Most overrated generals [Archive]

Longshanks

05-23-2003, 20:28

Inspired by the most admired generals thread...

Who in your opinion are the most overrated or overhyped in history, and why?

Some of my nominations:

Robert E. Lee: Don't get me wrong he was a great general, but many in the U.S. regard him in the same league as Napoleon or Caesar. Robert E. Lee wasn't a genius, nor did he revolutionize warfare. He beat generally bad Union generals like Burnside, McClellan, and Hooker in the first half of the war. But he generally lost when faced with a decent Union commander in the last half.

Custer: The guy led his troops into a massacre. Nuff said.

Montgomery: He was way too cautious.

Schwartzkopf: The plan was brilliant, his enemy was not.

Vo Nguyyen Giap: Used men like cannon-fodder against both the French and the Americans. Lost every one his battles against the Americans. His great victory at Dien Bien Phu against the French, was actually in large part planned by his Chinese advisors.

bhutavarna

05-23-2003, 20:41

Douglas MacArthur, more of a glory seeker than a genuine war leader/tactician

Longshanks

05-23-2003, 20:49

Quote[/b] (bhutavarna @ May 23 2003,14:41)]Douglas MacArthur, more of a glory seeker than a genuine war leader/tactician
He bungled in the Phillipines as well.(Japanese invasion) McArthur was a good general overall, but definately overrated.

solypsist

05-23-2003, 20:57

there was an old line by Gore Vidal that went something like

"show me a great general and i'll show you a megalomaniac with bad breath and onion in his beard who got lucky by hiding behind a flag."

i dunno.

Heraclius

05-23-2003, 21:23

Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Jaguara

05-23-2003, 22:38

Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ May 23 2003,14:28)]Inspired by the most admired generals thread...

Who in your opinion are the most overrated or overhyped in history, and why?

Some of my nominations:

Robert E. Lee: Don't get me wrong he was a great general, but many in the U.S. regard him in the same league as Napoleon or Caesar. Robert E. Lee wasn't a genius, nor did he revolutionize warfare. He beat generally bad Union generals like Burnside, McClellan, and Hooker in the first half of the war. But he generally lost when faced with a decent Union commander in the last half.

Custer: The guy led his troops into a massacre. Nuff said.

Montgomery: He was way too cautious.

Schwartzkopf: The plan was brilliant, his enemy was not.

Vo Nguyyen Giap: Used men like cannon-fodder against both the French and the Americans. Lost every one his battles against the Americans. His great victory at Dien Bien Phu against the French, was actually in large part planned by his Chinese advisors.
Longshanks, I agree on each of your listed generals.

Montgomery, though I think he was quite capable, I do think he was overrated. He was a master of set-piece battles, but was much less gifted at mobile warfare, this often meant that the initiative went to the enemy.

I still find the African Campaign intriguing for the fact that you have Rommel, master of mobile warfare, fighting Monty...master of holding ground. I still think the British won due to logistics victories...

I don't know enough about Stormin' Norman to diss him. From what I saw, he planned a very nice little war, and exectuted it exactly according to plan...regardless of the incompetence of his opponent. He exploited the enemies main weakness...that they never anticipated a counter-attack against Iraq itself.

Anyway, as to others...

Hernan Cortes. Sure he only had a few Spaniards with him, but he also had a massive army of rebellious tribes that did most of the fighting...oh and Smallpox.

Other than he, most of my main peeves have been covered. Well, those off the top of my head anyway...

Jaguara

solypsist

05-24-2003, 05:34

Nikita Kruschev (sp?)

anyone ever see the movie Enemy at the Gates? That opening scene was his idea of serious strategy.

deejayvee

05-24-2003, 06:05

Quote[/b] (solypsist @ May 23 2003,23:34)]Nikita Kruschev (sp?)

anyone ever see the movie Enemy at the Gates? That opening scene was his idea of serious strategy.
Soly,

I'm only basing this on the film, but didn't Kruschev arrive and change that?

Nowake

05-24-2003, 12:34

Mongomery and Alexander were almost incompetent, as having decent troops, much more supplyes than Rommel and superior equipment, they barely defeated him at El-Alamein ... Their campaign in North Africa is a shame, even if they snachted victory after all.

Belisarius

05-24-2003, 16:38

Dont diss Monty, though overrated he would have whopped any of ours ass any day of the week.
What most people here dont seem to know when discussing Monty is that he had to be overly cautios when taking offensives. When the British troops advanced into Holland in -44, they had to start disbanding divisions to make replacements. The UK was out of troops. Remember that.
And also remember that war is logistics, the vaunted Rommel forgot that (ok maybe it was his superiors, but anyway)and lost North Africa. Monty perfected it, and won.

Nikita Cruschev was a commisar, thus he was one of the guys that shot his own troops, not a commander in the field. The Soviets never ceased with their frontal assaults.... thus they were runnning out of replacemnts in late -44 and had to start conscripting factory workers.

solypsist

05-24-2003, 17:27

Quote[/b] (deejayvee @ May 24 2003,00:05)]
Quote[/b] (solypsist @ May 23 2003,23:34)]Nikita Kruschev (sp?)

anyone ever see the movie Enemy at the Gates? That opening scene was his idea of serious strategy.
Soly,

I'm only basing this on the film, but didn't Kruschev arrive and change that?
you may be right. more research is probably needed.

bhutavarna

05-25-2003, 04:55

Quote[/b] ]Montgomery, though I think he was quite capable, I do think he was overrated. He was a master of set-piece battles, but was much less gifted at mobile warfare, this often meant that the initiative went to the enemy.

I still find the African Campaign intriguing for the fact that you have Rommel, master of mobile warfare, fighting Monty...master of holding ground. I still think the British won due to logistics victories...

...remember WW2's Operation Market Garden, where the Allies failed miserably in Netherland. Wasn't that Monty's idea. Because of that the war in Europe went on another year. I think... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Rath

05-25-2003, 06:16

Wellington - overrated by some who mention him as a 'top 10' of all time general.

I tend to think he had a lot going for him at Waterloo (nice position, Napoleon ill), and the impact of the Prussians arriving late on seems to have been underestimated (who was the author that copped a lot for claiming Waterloo as a German victory?).

He got the job done though, and you can't discount that, but imo he lacked some of the creative/attacking flair of others.

AvramL

05-25-2003, 07:52

Napoleon's attention at Waterloo was largely spent on the Prussians at plancenoit on his right flank where he managed to launch a succesful counter attack. meanwhile he left the assault on the British up to marshal Ney (groan..).

Nowake

05-25-2003, 16:39

First, Ney made a mistake when he engaged all the cavalry ... Napoleon saw that, but all he could do was to support the reckless attack.

Also, a french officer deserted and fled to the english lines, telling Wellington about the french attack planed to strike the centre. They had the time to prepare a staunch defense.

Anyway, without Grouchy, none of this would have happened. Some say that all it's due to the fact that him and Blucher were masons, but I prefere to stick to the facts, as I am not sure about how influenced was Grouchy by this.

Jaguara

05-25-2003, 16:47

Quote[/b] (Rath @ May 25 2003,00:16)]Wellington - overrated by some who mention him as a 'top 10' of all time general.

...

He got the job done though, and you can't discount that, but imo he lacked some of the creative/attacking flair of others.
Well, he was no Napoleon. Ranking him in the top ten of all time? Absurd.

What makes a truely great general? To master the art as it exists, or to contribute something more to it? To rank as one of the greatest of all time, I feel that the latter is essential. What exactly did Wellington contribute to the art of war?

Napoleon revolutionized warfare at the time, and is often regarded as the father of modern warfare. He broke through many paradigms, and did what many had previously impossible. Wellington was in the right place at the right time to defeat a genius.

That does not mean that Wellington was not competent...but I do not consider his contributions to the art, nor his mere application of the art of war during his period of time to be enough to earn him the title of one of the top ten.

Perhaps the claim that we was is just the work of a select few English who cannot accept that Napoleon was French?

Jaguara

Brother Derfel

05-25-2003, 17:17

Quote[/b] (Jaguara @ May 25 2003,10:47)]Perhaps the claim that we was is just the work of a select few English who cannot accept that Napoleon was French?
He wasn't, he was Corsican http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

ELITEofFOGOLIN

05-25-2003, 22:11

Rommel was very good

Pablo Sanchez

05-25-2003, 22:37

Quote[/b] (Brother Derfel @ May 25 2003,11:17)]He wasn't, he was Corsican http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
It's funny to think about some really famous dictators, and their relation to those they ruled.

Napoleon was a Corsican who ruled the French.
Hitler was an Austrian who ruled a Prussia-dominated German nation.
Stalin was a Georgian who ruled a Russia-dominated nation.

On the main topic, MacArthur is one that really stands out. He only won his main campaign by America's total material superiority, and he behaved like a fool in Korea.

Spino

05-25-2003, 23:06

I wouldn't take too much away from Wellington but I will say he got lucky in Spain as; 1) he never faced Napoleon; 2) most of the French marshals he faced (Soult excepted) were either mediocre, handcuffed by the new Spanish king (Napoleon's idiotic brother), or were past their prime (Massena); and 3) due to the situation in central and eastern Europe Napoleon rarely was able to concentrate France's best effort in the Iberian peninsula. Certainly one of the biggest 'what ifs' of the Peninsula war was what would have happened had Marshal Suchet, whom Napoleon acknowledged as his best Marshal, had been the one to face Wellington. At Waterloo Wellington performed wonderfully but Napoleon was having an off day, due in no small part by the fact that Ney was out of control and that Grouchy was no Murat.

Speaking of Marshall Ney he has to be one of the most overrated generals of that era. While incredibly brave, aggressive and extraordinarily inspirational to his men Ney's only strategic and tactical prowess lie in his mastery of handling fighting retreats Other than that he was as bullheaded and erratic as they come; the French counterpart to Prussia's Blucher. Furthermore Ney was rather careless with administration and logistical responsibilities which led to unneccessary losses due to non-combat related attrition. Despite Ney's underwhelming performance during the fighting of 1813/1814 it wasn't until after his bunglings at Quatre Bras and Waterloo that Napoleon realized his critical error of giving 'the Red Lion' an independent command and thus a free hand in battle.

Jaguara

05-25-2003, 23:32

Quote[/b] (Brother Derfel @ May 25 2003,11:17)]
Quote[/b] (Jaguara @ May 25 2003,10:47)]Perhaps the claim that we was is just the work of a select few English who cannot accept that Napoleon was French?
He wasn't, he was Corsican http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Of course you are correct, I only meant that he represented the French...or more importantly, that he was not English. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I do not mean that this implies that all, or even many English feel this way...but then again, I don't think many would realistically claim that Wellington was a superior general to Napoleon either.

All that being said, I have a great deal of respect for Wellington. I responded only to someone stating that he heard a reference claiming him to be one of the 10 greatest generals.

ANOTHER FOR THE LIST

One General I did not think much of was General Clark, US commander in the Invasion of Italy...blunder after blunder. Monte Cassino, Anzio, all of it a nasty mess.

In my opinion, the Germans were really only forced to retreat due to the flanking of the British and French forces...otherwise they could have continued a slow withdrawl, forcing more high attrition assaults from the US forces.

Here is a nice quote I found...

Quote[/b] ]Clark had a number of options for the breakout from Anzio, and was eventually ordered by Alexander to thrust into the German line of retreat. Although this manoeuvre would not have bagged all the defenders of Cassino, it would have captured most of them and much of their equipment. In the event, however, Clark chose instead to strike for Rome, guaranteeing himself a place in the history books but letting the Germans escape. The distinguished American military historian Carlo D'Este called his decision 'as militarily stupid as it was insubordinate.' As its direct consequence, although the Gustav Line was broken and Rome was liberated, the hard-fought battle of Cassino was indeed a hollow victory.

This man should not be heralded as an American hero, but rather as an insubordinate fool who unessecarily cost a great number of Americans their lives.

Jaguara

Rath

05-25-2003, 23:58

The list i was referring to that had Wellington top 10 (i think 6th) - had the vietnamese chap (Giap?) at number 1 from the vietnam war. We were given this list in history class about 3 years ago now.

Been trying to find it, to no avail - but managed to stumble on another list which might interest some of you and cause some debate

top 100 (http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/intro.html)

Imo put Hannibal somewhere in the top 5 (they have him at 30??&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif and take out Washington and they have it pretty much ok.

I'm sure the Americans among us will love seeing Saddam and Hitler above Patton too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

ELITEofFOGOLIN

05-26-2003, 00:25

WOW Rath

Nice Link

Thx

Nowake

05-26-2003, 07:39

Washington above NApoleon, Alexander above Genghis Khan ... That's plain wrong

MrNiceGuy

05-26-2003, 18:32

Excellent link, thanks Rath http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Pablo Sanchez

05-26-2003, 20:39

Quote[/b] (pr Fire @ May 26 2003,01:39)]Washington above NApoleon, Alexander above Genghis Khan ... That's plain wrong
I don't see Belisarius on there anywhere; thank God for Western historians' aversion to the Byzantine Empire http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif And the Austrian Corporal at #14?

I don't understand how this list was put together? What was the criteria that put Hitler above Hannibal and Shaka Zulu, and put Saddam Hussein on the list at all?

Michiel de Ruyter

05-26-2003, 21:22

Two choices that probably will make me hugely unpopular:

Ulysses S. Grant : He had the huge advantage of having the industrial power and sheer numbers of the North behind him, and used it... but so did many before and after him.

Shiloh: it was sheer luck that saved his army, IMHO (a Southern officer screwing up the offensive plan by misdirecting reinforcements... the original plan was to have the army driven away from the river, not pinned down upon it. Also, Sidney S Johnston being killed by his own men.

Vicksburg: It was bound to fall anyway, IMHO, due to the numerical and material superiority of the North. Yes he, in some respects, abandoned the ties to his supply. On the other hand, he did not have huge Southern armies to compete with.

The campaign in Virginia.. IMHO when Grant took over, Lee's army was already doomed. IMHO it's last opportunity to win it all was Gettysburg. The rest was a "simple war" of attrition...and with Sherman closing in, Lee was doomed.. But if not for sheer bureaucratic incompetence, the war could have if not won, then certainly been swung more towards the North by Burnside.

IMHO Grant is something like a Montgomery. He, unlike many of his predecessors, actually continued to fight, and instilled some spirit into his man. He probably was an excellent motivator. Yet I do not know of an example of his in which he in one stroke (of brilliance) destroyed his enemy.

Though I have to do some reading up, with the things I know about it right now, I would also include Patton He performed quite well, but had some major advantages. Massive air superiority enjoyed by his airforce. Many of the armored divisions he faced were already bled by the British in the carnage around Caen... then the ill-fated counter-offensive ordered by Hitler towards Mortain drove what remaining armor there was straight into the pocket, which closed at Falaise. Though the troops there (especially SS and Fallschirmjäger) performed an incredible feat by keeping the pocket open for as long as they did, but the Germans lost the vast majority of their heavy equipment there... This, IMHO greatly facilitated the speed of the progress by all the allied troops later in 1944, as the germans basically lacked heavy equipment to stop the Cdn/UK/US assaults, untill they were either driven in very defensible terrain (hills and forest) or the allies reached the limits of their supply-lines... As far as I know, by the time the Germans had a chance to slightly recover (Sept 1944), much of the allied advances basically was limited to a crawl forward. Then after the failed Ardennes offensive, the Germans basically stripped the Western Front of as much as possible to delay the Russian advance, especially of their armored troops and elite forces... And by 1944 many of the units had been (re)formed several times over, and generally were not of the quality of the early war. Some where only in name the same unit as their illustrious predecessor (like the 21st Pz which fought in Normandy)

Michiel de Ruyter

05-26-2003, 21:26

Looking at that list, I have seen a "few" things I disagree with... Might post about that later. But let's put it this way: There are a lot of disputable choices he has made, especially concerning the placement of some.

Jaguara

05-27-2003, 01:03

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ May 26 2003,15:26)]Looking at that list, I have seen a "few" things I disagree with... Might post about that later. But let's put it this way: There are a lot of disputable choices he has made, especially concerning the placement of some.
I'll go even further than that...

In my opinion that list is total bullox.

I'm not even going to touch it right now.

Actually, there is one I cannot help, ignoring the obvious ludicrous-ness of the #1 choice..."Joan of Arc"? Get a life...

Jaguara

Hakonarson

05-27-2003, 04:34

IMO the list is self contradictory - at the top it proclaims the top 100 MILITARY leaders of all time, then in the texts for many it says they'er there for their "influence" - eg Hitler because WW2 influenced everybody in the world.

And yet nothing about WW2 reflects Hitler's MILITARY influence except the fact they Germany lost mainly due to his incompetence at various levels......sheesh.

It's just nonsense - even in the "influence" bit Washinton doesn't rate #1 - Napoleon & Wellesly each had more influence on global military thinking than Washington, while the various campaigns of Alexander the Great and Caeser influenced all miltary thinking since they were "rediscovered" during the Rennaisance

Rosacrux

05-27-2003, 12:18

Just to tear down the extremely poor list a bit, here are some remarks on the top-20 listed (only…):

- Washington: As a military commander he doesn’t even belong to the top-1000, not the 1st place of the top-100… enough said.
- Julius Ceasar: Competent commander but definitely not top-10 material.
- Francisco Pizzaro: #7???? Pu-leeease
- Charlemagne a military commander? When? Where? How?
- Adolph Hitler in the top-20 of military commanders? What has being the guy smoking?
- Eisenhower and Marshal??? Oh, this must be extremely good stuff he is smoking… I’ll mail him and ask him for some…

My own top-10:

- Alexander the Great
- Belisarius
- Napoleon
- Hannibal
- Scipio Africanus
- Guderian
- Chinghiz Khan
- Vo Nguien Gapp
- Zhukov
- Mannstein

Michiel de Ruyter

05-27-2003, 13:05

Rosacrux,

Charlemagne did conquer a large part of present day Germany, a big part of Italy and had atleast one quite succesfull campaign against the Moors...

as far as the others, I do agree with you except for Caesar.

Rosacrux

05-27-2003, 14:08

Michiel

It is well known that Charlemagne conquered half of Europe during his reing and also it is well known that he was a fairly great ruler.

But in all bibliography you won't find one single line that suggests he was a great military commander. A good administer, yes. But Marshall would've won a place in my top-10 if we counted administration and logistics only... Xerxes was also a grandioso logistics master (if you haven't, read what Herodotus writes about the preparations of his campaign) but his armies and navy were crushed in Greece.

The greatest battles in which Charlemagne commanded an army (Pavia, Roncesvalles, Suntelberg and Tisza) were little more than large skirmishes, and won solely by the personal skill and superior numbers of the Frankish troops. No strategy, no maneuvering, no nothing. Just a plain massive charge of the best infantry and cavalry of that time.

About Ceasar: He was a very good commander but not one of the best. What is your objection?

Longshanks

05-27-2003, 15:05

Overall a good list Rosacrux, I would just disagree with Giap. Like George Washington he lost the majority of his battles.(he lost ALL of his battles against the Yanks)The victory at Dien Bien Phu against the French, was also in large part planned by Chinese advisors. One of the most overrated generals of the 20th century, in my not-so-humble opinion.

BlackWatch McKenna

05-27-2003, 17:58

Frederick the Great.

Dîn-Heru

05-27-2003, 17:59

Did anyone read the text before the list?
To me it appears that this is not a list of the worlds greatest military commanders , but of the most influential military commanders.

Quote[/b] ]
This next group of pages identifies some of those military leaders who dominated their times and exerted profound influence on the future.

Michiel de Ruyter

05-27-2003, 18:24

Rosacrux,

as far as Ceasar goes here are IMHO a few points:

[/list]

His campaign in Gaul was about as brilliant as on can make it, in many respects similar to that of Alexander.

He was perhaps the first to wage a real total war in the modern sense of the word. He was in some respects, also the first to be supreme commander of a number of semi-independent armies during the campaign in Gaul. Up untill then, at least as far as I know, none of the other great commanders ever used their command in a similar fashion.. And one has to wait for quite a while for a similar thing to happen again.

He was someone who was willing to risk it all, if convinced that he had a reasonable chance, and accepted odds, in a way very few commanders before or after him ever did (Alesia is an example).
[/list]

Was he a great tactical commander ? Probably not, no more then good. Put him on a battlefield with say Alexander, Hannibal, Belisarius, Friedrich der Große, Gustavus Adolphus and the likes, and he would probably get his ass kicked in a major fashion.

Yet he was a great strategist, who borrowed from some of his predecessors (like Marius and Scipio Africanus), yet he also introduced a number of other things in strategic thinking. Especially where the aspects of total and psychological warfare are concerned. And in doing so, put down some of the foundations of strategic thinking still used to this day...

Is he the greatest millitary commander in history ? No, IMHO not (for me that honour goes to Hannibal, closely followed by Napoleon).
Where you put Caesar is IMHO largely dependent on how you rate tactical brilliance vs sttrategic brilliance...

Give Caesar strategic command and Hannibal tactical/operational command during a war, and IMHO you pretty much would have an unbeatable combination.

71-hour Ahmed

05-27-2003, 18:44

Montgomery.

His africa campaign was correct, caution followed by a massive victorious attack - but it was his predecessors plan, he did what they had done after promising the exact opposite to Churchill to get the job of command in Africa.

Secondly, Market Garden - failed brilliance, and a good comment is the classic "A bridge too far" - but the more serious mistake he made was not clearing the Dutch ports open for the assault troops to land there instead of normandy, slowing down the whole invasion.

So, a ambitious man who was willing to stab others in the back to rise to power, and who ignored a key aspect of the war due to an over-focus on one area. IMHO.

Cheetah

05-27-2003, 19:04

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ May 26 2003,15:22)]Two choices that probably will make me hugely unpopular:

Ulysses S. Grant : He had the huge advantage of having the industrial power and sheer numbers of the North behind him, and used it... but so did many before and after him.

None of the former US commanders used this superiority as Grant did. McCellan, Burnside, all had this superiority, yet they have failed.

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ May 26 2003,15:22)] Shiloh: it was sheer luck that saved his army, IMHO
And Grants determination to fight http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ May 26 2003,15:22)] Vicksburg: It was bound to fall anyway, IMHO, due to the numerical and material superiority of the North.
The anyway must be the operative word here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif IMHO at that time this was far from obvious. Vicksburg was the first great vistory for the notrh, which gave them the hope that they can defeat the Confederates on the battlefield.

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ May 26 2003,15:22)] Yes he, in some respects, abandoned the ties to his supply.
In every respect http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif He did something that was completely against the military doctrine of that time.

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ May 26 2003,15:22)]On the other hand, he did not have huge Southern armies to compete with.
The southern armies were numerous enough but were completely outmanouvered by Grant.

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ May 26 2003,15:22)] The campaign in Virginia.. IMHO when Grant took over, Lee's army was already doomed. IMHO it's last opportunity to win it all was Gettysburg. The rest was a "simple war" of attrition...
Here he did something that no one was able to do before. He pinned down Lee to Richmond. After this, but only after this, it was indeed "just a war of attrition".

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ May 26 2003,15:22)] IMHO Grant is something like a Montgomery. He, unlike many of his predecessors, actually continued to fight, and instilled some spirit into his man. He probably was an excellent motivator.
Somewhat contradicts this that he had very little personal contact with his troops. So even if he was a good motivator, it was in an indirect way. His men trusted him, because they knew that he would figth.

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ May 26 2003,15:22)] Yet I do not know of an example of his in which he in one stroke (of brilliance) destroyed his enemy.

Fort Donelson, when he strated the campaign without the approval of his superior? Vicksburg, when he outmanouvered his opponent? Pinning down of Lee? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Pablo Sanchez

05-27-2003, 20:13

Quote[/b] (Cheetah @ May 27 2003,13:04)]Here he did something that no one was able to do before. He pinned down Lee to Richmond. After this, but only after this, it was indeed "just a war of attrition".
I think this is the key to Grant's place in military history. Grant understood like no military commander before him that his losses were immaterial as long as he could afford the casualties and his enemy couldn't.

I wouldn't call him brilliant, like Napolean or Lee, but Grant was fully in control and competent. He understood that an offensive spirit could sustain morale independent of victory (at least for a while). He knew his objectives and his tools, something that could not be said of his predecessors (and, to an extent, Robert E. Lee himself).

Michiel de Ruyter

05-27-2003, 20:32

Quote[/b] (Cheetah @ May 27 2003,19:04)]
None of the former US commanders used this superiority as Grant did. McCellan, Burnside, all had this superiority, yet they have failed.

McClellan indeed bungled a number of cahnces to win it for good... Burnside had a real opportunity at Fredericksburg (he had outmaneouvred Lee), yet some beaurocratic ***holes decided to hold up the pontoonbridges needed for something like two weeks... enough time for Lee to get his army opposite Burnside, and entrench it. After Fredericksburg, Burnside was doomed as his army lost all confidence in him.

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ May 26 2003,15:22)] Shiloh: it was sheer luck that saved his army, IMHO

And Grants determination to fight http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Yes he was determined to fight. But it was sheer luck that he had an army left to fight with. Also, he was lucky enough to that Johnston was shot. Fact is that the mistakes he made, did not cost him his army, and he learned from them.

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ May 26 2003,15:22)] Vicksburg: It was bound to fall anyway, IMHO, due to the numerical and material superiority of the North.

The anyway must be the operative word here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif IMHO at that time this was far from obvious. Vicksburg was the first great vistory for the notrh, which gave them the hope that they can defeat the Confederates on the battlefield. IIRC Vicksburg was the last river-crossing left. As the strategy was already ddecided (split the confederation along the Mississippi) it had to be the next target.

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ May 26 2003,15:22)] Yes he, in some respects, abandoned the ties to his supply.

In every respect http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif He did something that was completely against the military doctrine of that time.

On the other hand, he did not have huge Southern armies to compete with.

The southern armies were numerous enough but were completely outmanouvered by Grant.

Yet he enjoyed a numerical superiority of about 2 to 1, and knew taht at least part of the Southern forces had to stay around Vicksburg anyway.

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ May 26 2003,15:22)] The campaign in Virginia.. IMHO when Grant took over, Lee's army was already doomed. IMHO it's last opportunity to win it all was Gettysburg. The rest was a "simple war" of attrition...

Here he did something that no one was able to do before. He pinned down Lee to Richmond. After this, but only after this, it was indeed "just a war of attrition".

IMHO Gettysburg was the point where al was doomed. Unlike the previous battles fought, this was a clear Union victory. One can argue that Meade should have pursued more vigorously, though I think this time he was right to proceed with caution. Unlike his predecessors he did not inherit a demotivated or routed army of the Potomac. Instead he could work with an army that finally had beaten Lee in a quite convincing fashion (even though the battle of Getttysburg was close).
IMHO the war of attrition already started as soon as the overland campaign began. From that time on Grant did not disengage the enemy anymore, unlike most of his predecessors. With a numerical superiority of almost 2 to 1, and this was increasing, he indeed pinned down Lee. And then he only had to wait for Sherman to do his job.

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ May 26 2003,15:22)] IMHO Grant is something like a Montgomery. He, unlike many of his predecessors, actually continued to fight, and instilled some spirit into his man. He probably was an excellent motivator.Somewhat contradicts this that he had very little personal contact with his troops. So even if he was a good motivator, it was in an indirect way. His men trusted him, because they knew that he would figth.IMHO it is more important that a commander can motivate his troops then how he motivates them (unless it is through fear)

Quote[/b] ]
Fort Donelson, when he strated the campaign without the approval of his superior? Vicksburg, when he outmanouvered his opponent? Pinning down of Lee? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Okay, Donelson can be argued... Vicksburg, there have been numerous generals who outmanoeuverd others, who are not reckoned among the all-time greats. Braking with common doctrine was indeed unusual... Pinning down of Lee, I already addressed that... And I believe I already stated that Grant was one of the very few who continued to fight.[/quote]

Rosacrux

05-28-2003, 10:12

Michiel de Ruyter

Quote[/b] ]Was he a great tactical commander ? Probably not, no more then good. Put him on a battlefield with say Alexander, Hannibal, Belisarius, Friedrich der Große, Gustavus Adolphus and the likes, and he would probably get his ass kicked in a major fashion.

Yet he was a great strategist, who borrowed from some of his predecessors

Agreed on all points (we do disagree on the greatest tactical commander but that’s irrelevant). When reading “military commanders” I try to combine tactical and strategic skills together and that’s why, for instance, Alexander ranks #1 in my list. The mix of strategic-tactics just doesn’t bring him – IMHO – above those mentioned in the top-10.

Likewise, Rommel for instance (one of my all-time favourites) doesn’t figure in the top-10 because he was completely unproven as a strategist, even though in the tactics field he was unparalleled in the WW2.

And… all good general borrowed some off their predecessors. The Cannae encirclement has been executed (in various scales and ages) more than 1.000 times by now, for instance. Also, the tactics of the Thebean phalanx have not only been copied by their contemporaries (for instance Alexander at Issos) but also by Gustav Adolf, Friedriech der Grosse and others. So, one should add at least one honorary mention to Epaminondas in the list of “most influential military commanders”

Longshanks

Quote[/b] ]Overall a good list Rosacrux, I would just disagree with Giap. Like George Washington he lost the majority of his battles.(he lost ALL of his battles against the Yanks)The victory at Dien Bien Phu against the French, was also in large part planned by Chinese advisors. One of the most overrated generals of the 20th century, in my not-so-humble opinion

Well, I won’t disagree that Giap wasn’t all that great as a tactical mind, but his strategic skills were rather impressive. And one has to take the outcome into account: he managed to liberate and unite his country, despite fighting against all odds, against two great powers of his times.

If that isn’t some accomplishment, I don’t know what is.

So, I included him on a outcome-basis.

Also, I agree with 71-hour Ahmed on Montgomery: Monty is definitely not the best military commander the Brits had in WW2 and certainly not among the “good ones”. But, like Eisenhower, he played well the political game and managed to get where he got.

Jaguara

05-28-2003, 19:24

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ May 28 2003,04:12)]Also, I agree with 71-hour Ahmed on Montgomery: Monty is definitely not the best military commander the Brits had in WW2 and certainly not among the “good ones”.
I still feel that Monty did do one thing well...but the problem is that being a one-trick wonder does not a good general make.

He was very good at static defence, or fixed-piece, battles.

DemonArchangel

05-28-2003, 19:58

the most overrated

Napoleon...

Michiel de Ruyter

05-28-2003, 20:27

Demon Archangel, please care to elaborate ?

What are your reasons to call Napoleon overrated ? I am really curious http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

bhutavarna

05-28-2003, 20:42

Quote[/b] ]the most overrated

Napoleon...

why????? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

he might not be the nicest guy, but there is no way you can deny that he was probably the one individual responsible for shaping the European politic, economy, military and society during that time period.

Rosacrux

05-29-2003, 07:16

...not to mention that even from a pure military standpoint, he revolusionised warfare and laid the seed for the later developments, by making more mobile forces, using so effectively for the first time (and perfecting it) the "inside the lines movement", not to mention his superb tactical skills in 90% of the battles he led his army.

Surely he is not a guy I would like to be on the same continent with, but that could be attributed to many of the "great military leaders". Hell, I wouldn't want to be on the same planet with Chinghiz Khan, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great leader and commander.

econ21

05-29-2003, 13:27

Well, I agree that Napoleon was over-rated and Wellington if anything under-rated. In many campaigns, Napoleon had the benefit of big battalions (even 1813 he had initial numerical superiority before Austria joined in) and a quality army at all levels from the lowest to the marshals. Initially he faced opponents that used out-dated strategy and tactics - when more competent ones came to the fore (or learnt from him), he did not fare so well. His score card, in either campaigns or battles, is not so impressive. Wellington, on the other hand, never seems to have been beaten despite battling ceaselessly and seldom with a numerical advantage. I'd be interested to be proven wrong but that's my impression from reading about my favorite period of military history.

Rosacrux

05-29-2003, 14:35

Welly was an extremely competent military commander but comparing him to Napoleon is like comparing Rommel to Guderian: The one is a tactical genious, the other is a proven tactical and strategical genious.

Welly's strategical genious was never proven and Napoleon's was. That's their difference.

Also, in what way did Wellington advance the warfare in general? Napoleon introduced-revolutionized a dozen or more concepts of warfare, where is Wellington's contribution?

And saying that the French armee was "superior" to anything, is very innacurate. The French army before Napoleon was in rabbles and only Napo's efforts brought it to the point to be attributed the "best in the world" nomination (even though I tend to believe that Germans and Brits of the same era were better fighters individually).

BlackWatch McKenna

05-29-2003, 18:23

Napoleon was building off of Frederick the Great's model.

Fritz was the Interior Lines man of men. Fritz was all about mobility - and Fritz was all about Artillery at the point of break through.

The Alte Fritz is underrated, for sure

bhutavarna

05-29-2003, 19:50

I agree with Rosecrux.

One thing to keep in mind is that Wellington's success in Spain was not due to his military genius only. The French army had many problems of their own that contributed to their failure. None of the marshals Napoleon sent to Spain could be considered equals to Wellington, Soult for example. On top of that the French army had to cope with difficulties posed hostile population and internal disputes within the army itself.

Hakonarson

05-29-2003, 23:38

I disagree.

Wellington had to campaign with a small army, succour help from dodgyu allies, and deal with politicians back home whe nominally controled him - as opposed to Nappy who was head of state and conquered most of his "allies" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

His "strategic" ability was well proved in Spain.

That was a relatively limited theatre of operations compared to all of Europe it was plenty big enough for all aspects of military science to be applied.

As for his legacy in military science - his concentration on infantry firepower at a time when "l'ordre profund" was the latest craze stood the British army in (relatively) good stead as late as 1914, although they had to be retaught some lessons by the Boers, and was undoubtably one of the foundations of British Imperial success through the 19th century.

Saying the various French Marshals weren't in Wellington's league is also ano-sequeiter - by definition the opponents of great military leaders are not in their league.

Is Napoleon not so good because hs most brilliant successes were against moribund Austrian, Prussian and Russian armies? Or Alexander was actually "the ordinary" because Darius was not up to scratch?

Rosacrux

05-30-2003, 06:54

Quote[/b] (BlackWatch McKenna @ May 29 2003,12:23)]The Alte Fritz is underrated, for sure
Fritz is not underrated, he was a great leader in many aspects and he created the Prussian military wonder. But his interior lines movement was kindergartern stuff compared to the way Napoleon used it - his most noticable revolution was the use of the phalanxes. But he modelled that on Swedes army of the times, which modeled it by Epaminonda's phalanx... military history is an interesting thing, huh? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Hakonarson

Welly's Spanish campaign was surely not his greatest deed and definitely does not prove him as a grand strategist. If you want to go into details, we sure can go through every littel detail.

But History has given it's verdict: Napoleon is a GREAT military commander, while Welly is just an EXTREMELY GOOD one.

The "Great" club is a rather limited one, you know.

Hakonarson

05-30-2003, 07:10

Napoleon was a GREAT military commander quite a lot - but he was a pretty damned average one a lot too - he had distinct highs (1814, 1806), and lows (1808, 1812, 1815).

I don't recall Wellington ever having swings and roundabouts like that - either in Spain or in India

Rosacrux

05-30-2003, 07:24

Great men allways have ups and downs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

BTW, what is the connection between Wellington and Wellington N.Z. ?

Crimson Castle

05-30-2003, 08:04

Napoleon... I wouldn't call him overrated but in the words of one of his own commanders - "he was mad" - he certainly bit off more than he could chew when he attempted to take over the whole of Europe.

By doing so he helped to initiate the unification of the whole of Germany and the weakening of the Austria-Hungarian empire - both events which later led to WWI.

Moreover Napoleon's use of column formations baffles me. He was well aware of the destructive power of artillery. Yet, he persisted in sending in his regiments in column box formation - even his Imperial Guard.

The prerequiste for a good general or commander is one that plays the cards he is dealt - well. Its not enough to win a few brilliant battles. Its also how you follow through on them that counts too.

Both Hitler and Napoleon played great games at the start - but they overplayed their hand and lost - very very badly. They lost everything in the end so I wouldn't consider them as great generals - I wouldn't say they were overrated - foolish is a better word.

Rosacrux

05-30-2003, 09:46

Neither Napoleon or Hitler were "foolish". Hitler was not a good military commander and lots of the failures of the Wehrmacht (as a few of it's victories) point out to the rather poor strategic ability of his. Military-wise, you can't put the Austrian corporal and the Korsikan mastermind in the same sentence - it's sacriledge http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Napoleon was also a much greater politician and his reforms are still valued as a primal factor in the development of the current governmental and legal structures throughout Europe (except Britain).

But both guys have something in common: They were both bound to a cause and that was their doom.

RE. Columns: Napoleon was a great fan of the "strong against weak" and "local numerical superiority" concepts. So, the "overload" of the center (usually) of the enemy formation, by sending his infantry in columns, was quite acceptable (if not geniale) under the doctrine of the time.

Don't forget he used extensively the cross-movement patters in the heat of battle, to "convince" the enemy commander to shift forces, so he could break in the desired location without much resistance.

Cheetah

05-30-2003, 12:41

Quote[/b] (Alita @ May 30 2003,02:04)]
The prerequiste for a good general or commander is one that plays the cards he is dealt - well. Its not enough to win a few brilliant battles. Its also how you follow through on them that counts too.

Both Hitler and Napoleon played great games at the start - but they overplayed their hand and lost - very very badly. They lost everything in the end so I wouldn't consider them as great generals - I wouldn't say they were overrated - foolish is a better word.

That is exactly How can you rate Napoleon amongst the geatest when he lost at the end? Moreover, this was only due to his judgement or more precisely to his lack of judgement. On the other hand, Wellington succeeded in every task he had (at least on the battlefield), and these were no small task against insignificant forces and insignificant generals, as some might suggest.

BlackWatch McKenna

05-30-2003, 16:38

Wow - no love for the Alte Fritz

I wish that when I was in Kindergarden that I could use Interior Lines to fend off Four Angry Super Powers with an army only one tenth of their combined size.

Who would have thought that old Napoleon would have brought his generals to the grave of a mere Toddler and said, "hats off, gentlemen. If he were still here - surely we would not be."

Power to the Garden of Children, I say.

As for Attack Columns: Two theories I have heard of late:

(1) Columns (aka Mobs) are also the best formation for fresh untrained troops. Humans have a tendency to "herd up" in dangerous situations; and

(2) Wellington (master of holding troops out of sight on the Far Side of the hill) was the reason we think the French loved the attack column. It was not that they attacked in column - so much as the came barreling over the hills right into Welly's waiting Line-O-Guns. Hence, to an outside observer - it looked like the French ALWAYS attacked everything in column - even though the French shot in Linear Formation, too.

I am interested in everyone's thoughts - this is an interesting era, to be sure.

~BW

bhutavarna

05-30-2003, 20:19

Quote[/b] ]That is exactly How can you rate Napoleon amongst the geatest when he lost at the end? Moreover, this was only due to his judgement or more precisely to his lack of judgement. On the other hand, Wellington succeeded in every task he had (at least on the battlefield), and these were no small task against insignificant forces and insignificant generals, as some might suggest.

come on... how can you rate how great someone was based on whether or not they lost it in the end. If that's the case many other 'great' individuals throughout history wouldn't be 'great'. Hannibal for example, would you not consider him great eventhough Carthage was lost.

It's the same case with Napoleon. As many others have pointed out in this thread, despite his failures he did managed to accomplish many 'great' things that profoundly impacted the world. And, I mean the world, not just Europe. Think about Louisiana purchase, emperor Maximillian of Mexico (courtesy of Napoleon III). Also did you know that tens of thousands of Javanese forced labors died when Dutch's East Indies was controlled by French occupied Holland.

bhutavarna

05-30-2003, 20:32

Quote[/b] ]Napoleon was a GREAT military commander quite a lot - but he was a pretty damned average one a lot too - he had distinct highs (1814, 1806), and lows (1808, 1812, 1815).

I don't recall Wellington ever having swings and roundabouts like that - either in Spain or in India

Given time, any military geniuses would eventually commit a blunder.

Napoleon's military career spanned from 1793 at the siege of Toulon until 1815 at Waterloo, it encompasses numerous campaigns from Egypt to Russia. In many cases involved enemies with superior numbers and difficult odds against him. Even at Waterloo he was fighting two armies.

Wellington, was in India and Spain. I'm not saying that he's in anyway less of a genius than he was, but I don't think it's fair to compare his successes to Napoleon's failures. Frankly, the two are not in the same class.

IMHO http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

econ21

06-02-2003, 10:44

Sometimes I think the Napoleon vs Wellington comparison is rather like Lee vs Longstreet. Napoleon/Lee could pull off bold strategic maneouvres that dazzled poor enemy commanders. However, they might also come unstuck against more surefooted opponents - I am sure there is a risk-return trade-off at play here. On the battlefield, their tactical record seems even more mixed and sometimes they would launch crude frontal assaults that proved almost suicidal (on reflection this may be again a risk vs return trade-off). Wellington/Longstreet seem to have a sounder grasp of tactics - specifically, a greater respect for the firepower of steady infantry - and also to have played safer. At the strategic level, I am not sure Longstreet ever got a chance to prove himself but agree with Hakonsen than Wellington did repeatedly.

I also suspect Wellington and Napoleon had strengths that were relevant to the armies they had to command and the strategic position they were in. Tactically, Napoleon found ways to employ the French levee en masse. Wellington seems to have mastered the use of the British army to counter Napoleonic tactics. Napoleon used audacious strategy and the resources of a nation to make a bid for European domination. Wellington used a conservative strategy with his limited force to remorsely fight his way from Portugal into the south of France.

I rather like Wellington's comment comparing his approach to strategy to that of one his better opponents, Massena. He said Massena fashions his strategy like a fine harness - the problem is, when one string breaks, the whole thing fails. He, Wellington, fashions it like a crude rope - when it breaks, he mends it with a rough knot. You could almost subsitute Napoleon for Massena (although Napoleon could tie a few knots also&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.

Hakonarson

06-02-2003, 11:44

Wellington's career was longer than Napoleons, and he was ALWAYS outnumbered....

New Zealand has a lot of places named afer bits & people from the British Empire - it was setteld by middle class colonists mainly.

So we have Wellington, a province of Marlborough with towns of Picton, Belnheim, Havlock, a Province and City of Nelson, cities called Napier & Hastings & lots of other "stuff" from the Empire http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

The Blind King of Bohemia

06-02-2003, 13:25

I might upset a few Swedes here but i personally think Gustavus Adolphus was very overratted and although his army was destroyed at Poltava in 1709 and made some silly mistakes,i believe Charles XII of Sweden was a far better General.

Wellington and 5,000 British and Sepoys + A small village called Assaye + A 50,000 Mahratta Army = A fantastic victory for Blighty

kataphraktoi

06-02-2003, 14:03

Washington no.1 ? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HA...........HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Heraclius is better than Washington but I don't rate Heraclius as no.1 though.

Heraclius had no previous military experience as a general till after his father raised the banner of rebellion in the Exarchate of Carthage. After assuming the Byzantine crown Heraclius was hamstrung by two things: loss of land and severe shortage of money.

He had to face two formidable enemies on two fronts:
Europe: the Avars
Asia: Sassanid Persia

By his accession the Balkans, West Mesopotamia, Armenia was lost while Anatolia, Syria and Palestine were cruelly exposed.

Before he managed to restore financial stability to the empire and begin his counterattack, All of the Asian provinces except for Asia Minor was lost.

His military tactic was not to fight conventionally in reconquering all territories one by one, but rather, a decisive thrust into the heart of Persia and force the Persian King to sue for peace.

In one part of the campaign, the Persian King contrived to trap heraclius on home soil with three armies.
Heraclius obviously did not defeat all three in one battle, but, he did defeat the first two in succession before smashing the third later.

The battle of Nineveh was the last decisive classical battle before the Arabs ended the period. Persians were annihilated.

Heraclius employed military leadership with diplomacy and countered the strength of Persia. His plan worked, the Persian King's son overthrew him in a revolution and his lands were restored in one stroke.

His only blemish was that he lost all his "recovered"lands to the Arabs in 10 yrs, problem was this, he wasn't involved in the fighting due to a life-consuming disease.
And the material exhaustion of the empire fighting a gruelling 8 yr campaign put to the sword any hopes of stabilising the empire.

MarkF

06-02-2003, 16:24

Quote[/b] ]I might upset a few Swedes here but i personally think Gustavus Adolphus was very overratted and although his army was destroyed at Poltava in 1709 and made some silly mistakes,i believe Charles XII of Sweden was a far better General.

Hmm I don't know... Gustavus Adolphus was a very able commander... His inventive cavalry and artllery tactics changed the way of war.. He also created several "schools of war" at different locations in Sweden. It was also he who laid the foundation of the new presciption system in Sweden.

I think that Charles XII was very able but not up to Gustavus Adolphus class. When the great nordic war broke out he was only 17 and al Swedens enemies allied up for the kill. (Denmark, Polen, Russia). So it was a great effort that he managed to beat both the Danes then the Poles and the Russians several times untill he took the decision to strike for Moscow. As it did to Hitler and Napoleon the winter killed the Swedish army not the Russians. The army that the russians met at Poltava was in rabbles... These are all great deeds but what you should take in count is that Charles XII at the time when the war broke out had probably the finest army in Europe. It was not the biggest, though it was big, but it was the first army that was made up out of almos only proffesional soilders. The Karoliners (soilders) of Charlles XII were well fed, well trained, exellently equipped proffesionals whilest most other armies in Europe at the time consisted of a mixture of peasant rabble and mercenarys. So therefore he had a good starting postion because of the army system created by his father and grandfather (Charles XI and Charles X) and gustavus adolphus. One example of a stupid decision by Charles is the battle of Narva, (where a vastly outnumbered swedish army beat the russians), here charles did a series of rash foolish rash decisions but because of the quality of the swedish subcommanders and the swedish steel the battle was won anyways...

Ajm soly fore maj bade englis http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Spino

06-02-2003, 17:32

Quote[/b] ]Well, I agree that Napoleon was over-rated and Wellington if anything under-rated. In many campaigns, Napoleon had the benefit of big battalions (even 1813 he had initial numerical superiority before Austria joined in) and a quality army at all levels from the lowest to the marshals. Initially he faced opponents that used out-dated strategy and tactics - when more competent ones came to the fore (or learnt from him), he did not fare so well. His score card, in either campaigns or battles, is not so impressive. Wellington, on the other hand, never seems to have been beaten despite battling ceaselessly and seldom with a numerical advantage. I'd be interested to be proven wrong but that's my impression from reading about my favorite period of military history.

The dubious benefit of Napoleon's so called 'big battalions' was negated by the fact that the Russian campaign saw the demise of scores of veteran officers as well as the loss of virtually all of the horses in the Grand Army's light and heavy cavalry units. These appalling losses combined with the scarcity of mature, quality mounts in France and other allied nations left Napoleon's cavalry units severely handicapped throughout the 1813-14 campaigns. That aside, the primary reason for the creation of 'big battalions' was to create a greater sense of confidence and morale in a decidedly inexperienced lot of conscripts and volunteers, many of whom were led by inexperienced officers. The creation of these big, inexperienced battalions actually limited Napoleon with regards to his tactical options.

Thanks to inadequate numbers of light cavalry Napoleon and his Marshals had to operate with limited knowledge of the enemy's whereabouts. The overall level of information available to Napoleon regarding the enemy's disposition was therefore considerably less than what he was accustomed to in past campaigns. The general lack of heavy cavalry probably attributed the most to Napoleon's inability to decisively defeat the allies in the battles of 1813. A perfect example of this is the aftermath of Napoleon's victory at Dresden where an unharried, retreating Allied army was able to concentrate and destroy Vandamme's corp at Kulm. A vigorous pursuit by heavy cavalry directed southward from the main body of Napoleon's army might have prevented Ostermann-Tolstoy and Kleist from exploiting Vandamme's risky positioning and thus allow for the possibility of inflicting another humiliating loss on the Allies.

Napoleon was not overrated. More importantly Napoleon was not infallible, which in the eyes of his harshest critics serves as proof enough of his lack of 'greatness'.

Heraclius

06-02-2003, 21:59

Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ June 02 2003,08:03)]heraclius is better than Washington but I don't rate Heraclius as no.1 though.
GAH Kat GAH Heraclius is the best GAH Cut heads GAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

redrooster

06-03-2003, 07:35

Quote[/b] (Heraclius @ June 03 2003,05:59)]
Quote[/b] (kataphraktoi @ June 02 2003,08:03)]heraclius is better than Washington but I don't rate Heraclius as no.1 though.
GAH Kat GAH Heraclius is the best GAH Cut heads GAH http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Maybe the site put washington as first because he was a mason. We all know how "influential" masons can be

Kalle

06-03-2003, 10:19

Quote[/b] ]I might upset a few Swedes here but i personally think Gustavus Adolphus was very overratted and although his army was destroyed at Poltava in 1709 and made some silly mistakes,i believe Charles XII of Sweden was a far better General.

This is clearly wrong. Gustavus was a commander in the same class as the greatest in history, Napoleon, Alexander and so on. He set new standards for tactical warfare during his time and he was also a brilliant strategist. If he hadnt been shot leading his troops at Lutzen who knows where it would have ended. His commanders Baner and Torstensson that led the war after him also were brilliant. When Gustav became king of Sweden, 1611 i think, Sweden was fighting for survival vs the danes. When Gustav died Sweden was Europes leading power together with france.

Charles XII was also brilliant but only as a tactician not as a strategist. When Charles became king 1697 Sweden was Europes largest country besides Russia and had a major influence of the politics in Europe. When Charles died 1718 - also shot - Sweden became a second rate power in Europe its possesions around the baltic taken by russians, prussians and other german states, danes, poles and so on.

It is also wrong to, as someone did, take Narva as an example of Charles mistakes. Narva is possibly the greatest victory the Swedes ever pulled off. Also the man responsible for the planning at Narva was Rehnschiold Charles military tutor. Charles mistakes came later when not accepting peaceoffers and when spending 6 years in Poland and 5 in Turkey to little good while the russians again invaded and this time occupied Swedens baltic possesions. As u all know St Petersburg is celebrating 300 years this year. In fact the city was founded on ground that was Swedish. Bah, a wiser Charles could have made sure it still was Swedish lol.

When talking of swedish commanders one should not forget Charles father and grandfather both also named Charles they are not as famous as the other two but they sure were topnotch military men.

Kalle

Hakonarson

06-03-2003, 23:13

IMO Gustavus was a great general, and also a good politician, which sets him above Charles XII by a notch or 2.

If nothing else Gustavus had the good sense to stop a war even if it cost a fortune (vs the Danes in 1612 ??) to give his country a chance to rebuild after a decade of disastrous warfare vs Poland and Denmark including the remarkable defeat at Kircholm.

Whereas charles XII kept going, and going, and going and going - unlike the energiser bunny this was not a good thign at the time

econ21

06-04-2003, 09:40

Spino - you make some good points about the "big battalions". A minor aside: I was using the term to refer to numerical superiority in general, not having larger units specifically (French battalions in the field in 1815 at least seemed rather small by comparison with English or Prussian units). I think an underrated feature of Napoleon's success was just the extent to which he was able to mobilise such large forces. This was partly a feature of demographics (France's population was historically large at that time relative to its neighbours), partly revolutionary/patriotic fervour (citizens in arms, defending the nation etc) and partly just Napoleon's militaristic focus (sure he set civic codes etc, but he was basically a militarist). This came home to me most clearly playing the excellent old Avalon Hill boardgame "War and Peace". In the 1805 campaign, it is hard to lose as Napoleon - he has so many men compared to the Austrians; the vaunted victory at Ulm is a walk in the park. 1813 is surprisingly balanced, with the edge to the French. I actually think 1813 best illustrates my points - he was able to recreate a large competitive army a year after losing near 1/2m men in Russia. Few other nations could have matched that then. Sure there were many qualitative weakenesses as you note, but the quantitative achievement is impressive.

The image some people have of Napoleon is of a military genius who defeated larger forces through finesse. My impression is rather that he often got by through crude applications of superior force. Yes, he had his moments but he also had some low points (Eylau, Aspern-Esseling & Wagram, 1812 in general and Borodino as one case in point, the whole Spanish ulcer, Waterloo). To me it doesn't compare with Wellington's unbroken series of victories in the face of often tougher odds, but I know this is a minority view.

Kalle

06-04-2003, 10:07

Yes, its true Hakonarson. The piece with Denmark in Knared 1613 cost sweden 1000000 "riksdaler" as a payment to the danes to return the fortress Alvsborg (Gothenburgh today). An enourmus sum at that time. Alvsborg was Swedens only window to the atlantic as the rest of what is now the Swedish westcoast was Danish, therefor the place was very important to Sweden.

Gustavus was thrown into this war when he became king 1611 and until this point the danes for centuries had tried to dominate Sweden but this peace must be considered a failure for Denmark who had greater hopes then this with the war. And from now on the roles would switch with Denmarks existense being threatend by Sweden.

Anyway this defeat got Gustav to realise he needed to develop the Swedish military and he sure did in ways that put footprints in the annals of warfare. After this Gustav stopped many wars but never again did he end up paying when the wars ended. He beat the russians - piece at Stolbova 1617 and the poles - treaty of Altmark i think in the 1620ies. And after this he went in the 30year war where battles such as Breitenfelt and Lutzen were fought under his command crushing the old spanish military school.

Charles on the other hand sure kept going and going no matter how the strategic situation looked (had he chosen the paths where to keep going wisely things could maybe have been different) but in the end he stood alone his uncompromising nature and thoughts of right and wrong in an ethic/moralview had made him diplomaticly isolated and empted Swedens resources.

Remember; though Sweden was a big country it counted (including all provinces) only about 3 million people when Charles became king. The russians at the same time counted 15, the poles 10 and their were numeorus more countries that fought Sweden.

So it was an achievement alone to make Sweden be able to fight the war for 21 years, let alone he had the chance to end it with good treatys on several occasions but his stubborness threw all those chanses away.

Also some historians mean he didnt want the war to end. He shared the life of his soldiers leading the battles in the first line of fire and he liked it. Allready in the beginning of the war he said after a battle; "this will from now on be my music" and when Peter the great or if it was Agust the Strong of Poland-Sachsen wanted peacenegotiations Charles refused with the words; "we shall talk with the swords because it makes no joke".

If one counts the years of peace Sweden had during the time from 1611 to 1721 one will not find many. Peace was the exeption war was the rule and peace was regarded only as a time to make ready for new war.The reasons for Swedens ability for more then a century to be a top power in europe was due to organisation, administration (no other state in the world could make so good use of its resources then the Swedes during this period), the luck? of having a row of kings and other commanders that knew how to fight war.

Well now Sweden has had piece for soon 200 years (maybe world record i dont know) and i think we have learned to like peace more then war lol.

Well sorry for the out of topics writing but i am at work and this is the funniest thing i can do there right now lol.

Kalle

Spino

06-04-2003, 15:44

Quote[/b] ]The image some people have of Napoleon is of a military genius who defeated larger forces through finesse. My impression is rather that he often got by through crude applications of superior force. Yes, he had his moments but he also had some low points (Eylau, Aspern-Esseling & Wagram, 1812 in general and Borodino as one case in point, the whole Spanish ulcer, Waterloo). To me it doesn't compare with Wellington's unbroken series of victories in the face of often tougher odds, but I know this is a minority view.

Well some military historians paint two portraits of Napoleon; the first is that of a brilliant consul turned emperor who by nature of his 'challenger' status campaigned at the top of his game. It is widely acknowledged that the high point in Napoleon's military career came during the campaigns of 1805 and 1806 where he smashed the combined allied armies, subdued Austria and inflicted the most humiliating defeat Prussia had ever known. The second portrait is from the post 1806 period where Napoleon fought less like a challenger and more like an apathetic champion sullied by the good life; a self made emperor whose eyes were too big for his stomach and one whose generalship was severely handicapped by a boundless ego that overshadowed his extraordinary mind. Inconsistent is perhaps the best description of Napoleon's generalship in the post 1806 years as he had shown both flashes of extreme stupidity (the direct assault at Borodino) and brilliance (the closing campaigns of 1814, particularly his handling of the Prussians when his back was against the wall).

While I don't want to take anything away from Wellington's efforts in Spain he did not have nearly as much on his plate as Napoleon did. It's one thing to run an army, another thing entirely to run an empire.