The Best General in History

[dgfred]

@ Doc, I went for Rommel . Of course I'm partial to Frederick
the Great too (my last name is Frederick ) Rommel seems
to exemplify the perfect modern day general in my opinion . Loved by
his men, feared by his enemies and respected by his peers.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

dgfred, that's what I mean - Rommel, Napoleon, Alexander, Mannerheim, Lee have supporters who are not German, French, Macedonian, Finnish or Confederate, respectively .

Btw, I vote for Napoleon.

 

[Adler17]

A last word to Lettow- Vorbeck: Sure he was a right wing politician after that but he was in no way a racist, as many in this times in his party. He considered his black men as men and not kind of slaves. So they fought with all bravery and there were some uproars when the British took the control of the colony- after the war.
Also I don´t say Blücher was not making errors. Also I did not say he was the best. But he was a better one than Wellington. He was nearly equal to Napoleon, at least he had the luck in the last battles.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

Some form of supporting argument would be helpful *sighs*

 

[Hunter]

Lieutenant-General Sir Arthur Currie (one of Canada's most important generals and an important alllied general during ww1)

Was part of the First Canadian Division and fought at the battles of Ypres and Saint Julien

Was successful in establishing a Canadian Division and was the first Canadian promoted to the rank of general.

believed in fully preparing his troops before a battle; right from the officers to the lowly private.

Was successful for the planning and execution of the battle of Vimy Ridge (the battle that many feel recognized Canada as a true nation).

Knighted by King George V in 1917.
Honours received: Commander of the Bath, Legion of Honour, Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, Croix de Guerre, Distinguished Service Medal (US).

 

[General Brown]

I'm American, and these people stand out Hannibal, Frederick Great and Manstein, and possibly Mannerheim.
Frederick was a good general, and his great strategies kept Prussia from being conquered until 1761. Prussia would've been conquered had not Tzar Elisabeth died, and Peter the III came to power.
Hannibal- much has been said about him before
Mannerheim- defended Finland spectaculary against Soviet Army, although the Soviet Army was disorganized.
Manstein- Created the Blitzerg tactics.

 

[privatehudson]

Note, however, (nearly...) nobody not British would ever think of Wellington or Montgomery as the "best" General. Nobody not US would ever name Patton.

I disagree, I think it depends on which factors you base your choices on and so on. In some respects I'd choose Lee or even Napoleon, but based on the type of general I prefer personally, and the type of factors I consider important, Wellington is right up there. Napoleon's reputation owes a lot to his early performances and general selective blindness of his later battles for example, therefore needing certain factors to be ignored.

 

[wurkwurk]

...I'd like to think it more of a draw, if anything. Considering that Napoleon was able to comandeer his miniscule amount of men on the hostile bank of the Danube against the whole Austrian army numbering more than 150,000 sucsessfully, with those men returning back safely after halting the Austrian attacks dead in their tracks, is impressive indeed.

On Wellington...
He Definetley did his part in bringing down Bonaparte, but is only a peice in the puzzle. Blucher, Kutozov, Archduke Charles, Nelson, and that silly Austrian Marshal who commandeered the allied forces in 1813 and 1814 (whose name is so long and crazy I cant remember it) where, in my opinion, larger players in defeating Imperial France.

On Ligny...
All I know was that the French and Prussian forces had generally the same number of men on the field, and was a crushing French victory due, in large part, to the derelict state of the Prussian army (and Napoleon's comittment of the guard at the oppertune moment). 25,000 Prussians fell as casualties compared to a meagre 11,000 Frenchmen.

 

[privatehudson]

Apsern-Essling was a failiure. He tried to cross the danube without bothering to check first where Charles had positioned his army, and at the same time crossing it when it was partly flooded. He didn't secure enough reconaissance to ensure the crossing would be clear and then proceeded to be forced to fight a desperate battle to build and rebuild the bridge across the river in order to initially send reinforcements over the river and then finally in order to get his army back. Failing to achieve one's objectives whilst suffering high losses for being careless is hardly a great sucess.

Oh and you probably mean Swarzenberg. None of the others had a continual, unbroken record of field victories against French opponents stretching back 7 or so years at the time of Waterloo though. Ligny also was won in part because Blucher was waiting for Wellington to show up, and wasn't impressed when he did not. Wellington had promised to support Blucher if he was not himself engaged, which he had been and was unable to clear Quatres Bras until too late in the day.

 

[MattII]

Was Napoleon so great? As I have read (The Whole Earth Is The Tomb Of English People, Duncan Balmer) France had more land before Napoleon got involved than after Waterloo. The only military leaders I would call great and I know anything about are Nelson, Alexander and Hannibal.

 

[pawpaw]

Was Napoleon so great? As I have read (The Whole Earth Is The Tomb Of English People, Duncan Balmer) France had more land before Napoleon got involved than after Waterloo. The only military leaders I would call great and I know anything about are Nelson, Alexander and Hannibal.

one could say the same about hannibal too

 

[Birdjaguar]

Ligny also was won in part because Blucher was waiting for Wellington to show up, and wasn't impressed when he did not. Wellington had promised to support Blucher if he was not himself engaged, which he had been and was unable to clear Quatres Bras until too late in the day.

And who pinned the Brits at Quatre Bras while trouncing the Prussians, preventing the two armies from joining? Wellington was noted for his caution, do you have any evidence that had plans to actually attack the French had quatre Bras been cleared?

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Well Wellington wasn't there at Quatre Bras till late on the first day, and command had fallen to (the controversial) Prince of Orange A.K.A The Young Frog. So you can't blame Wellington entirely can you.

And what about Naploleons contradicting orders for D'erlons Corps - the mark of the best General in History?
Or sending Grouchy off with a force so small that even if they had caught the Prussians then the ensuing conflict would have been a massacre not a battle.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well Wellington wasn't there at Quatre Bras till late on the first day, and command had fallen to (the controversial) Prince of Orange A.K.A The Young Frog. So you can't blame Wellington entirely can you.

And what about Naploleons contradicting orders for D'erlons Corps - the mark of the best General in History?
Or sending Grouchy off with a force so small that even if they had caught the Prussians then the ensuing conflict would have been a massacre not a battle.

When you pin blame please do it consistently. Please don't absolve wellington of responsibility because he wasn't at quatre bras (should he have been?) then blame Napoleon because of Grouchy's bad decisions off to the east.

No one has claimed that Waterloo was any sort of great battle by Napoleon. This thread purports to look at the totality of the various careers discussed. My point was that Napoleon wanted to keep the two allied armies apart and defeat them in detail. Ligny was phase one and it worked very well. Napoleon and his generals turned in a sub par performance at Waterloo and it cost them the empire. Napoleon lost at Waterloo, Wellington didn't lose and thus enabled the Prussians to win the battle.

 

[privatehudson]

And who pinned the Brits at Quatre Bras while trouncing the Prussians, preventing the two armies from joining?

Marshal Ney, though he failed to secure the crossroads themselves.

Wellington was noted for his caution, do you have any evidence that had plans to actually attack the French had quatre Bras been cleared?

Yes, pleanty of books refer to him promising Blucher support if practical, unfortunately, his Quartermaster General based the marching speed of the army on daytime moves, and the army was required to move by night. The subsequent delays meant that Wellington could not bring decent forces to bear until late in the day. Wellington was partly to blame for not checking De Lancey's figures fully I guess you could say, but his promise to Blucher was based on them, he did believe it possible, and would have done it had he thought it reasonable. Wellington is known for being cautious, but when clear of what he will do he is decisive such as at Salamanca for example.

When you pin blame please do it consistently. Please don't absolve wellington of responsibility because he wasn't at quatre bras (should he have been?) then blame Napoleon because of Grouchy's bad decisions off to the east.

In that case we can blame both of them. Grouchy did not make "bad decsisions" he was placed in an impossible situation. Napoleon handed the Prussians at least half a day's head start, gave Grouchy had less than a third of their forces and then sent Grouchy repeatedly out of touch orders. Grouchy was no incompetent, the day after Wavre he marched on Brussels only to learn about Waterloo. He then about faced his troops and extricated them from the middle of the combined allied army to return to the french-belgian border. One can blame Napoleon even more because it was Napoleon who repeatedly handed Grouchy impossible orders and then expected him to carry them out.

As for De-Erlon's corops, most people tend to blame Ney for being to hot-headed and ignoring why it was being recalled. The fact that Napoleon had not really given Ney a decent idea of what the campaign plan was, had only called him to the army just prior to the campaign, and Ney felt he needed D-Erlon to achieve his orders doesn't seem to matter.

Napoleon and his generals turned in a sub par performance at Waterloo and it cost them the empire

Napoleon lost Waterloo in the day and a bit beforehand mostly. His opening strategy of invasion was sound, his inability to adapt to changing circumstances displayed sheer incompetence and arrogance. If we are to look at his entire career one must look at the 7 years or so in which his performances on the field of battle decline considerably showing both a decline in his abilities and a raising in standard of his opponents.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Marshal Ney, though he failed to secure the crossroads themselves.

Yes, pleanty of books refer to him promising Blucher support if practical, unfortunately, his Quartermaster General based the marching speed of the army on daytime moves, and the army was required to move by night. The subsequent delays meant that Wellington could not bring decent forces to bear until late in the day. Wellington was partly to blame for not checking De Lancey's figures fully I guess you could say, but his promise to Blucher was based on them, he did believe it possible, and would have done it had he thought it reasonable. Wellington is known for being cautious, but when clear of what he will do he is decisive such as at Salamanca for example.

In that case we can blame both of them. Grouchy did not make "bad decsisions" he was placed in an impossible situation. Napoleon handed the Prussians at least half a day's head start, gave Grouchy had less than a third of their forces and then sent Grouchy repeatedly out of touch orders. Grouchy was no incompetent, the day after Wavre he marched on Brussels only to learn about Waterloo. He then about faced his troops and extricated them from the middle of the combined allied army to return to the french-belgian border. One can blame Napoleon even more because it was Napoleon who repeatedly handed Grouchy impossible orders and then expected him to carry them out.

As for De-Erlon's corops, most people tend to blame Ney for being to hot-headed and ignoring why it was being recalled. The fact that Napoleon had not really given Ney a decent idea of what the campaign plan was, had only called him to the army just prior to the campaign, and Ney felt he needed D-Erlon to achieve his orders doesn't seem to matter.

Napoleon lost Waterloo in the day and a bit beforehand mostly. His opening strategy of invasion was sound, his inability to adapt to changing circumstances displayed sheer incompetence and arrogance.

The question of responsibility crops up frequently in this period of European military history; the armies were large and often widely scattered with very inefficient communications. For anyone to manage such campaigns at all is a pretty amazing feat. We don't know to what extent poor staff work worked against smart decisions at any given point in time. For a hundred reasons, the battles went as they did. "sheer incompetence and arrogance" is a bit over the top. Armchair generals, tend to oversimplify out of ignorance of what it really means to run a battle. You're looking at a small fraction of what those present were actually dealing with and facing and then claiming to know the truth about what was going on. Sounds like "sheer incompetence and arrogance" to me.

If we are to look at his entire career one must look at the 7 years or so in which his performances on the field of battle decline considerably showing both a decline in his abilities and a raising in standard of his opponents.

You must also look at the other contributions made to the warfare of his time. Napoleon made many.

 

[Atlas14]

I would elect Richard I as a top general considering he was fighting the Arabs in a landscape totally different than what he was used to in England. Richard stood up to Saladin's armies of overwhelming numbers that were consistantly outnumbering Richard's men. Richard had excellent tacticts and strategy in both the field and in sieges. The loyalty Richard received from his troops was so amazing, even making Phillip of Anjou jealous, and eventually leaving the Holy Land altogether. Richard I was one of the best generals because he did not rely on the support of his allies for every advance or counter attack he made. Phillip of Anjou left him, and Richard did fine. Frederick Barbarossa died before reaching the Holy land, and Richard did fine without him (not to mention the loss of 90% of Barbarossa's army of 100,000 Germans). Richard was sly in his diplomatic affairs, often an essential for a great general.

I would say the best General ever in history was probably Alexander the Great. Many "great" generals receive their fame from defeating a lot of rag-tag armies, having tremendous help from numerous allies, or just using overwhelming numbers to defeat enemies that simply do not have the numbers to compete. Alexander was the best because his army was similar to that of the mainland Greeks at the time with similar formations and nearly identical weaponry. Alexander faced almost total guerrilla warfare on his Asian campaign, and he was able to defeat each and almost every chieftan or 'barbarian ruler' that opposed him. Usually generals either can only fight an organized battle where there are definate ranks and formations, the time of the battle is either known or agreed apon by both sides, and there are certain rules of war. Other generals can only fight a guerrilla style warfare because maybe that is more advantageous to their availability and amount of resources and men. Most generals cannot fight both ways, but Alexander could. Alexander had a keen sense for being able to detect ambushes and retreating/attacking routes of enemies.

 

[privatehudson]

We don't know to what extent poor staff work worked against smart decisions at any given point in time.

Oh but we do in many cases, for example we know that bad staff work caused Wellington to promise to support Blucher when it was very unlikely. We know that it was Soult's inexperience in his new role that led to Ney not recieving the order telling him about D-Erlon's reassignment.

For a hundred reasons, the battles went as they did. "sheer incompetence and arrogance" is a bit over the top.

We can though look at what Napoleon was doing. He assumed that after Ligny the Prussians would not recover. Not only did he personally assume, he risked the campaign on that assumption. He refused to allow grouchy to persue the prussians that evening, and then paraded the army after it's "great victory" for most of the morning after. He then sends Grouchy off to intercept the Prussian army finally and departs to smash Wellington with most of the army. Not only is this blatant flouting of his own principles of war in not ensuring a beaten enemy is scattered, it's arrogance in assuming that he had shattered Blucher's forces so badly that he could simply send 30,000 men to keep their 100,000 odd men busy. He then ignores the situation Grouchy faced (ie not knowing where Blucher was, having to find him and then get between him and Napoleon's forces) and demands late on in Waterloo that Grouchy provide troops to support Napoleon. Quite how on earth Napoleon expected Grouchy to fend of the Prussian army and support him is an interesting point about Napoleon's character back then.

If it was anyone other than the "great man" I have no doubt this example would be used as an example of failings as a commander. Instead we find excuses for him, blame others in his command and so on. We should treat it as it was. The reason why Ney was unsure of his role at Quatres Bras was because Napoleon didn't seem fit to inform him of it fully. The reason why the order did not reach Ney about D-Erlon was that Napoleon insisted on putting Soult in a role he had absolutely no experience of fulfilling. The reason why what is often called second rate marshals were leading his army is because Napoleon himself had rejected or badly placed his best available marshals by his own choice. Napoleon was a general and a sole ruler of his nation, in such a system we cannot help but lay the final blame for these choices at his feet. He may have had his reasons for some of the choices, but whatever they are, they are still his choices.

You asked that we treat Wellington with the same respect as Napoleon in terms of blame. Now you excuse Napoleon with a variety of vauge reasons when the truth is that a general accepts that these problems may occur and usually can adapt to them. Don't lay the blame for Napoleon's own actions at the feet of others who were merely following Napoleon's own orders, or at the feet of chance. I can find a number of things that Wellington did that could have cost the allies the campaign. Though I understand why he did them, he still faces the responsibility of those actions as commander of his army. There are some things Napoleon did back then which had their sound reasoning, there are others which defy any kind of military logic. If you want to say that it was understandable then fine, but he still takes responsibility for not doing it right, as much as when he wins he takes the glory for doing it right.

No-One looks at Austerlitz and places the laurels of the victory on the heads of Aides or Mack for being incompetent now do they?

You must also look at the other contributions made to the warfare of his time. Napoleon made many.

Never said he didn't, just sick of people harping on about him like he was perfect.

 

[Birdjaguar]

just sick of people harping on about him like he was perfect.

Of course he wasn't perfect...just the best.

 

[wurkwurk]

Just sick of harping people who so vehementley hate the obvious greatest general of all time, Mr. Hudson.