Who Was the Greatest Commander to Face the British?

[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]

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]

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]

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....

 

[Boaz]

Surfing the web today, and I found this US News and World Report article of this poll discussion. Spoiler alert… George Washington won.

I don’t get it. Washington was born a British colonist. He served in the British army. They trained him for heaven’s sake. He never won a decisive pitched battle against the British. He never threatened the British Isles. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big Washington fan. His genius was in not losing. His brilliance was in keeping people inspired and the army alive. He kept the army intact long enough to get major French assistance and for the Brits to grow tired of the war.

The British had troops stationed all over the world, not just against the colonies in North America. Wasn’t the British empire much more strained by Napoleon and Hitler?

The fledgling United States of America was no threat to the British empire. I feel that we probably did more damage to British prestige in the 1950 FIFA World Cup than in the 1770s and 1780s. Fifteen years after Washington’s death, the British captured our new capital named for him. They burned it.

Was this a poll of select Sandhurst graduates who understand more about military history than I do? Was it conducted by prospective immigrants from North America? Did they only ask eight year olds?

 

[Swank]

Gandhi seemed to do pretty well against British military might.

 

[Swank]

Was this a poll of select Sandhurst graduates who understand more about military history than I do? Was it conducted by prospective immigrants from North America? Did they only ask eight year olds?

 

[Karn's Return]

I honestly have to give it to Rommel on this one. Washington was a British commander himself, so he knew the tactics for the most part of the enemy he faced, plus he and the Continentals and the Minutemen knew their terrain like their own damn hands. Rommel fought with successful campaigns in the African Sahara despite his commander-in-chief ultimately winding up insane. I wouldn't list Jackson at the same level of Rommel or Washington simply due to the fact that, despite how well the Battle of New Orleans went in America's favor, it was an unnecessary clash as the Treaty of Ghent had been signed two weeks prior.


I would also probably not list Napoleon on here, simply due to the fact that he didn't hold onto his empire for long. Keeping finances going is as much a part of being a leader as outmaneuvering the troops on the field. Though, he was also facing down the Austro-Hungarian Empire as well, and we DID pretty much sweep up the Louisiana Territory at a steal. (But he offered the whole chunk; we were only looking to gain the port of New Orleans.) Another mark against him in that result. Desperation hurts lead.

India was also ultimately conquered and overrun by the British. But it took a joint effort of Britain, Canada, and the U.S. to oust the Germans out of Africa. You also have to remember that again, most of the commanders here were facing the British on their own land and lost to them in the end. Rommel faced down forces in a strange land and won numerous campaigns against them with unfamiliar territory and dangerous climate. It was ultimately more Hitler's poor decision making and his growing distrust of his generals that really took Rommel down in the end.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I was about to post Oliver Cromwell, then (after reading back through the thread) realise that I already have 10 years ago!

I don't think we should discount a 'commander who faced the British' because he was British. I understand that many American colonists considered them selves as subjects of the British King/Queen and therefore British.

After a bit of a shaky start, he rose from a country gentleman to turn the Parliamentary forces into an efficient, effective force that time and again beat the Royalist troops. Even after death his corpse was dug up and 'executed' - a clear sign of just how influential he was as a threat to the British hierarchy. Another sign of just how effective and influential he was, was that after his death the whole system fell apart.

I am not a fan of Cromwell, he did some unforgivable and unnecessarily cruel actions, and - regardless of what he said - I think that in the end he coveted the power that he had as 'Lord Protector' and that he would have crowned himself King if he thought he could have gotten away with it. But I can't deny that as a military commander against British forces, there are few that have been such an effective thorn in their side.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I honestly have to give it to Rommel on this one. Washington was a British commander himself, so he knew the tactics for the most part of the enemy he faced, plus he and the Continentals and the Minutemen knew their terrain like their own damn hands. Rommel fought with successful campaigns in the African Sahara despite his commander-in-chief ultimately winding up insane. I wouldn't list Jackson at the same level of Rommel or Washington simply due to the fact that, despite how well the Battle of New Orleans went in America's favor, it was an unnecessary clash as the Treaty of Ghent had been signed two weeks prior.


I would also probably not list Napoleon on here, simply due to the fact that he didn't hold onto his empire for long. Keeping finances going is as much a part of being a leader as outmaneuvering the troops on the field. Though, he was also facing down the Austro-Hungarian Empire as well, and we DID pretty much sweep up the Louisiana Territory at a steal. (But he offered the whole chunk; we were only looking to gain the port of New Orleans.) Another mark against him in that result. Desperation hurts lead.

India was also ultimately conquered and overrun by the British. But it took a joint effort of Britain, Canada, and the U.S. to oust the Germans out of Africa. You also have to remember that again, most of the commanders here were facing the British on their own land and lost to them in the end. Rommel faced down forces in a strange land and won numerous campaigns against them with unfamiliar territory and dangerous climate. It was ultimately more Hitler's poor decision making and his growing distrust of his generals that really took Rommel down in the end.

Napoleon was an effective commander when it came to facing opponents who were predictable. Warfare of this time was often carried out in a certain style with both sides lining up and facing off against each other. Much of Napoleon's genius was in doing the unexpected, being able think several steps ahead of his opponent and with the manoeuvring of his forces. He also had the ability to enhance the morale of his troops on the battlefield, and dismay the opposing side - simply by his presences. Few commanders had this power.

Many of the problems came when he faced an opponent who wasn't predictable. When occupying the Russian capital, he expected the Tsar to surrender and accept terms - which was the normal way of doing things. When the Tsar didn't, Napoleon simply didn't know what to do, and ended up surrounded and lucky to escape the country alive. When the French occupied Spain they expected a smooth transition of power; when the Spanish didn't comply and set up effective resistance allowing the British to come in and assist in a fightback, the French were lost. When the huge French columns marched across the battlefield, the opposing forces would ofetn turn back, daunted by such a strength of force. But when the British stood in line, and rather than fleeing stood and kept up a withering, incessant rate of fire, it was the column that broke and retreated.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

As a Canadian, I know a few things about the war of 1812. Jackson's victory in New Orleans is quite famous south of the border but, to give it context, the US had very few victories in that war. And it came several weeks after the war was officially ended by the treaty of Ghent (word had not reached the battlefield). But for sheer one-sidedness it is right up there. My knowledge of Akbar Khan and the Rhani of Jansi comes from the Flashman books. I'm disappointed that the Khazi of Carry on up The Khyber is not listed (played so eloquently by the late Kenneth Williams).

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

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.

Two points.
1. Somehow reading your post made me think of Monty Python and the Holy Grail -- Yes the French did defeat the king of the Britons.
2. I'd argue that several battles during the Roman era had as significant impact to Western Civilization as the battle of Hastings. A couple examples are:

• Battle of Alesia, (52 bce), when Caesar defeated Gallic general Vercingetorix giving Rome undisputed control of Gaul.
• Battle of Actium sealed the end of the Roman Republic and put Octavian in place as Emperor.

 

[svalbard]

Let us revisit the William the Conqueror one and I know I will arguing against my own point earlier in the thread. Age and madness! He defeated the Anglo Saxons, who let's be clear were not British, but German in origin. He did not conquer Wales or Scotland who were British in the true sense of the word. Therefore I would argue for Suetonius Paulinius or Aulus Plautus.

 

[KiraAnn]

As a Canadian, I know a few things about the war of 1812. Jackson's victory in New Orleans is quite famous south of the border but, to give it context, the US had very few victories in that war. And it came several weeks after the war was officially ended by the treaty of Ghent (word had not reached the battlefield). But for sheer one-sidedness it is right up there. My knowledge of Akbar Khan and the Rhani of Jansi comes from the Flashman books. I'm disappointed that the Khazi of Carry on up The Khyber is not listed (played so eloquently by the late Kenneth Williams).

I think I would place as much faith in George Fraser' history as presented in the Flashman books as I would in a Johnny Horton song.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

I think I would place as much faith in George Fraser' history as presented in the Flashman books as I would in a Johnny Horton song.

I love that old song! Didn't they use alligators as cannon at one point?

 

[paranoid marvin]

Let us revisit the William the Conqueror one and I know I will arguing against my own point earlier in the thread. Age and madness! He defeated the Anglo Saxons, who let's be clear were not British, but German in origin. He did not conquer Wales or Scotland who were British in the true sense of the word. Therefore I would argue for Suetonius Paulinius or Aulus Plautus.

To be fair he could only beat what was in front of him. They were the people living and ruling in England, so whilst his opponents were English, they were also British. With a relatively small army he subjugated an entire country; something the inhabitants at the time were incapable of doing. In fact the Normans were extremely capable (albeit violent and ruthless) warriors, and William was no exception. I have genuine respect for commanders who lead from the front, and he set his stall out to be King of England, or to go down fighting.

Whilst his tactics were brutal, they were also incredibly effective, and he united a country that would successfully repelled military invasions for the next thousand years; something that very few countries in Europe could claim. Whilst there are probably other significant events that shaped world history, England (and later Britain) had probably the greatest impact (for both good and ill) of any other European nation. If William hadn't occupied and galvanised the country, it's extremely likely that we would have become a part of France.

 

[svalbard]

I agree on the effectiveness of William and the Normans. From England to Sicily they were a force to be reckoned with and seemed to have produced a line of capable and ruthless commanders.

With Hastings I would argue William was handed a huge slice of luck. Harold having to defeat Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge cost the Anglo-Saxon some of his most valuable warriors. The forced march south and hasty decision to fight at Hastings. Even waiting a couple of weeks would have allowed Harold to call up more men.

What a lot of people forget is how bloody and close run Hastings was. After the battle William had just over 2000 men left to march on London. Again call it luck or skill but apart from victory, the death of the Saxon leadership was his greatest result from that battle.

He benefited from facing an impulsive adversary. But as you he could only fight and defeat what was out in front of him. One of the few times in history where the French beat the Germans