensson managed to restore discipline and subsequently lead it to some remarkable victories; second battle of Breitenfeld 1642, the Danish campaign 1643-44, the battle of Jankau 1645 before having to resign his post in 1646 due to bad health( he suffered greatly from gout, frequently having to lead his army from a litter since he was unable to mount his horse).
Torstensson was innovative; greatly influental in the development of mobile warfare and use of artillery and highly inventive in his tactical dispositions. He was not a particulary nice person; somebody wrote about him that his soldiers hated him but that didn't matter since he always gave them victory and booty, but I think he compares favourably with most leaders in that very nasty war anyway - according to Peter Englund he was the only commander during the Thirty Year's War who did not enrichen himself.

 

[Dark Khan]

Hannibal Barca his armies defeat romans many times without any support from carthage
He is the best

 

[Japanrocks12]

Patton. 10 char

 

[Jack the Ripper]

ditto...ditto

 

[gorn]

Rommel or Robert E. Lee would be considered GODS if the Germans or the South had won. And they were respected - not just hated or feared - by their enemies. Very hard to top that.

I am by no means an expert on Roman history, but I'm curious - did Ceasar actually LOSE any battles he was personally involved in? Aside from his last one in the Senate ...

 

[DAv2003]

Not as far as I know... even during his campaign agaist Pompey he was still victorious in every battle. I'm not an expert on the subject though so don't qoute me on this.

 

[Stapel]

Napoleon missed exactly what great generals have: knowledge of the limitations of his armies.

The greatest of generals was Maurice of Nassau (Moritz August von Nassau), Prince of Orange.
By conquering Breda (1590), Nijmegen, Zutphen (1591), Steenwijk, Coevorden, (1592), Groningen (1594), Oldenzaal, Enschede and Grol (1597), on the Spanish, he almost doubled the land of the young Republic of the Seven United Netherlands.

 

[Keshik]

Eisenhower, because he had to deal with Monty, Patton, and Degaulle and he still succeeded.

 

[DAv2003]

All of whom were good generals might I add.

 

[sydhe]

I have to go with Genghis Khan, who not only did what Alexander did, but built the army, united the Mongols, trained a generation of great generals, and left an empire which was still united and growing 30 years after his death.

Babur may have had the wildest ride of any of the great generals, taking Samarkand when he was 14, lost it. took it back when he was 18, lost it again, built a new army, took Kabul when he was 21, lost that, took it back, took Samarkand, lost it again, finally said the Hell with it and conquered northern India instead, founding the Mogul Empire. (Which his son lost, and took back...) Babur regularly faced much larger armies than his own and often beat them.

 

[cidknee]

I really must say I loved Pattons style. There is no defense. Most people dont know that he was a master of the sword(fencing) and also an olympian.
Rommel is going to get my vote over all. BUT he just ran outta supplies.If Hitler wouldnt have been the arse he was and attacked the Russians, making one less BIG enemy for himself, possibly Rommel would have had the supplies he needed.

Napolean while i have seen many good points about him, Ive always thought to be over rated. Great in his early carrer, then he seemed to have gotten stupid. but im probally wrong about where and how. All i remember from school was that Napp's forces out ran his supply chain.

While I admire almost every choice listed, Patton has always been a favorite of mine.
But Rommel i think would be considered the best overall.

 

[Stapel]

Patton.

You mean the one that marched full speed through France, without meeting any real German resistance, because most German divisions were trying to block the British/Canadian forces, who were fighting their way to Paris, over a pretty straight line between Normandy and Paris?

Don't get me wrong. Patton did a very fine job! But not something that makes him the best in history.............

 

[Lonkut]

There are many and I don't think there ever existed THE greatest general.
On a side note, many here mention Lee but, what about Grant? didn't he win the war?

 

[Sickman]

On a side note, many here mention Lee but, what about Grant? didn't he win the war?

Nobody wins wars alone especially not Grant.

Lee and Grant are hardly comparable mainly because they had little bit different kind of forces in their arsenal and also they got different kind of backup from fellow officers and administrators.

Grant was able to send men wave after wave to be sacrificed while when Lee sacrificed few too many men or made single mistake he was considered to be loser.

IMHO if Pickett's&Co charge would have proven to be worth the risk Lee could be nowadays considered to be greatly superior to Grant.
But as it turned to be just the last gasp of the Confederacy when it came to the idea winning the war and not just prolonging it Grant was there to then take the credit of inevitable defeat of South.

They both are great in on their own ways but I pick always Lee over Grant because he was most of the time "handicapped" and still could keep it going against the odds.

Robert E. Lee was underdog that became a legend even when he was in the losing side and of course this acknowledgement doesn't have to take anything from his fellow Confederacy military leaders.

 

[Stapel]

I think neither Lee nor Grant makes it to the top, when discussing all generals in history.

 

[Sickman]

I think neither Lee nor Grant makes it to the top, when discussing all generals in history.

As you please.

I might notify though that generals example of WW2 greatly learned from earlier lessons of warfare.

It's very hard to compare generals from different eras as it's even hard to compare any general to another of same time period. They just faced different situations with different kind of troops.
Generals also had different kind of styles and I think the question here is "who is your favourite general" rather than "best" because ultimately it's impossible to choose best general.
For some Patton is simply the best without any doubt and I ask what he did exactly done? Maybe it's the personality and the style that people like in him rather than the results. He had some fighting force and air superiority back his efforts up compared to many other generals who had to hang on very limited supply of any troops.
BTW I like Maurice also.

What comes to my favourite, it's Lee.

 

[Dreadnought]

I think you have to devide history into parts to get the 'best':

Ancient: Caesar, or Scipio
Medieval: Belarus, Richard Loinheart
Napoleonic: Well I have to go with Wellington
Modern: Rommel

 

[Stapel]

As you please.

I might notify though that generals example of WW2 greatly learned from earlier lessons of warfare.

Soem did, others didn't .

It's very hard to compare generals from different eras as it's even hard to compare any general to another of same time period. They just faced different situations with different kind of troops.
Generals also had different kind of styles and I think the question here is "who is your favourite general" rather than "best" because ultimately it's impossible to choose best general.

I fully agree.

For some Patton is simply the best without any doubt and I ask what he did exactly done? Maybe it's the personality and the style that people like in him rather than the results. He had some fighting force and air superiority back his efforts up compared to many other generals who had to hang on very limited supply of any troops.

Quite a personality indeed. I judge what he did as nothing really special.

BTW I like Maurice also.

Of course, part of why he is my favourite, is his role in Dutch history. What I find impressive, is his way of picking action. He only went to action, when he felt certain he would gain a victory AND result. There is no use in winning a battle, when you actually don't gain anything.
Maurice never wanted to march to Duinkerken/Dunkerque, but was more or less forced to go by Van Oldenbarneveldt, the political leader of the young Dutch republic. The result of the march, the battle at Nieuwpoort, was won, but there were heavy losses. And the actual goal: getting those nasty pirates out of Dunkerque, was not reached.

In general: I am impressed by his lack of arrogance and overconfidence. Something many 'great' generals can be accused of quite easily!
Napoleon being the most notorious example.

 

[josephstalin]

General? Why not lieutenant?
Best military leader was Alexandr Suvorov, Russian marshal, who never lost a battle. He always had to fought against greater forses. His millitary tactics, such as fast movement of troops secretly to enemy influenced a lot later military leaders (Hitler is example).