Who Was the Greatest Commander to Face the British?

[Connavar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.