Who Was the Greatest Commander to Face the British?

[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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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