# Who Was the Greatest Commander to Face the British?



## Vertigo

This is the question being asked by the National Army Museum in an open online poll. Very specifically British I know but I thought it would be interesting to see how a poll conducted here might give different results to their open poll. (I already disagree strongly with the current leader on their poll!)

The poll and details of the names you can can vote for are here http://www.nam.ac.uk/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/enemy-commanders-britains-greatest-foes

I have reproduced the list below along with a couple of comments on each.

*Akbar Khan* - Akbar led Afghan forces to victory against two redoubtable foes, the Sikhs and the British. He proved to be a formidable political force as well as a talented military commander.
*Andrew Jackson* - His victory at New Orleans was a decisive blow in the War of 1812, revealing Jackson to be adept at conventional warfare as well as the irregular warfare of the American frontier where he honed his skills.
*Eduard Totleben* - A masterful military engineer, Totleben was largely responsible for prolonging the misery inflicted upon British and French forces in the Crimea.
*Erwin Rommel* - A decorated veteran of the First World War, Rommel became a legend during the Second World War, spearheading Germany’s ‘Blitzkrieg’ of France and battling British forces in North Africa before finally falling victim to the vengeance of his own Führer.
*George Washington* - The first President of the United States, Washington made his name as a skilled and determined military commander during the American Revolution. Despite many setbacks he consolidated and guided his forces to victory and helped secure independence from Britain.
*James Fitzjames, Duke of Berwick* - After his father was deposed from the English throne, Berwick fled into exile and fought with the French and Spanish, inflicting a crushing defeat on British forces at Almanza in 1707.
*Louis Botha* - Botha proved an effective exponent of both conventional and guerrilla tactics. His men inflicted terrible losses on the British forces fighting in South Africa.
*Maurice de Saxe* - A master of strategy and tactics, Saxe outfoxed or defeated British and Allied armies on a number of occasions during the bloody wars of succession in 18th-century Europe.
*Michael Collins* - With his talent for organisation and logistics, Collins helped transform the Irish Republican Army into a powerful insurgent force that fought the British to a standstill.
*Mustafa Kemal Atatürk* - A seasoned veteran of the Balkan Wars, Kemal fought a tenacious defensive campaign at Gallipoli in 1915 which forced the Allied invasion force to withdraw. He would later become the ‘Father of modern Turkey’.
*Napoleon Bonaparte* - Bonaparte emerged from the turmoil and terror of revolution to become France’s greatest military commander, loved by his loyal troops, demonised by his enemies, feared and respected by all.
*Ntshingwayo kaMahole* - Ntshingwayo commanded the Zulu force that inflicted one of the most stunning defeats suffered by British forces, challenging the might of Queen Victoria’s Empire.
*Osman Digna* - Over two decades Digna fought numerous battles against the British and their Egyptian and Sudanese allies, as they attempted to occupy his territory or subdue his people.
*Paul von Hindenburg* - A classic 19th-century Prussian officer who embraced 20th-century total war. As a strategist and tactician Hindenburg contributed to the defeat of Russia in the East and confounded the French and British on the Western Front.
*Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck* - A master of bush warfare, Lettow-Vorbeck fought a four-year guerrilla campaign against the British in East Africa, tying down large numbers of troops, and inflicting heavy casualties upon them.
*Rani of Jhansi* - (Indian Mutiny) A resourceful and courageous leader of her people, the Rani fought to the death against British forces bent on revenge and retribution.
*Riwha Titokowaru* - A brave and resourceful Maori commander, Titokowaru resisted the British during the New Zealand Land Wars of the 19th century.
*Santiago de Liniers* - Liniers had an eventful military career, fighting on land and sea. When confronted with the British in South America he proved to be a resourceful and inspiring commander, but his involvement in the turbulent politics of that continent resulted in his demise.
*Tipu Sultan* - The ‘Tiger of Mysore’ was a renowned Indian war leader. A skilled tactician and innovator, Tipu embraced western methods to ensure that his forces could overwhelm his Indian rivals and match the British forces sent against him.
*Tomoyuki Yamashita* - Employing innovative military tactics, Yamashita led Japanese forces to one of the most decisive and shocking victories of the Second World War. But the excesses committed by his troops were to cost him his life.


----------



## mosaix

No Rommel?


----------



## Vertigo

Yep, fourth from the top (*Erwin* Rommel) and currently running third I think in the museum poll.


And also my choice!


----------



## mosaix

For some reason, Vertigo I assumed that they were in chronological order.

My choice too.


----------



## Connavar

If it wasnt about how a commander faced the british than i would say Napoleon is greater than Rommel.  He didnt do greatly against the british though.


----------



## Vertigo

I felt that Napolean did all he did with full support from his government (after all he was essentially the government when he 'became' emperor). And yet he managed some major c**k ups!

On the other hand Rommel got dreadful support from Hitler and yet achieved an awful lot. If he had been given the proper support I believe he would have easily kicked us out of Africa. Also (even more conjecture, I know) I think that, had he been in overall command of the German army (and not so heavily interfered with by Hitler), the Germans would not have lost the war. Had he been listened to the Normandy landings probably would have failed. He almost certainly wouldn't have invaded Russia, and probably would have sued for peace rather than attempt invasion of Britain.

And on top of that he was an old school honourable general and gentleman!


----------



## mosaix

Vertigo said:


> On the other hand Rommel got dreadful support from Hitler and yet achieved an awful lot. If he had been given the proper support I believe he would have easily kicked us out of Africa.



And on top of all that, Vertigo the British were decoding all his Enigma wireless traffic.


----------



## Vertigo

Yes, very true, I'd forgotten that  which is a bit naughty seeing as how I have worked at GCHQ a few times.


----------



## J-Sun

I've no business posting but I want to subscribe and usually only subscribe by posting. I only know the Western European and American commanders and I am an American so I naturally want to say Washington  but I'd go for Rommel, too. Vertigo puts the whys of it very well.


----------



## Vertigo

You could always plump for Andrew Jackson as well J-Sun 

Edit: actually one of the interesting things is some of the obscure names I'd never heard of and that sent me off wikiing (I figure the verb should work like skiing).


----------



## J-Sun

Vertigo said:


> You could always plump for Andrew Jackson as well J-Sun



Yep, I'd just give Washington the edge there.


----------



## Lilmizflashythang

Both Jackson and Washington were great from my opinion. Then again, look where I'm from. Jackson, however, wouldn't have been as great if the British didn't come over here and set fire to our White House in 1812.


----------



## Vertigo

Well that's true . Actually one of the problems I have with the list the museum has come up with is that some of them achieved their success more through British idiocy or arrogance than any particular brilliance on their part. For example: Tomoyuki Yamashita. I don't want to knock his success in taking Singapore when outnumbered 3 to 1, but frankly he should never have succeeded. With those odds the British should have been able to hold Singapore with little difficulty (even with their big guns facing the wrong way!) but pure arrogance - the belief that no one could do it - and pig-headed refusal to accept the facts when the reports started coming in really gave Tomoyuki Yamashita a relatively easy time of it.


----------



## paranoid marvin

It's arrogance that has led to Britain's greatest defeats but also to their greatest victories. Who but the pig-headed English have stood against the might of the German war-machine in 1939/40? Who but the British would have defied Napoleon when Europe was at his feet? That trickle of briny has been our saving grace on numerous occasions when the whole of Europe has been united against us, but we still made our mark.

 Wellington leading his forces to victoiry over the French through a foothold in Portugal - 'The Few' defending the skies of England against Goering's all-conquering Luftwaffe. Bobby Moore leading his team to glory.. ok I'm getting carried away now, but you know what I mean.

Having said that , we would probably not have won the Battle of Britain if it hadn't been for pilots from occupied territories like Poland; it's unlikely that we would have forced the French back if it hadn't been for his 'Spanish ulcer' with the brave Spanish guerillas, Waterloo would have been Napoleon's greatest triumph if it hadn't been for Blucher's intervention at the 11th hour, and without the intervention of the US it's unlikely that D-Day would ever have occurred.

But I digress... All of the British defeats (since we became British) have been overseas. Yes Washington was a determined leader, but he had the Atlantic on his side. Napoleon was a great tachtician and would have been a tremendous threat to the British - if he had ever faced them on equal terms; he certainly ran rings with them away from the battle field.

The Zulu nation has to be admired for their bravery in several successful encounters with the British, however the greatest military leader (although it was admittedly against the English not the British) was the Dutch admiral De Ruyter. at a time when we 'ruled the waves' the Dutchman was a man to be feared when he took to the sea.


----------



## svalbard

Vertigo said:


> I felt that Napolean did all he did with full support from his government (after all he was essentially the government when he 'became' emperor). And yet he managed some major c**k ups!
> 
> On the other hand Rommel got dreadful support from Hitler and yet achieved an awful lot. If he had been given the proper support I believe he would have easily kicked us out of Africa. Also (even more conjecture, I know) I think that, had he been in overall command of the German army (and not so heavily interfered with by Hitler), the Germans would not have lost the war. Had he been listened to the Normandy landings probably would have failed. He almost certainly wouldn't have invaded Russia, and probably would have sued for peace rather than attempt invasion of Britain.
> 
> And on top of that he was an old school honourable general and gentleman!



But what did he achieve? How can you say that the Normandy landings would have failed if he was listened to? It is all conjecture and part of the myth of Rommel. I love how this guy is constantly talked up and yet his actual achievements pale in comparison to other German generals.


----------



## svalbard

paranoid marvin said:


> It's arrogance that has led to Britain's greatest defeats but also to their greatest victories. Who but the pig-headed English have stood against the might of the German war-machine in 1939/40? Who but the British would have defied Napoleon when Europe was at his feet? That trickle of briny has been our saving grace on numerous occasions when the whole of Europe has been united against us, but we still made our mark.
> 
> Wellington leading his forces to victoiry over the French through a foothold in Portugal - 'The Few' defending the skies of England against Goering's all-conquering Luftwaffe. Bobby Moore leading his team to glory.. ok I'm getting carried away now, but you know what I mean.
> 
> Having said that , we would probably not have won the Battle of Britain if it hadn't been for pilots from occupied territories like Poland; it's unlikely that we would have forced the French back if it hadn't been for his 'Spanish ulcer' with the brave Spanish guerillas, Waterloo would have been Napoleon's greatest triumph if it hadn't been for Blucher's intervention at the 11th hour, and without the intervention of the US it's unlikely that D-Day would ever have occurred.
> 
> But I digress... All of the British defeats (since we became British) have been overseas. Yes Washington was a determined leader, but he had the Atlantic on his side. Napoleon was a great tachtician and would have been a tremendous threat to the British - if he had ever faced them on equal terms; he certainly ran rings with them away from the battle field.
> 
> The Zulu nation has to be admired for their bravery in several successful encounters with the British, however the greatest military leader (although it was admittedly against the English not the British) was the Dutch admiral De Ruyter. at a time when we 'ruled the waves' the Dutchman was a man to be feared when he took to the sea.



You might not also have won many a battle in the Napoleonic era without Welsh, Scottish and Irish troops. You say Britain, yet, a lot of the men fighting in the Empire's army did it because they were left with no choice through economic/political reasons. England has always talked up this British 'never say die attitude'. This is complete 'b......s' to be honest. It is all part of the myth building exercise.

I voted for the Afghani bloke.


----------



## Vertigo

It seems they have hit some problems on the Nationa Army Museum website. Over the weekend Ataturk jumped from less than a hundred votes to 7,887 (the next contender only has 777 votes). Over the same period comments on Ataturk in the voting went from 3 or 4 up to 43 - all with suspiciously Turkish sounding names! Methinks they now have a bit of a problem on their hands with how to hande this fairly. 



> Unfortunately we have had to suspend the voting temporarily due to irregular activity over the weekend. We are currently reviewing the situation and hope to be back up and running soon.


----------



## Geddon's Wall

My vote would go to Rommel. I believe that he was badly let down by the German High command,


----------



## alchemist

Vertigo said:


> It seems they have hit some problems on the Nationa Army Museum website. Over the weekend Ataturk jumped from less than a hundred votes to 7,887 (the next contender only has 777 votes). Over the same period comments on Ataturk in the voting went from 3 or 4 up to 43 - all with suspiciously Turkish sounding names! Methinks they now have a bit of a problem on their hands with how to hande this fairly.



Obviously, the person who orchestrated this campaign should now be on the list.


----------



## mosaix

alchemist said:


> Obviously, the person who orchestrated this campaign should now be on the list.



Very funny, Alchemist.


----------



## Connavar

paranoid marvin said:


> It's arrogance that has led to Britain's greatest defeats but also to their greatest victories. Who but the pig-headed English have stood against the might of the German war-machine in 1939/40? Who but the British would have defied Napoleon when Europe was at his feet? That trickle of briny has been our saving grace on numerous occasions when the whole of Europe has been united against us, but we still made our mark.
> 
> Wellington leading his forces to victoiry over the French through a foothold in Portugal - 'The Few' defending the skies of England against Goering's all-conquering Luftwaffe. Bobby Moore leading his team to glory.. ok I'm getting carried away now, but you know what I mean.
> 
> Having said that , we would probably not have won the Battle of Britain if it hadn't been for pilots from occupied territories like Poland; it's unlikely that we would have forced the French back if it hadn't been for his 'Spanish ulcer' with the brave Spanish guerillas, Waterloo would have been Napoleon's greatest triumph if it hadn't been for Blucher's intervention at the 11th hour, and without the intervention of the US it's unlikely that D-Day would ever have occurred.
> 
> But I digress... All of the British defeats (since we became British) have been overseas. Yes Washington was a determined leader, but he had the Atlantic on his side. *Napoleon was a great tachtician and would have been a tremendous threat to the British - if he had ever faced them on equal terms; he certainly ran rings with them away from the battle field.*
> 
> The Zulu nation has to be admired for their bravery in several successful encounters with the British, however the greatest military leader (although it was admittedly against the English not the British) was the Dutch admiral De Ruyter. at a time when we 'ruled the waves' the Dutchman was a man to be feared when he took to the sea.



Washington is overrated because of his historical importance for the american war.  Not like there werent a huge Alantic in the way.  Sometimes it sounds like he singlehandly beat the British empire in Europe.

Napoleon is impressive how he went from nobody to a conquerer on his military ability. France wasnt rich,powerful like the british Empire.  You cant compare Wellington to what he did if you arent a patriot english/brit. As you said Napoleon didnt fight the British on equal terms.


----------



## Bowler1

I was very surprised to see Rommel do as well as he has on the survey against Napoleon. 

Napoleon not just fought the British out of Europe he also attempted to blockade the country into submission. Napoleon's only problem was his lack of understanding of how warfare was fought on the seas, which the British understood only too well. This is why Nelsons victory was so important as it broke the French grip on the seas and allowed the British nation to survive. It was only after his Russian failures and his lost armies that the British were finally able to defeat Napoleon, and yet he still attempted a Rocky style come back. 

Rommel was a great general - Napoleon was a great general/statesman. 
Napoleon failed because of his greed, he had Europe as his and wanted Russia! 

Rommel, all he did was run round a desert - with a corps - Napoleon commanded nations and conquered nations. Britian was lucky to escape - Rommel was never a danger to the whole country, not even close.


----------



## Bowler1

Never mind our voting, go check out the real survey.

Makes me proud to be Irish, don't understand the results, but still proud.


----------



## J-Sun

Bowler1 said:


> Napoleon's only problem was his lack of understanding of how warfare was fought on the seas, which the British understood only too well.[...]It was only after his Russian failures and his lost armies that the British were finally able to defeat Napoleon



I think what you say is precisely part of why some people have Rommel higher - Napoleon had virtually everything and still managed to squander it all, implying an underlying lack of skill. Rommel understood precisely what to do in all situations and sometimes managed it even with insufficient force. The Emperor of All Europe couldn't defeat England but a mere tank commander who had to deal with his own incompetent Emperor of All Europe often did defeat England in what sphere he had some slight control over.

But I'll definitely grant that, regardless, the whole list is sort of apples and oranges.


----------



## Connavar

Napoleon is also the enemy of europe, even alot of french hate him.  Rommel is the the martyr, romantic commander who wasnt a Nazi, nice to his enemies prisoners and was killed due to Naziz.  

People underrate Napoleon like he could have on his own changed the naval strength of the British.  He got too much of an ego fighting Russian winter, Brit, the rest of europe at the same time.


----------



## Bowler1

Very much apples and oranges ok, which will give us plenty of fruit to chuck at each other and have some fun in the process!

I accept Rommel shows great character while Napoleon shows the poor side of human nature. That was not the question! Napoleon acheived by feat of arms a great deal. The fact that he lost it all does not make his acheivements any less great. Rommel also lost to the British. 

Both are very similiar but with two differences, scale and likability.


----------



## Arkose

Connavar said:


> Washington is overrated because of his historical importance for the american war.  Not like there werent a huge Alantic in the way.  Sometimes it sounds like he singlehandly beat the British empire in Europe.
> 
> Napoleon is impressive how he went from nobody to a conquerer on his military ability.* France wasnt rich,powerful like the british Empire*.  You cant compare Wellington to what he did if you arent a patriot english/brit. As you said Napoleon didnt fight the British on equal terms.



I would like to know who was less rich and powerful between America and French at the time. I also wonder about military strength and financial backing. The British was one army away from crushing the whole thing.

I just think it is interesting that you disregard Washington because of an ocean, and hold up Napoleon for the exact things America and Washington had to do.


----------



## Bowler1

Washington bashed farmers into a working army that was able to take on the British army, he acheived a great feat of arms and is a great commander.

I really think my Napoleon was a much better commander and like Washington, was able to move to the next level and operate as a statesman. The USA at the time was not a great power, not an Empire. France rose to rule all of Europe when the world was Europe. No-one votes for this frenchy because he is not popular, the baddie in history.


----------



## Peter Graham

> You might not also have won many a battle in the Napoleonic era without Welsh, Scottish and Irish troops.



Without wishing to get political, "you" in the context of the OP is "British" rather than "English" and, as such, the contribution of the Welsh and the Scottish is surely implicit.  But i agree that no-one could or should underestimate the contribution of the Irish, whether or not any particular Irish person considers themselves to be British. 



> England has always talked up this British 'never say die attitude'. This is complete 'b......s' to be honest. It is all part of the myth building exercise.



In all fairness, it is equally a part of Scottish or Welsh or even Irish myth building.  In fact, it is pretty much universal.

My vote - although his name is not on the list - is for Edwin of Deira.  In a period of twenty years, he destroyed the British kingdoms north of the Humber and thereby ensured that those areas - which were ultimately the industrial powerhouse behind empire and without which Britain would not have achieved what it did* - were firmly part of England.  "British" may have meant something a bit different back then, but the nation state that became Britain was undoubtedly defined during the Dark Ages.

Regards,

Peter

* For better or for worse


----------



## Peter Graham

Whilst I'm on the subject, let's sort out this confusion between England and Britain that seems to exist in the minds of some posters.

England - a country which ceased to exist as a separate political unit in 1707.

British Isles - a geographical term referring to the physical landmasses which today make up Great Britain and Ireland.

Great* Britain - often shortened to "Britain" or (more accurately) the "UK", but more properly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland  - the modern, political unit consisting of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Rommel and his Nazi pals fought Great Britain (not just England).  

Napoleon fought the British (not just the English).

In both cases, the British had help from allies.

Wellington was Irish - although he didn't like being reminded of the fact.

These distinctions are important - no-one conflates USA with North America or Norway with Scandinavia.

Regards,

Peter

* Merely a reference to size, not perceived might or general splendidness, despite what the Daily Hatemail seems to believe.  "Less Britain" is now Brittany in France.


----------



## Foxbat

Peter I completely agree with your points in the above post. I just wish some film makers would make the same distinctions

As for me, I think Rommel is actually underestimated and some thought should be given to his drive through France prior to his Africa campaign. Even before Africa, he showed great promise, skill, cunning and daring against both the French and British (UK British, not English British)

However, I'm leaning towards Napoleon just because of the sheer scale of his achievements. Also, even when severely ill as he was at Waterloo, he held his own for a time. He was ruthless in sacrificing his men for his own ends but his humanity(lack of) is not the question here. The very fact that he stood against so many nations and was able to conquer much of Europe gives him my vote.


----------



## Bowler1

Here, here - great minds eh!


----------



## alchemist

mosaix said:


> Very funny, Alchemist.



Thank you, sir.

Despite my urge to vote for Michael Collins, I went for Rommel. I haven't read all the posts on the topic, but I'll summarise it thusly. If Rommel had complete control over German military matters post-1940, WWII may have had a very different outcome. From what I know, he also seemed an honourable man amongst some of the most evil people in history.


----------



## Parson

alchemist said:


> Thank you, sir.
> 
> Despite my urge to vote for Michael Collins, I went for Rommel. I haven't read all the posts on the topic, but I'll summarise it thusly. If Rommel had complete control over German military matters post-1940, WWII may have had a very different outcome. From what I know, he also seemed an honourable man amongst some of the most evil people in history.



I didn't vote, although I did take a couple of semesters of English History in college. Which only like all good education, made me aware of completely ignorant I was of the rest of the history.

But I do wonder if you could possibly call Rommel "an honorable man amongst some of the most evil people in history." Would a truly honorable man have fought for and taken orders from people that he surely knew were evil?

I'm truly unsure of this answer, but the question intrigues me.


----------



## Peter Graham

Well said, Parson.

Rommel was a senior military figure in  a regime which used military force for the sole purpose of building a Third Reich.  At best, he's a collaborator (with all the thorny moral and ethical issues which that brings in its wake when you are collaborating with Nazis) and even that is probably being rather too generous to him.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Bowler1

Some dirt is finally sticking to Rommel, I always knew it would.

Napoleon, the come back king (well - almost!), don't give up now.


----------



## Vertigo

Peter Graham said:


> Well said, Parson.
> 
> Rommel was a senior military figure in a regime which used military force for the sole purpose of building a Third Reich. At best, he's a collaborator (with all the thorny moral and ethical issues which that brings in its wake when you are collaborating with Nazis) and even that is probably being rather too generous to him.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter


 
I think that's a bit harsh Peter. He was a loyal military officer sworn to serve his government and country (just as all British officers are). Do you think it would be reasonable for all our military leaders to defect just because they (understandably) dislike Cameron and his policies? Of course not. Now I know Hitler's policies are not really comparable but remember in the early years much of what he was doing (concentration camps etc.) was hidden from most of the german population. Not all I accept, but certainly a lot. There were quite a few senior german military commanders who had misgivings but they had also sworn to serve their country; putting them in a very difficult moral position.

Whilst in Africa Rommel repeatedly refused some of Hitler's more extreme orders. For example he was ordered to kill all captured prisoners who were jews. This he refused to do and later he refused the same orders with regard to British Commandos and civilian resistance fighters. He only got away with this because of his massive popularity amongst the German people.

When he was asked to join the polt to assasinate Hitler in July 1944. He refused, once again due to his sworn duty. However he also agreed to say nothing. After the plot failed he was implicated but, once again due to his continuing popularity, Hitler, wanting to remove him 'quietly', offered him the choice of suicide in exchange for assurances that his family would be spared. This he did.

I think Bowler you will find it very hard to get mud to stick to him.

Re his military capabilities. His division was in the vanguard of the Blitzkrieg that took France in just 6 weeks (nicknamed the 'Ghost Division' because he was so fast). He held the British at bay in Africa for a long time during which the British were well supplied and equipped and he was most certainly not; Hitler considering the Africa campaign of little importance (despite the need for oil!). Back in France he was assigned to defend the Normandy coast which he found to be hoplessly inadequately defended. And against his wishes almost all his armour was moved inland to be used in a counter attack rather than pushing the invasion back on the beaches.

All told he achieved astonishing success against the British with very little support from his own commanders.


----------



## Bowler1

I'm thinking........


----------



## Peter Graham

Hi Vertigo



> Do you think it would be reasonable for all our military leaders to defect just because they (understandably) dislike Cameron and his policies?


Yes.  It would be both responsible and entirely reasonable.  Let us be in no doubt.  The job of soldiers is to be the strong arm of the state.  If Cameron announced that he and his government had decided to invade France in order to reclaim Aquitaine, Gascony and Calais, I would expect any public servant - including military leaders - to resign if they did not agree.  Swearing duty to a bit of cloth or a big lump of rock is immaterial. If we invade France by force, people are going to die*.  Any general who has gone along with that must take their share of responsibility.  They cannot hide behind "I was only following orders" any more than Eischmann (sic) did.



> There were quite a few senior german military commanders who had misgivings but they had also sworn to serve their country; putting them in a very difficult moral position.


There is no difficulty with the moral position.  If I swear to defend my country, I do so because I think there is something (or someone) worth defending.  If my country is suddenly hijacked by far-right thugs and bully boys who remove that thing I have sworn to defend, then all bets are off.  In fact, if I have sworn to defend Britain because I support the rule of law and constitutional democracy (for example), do I not have a moral duty to fight against any government who tries to undermine that?  If I go along with the bully boys and keep quiet, I am complicit in what they are doing.

Regards,

Peter

* Assuming they don't surrender unconditionally for at least 24 hours


----------



## Vertigo

I agree there comes a point at which the military must disagree with the Government - it is commonly known as a revolution, or coup. Deciding when to cross that line is not easy. 

Certainly when I was in the army as an officer in the '70s we were _*required*_ to be apolitical. We were not even allowed to vote in elections. A special dispensation was made for us to vote in the Common Market referendum. I don't know if that is still the case. 

What you are suggesting is essentially anarchy. Should our military commanders have refused to take part in the Suez canal fiasco? Should they have refused to take part in Iraq? Should American military commanders have refused to take part in Vietnam? All wars I personally disagree with but the fault was with the government not the military commanders. If military commanders started behaving like that you might think the world would be a better place but I assure you it would not. It would only create chaotic anarchy with a *lot* of death. Not to mention the perfect opportunity for the removal of democracy 'for our own good'.

And by the way you do not swear to defend your country; you swear to serve your government. Actually in my day I'm pretty sure it was still the Queen that we were sworn to *not* the government. Though that has probably changed by now!

Edit: another point just raised by my german lodger is that the german military _before_ the start of WWII were required to swear loyalty specifically to Hitler _not _Germany. After WWII in the '50s when the German army was reformend, the oath was (naturally) changed! The various oaths can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichswehreid. Remember that senior officers at that time (particularly in Germany) had a rigid code of honour and would typically rather take their own lives rather than break their oath.


----------



## Peter Graham

Hi Vertigo

An excellent and thought-provoking post.



> I agree there comes a point at which the military must disagree with the  Government - it is commonly known as a revolution, or coup. Deciding  when to cross that line is not easy.


I think there is a significant difference between individual soldiers saying "get stuffed" and resigning, deserting or whatever and a military coup.  A coup occurs when the military brass hats decide that _they _should be in charge in place of the civilian authority.  Disobedience or adherence to morality does not require armed intervention at a national level.



> Certainly when I was in the army as an officer in the '70s we were _*required*_  to be apolitical.


But being officially apolitical is not the same thing as being personally amoral.  I have a close relative in the Forces and his view - echoed by many of his brother officers - is broadly "we have a job to do - it is not for us to reason why".  To me, that's a cop out.  In any other walk of life, professional people *do* reason why and hurrah for that.  I don't see why Rommel should be excused from getting to grips with the reality of what he was doing just because he's a military officer.



> What you are suggesting is essentially anarchy.


It's a long way short of anarchy.  What I am suggesting is personal responsibility for upholding the rule of law.  We are governed - and policed - by concensus.  



> Should our military  commanders have refused to take part in the Suez canal fiasco? Should  they have refused to take part in Iraq?


If they felt strongly enough about the issues, then yes.



> All wars I personally  disagree with but the fault was with the government not the military  commanders


I think there are occasions when war is the least bad option, but they are few and far between.  If one looks through history, most wars are about money, power and conquest.  The government might start the wars, but military commanders pursue them with the predictable consequences.  They cannot escape the moral consequences of their actions by arguing that their job places them beyond morality.  It won't wash.




> If military commanders started behaving like that you might  think the world would be a better place but I assure you it would not.  It would only create chaotic anarchy with a *lot* of death. Not to mention the perfect opportunity for the removal of democracy 'for our own good'.


How would anarchy have arisen had military top brass told Blair to take a running jump when he was following the US into war like an overexcited puppy?  In any event, I'm not so naive as to think that everyone shares the same morality.  Or that a resigning commander cannot be replaced by one sympathetic to the government.  



> And by the way you do not swear to defend your country; you swear to  serve your government. Actually in my day I'm pretty sure it was still  the Queen that we were sworn to *not* the government.


There you go then.  The government are Her Majesty's government.  Your commissions come from the Queen in her capacity as Commander-in-Chief, do they not?  Now, if the Queen was replaced, do you still serve her, or do you serve whatever replaces her? 



> another point just raised by my german lodger is that the german military _before_ the start of WWII were required to swear loyalty specifically to Hitler _not _Germany


So Rommel actively and willingly swore loyalty to Hitler?  Doesn't that rather support my original argument?

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Vertigo

> I think there is a significant difference between individual soldiers saying "get stuffed" and resigning, deserting or whatever and a military coup. A coup occurs when the military brass hats decide that _they _should be in charge in place of the civilian authority. Disobedience or adherence to morality does not require armed intervention at a national level.


Yes it was a bit of a melodramatic jab from me that one  sorry!



> But being officially apolitical is not the same thing as being personally amoral.


I agree but who decides where that line is drawn. Tough one that.



> I have a close relative in the Forces and his view - echoed by many of his brother officers - is broadly "we have a job to do - it is not for us to reason why". To me, that's a cop out. In any other walk of life, professional people *do* reason why and hurrah for that. I don't see why Rommel should be excused from getting to grips with the reality of what he was doing just because he's a military officer.


Again difficult to know when to draw the line. 'Bomber' Harris was probably directly responsible for more civilian deaths than anyone else in the second world war*, certainly more than Rommel. Should he have refused to obey Churchill? Military personnel are required to _obey_ in a way that is not found anywhere else in normal life (including the police). If every soldier was permitted to question his/her orders then they would not win *any* battles. Period! Obedience is fundamental to the military and is deliberately conditioned into all soldiers. That's not an excuse, just a fact. A necessary fact. That is what all that apparently senseless marching about is for. Disagreeing is simply not enough to justify disobedience. And don't forget, what he was doing was conducting his part of the German war effort _with honour_.

Even Churchill said of him during the war: "We have a very daring and skillful opponent against us, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great general." and later after the war "He also deserves our respect because, although a loyal German soldier, he came to hate Hitler and all his works, and took part in the conspiracy to rescue Germany by displacing the maniac and tyrant. For this, he paid the forfeit of his life. In the sombre wars of modern democracy, chivalry finds no place ... Still, I do not regret or retract the tribute I paid to Rommel, unfashionable though it was judged." Well I'm not sure Churchill had the 'taking part in the conspiracy' bit quite right but close enough!




> It's a long way short of anarchy. What I am suggesting is personal responsibility for upholding the rule of law. We are governed - and policed - by concensus.


Upholding the rule of law is exactly what Romel was doing. As a senior officer, if he had refused an order, especially in time of war, it would be a crime. It would be treason. Again, in time of war a General can't just resign.



> If they felt strongly enough about the issues, then yes.


OK but they had better be ready to run fast. Very fast. At least back in those days they had.



> I think there are occasions when war is the least bad option, but they are few and far between. If one looks through history, most wars are about money, power and conquest. The government might start the wars, but military commanders pursue them with the predictable consequences. They cannot escape the moral consequences of their actions by arguing that their job places them beyond morality. It won't wash.


Here I disagree. All military forces are intended to be a weapon wielded by their government. And the weapon is not guilty. So long as no atrocities are done by the commanders. So long as they have followed the 'rules of war' - the Geneva convention - then they have behaved correctly and appropriately. No matter the morality of the conflict. Remove that fact and you remove the ability of a government to govern.



> How would anarchy have arisen had military top brass told Blair to take a running jump when he was following the US into war like an overexcited puppy? In any event, I'm not so naive as to think that everyone shares the same morality. Or that a resigning commander cannot be replaced by one sympathetic to the government.


Generals are not elected so it would be no more correct for them to take it upon themselves to refuse their elected** government's legitimate orders to go to war than it would be correct for them to refuse their Government's orders _not_ to go to war (think Dr. Strangelove). 



> There you go then. The government are Her Majesty's government. Your commissions come from the Queen in her capacity as Commander-in-Chief, do they not? Now, if the Queen was replaced, do you still serve her, or do you serve whatever replaces her?


That all depends on how the replacement takes place. If our government (actually probably a referendum) decided to do away with the monarchy then I would have to swear allegiance to whatever replaced her, probably the government. Actually I just checked and was surprised to see that the British army does still swear allegiance to the Queen and not the government! If I considered that the removal of the monarch was unconstitutional then I would probably already be fighting!



> So Rommel actively and willingly swore loyalty to Hitler? Doesn't that rather support my original argument?


No absolutely not! That oath would have been sworn in 1934. At that time, whilst there were some indications of the future, Hitler was still very much the person who had given the German people back their pride, created jobs for them and put food on their plates. What he achieved in his early years was really quite remarkable. Did you take your family and move from Britain in protest at the invasion of Iraq? That is what Rommel or any other senior commander would have had to do and no invasion was even openly planned at that time. A drastic course of action that was not really justifed by Hitler's actions at that time.


*Please don't quote me on that one as I haven't checked it but the point is still valid. And I'm not including Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

** Yes I know Hitler's election was distinctly questionable as far as democracy goes, but the rest of the world happily acknowledged his legitimacy.


----------



## Bowler1

Bun fight - ohhh, look what I started - my turn!

Napoleon's character is hard to defend but when it came to his family he made sure they were all taken care of, even a weak brother was rewarded and taken care of. 

He freed Jews in Italy and set about major law reforms. He was as much a reformer as a commander, which is why Britian did not like what he was doing - he was empowering the common man of the time. Not reforms as we in the modern world would accept, but for his time they were radical - hence his war - or one reason for them anyway.   

Rommel it would seem, took the course of least resistance. As field marshal he would have known the big picture, ignorance was not an excuse for him. Take Syria today, there are army defections, are they wrong? 

More buns - take that........splat!


----------



## Vertigo

Well I wouldn't want to knock Napolean either. He was pretty impressive after all. 

With regard to Rommel I think talking about his campaigns as the easy option is a little glib  Also at the outbreak of the war he was only a colonel I think. He was promoted after France was taken and again after the fall of Tobruk:



> On 21 June, after a swift, coordinated and fierce combined arms assault, the city surrendered along with its 33,000 defenders, including most of the South African 2nd Division. Only at the fall of Singapore, earlier that year, had more British Commonwealth troops been captured. Hitler made Rommel a Field Marshal for this victory.


 
And I give you two buns for your one... splat, splat!


----------



## Bowler1

Abloished serfdom.
The metric system! - half a bun........

Rommel was only ever a military commander, good but that was all.

My anti hero - had bigger visions and the force of will to acheive them - one BIG bun, with cream & jam...


----------



## Bowler1

I is back - with lots of buns.

Austerlitz
Central Banks
Napoleonic code - civil law/due process
End of fuedalism
5 - repeat - 5 wars
Invasion of russia

Yawn- where was I??

Oh yes - almost a rocky come back.

Rommel - please!


----------



## paranoid marvin

Churchill's comments about Rommel were mainly at sideswipe at the rest of the German High Command; I'm sure it was also done to sow seeds of doubt in Hitler's mind about a known Nazi non-sympathiser. It's also to be magnanimous about an opponent when you're starting to gain the upper hand, which the Allies were around this time.

Having said that Rommel was quite happy to receive lots of men and weaponry from a war-mongering regime; indeed, Erwin himself was a war-hungry person, often at the forefront of the action. 'In the absence of orders, find something and kill it' quite clearly says everything you need to know about the man.

He was a great General, but usually had superior armour; often overwhelmingly so. If the Germans were good at one thing, it was creating Panzers; often Allied weapons would simply bounce off their armour. His tactics were imaginitive, but his penchant for being on the front line often meant that he missed the bigger picture, and he was withdrawn to Europe before his Afrika Korps were wiped out. Which is a shame, as it's only when you're on the backfoot that you see the true qualities of any commander.


----------



## Bowler1

Thank you Marvin. 

Almost my mans final battle he led from the front, after Waterloo.

When his troops asked him not to risk bullets - he replied there was not one yet cast that could shoot him - or similiar. His troops rallied, he won the battle. This was after Waterloo, what more can I say. Occured near Paris, can't remember where.


----------



## Vertigo

Bowler, you can't bring up Napoleon's invasion of Russia in support of him!!!! Besides you're drifting away from the remit of the question.

PM - I think it was only the Tigers that had such superior armour and they only appeared late in the war but yes tanks like the American Sherman were almost useless against them.

There are plenty of examples of Rommel on the back foot in Africa. As Hitler's enthusiasm for Africa waxed and waned and Rommel's supplies and reinforcements did likewise he was pushed back and then moved forward again. Invariably he was less well equipped than the British troops and yet held his own despite that.

Churchill's first quote (the inner quote) was in 1942 and there was no mention in that about hating Hitler. The second quote was defending his first quote in 1950. So I don't think you can say it was sowing seeds of doubt. And Churchill was criticised heavily for making that first quote.

Eeee this is fun this!


----------



## Bowler1

I don't think I am drifting away from the question.

The question was - who was the greatest commander the British faced. To ignore acheivements off the battle field would be to ignore the thought processes and character of the individual on the battle field. Battles are usually short sharp actions, certainly in Napoleons time battles they were contained affairs for the most part.

So instead of sitting around waiting for his next battle Napoleon kept himself busy, gave himself something to do. keeping himself busy in between killing people. His list of acheivements off the battle field are hard to ignore and show him to be a reformer as well as a commander.

And this is my point - Rommel was only ever a general - Napoleon was much more, a statesmans and a leader of nations. This makes the frenchy far more of a danger to the British, attacking Britian through trade, diplomacy and war.


----------



## Bowler1

I'll give you Russia, if you give me Rommels failure in Africa?

One failure for one - ohhh sorry, Rommel would only have the invasion of France left - better not!

For those of you reading this thread - vote Napoleon if you think I'm making a good point, we have to catch up with Rommel and give him a kicking....


----------



## Vertigo

Well the aim of the original National Army Museum poll is definitely geared to commanders _facing_ the British. But I'll not split hairs on it.

The big difference about Rommel's failures as opposed to Napoleon's is that Napoleon, as an absolute ruler, had complete control over what resources (troops, weapon's, ammunition etc.) were available to him. Rommel didn't. Had Rommel had greater resource given to him by Hitler, there is no way he would have failed in Africa, and almost certainly the Normandy landings would have failed as well. In fact they might well have been called off. The allies were keeping a very close eye on what forces they would be up against on the beaches. And let's be honest, the Normandy landings were a pretty close thing anyway. Once the beachhead was established Rommel didn't really have much chance against the overwhelming numbers of allied forces. And it still took the allies massively longer to get to Germany from Normandy than it had taken Rommel to get to Paris from Germany.


----------



## Bowler1

And it still took the allies massively longer to get to Germany from Normandy than it had taken Rommel to get to Paris from Germany. 

A clever point but not a valid point I think. It was a very different war by 1945, hard lessons had been learned by both sides. So the campaigns don't really compare.

I think Rommel would have failed in Africa at some point, the arrival of the Americans did finish him off and would have regardless of resources available. 

Normandy is a complete unknown Vertigo, but I will admit if Rommel had been around life would have been far more interesting for the allies. 

Rommel is still however - only a general no matter how good.


----------



## Peter Graham

> Again difficult to know when to draw the line. 'Bomber' Harris  was probably directly responsible for more civilian deaths than anyone  else in the second world war*, certainly more than Rommel. Should he  have refused to obey Churchill?


Here's the rub.  It's not up to me to decide what he should or shouldn't  have done.  Nor is it of any relevance what I would have done - or  might like to think I would have done - in his place.  Incidentally, I'd  probably have done the same as him, but that's by the by.  It was up to  him.  But if he, for whatever reason, was *not* happy about what he was doing, then I see no reason why he should not have stepped down.




> Military personnel are required to _obey_ in a way that is  not found anywhere else in normal life (including the police). If every  soldier was permitted to question his/her orders then they would not win  *any* battles.


A good point.  I suppose the counter is that if soldiers _were_  permitted to question, we'd have far fewer battles.  But it still  doesn't absolve individuals of taking responsibility - and the further  up the chain of command you get, the greater that responsibility.  Just  because we have a system that says "just do as you're told" doesn't mean  that anyone who agrees to sign up for that is then entitled to say  "don't blame me - I was just doing what I was told."




> That's not an excuse, just a fact. A necessary fact.


Agreed, but as you say, it isn't an excuse......




> Disagreeing is simply not enough to justify disobedience. And  don't forget, what he was doing was conducting his part of the German  war effort _with honour_.


I'm reminded of Falstaff's speech about honour in Henry IV!  Is it  honourable to follow one's duty, even when that means one is part of a  particularly nasty and bellicose ideology?  I think not.




> Upholding the rule of law is exactly what Romel was doing. As a  senior officer, if he had refused an order, especially in time of war,  it would be a crime.


Having decided to go along with it, having accepted the various  promotions of which you speak and having (possibly) put following orders  ahead of personal morality, I agree with you.  But would he have been  tried for that crime by the Allies?  Did he have to get into that  advanced situation in the first place.





> Here I disagree. All military forces are intended to be a weapon  wielded by their government. And the weapon is not guilty.


A weapon is a tool.  Tools have no capacity for conscious or rational  thought.  Lancaster bombers, ME109s, Sherman tanks, V2's, lugers and  sten guns are all tools.  Men are not tools.  They wield the weapons,  but they are not the weapons.




> So long as no atrocities are done by the commanders. So long as  they have followed the 'rules of war' - the Geneva convention - then  they have behaved correctly and appropriately


This whole notion of "rules of war" harks back to the Middle Ages, when  war was basically a gentlemanly pursuit akin to hunting or hawking.  In  war, lots and lots of people die - regulars, conscripts and civilians.   It is good that the Geneva Convention exists, but to say that anything  done within the Convention is therefore OK is stretching it a bit.





> No absolutely not! That oath would have been sworn in 1934.


What about when he accepted his promotions?

I'm really not trying to turn this into an argument about whether he  should or shouldn't have stood down (or tried to).  All I'm saying is  that military leaders cannot use notions of duty and honour to escape  personal moral responsibility for their actions (good or bad).

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Vertigo

I would agree tentatively with most of that Peter (excellent discussion/debate incidentally!). However...



> A weapon is a tool. Tools have no capacity for conscious or rational thought. Lancaster bombers, ME109s, Sherman tanks, V2's, lugers and sten guns are all tools. Men are not tools. They wield the weapons, but they are not the weapons.


This is right to an extent but a large part of military training in all armies is designed (rightly or wrongly) to turn people into tools. This is a very fine line to run, particularly with officers, both commissioned and non-commissioned; you still want the NCOs and officers to think for themselves but not _too_ much! You want them to obey orders pretty much unconditionally, but, as they go up in rank, they must be given more freedom and and that point you'd better hope you haven't killed that individuality.

The balance of obedience against freedom of action has certainly changed over the years but obedience is still a major factor. The bottom line is that if a soldier disagrees with their commander's orders they are implicitly saying that they know better than, not just their commander, but also the more senior officers who decided upon that commander's promotion, which is both an arrogance on the part of the disagreeing soldier and a failure on the part of the commander. This kind of thing destroys the chain of command and ultimately weakens the army.

Of course sometimes it is absolutely right to disobey. If I was ordered to massacre a thousand civilians say, I'd like to think I would refuse. But I'd know that that refusal would almost certainly be the end of my career and in an army that issues such an order quite possibly the end of my life. Believe me, in a court martial for disobedience you will need a mighty powerful justification to be acquitted. Even if they consider the disobedience to be justified, if no attempt has been made to go to a higher authority first (difficult if your commander is the supreme commander) the soldier will almost certainly still be punished and probably discharged or worse if it is an officer.

Ultimately the heads of armies need their armies to be a tool and they will go to great lengths to make that the case. Smart tools maybe, but tools all the same.


----------



## Bowler1

It would seem my reasoned arguement is not going to do it, you two are too good at it.

So

Napoleon - vote now.

VOTE NAPOLEON - VOTE NOW - YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO.


----------



## paranoid marvin

There's one obvious name missing from that list...

Oliver Cromwell


----------



## paranoid marvin

Just to explain my point. He destroyed the King's armies, he massacred the Irish and he banned Christmas. And then he sat on the throne as Lord Protector until he died. So feared was he by the British, so intimitdated by him were they , that only after his death did they dare to attempt a restitution of the monarch.

He may have been British, but no other commander did more to wreak havoc on the population of these isles than Mister C.


----------



## Foxbat

I certainly don't dispute the claim of Cromwell as one of the best commanders but feel that he should be dscounted on the basis that the Act of Union did not take place until 1707.


----------



## Bowler1

Marvin, "The Devil Himself" as he is still known in Ireland - is English. For that reason I would discount him from this question and thread.

However, if asked who were my all time commanders he would get top three, as he never wavered on his convictions; I admire that much in him. It is also nice to see a name not regularly used on the History Channel mentioned!

VOTE NAPOLEON - YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO!


----------



## Peter Graham

Hii Vertigo,



> This is right to an extent but a large part of military training in all armies is designed (rightly or wrongly) to turn people into tools.


I do take your point, but a human will never be a tool in the proper sense of the word.  There are good, pragmatic reasons for wanting to ensure that soldiers do as they are told, but none of those reasons have anything to do with morality.  I know that Sandhurst (and presumably Dartmouth and Cranwell) now discuss the morality of killing with the chaps, but from the little I've seen or heard of it, one could drive a fairly wide bus  through the arguments.




> The balance of obedience against freedom of action has certainly changed over the years but obedience is still a major factor. The bottom line is that if a soldier disagrees with their commander's orders they are implicitly saying that they know better than, not just their commander, but also the more senior officers who decided upon that commander's promotion, which is both an arrogance on the part of the disagreeing soldier and a failure on the part of the commander. This kind of thing destroys the chain of command and ultimately weakens the army.


It doesn't have to be that way.  For example, you and I may have different views about the war in Iraq.  The ultimate arrogance is surely for one of us to believe that our view is objectively better that the other person's view.  Reasoned debate and the empowerment of individuals to think for themselves is surely a hallmark of a truly civilised society.  The person who treats disagreement as insolence, stupidity, crass rudeness or disrespect is perhaps not as sure of their ground as they profess to be.



> Believe me, in a court martial for disobedience you will need a mighty powerful justification to be acquitted.


I do believe you.  Courts martial are essentially a self-regulating jurisdiction in which the prosecutors and the judges are basically drawn from the same pot.  Like the FA but with more far reaching powers.....

 Regards,

Peter


----------



## Vertigo

> It doesn't have to be that way. For example, you and I may have different views about the war in Iraq. The ultimate arrogance is surely for one of us to believe that our view is objectively better that the other person's view. Reasoned debate and the empowerment of individuals to think for themselves is surely a hallmark of a truly civilised society. The person who treats disagreement as insolence, stupidity, crass rudeness or disrespect is perhaps not as sure of their ground as they profess to be.




In fairness I was meaning disagreement to the point of disobedience but didn't really make that clear. Disagreeing and discussing is good and junior officers are (or should be) encouraged to feel free to do that with their seniors. However when it turns to outright disobedience, that is when you have rejected the views of your superior and are effectively saying they are wrong and you are right. That is where the arrogance comes in.


----------



## svalbard

This is a fascinating discussion that has at times moved beyond the subject of the thread. Important when debating the subject of Rommel, but outside the remit of the whether he was indeed the greatest commander who ever  faced the British. 

On the moral side he has to be seen as complicit in the horrors of the Nazi regime. Other 'respected' generals such as Von Manstein knew full well what was going on and turned a blind eye to it. 

Back to his standing as a general. He was good, but the greatest...suspect I would think.  One reason I put forward for this is the opposing commanders he faced. Montgomery(sp) for one was not exactly a daunting foe and fails to have the same resonance as say Napoleon v Wellington.


----------



## Foxbat

Personally, I think there are similarities between Napoleon and Rommel. They both often had to face odds stacked against them - Rommel in the desert (lacking equipment and men) and Napoleon at Austerlitz (for example) - outnumbered and facing the combined might of Russian and Austrian empires. 

I think both men had a skill for getting the most out of what they had in the field. I think it also fair to say that both earned respect from their enemies. Indeed, such was the fear of Napoleon that when he returned in 1815, the allies did not declare war on France, they declared it on Napoleon himself.


----------



## Vertigo

Foxbat said:


> Personally, I think there are similarities between Napoleon and Rommel. They both often had to face odds stacked against them - Rommel in the desert (lacking equipment and men) and Napoleon at Austerlitz (for example) - outnumbered and facing the combined might of Russian and Austrian empires.


An interesting point; quite possibly one of the main reasons for both the comparison and dispute! 


			
				Foxbat said:
			
		

> I think both men had a skill for getting the most out of what they had in the field. I think it also fair to say that both earned respect from their enemies. Indeed, such was the fear of Napoleon that when he returned in 1815, the allies did not declare war on France, they declared it on Napoleon himself.


I was unaware of that last point and I concede that, if correct, it could be a strong argument for Napoleon being top of the list.


----------



## mosaix

Vertigo said:


> I was unaware of that last point and I concede that, if correct, it could be a strong argument for Napoleon being top of the list.



But Napoleon was his own 'head of state' so to speak. He reported to no one and took orders from no one. Any strategic errors were entirely of his own making.

Rommel, on the other hand, always had Hitler looking over his shoulder. The outcome of the Normandy invasions may have been different if Rommel had had a totally free hand. If I remember correctly, Hitler refused to give permission to move the Panzer divisions south from the area around Calais until it was too late.


----------



## Connavar

Foxbat said:


> Peter I completely agree with your points in the above post. I just wish some film makers would make the same distinctions
> 
> As for me, I think Rommel is actually underestimated and some thought should be given to his drive through France prior to his Africa campaign. Even before Africa, he showed great promise, skill, cunning and daring against both the French and British (UK British, not English British)
> 
> *However, I'm leaning towards Napoleon just because of the sheer scale of his achievements. Also, even when severely ill as he was at Waterloo, he held his own for a time.* He was ruthless in sacrificing his men for his own ends but his humanity(lack of) is not the question here. *The very fact that he stood against so many nations and was able to conquer much of Europe gives him my vote.*



His lack of humanity he shares with all the greatest conquerers. You dont conquer by being a Gandhi.  

This is also why i voted for Napoleon.  He was a like Phoenix, he rose from the ashes to make himself an emperor and fight whole of europe and beat many of the countries for decades.  He wasnt born a lord with high military post.

Frankly Rommel is small fish compared to Napoleon war,battle history. It didnt take two great empires to beat Rommel.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Connavar said:


> His lack of humanity he shares with all the greatest conquerers. You dont conquer by being a Gandhi.
> 
> This is also why i voted for Napoleon. He was a like Phoenix, he rose from the ashes to make himself an emperor and fight whole of europe and beat many of the countries for decades. He wasnt born a lord with high military post.
> 
> Frankly Rommel is small fish compared to Napoleon war,battle history. It didnt take two great empires to beat Rommel.


 

The thing is that we're not comapring the qualities of the commanders though; we're comparing hpw they fared against the British. Napoleon was a tactical genius, as was Rommel , but Napoleon was consistenmtly beaten by the Brits. Ok , we may have been lucky at times, and generally when N wasn't in his prime, but his record vs Britain wasn't that good.


----------



## J-Sun

paranoid marvin said:


> The thing is that we're not comapring the qualities of the commanders though; we're comparing hpw they fared against the British. Napoleon was a tactical genius, as was Rommel , but Napoleon was consistenmtly beaten by the Brits. Ok , we may have been lucky at times, and generally when N wasn't in his prime, but his record vs Britain wasn't that good.



I think "greatest" and "commander" are also giving trouble. I interpret "greatest", in this instance, to mean "most skilled, effective", etc. Not "biggest, most historically important", though it might more often carry that meaning. And "commander" I interpret not as "leader" in a sociopolitical sense, but in a purely military sense. (Which certainly also means "leader" but in a different sense.) Emperor Napoleon and his historical magnitude isn't as relevant to me as General Napoleon and his battlefield skill. And, yes, certainly it did mean "from a British perspective", as you say.


----------



## Bowler1

Just when I was starting to lose faith. Napoleon ruled for a generation by force of arms, all of Europe. Rommel was never even his own man. 

It seem I'm no longer a lone voice, yet for some reason Rommel has picked up another vote! 

Vote Napoleon, you don't have to like him, chances are you won't like him - he is still one of the greats....


----------



## Foxbat

paranoid marvin said:


> The thing is that we're not comapring the qualities of the commanders though; we're comparing hpw they fared against the British. Napoleon was a tactical genius, as was Rommel , but Napoleon was consistenmtly beaten by the Brits. Ok , we may have been lucky at times, and generally when N wasn't in his prime, but his record vs Britain wasn't that good.


 
I see your point. The problem is, often when Napoleon was defeated by the British, he wasn't even there (eg The Peninsular Wars). Take 1812 - it was left to a subordinate to deal with Wellington while Napoleon went of to Russia. If we follow that logic and credit Napoleon with those defeats then surely Rommel is merely a subordinate of Hitler and Hitler should be the commander (even thougn he wasn't one).


----------



## Vertigo

Foxbat said:


> I see your point. The problem is, often when Napoleon was defeated by the British, he wasn't even there (eg The Peninsular Wars). Take 1812 - it was left to a subordinate to deal with Wellington while Napoleon went of to Russia. If we follow that logic and credit Napoleon with those defeats then surely Rommel is merely a subordinate of Hitler and Hitler should be the commander (even thougn he wasn't one).


 
That's a valid point and Napoleon would surely win against Hitler - tactically the man was a moron, brilliant (as well as terrible) in other ways, but whenever he involved himself in tactical decisions he usually managed to do so in favour of the allies!

It is a problem in that the original National Army Museum did not make the original question as clear as they maybe should have. It is definitely open to interpretation. However if you look at the other people in the list the intent is, I think, fairly clear that it is looking purely at their military opposition to Britain, rather than their overall greatness as a statesman, emperor etc.


----------



## Bowler1

I think the question is left open so each commander can be judged as a whole package. Understanding Rommel as a commander would not really be possible unless we understood the man - that is why the fighting in Africa followed the course it did, the treatment of captured solders etc. The qualities you have asked me to consider time and again Vertigo, are qualities of the man off the battlefield. 

Napoleon was the Hitler of his time and a far greater danger to Britian because of it. He led from the front and not some bunker, shared the danger with his men and had the whole of Europe at his feet. The English Channel, was all that gave Britian time to prepare. Trying to split Napoleon as emperor, general and statesman is not possible - it is all the one man. At Waterloo, it was Emperor Napoleon that was leading his army, that was why his army was there - in an attempt to restore him as Emperor.  The facts have to be taken as a whole, or Waterloo would never have happened - Napoleon was Emperor, a great General and a great Statesman.

The list is a good one, but M Collins, who is on the list - was a rebel fighter - a terrorist by any defination today - a hero to the Irish - yes to all. M Collins never commanded more than 2k men, and had only a few hundred operational at any one time. If we were to really judge him by military feats, he would not be on the list. In a political move, he gave his life to try and end the civil war - that is what I remember him for, a brave hero who died for his country. 

So by any measure, Napeolon needs to be considered as the greatest. He is far greater than Rommel, who was only ever a field commander. A greater danger to Britian than M Collins ever was, my hero, but no commander in the field and no real danger to the very surival of Britian.

The question is an open one Vertigo, because it has to be - battles are the highlight of a commanders life, but not by any measure all what their lives were.


----------



## Peter Graham

The Army Museum question should perhaps have been "Who is the most fashionable successful general to face the British."

I remain of the view that Edwin of Deira - who, unlike both Rommel and Napoleon, actually won and genuinely changed the course of our island history forever - has greater claim to the title than anyone else on that list.  

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Bowler1

Peter, you stick to your guns mate, I can't fault you on that.

I like it even more that Britian as a nation, had not even been formed when Edwin was knocking around - you rock mate.


----------



## paranoid marvin

I guess that Ghandi really ought to be on that list.


----------



## Bowler1

Gandi??

I hope your taking the mick PM, or I'm expecting a clever point as to why?


----------



## Vertigo

An interesting idea PM. It could be argued that Ghandi's campaign displayed brilliant military tactics and he commanded the masses of India. Consequently he almost single handedly removed India, Britain greatest colonial possession, from our control. 

In that sense he does rank up there (though I don't suppose the Army Museum would necessarily agree!)


----------



## Bowler1

Did Gandi really command?
Or did he just guide?

PM - I'm not sure about Gandi - but as a spoiling question, you have me wondering. It's the lack of direct control that I don't like, he was after all a spiritural and political leader - not a commander.

Yet still, I have a niggling doubt......


----------



## Vertigo

Yes it is an interesting one isn't it Bowler. I don't think he ever commanded as such but he guided so well and people followed his example so well that he might as well have done and he did actively urge the population into non-violent protest and it was military troops they faced as a result. Of course, had he been commanding, maybe india and Pakistan wouldn't have split up, which broke his heart and he foresaw all the problems that would come out of it.

End of the day - it probably is stretching the question a little but interesting all the same


----------



## Bowler1

The lack of direct command I think removes Gandi from the list - but a great name to chuck into the ring - good call PM. 

Now where was I - Napoleon, how could I forget.


----------



## comickaze89

washington hand down


----------



## Peter Graham

Gandhi wasn't a general - being a pacifist, he was pretty much the antithesis of everything the military stands for.

One also has to be careful about attributing too much to one man.  He was undoubtedly a fine, principled fellow who did great things and is utterly worthy of our respect, but he was not the first person who tried to undermine British rule through non-violent protest.  Plenty before him had tried, failed and had been treated disgracefully by the British for their pains.

Like everyone on the list, Gandhi was a man of his time.  One must place his achievements - great as they were - in the context of that time.  Fact is, the British Empire was a busted flush by 1945.  It was only ever going to be a matter of time before Britain (graciously or otherwise) dismantled her Empire - as demonstrated by the following decade or so.  This isn't to take anything away from Gandhi, but it is important to understand the wider context in order to appreciate why he was so successful.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Parson

*Peter, *Amen! Context is of paramount importance in any evaluation.


----------



## Bowler1

Indeed context is every thing, which is what I have been asking you all to do for Napeolon. Acheivements out of the fighting ring as well - best to also remember Britian at his time was one of the worlds great powers!


----------



## Vertigo

Peter is quite right about Ghandi and indeed the context. As he says the writing was already well and truly on the wall for the British Empire at that time.



Bowler1 said:


> Indeed context is every thing, which is what I have been asking you all to do for Napeolon. *Acheivements out of the fighting ring as well* - best to also remember Britian at his time was one of the worlds great powers!


 
However "out of the fighting ring" is, I consider, specifically outside the context of this question. To consider their status as statesmen to be part of this question would change the question to something like: who is the greatest national leader to face the British? And it would also remove a lot of the people in the National Army Museum's list.

I stick to my guns that the Museum's question is in the context of millitary tactics and (possibly) strategy.


----------



## Bowler1

I'm sticking to my guns as well - big cannons that Napeolon had!

Napeolon fought all his life, even as Emperor, he was the state and the armies he fought with were his. There is no dividing line with him which is why its difficult to judge him on just a military basis - a complicated man - unlike me!  

Such a simple question, who would have thought......


----------



## Bowler1

Another vote for Rommel - that's two to one against my man.

I'm getting a sinking feeling here!


----------



## Connavar

Peter Graham said:


> Like everyone on the list, Gandhi was a man of his time.  One must place his achievements - great as they were - in the context of that time. * Fact is, the British Empire was a busted flush by 1945.  It was only ever going to be a matter of time before Britain (graciously or otherwise) dismantled her Empire - as demonstrated by the following decade or so.  *This isn't to take anything away from Gandhi, but it is important to understand the wider context in order to appreciate why he was so successful.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter



That is given how British Empire was post WWII if you have had decent history classes in school.  Of course we humans tend to mythologize men and women like Gandhi like he changed everything on his own.  Still fading Empires like the British wouldnt give away power,freedom to countries,people if it wasnt fought by people who was lead by a few.  People like Gandhi had to go to prison,demonstrate and make trouble to their goals.

I find it mostly interesting how you could achieve things,change a country history with pacifist idelogy, you can lead people without being a military leader who killed 1000s in wars.  

He doesnt belong in this thread of course.


----------



## Boaz

Vertigo, interesting thread. Thanks for posting. I've not read all six pages of it, but I'll chime in anyway.

Commander. What does that mean? Commander in a battle? Series of battles? A Commander-in-Chief? A King?

In various battles and wars, the British have faced many nasty opponents. North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, South Asia, East Asia, the Americas, Europe... The fact that the British have fought all over the globe is a testament to their many martial, economic, and cultural virtues/vices.

I cannot denigrate any of the opponents on this list. I'm only an amateur historian and I'll volunteer my view as such.

As for a battlefield commander, the British saw tough fighting against Ntshingwayo, Yamashita, and Rommel. As an American, I'm a big Old Hickory fan, but I'd like to add Daniel Morgan to this list. Even though "The Old Waggoner" suffered greatly from sciatica, he came out of retirement to fight for two years in the back country and rugged hills of the Carolinas. He is one of the inspirations for Mel Gibson's character in _The Patriot_. His outmaneuvering of Banastre Tarleton and his smashing victory at Cowpens saved the southern states, gave heart to the U.S. morale, encouraged the French to back us, and set an example for Nathiel Greene at Guilford Courthouse (a Pyrrhic British victory) that forced Cornwallis to retire to Yorktown.

Regarding an overall commander, I'd say George Washington. Of course, I'm severely biased as an American... and I just don't know the history of resistance in India like I do the U.S. Washington's brilliance was not on the battlefield. He knew how to identify able battle commanders and how to spot political appointees. Arnold, Morgan, Greene, Lafayette, and Von Steuben won almost all the battles for the Americans. Washington was smart enough to never get caught by the British. Keeping his army intact and as a poised threat bogged the British down for seven years. And the important thing is... he won. There was no Thermopylae. Thermopylae was self-sacrifice. Thermopylae was honorable. Thermopylae was legendary. Thermopylae was death. Washington survived and outlasted. I'd include Ghandi on this list. 

Regarding a king or a national leader... I'd have to say Hitler. Napoleon was a threat, but not quite as immediate. Hitler bombed England, sank shipping, and assembled his forces. Churchill was forced to say, "_We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France. We shall fight on the seas.... we shall never surrender_." France, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Poland had already fallen. The Third Reich was an extremely real threat.

But as a combination... a battlefield general, a commander-in-chief, and an Emperor... Napoleon is it. The British battles in India, Afghanistan, Asia, Africa, and the Western Hemisphere were serious affairs, but none of them were a real threat to the soil of the British Isles. Those wars all were about locals resisting British dominance. As their next door neighbor, Napoleon put Britain to the test. I can't say anything that has not already been said... Who are the greatest British heroes? Nelson? Wellington? Well, then that tells you who the greatest enemy commander was!

I'd also like to say that even though the Britons are not the British, it's a shame to leave Gnaeus Julius Agricola off this list.

Edit: After posting, I read page six of this thread.  I contend that Ghandi was not a pacifist.  Pacifists are Quakers and Amish.  Ghandi did not want peace.  Ghandi wanted radical change, but without bloodshed.  He knew the British Christian cultural values would win out if he refused to bear arms.  By doing so, Ghandi forced the Brits to evaluate the situation with themselves as the oppressors... and that did not sit so well viewing the recent oppressors Hitler and Mussolini and the current oppressor Stalin.  The Brits (and I contend any nation with Christian values) could not use force against people not willing to use force in return.  Yes, and the Brits needed to recover economically. 

Was Ghandi a military tactician?  No.  Did he lead men in a battle?  No.  Did he dismantle the British hegemony of his native country with a minimum of bloodshed? Yes.  He achieved in a few years what India had not done in three hundred some years of British occupation.  I say he was a brilliant commander.  

The discussion has to be military strategy?  What if it's just strategy?  Isn't the guy who wins without losing a man better than all his predecessors who lost hundreds of thousands over hundreds of years?  Doesn't the result make men who choose a military option look foolish?

But don't get me going on Ghandi's religious views and his betrayal of the Untouchables or I'll be here all day.


----------



## Vertigo

Interesting comments, Boaz. As with any list like this there will always be some glaring omissions and the original question from the museum, that this was based on, was equally ambiguous. I guess that ambiguity will always be a problem; the only way around would be a question that ran to several paragraphs


----------



## J-WO

I'd like to have seen General Haig on the list.


----------



## Boaz

J-WO, what can I say to that? Haig was in a messy situation. Was there anyone with any imagination to have avoided the trench warfare of the Western Front? Did Haig have any imagination? Did he take suggestions for new tactics? Did he have to make those assaults in 1917? I don't know the answers, but I know it was a giant $&!% sandwich and everyone had to take a bite. I can't believe I'm actually semi-defending the Butcher of the Somme. Was the Western Front that the largest Pyrrhic victory in history?


----------



## Venusian Broon

Boaz said:


> J-WO, what can I say to that? Haig was in a messy situation. Was there anyone with any imagination to have avoided the trench warfare of the Western Front? Did Haig have any imagination? Did he take suggestions for new tactics? Did he have to make those assaults in 1917?


 
It's a tough one to try and call from this distance. 

I'm pretty sure Haig knew that the British army wasn't ready - 1916 was when the army truly became a citizen force and the millions of volunteers flooded across. They were green, fresh and not ready - Haig repeatedly set the date back for the offensive to the abject annoyance of the French. But the French were bleeding to death at Verdun and they needed a British offensive to save them. He was handcuffed into it. 

Then the technology of static warfare - the big guns and the machine guns were light years ahead of the technology of mobile warfare, and it needed about 20 years more development before mobility became dominant. On the western front the Germans were on the defensive and constructed formidable positions. 

Yes in 1916 people in the British army were trying to find ways to break the deadlock - the first tanks went into operation on the Somme, the supply chain was improving as Britain was shifting to a much more intense war footing, aircraft were getting faster, deadiler and more versatile, they were starting to learn how to combine artillery-infantary attacks (creeping barrages started in 1916)

But still for all the innovations, against a motivated well trained and well dug in enemy it wasn't enough in 1916, plus this largely inexperienced army still had a lot to learn - particularly about coordination and communication, in fact I'd say it wasn't till 1918 till all of the above really came together. (1917 was a disaster as they were mired in the abomination that was Passchendaele/Ypres where they also fought nature as well as the Germans.)

As I said, tough call. Haig should bear responsibility for what happened - he was in charge, but what would anyone else have done or thought in May 1916?


----------



## paranoid marvin

Exactly. Haig followed the usual conventions of war at that time. Where were the questions in Parliament or the front page headlines denouncing his tactics?  

Yes, he lost far too many men, and it's obvious that there were some major ****-ups in his time in charge, but at a time when mechanised warfare was only just coming to the fore , with unclear and dificult lines of communications, it's dificult to say he was a bad commander.

Did anyone else do any better? And at least he ended up winning. Even with the benefit of hindsight, it's hard to see what better tactics could have been employed.


----------



## Boaz

I agree.  From my reading (and let me reiterate that I am not a professional historian, I'm just a guy who likes to read), Haig was widely popular with the masses.  He ran afoul of Lloyd George and some other politicians who disparaged him publicly after his death.  But the numbers are just staggering... mind blowing to me.  But then I did not live in those times.  What I'm used to are the fights with U.S. servicemen in my adult life.  The coalition forces in the Gulf War, the Second Gulf War, and Operation Enduring Freedom in all it's myriad forms and locations have achieved more objectives with minimal cost.  Granted the times are different, weapons technologies are improved, and communications are instant so comparing eras is difficult... but I'd just like to comment about how we are accustomed to things.  The people during WWI knew the death counts were horrific... basically fifty percent of all men on the Western Front were killed, wounded or ended up listed as missing... but the people got used to it.  By 'used to it', I don't mean to say that they liked it or became ambivalent, but that it just became part of life for that moment.  Contemporary Americans are accustomed to casualties of less than two percent of personnel.  In our times, it's easy to see Haig as the worst commander.... ever.  But the people back then were willing to pay the price and Haig was a hero.

What were the alternatives?  Could the British have successfully invaded the Low Countries or Germany from the North Sea?  My understanding is that it would have ben disastrous.  Could the Entente have landed in Greece or Montenegro and moved through Serbia to attack Hungary?  My understanding is that a move of that scope would have drained the Western Front defenses and left Paris open to attack.  In hindsight, it appears a no-win situation.


----------



## Venusian Broon

Boaz said:


> I agree. From my reading (and let me reiterate that I am not a professional historian, I'm just a guy who likes to read),


 
That describes me too! 



Boaz said:


> What were the alternatives? Could the British have successfully invaded the Low Countries or Germany from the North Sea? My understanding is that it would have ben disastrous.


 
I think ships would have been extremely vulnerable to shore batteries (look at the losses that the French and British took while trying to support their landings at Gallipoli) Hence although they could land troops ashore the problem would most likely have been their ability to supply them.



Boaz said:


> Could the Entente have landed in Greece or Montenegro and moved through Serbia to attack Hungary? My understanding is that a move of that scope would have drained the Western Front defenses and left Paris open to attack. In hindsight, it appears a no-win situation .


 
They actually did, but the moment they landed divisions there the Greek government which had been pro-allied was sacked by the king and the Greeks turned neutral. The troops landed were not allowed passage through, so were just stuck in camp in limbo. Eventually however they did convince the Greeks to return to backing them and along with the Serbs they did push up back to Serbia and forced Bulgaria to surrender near the end of the war. 

On a related note:

If you like your tv military history I can thoroughly recommend _The Great War_. It's the BBC series that was first broadcast in 1964 and charts the whole history of World War 1 in 26 episodes or about 20 hours. It's black and white but it uses a wealth of footage shot at the time and interviews with veterans. Brilliant tv.


----------



## Alien Dynasty

As an American, I'm tempted to say Washington, but while he was good, he wasn't the best.  I think it's a toss-up among Napoleon, Rommel, and Tipu.


----------



## jasminevincent

[FONT=&quot]Erwin Rommel is my answer

[/FONT]


----------



## Rommel

jasminevincent said:


> [FONT=&quot]Erwin Rommel is my answer[/FONT]


 
Took some time to think it over? Only 8 months?
HeHe, Yes, i tried my best, but that ruddy ol' tightlipped bugger did not give me the support.


----------



## Gramm838

Stretching the point a bit (it would depend on your definition of 'British), but the best, i.e. the only one that actually beat the British and took them over, was William the Conqueror...


----------



## Bowler1

paranoid marvin said:


> Exactly. Haig followed the usual conventions of war at that time. Where were the questions in Parliament or the front page headlines denouncing his tactics?


 
I don't think there is any war that an army arrives prepared for, new technology, new weapons and tatics make every war different. Haig did ok considering the limits of technology at the time. Front line communications were rubbish as telephone lines were easily cut by sheel fire and WWI was before radio. This was pretty much the first civilian army, and the small core of professional soldiers were swamped with keen volunteers. No other side, the French, Germans and the Americans did any better and all learned slowly and badly. The Generals of the time didn't have a whole lot of options to choose from, sadly for the soldiers under them. Haig was the hero of his time, even if he history judges him differently.

I still don't rate Rommel all that highly, not when compared to Napoleon - and he was a very immediate problem for the British at the time. He's lack of a navy was enough to give the British time to prepare.

Good point regarding William, he did win. Yet all he really won was one battle (yes it was important win in 1066 and he got a crown for his troubles) and that was after the army he was fighting had been weakened by beating the Vikings. If they'd been fresh and ready, it might have been William the Unready, or William the Who? - we'll never know. I have to admit, that I think the Normans were the more prefessional and scary army for the time and my money would have been on them.


----------



## svalbard

William is an interesting call. Hastings might have being only one battle, but it was a pivotal one . If you also consider the Harrying of the North, William's reputation as a military leader rises again, without even considering the thrashings he handed out to the French in his earlier career. Then look at his administration achievements in the Doomsday Book. This, it could be argued, cemented Norman power in England as much as battlefield victories.


----------



## Gramm838

svalbard said:


> William is an interesting call. Hastings might have being only one battle, but it was a pivotal one . If you also consider the Harrying of the North, William's reputation as a military leader rises again, without even considering the thrashings he handed out to the French in his earlier career. Then look at his administration achievements in the Doomsday Book. This, it could be argued, cemented Norman power in England as much as battlefield victories.



It could be argued that William's victory at Hastings was the single most impactful battle ever (well, at least since Alexander the Great) - it changed the world, and the way it was to develop, forever.

I'm not sure that the harrying of the north really counts as a military prowess, compared to Hastings; using superior forces to destroy a demoralised and weak militia doesn't stack up with Hastings - after all the Black Prince did the same sort of thing with his Chevauchees into Aquitaine in the 1300's, and in the end they didn't actually change history.


----------



## Tor__Hershman

I gotz ta go with George Washington.
Deciding to fight British Empire was purely wacky and if he had only survived, that would've been an amazingly great feat.
Of course, one could argue that Benjamin Franklin, gettin' the French in on the thingy, did more militarily than Washington.


----------



## Boaz

Washington's greatness?  Let me borrow from _Enter the Dragon_.

Henry Clinton:  What's your style?
George Washington: My style? You can call it the art of fighting without fighting.
Henry Clinton: The art of fighting without fighting? Show me some of it.
George Washington: Later.

William Howe: Your style is unorthodox.
George Washington: But effective.

Washington was absolutely necessary to the Revolution and the establishment of the United States and then as the creator of the Presidency from my point of view (and I daresay I speak for the vast majority of Americans).  I'm sure outsiders will rightly point to the fact that Washington never had a campaign as successful as Yamashita or Napoleon (and rightly so). But we had next to nothing and Washington refused to lose it by actually fighting any type of battle or campaign that the Brits wanted. 

Yes, he was smashed in his one big battle (The Battle of Long Island) against the British, but he was opportunistic when he saw an opening (Dorchester Heights, Trenton, Princeton). His genius was that he did not need personal glory and that he preserved all of our hopes by preserving the Army.

And that was no small task.  Franklin needed victories to gain French support.  Congress needed victories to secure the economy.  The financial backers of the Revolution wanted victories... and many wanted someone other than Washington.  

Horatio Gates came close a few times to gaining overall command.   I commend Gates for putting himself on the line for his country.  That took great courage.  And yet... he was not CinC material, let alone fit for commanding an American army of the period.  He might have done alright leading redcoats, but he did not really buy into the type of war we had to fight.  If Gates had been promoted over Washington, we'd have lost.

The reason I'm posting is that I read about Michiel de Ruyter today.  His actions in the Anglo-Dutch Wars showed his skill at sea.  I'd never read on the Raid on the Medway before and I was stunned.  That was a huge victory for the Dutch.

We tend to not know of the victories if they were not fought by people speaking our language... and especially if they do not directly affect our nation, our worldview, or ourselves.


----------



## rwspangler

paranoid marvin said:


> It's arrogance that has led to Britain's greatest defeats but also to their greatest victories. Who but the pig-headed English have stood against the might of the German war-machine in 1939/40? Who but the British would have defied Napoleon when Europe was at his feet? That trickle of briny has been our saving grace on numerous occasions when the whole of Europe has been united against us, but we still made our mark



Yes Marvin, pig headed but also wise when the situation was dire. England send plans to the US prior to the war that enabled us to manufacture items like radar, advanced armor and aviation that we lacked. In return, England got resources in the form of material, equipment and man power. 

So at the point of WWII, that trickle of briny would have been nothing without help. I actually think it was the food that kept Germany from attacking....


----------

