Haloface
08-27-2009, 06:05 PM
These used to be pretty popular round here, and enjoyable. So let's see if we can get a bit of debate going on something other than mortgages or Obama health plans. So I give you the first, of many (if this goes well), new History Threads!
We'll start with that most interesting of topics, The Best General of the Modern Era - so roughly 1700 - 2000. Not in any order, that is for you to decide perhaps!
1 The Duke of Marlborough [1650-1722] Perhaps Britain's greatest general, despite having pro-Jacobite tendencies, led the allied armies of England and the Netherlands against the sweeping military juggernaught that was Louis XIV's France, mostly in the War of the Spanish Succession, when Louis was poised to run over all of Europe. Scored the staggering success of Blenheim over the Franco-Bavarian, shattering France's hitherto aura of invincibility, killing over 30,000 of the enemy, saved the Empire and forced the French back into their own borders. Followed by a string of other victories that led to French defeat by 1715.
Pros: Lightning marches and pitched battles in an age of static warfare and sieges. Master of strategy, ie 500 mile march to the Danube to surprise the French armies.
Cons: Too political which ended in his downfall.
2 George Washington [1732-1799] Washington's military career was forged in the Seven Years War when the British fought the French, mainly in North America. Washington commanded detachments of Virginian militia, but suffered notable defeats before resigning his commission. He re-emerged in 1775 to lead the continental rebel army against the British, suffering defeat first by Howe's offensives in New York, but then surprising British detachments in the Jerseys and on the Hudson, forcing the British armies on the defensive after they took Philadelphia, directing the victory over a British army at Saratoga, and personally commanding the trap that caught Cornwallis at Yorktown and ended British military operations in the colonies.
Pros: A master of keeping a ragged, under-provisioned army of militia together long enough to turn the tide in a war of attrition. Good defensive strategist.
Cons: Not a great tactician, suffered far more defeats than victories.
3 Napoleon Bonaparte [1769–1821] Rising to prominence at the French siege of the British-held Toulon during the French Revolutionary War, as well as protecting the Revolutionary Government from French citizens by turning artillery on them in Paris, Napoleon went on to lead French armies to a series of overwhelming successes in North Italy, forcing Austria into a one-sided peace. Proclaiming himself emperor in 1804, he kicked off the Napoleonic Wars by invading the rest of Europe with armies several hundred thousand strong and scoring a string of unprecedented victories at Ulm and Austerlitz, literally annihilating the enemy armies, allowing him to conquer, coerce and administer most of Europe, except Britain, by 1812.
Pros: Aggressive tactics and clarity of campaign-strategy, revolutionized previously static warfare by striking from unforeseen flanks and directions. Expert at inflicting maximum losses on enemy.
Cons: Too ambitious, would not contemplate defeat in Spain and too arrogant in his march on Russia which proved his downfall.
4 Robert Lee [1807-1870] Lackluster as commander of Confederate forces in West Virginia, Lee proved himself an aggressive offensive general with the double gift of not neglecting defensive works when he assumed command of the Northern Army, fortifying Richmond while harrying the Union army out of Virginia in a series of devastating Confederate victories, followed by a bold invasion of Maryland and a stubborn stand against numerous Union offensives that literally bled the Union dry of manpower, forcing Lincoln to execute the emancipation. When the Union offensive renewed in mid 1862, Lee proved himself capable of operating offensively on multiple points by striking at his enemies flanks in quick succession which led to the victories at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Another invasion of the North ended only with Lee’s famous defeat at Gettysburg when his by now successful offensive pushes proved disastrous against the well entrenched Union army in 1863.
Pros: Expert at deploying inferior resources against superior opponents by the use of bold and aggressive moves, such as his invasions of the North or flank attacks against multiple armies.
Cons: Too aggressive and bold from previous victories, did not adapt to advantages of entrenched defensive positions in an age of increasingly lethal firepower.
5 Helmuth von Moltke [1800-1891] Moltke gained his training in surveying and wrote an early treatise on the position and course of railways, an early sign of his strategic consideration for the use of modern technology in warfare. In 1857 he was made Chief of Staff for the Prussian army and immediately applied the modern reforms which were to make the Prussian army the best in the world, especially in its mobilization techniques which ensured strategically it was always ahead of its enemies. In 1866 Moltke put his new army to the test and led them to victory over the Austrians at Koniggratz. In 1870 when the French declared war, Moltke mobilized his army in conjunction with the new railways, and deploying Prussia’s newly mechanized artillery, and consistently out-maneuvered the French armies, culminating into the surrender of an entire French army (along with the French king) at Sedan and the siege of Paris. Within less than a year Moltke had conquered one of histories most powerful military states and created the German Empire.
Pros: Prophetic and farsighted in his use of modern reforms and technology allowing complete superiority over enemies.
Cons: Not the most distinguished field general, more a strategist than a tactician.
6 Charles XII [1682-1718] Following in the footsteps of his forebear Gustav II Adolf of Sweden, Charles XII was more a military leader than a king, so much so that he spent only his youth in Sweden, when he became king he immediately set off for war and returned only shortly before his death. When Russia, in alliance with Denmark, Saxony and Poland, invaded the Swedish Empire in the Great Northern War of 1700-21, Charles was surrounded by enemies but proved himself the quintessential offensive general and immediately knocked Denmark out of the war with a pre-emptive strike, wheeling down into Poland and defeating the Polish king (who was also Elector of Saxony) in a series of pitched battles over several years. With a solid group of seasoned Swedish crack infantry, Charles constantly surprised his enemies by launching offensives with inferior numbers in frontal attacks. Abandoning the Swedish possessions on the Baltic to the Russians, Charles immediately moved on to Saxony and knocked it out of the war without a battle, rapidly crossing Poland to finally confront the biggest threat – Russia. In a series of bold offensives with little tactical application except to move aggressively with his crack infantry against any Russian position, Charles pushed deep into the Russian Empire and came close to forcing her out of the war, but with such slim numbers of his Swedish infantry left after years of campaigning, Charles suffered his only – and most decisive – defeat at Poltava when he attacked an entrenched Russian force of 50,000 with just 14,000 Swedes, forcing him to flee into the Ottoman Empire where he remained virtually a captive until his return to Sweden and death in 1718.
Pros: Bold and aggressive, a combination which consistently demoralized his opponents and caught them off-guard.
Cons: Too vain to consider defeat, never measured the odds. Never excelled at tactics.
7 Duke of Wellington [1759-1852] Taught in the tough wars of the Indian Empire, Arthur Wellesley distinguished himself as a tactician who was consistently aware of the larger strategic picture in regards to supply and defense, in the wars against Tipu Sultan in India and the Maratha Confederation, where he led the East India Company armies to overwhelming victory in 1803. When the Napoleonic War broke out, Wellington was sent to Portugal to lead the defense of Lisbon against the invading French, where he repulsed several bloody assaults in a brilliant piece of defensive warfare that manipulated entrenched positions on ridges and bluffs, forcing the French back into Spain in 1808. Wellington took the offensive in 1809 and at the battle of Porto crossed the river in broad daylight with his entire force before the French realized, making way for his great victory at Talavera and threatening Madrid itself. In 1812 Wellington led the allied Anglo-Portugese armies in a final effort to push the French out of Spain, capturing the key fortresses of Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz in bloody assaults, representing an unusual foresight for the age in secure communications and supply bases which allowed him within the next 12 months to literally thrash the French out of Spain, especially after his victory at Salamanca where he ruthlessly exploited a small gap in the enemy lines to turn the whole army to route, leading to the capture of Madrid. In 1813 Wellington led the allied armies into France from Spain and forced the capitulation of Napoleon in conjunction with the Prussia, Russian and Austrian forces at Paris.
Pros: Combined tactical insight with strategic foresight, emphasizing communications and supplies which were the key to a sustainable offensive.
Cons: Over-cautiously defensive, which often allowed the enemy to retreat, although defeated, and fight another day.
8 Erwin Rommel [1891-1944] First and foremost a panzer commander, Rommel distinguished himself in the invasion of France leading the 7th Panzer Division who excelled in flanking attacks and surprise offensives that literally pulverized the French armies. At the battle of Arras Rommel ensured the British could not sustain their position and contributed to their evacuation at Dunkirk. From 1941-3 Rommel applied his lightning tank tactics in his command of the North African front against the British. With just one panzer division and some Italian divisions, Rommel with characteristic speed caught the British off guard and swept them out of Cyrenaica followed by the siege of Tobruk which shattered the British defensive line and by a sweeping flank movement Rommel forced them out of Libya the following month. In one offensive into Egypt he outflanked and destroyed 2/3rds of the British armour. Throughout 1942 he held off 900 British tanks with just 300 of his own, constantly outflanking and surrounding British offensive movements and forcing them back into Egypt. Despite a massive reinforcement of men, armour and supplies for the British 8th army, Rommel received little himself and had to operate in far superior circumstances. Nonetheless he fought the British to a standstill at the first battle of Al Alamein, and though the British inflicted heavy losses in the second battle, Rommel denied them an immediate breakthrough. Rommel then turned on the US II corps and defeated them in 1943 at Kasserine Pass, though his position was ultimately doomed, he kept up a fighting retreat until the end.
Pros: Brilliant modern warfare general, embracing speed and armour.
Cons: Too risky, launched offensives with inadequate resources and poor back-up plans.
9 Prince Eugene of Savoy [1663-1736] Eugene was Marlborough’s military ally, and though he shared much of the British general’s success, especially at Blenheim where he commanded the right flank under the Emperor, he nonetheless possesses a breath-taking military career of his own. He grew up in the Austro-Ottoman wars of the 1680-90s, where he distinguished himself under the Imperial general Baden as a brilliant cavalry tactician, and then as Imperial general himself, shattering the Ottoman army at Zenta and killing 30,000 turks. On the outbreak of the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701, Eugene was given the supreme command in Italy and out-maneuvering the French armies, scored critical victories at Carpi and Chiari, and in a bold raid, captured the French commander-in-chief in his bed with a lightning raid into the French camp. Joining up with Marlborough in 1704, Eugene broke the French left flank and put his cavalry to such good use that only a small portion of the 50,000 strong enemy escaped. In 1706 Eugene returned to Italy and crushed the French at Turin, finally forcing them out of Italy. By 1708 Eugene once again joined his imperial army with Marlborough’s British one to thrash the French at Oudenarde in the Low Countries, using his bold cavalry flanking strikes to turn and break the enemy’s lines, a tactic he repeated in the following bloody victory at Malplaquet. By 1710, Eugene and his British ally had cleared the French armies from Europe and sent them reeling back into the borders of France. While Marlborough’s success and fame ended in 1715, Eugene went on to greater success with his cavalry flank attacks in the wars against the Turks over the next decade. In one instance, he moved against an Ottoman army twice his size and shattered their flank with his characteristically well-placed cavalry attack, killing over 40,000 turks. With Eugene’s conquest of Belgrade in 1717, much of the previously Ottoman-owned Balkans fell into Imperial hands.
Pros: Exceptional energy and expert cavalry tactician.
Cons: Rarely challenged by circumstance, usually had superior troop numbers or allied assistance.
I end on an ominous number: 9. Perhaps someone else can add the tenth? Please criticize the list, and for godsake try and prove me wrong on points made. Let’s have some fun! But either way, name your best Modern General.
We'll start with that most interesting of topics, The Best General of the Modern Era - so roughly 1700 - 2000. Not in any order, that is for you to decide perhaps!
1 The Duke of Marlborough [1650-1722] Perhaps Britain's greatest general, despite having pro-Jacobite tendencies, led the allied armies of England and the Netherlands against the sweeping military juggernaught that was Louis XIV's France, mostly in the War of the Spanish Succession, when Louis was poised to run over all of Europe. Scored the staggering success of Blenheim over the Franco-Bavarian, shattering France's hitherto aura of invincibility, killing over 30,000 of the enemy, saved the Empire and forced the French back into their own borders. Followed by a string of other victories that led to French defeat by 1715.
Pros: Lightning marches and pitched battles in an age of static warfare and sieges. Master of strategy, ie 500 mile march to the Danube to surprise the French armies.
Cons: Too political which ended in his downfall.
2 George Washington [1732-1799] Washington's military career was forged in the Seven Years War when the British fought the French, mainly in North America. Washington commanded detachments of Virginian militia, but suffered notable defeats before resigning his commission. He re-emerged in 1775 to lead the continental rebel army against the British, suffering defeat first by Howe's offensives in New York, but then surprising British detachments in the Jerseys and on the Hudson, forcing the British armies on the defensive after they took Philadelphia, directing the victory over a British army at Saratoga, and personally commanding the trap that caught Cornwallis at Yorktown and ended British military operations in the colonies.
Pros: A master of keeping a ragged, under-provisioned army of militia together long enough to turn the tide in a war of attrition. Good defensive strategist.
Cons: Not a great tactician, suffered far more defeats than victories.
3 Napoleon Bonaparte [1769–1821] Rising to prominence at the French siege of the British-held Toulon during the French Revolutionary War, as well as protecting the Revolutionary Government from French citizens by turning artillery on them in Paris, Napoleon went on to lead French armies to a series of overwhelming successes in North Italy, forcing Austria into a one-sided peace. Proclaiming himself emperor in 1804, he kicked off the Napoleonic Wars by invading the rest of Europe with armies several hundred thousand strong and scoring a string of unprecedented victories at Ulm and Austerlitz, literally annihilating the enemy armies, allowing him to conquer, coerce and administer most of Europe, except Britain, by 1812.
Pros: Aggressive tactics and clarity of campaign-strategy, revolutionized previously static warfare by striking from unforeseen flanks and directions. Expert at inflicting maximum losses on enemy.
Cons: Too ambitious, would not contemplate defeat in Spain and too arrogant in his march on Russia which proved his downfall.
4 Robert Lee [1807-1870] Lackluster as commander of Confederate forces in West Virginia, Lee proved himself an aggressive offensive general with the double gift of not neglecting defensive works when he assumed command of the Northern Army, fortifying Richmond while harrying the Union army out of Virginia in a series of devastating Confederate victories, followed by a bold invasion of Maryland and a stubborn stand against numerous Union offensives that literally bled the Union dry of manpower, forcing Lincoln to execute the emancipation. When the Union offensive renewed in mid 1862, Lee proved himself capable of operating offensively on multiple points by striking at his enemies flanks in quick succession which led to the victories at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Another invasion of the North ended only with Lee’s famous defeat at Gettysburg when his by now successful offensive pushes proved disastrous against the well entrenched Union army in 1863.
Pros: Expert at deploying inferior resources against superior opponents by the use of bold and aggressive moves, such as his invasions of the North or flank attacks against multiple armies.
Cons: Too aggressive and bold from previous victories, did not adapt to advantages of entrenched defensive positions in an age of increasingly lethal firepower.
5 Helmuth von Moltke [1800-1891] Moltke gained his training in surveying and wrote an early treatise on the position and course of railways, an early sign of his strategic consideration for the use of modern technology in warfare. In 1857 he was made Chief of Staff for the Prussian army and immediately applied the modern reforms which were to make the Prussian army the best in the world, especially in its mobilization techniques which ensured strategically it was always ahead of its enemies. In 1866 Moltke put his new army to the test and led them to victory over the Austrians at Koniggratz. In 1870 when the French declared war, Moltke mobilized his army in conjunction with the new railways, and deploying Prussia’s newly mechanized artillery, and consistently out-maneuvered the French armies, culminating into the surrender of an entire French army (along with the French king) at Sedan and the siege of Paris. Within less than a year Moltke had conquered one of histories most powerful military states and created the German Empire.
Pros: Prophetic and farsighted in his use of modern reforms and technology allowing complete superiority over enemies.
Cons: Not the most distinguished field general, more a strategist than a tactician.
6 Charles XII [1682-1718] Following in the footsteps of his forebear Gustav II Adolf of Sweden, Charles XII was more a military leader than a king, so much so that he spent only his youth in Sweden, when he became king he immediately set off for war and returned only shortly before his death. When Russia, in alliance with Denmark, Saxony and Poland, invaded the Swedish Empire in the Great Northern War of 1700-21, Charles was surrounded by enemies but proved himself the quintessential offensive general and immediately knocked Denmark out of the war with a pre-emptive strike, wheeling down into Poland and defeating the Polish king (who was also Elector of Saxony) in a series of pitched battles over several years. With a solid group of seasoned Swedish crack infantry, Charles constantly surprised his enemies by launching offensives with inferior numbers in frontal attacks. Abandoning the Swedish possessions on the Baltic to the Russians, Charles immediately moved on to Saxony and knocked it out of the war without a battle, rapidly crossing Poland to finally confront the biggest threat – Russia. In a series of bold offensives with little tactical application except to move aggressively with his crack infantry against any Russian position, Charles pushed deep into the Russian Empire and came close to forcing her out of the war, but with such slim numbers of his Swedish infantry left after years of campaigning, Charles suffered his only – and most decisive – defeat at Poltava when he attacked an entrenched Russian force of 50,000 with just 14,000 Swedes, forcing him to flee into the Ottoman Empire where he remained virtually a captive until his return to Sweden and death in 1718.
Pros: Bold and aggressive, a combination which consistently demoralized his opponents and caught them off-guard.
Cons: Too vain to consider defeat, never measured the odds. Never excelled at tactics.
7 Duke of Wellington [1759-1852] Taught in the tough wars of the Indian Empire, Arthur Wellesley distinguished himself as a tactician who was consistently aware of the larger strategic picture in regards to supply and defense, in the wars against Tipu Sultan in India and the Maratha Confederation, where he led the East India Company armies to overwhelming victory in 1803. When the Napoleonic War broke out, Wellington was sent to Portugal to lead the defense of Lisbon against the invading French, where he repulsed several bloody assaults in a brilliant piece of defensive warfare that manipulated entrenched positions on ridges and bluffs, forcing the French back into Spain in 1808. Wellington took the offensive in 1809 and at the battle of Porto crossed the river in broad daylight with his entire force before the French realized, making way for his great victory at Talavera and threatening Madrid itself. In 1812 Wellington led the allied Anglo-Portugese armies in a final effort to push the French out of Spain, capturing the key fortresses of Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz in bloody assaults, representing an unusual foresight for the age in secure communications and supply bases which allowed him within the next 12 months to literally thrash the French out of Spain, especially after his victory at Salamanca where he ruthlessly exploited a small gap in the enemy lines to turn the whole army to route, leading to the capture of Madrid. In 1813 Wellington led the allied armies into France from Spain and forced the capitulation of Napoleon in conjunction with the Prussia, Russian and Austrian forces at Paris.
Pros: Combined tactical insight with strategic foresight, emphasizing communications and supplies which were the key to a sustainable offensive.
Cons: Over-cautiously defensive, which often allowed the enemy to retreat, although defeated, and fight another day.
8 Erwin Rommel [1891-1944] First and foremost a panzer commander, Rommel distinguished himself in the invasion of France leading the 7th Panzer Division who excelled in flanking attacks and surprise offensives that literally pulverized the French armies. At the battle of Arras Rommel ensured the British could not sustain their position and contributed to their evacuation at Dunkirk. From 1941-3 Rommel applied his lightning tank tactics in his command of the North African front against the British. With just one panzer division and some Italian divisions, Rommel with characteristic speed caught the British off guard and swept them out of Cyrenaica followed by the siege of Tobruk which shattered the British defensive line and by a sweeping flank movement Rommel forced them out of Libya the following month. In one offensive into Egypt he outflanked and destroyed 2/3rds of the British armour. Throughout 1942 he held off 900 British tanks with just 300 of his own, constantly outflanking and surrounding British offensive movements and forcing them back into Egypt. Despite a massive reinforcement of men, armour and supplies for the British 8th army, Rommel received little himself and had to operate in far superior circumstances. Nonetheless he fought the British to a standstill at the first battle of Al Alamein, and though the British inflicted heavy losses in the second battle, Rommel denied them an immediate breakthrough. Rommel then turned on the US II corps and defeated them in 1943 at Kasserine Pass, though his position was ultimately doomed, he kept up a fighting retreat until the end.
Pros: Brilliant modern warfare general, embracing speed and armour.
Cons: Too risky, launched offensives with inadequate resources and poor back-up plans.
9 Prince Eugene of Savoy [1663-1736] Eugene was Marlborough’s military ally, and though he shared much of the British general’s success, especially at Blenheim where he commanded the right flank under the Emperor, he nonetheless possesses a breath-taking military career of his own. He grew up in the Austro-Ottoman wars of the 1680-90s, where he distinguished himself under the Imperial general Baden as a brilliant cavalry tactician, and then as Imperial general himself, shattering the Ottoman army at Zenta and killing 30,000 turks. On the outbreak of the War of the Spanish Succession in 1701, Eugene was given the supreme command in Italy and out-maneuvering the French armies, scored critical victories at Carpi and Chiari, and in a bold raid, captured the French commander-in-chief in his bed with a lightning raid into the French camp. Joining up with Marlborough in 1704, Eugene broke the French left flank and put his cavalry to such good use that only a small portion of the 50,000 strong enemy escaped. In 1706 Eugene returned to Italy and crushed the French at Turin, finally forcing them out of Italy. By 1708 Eugene once again joined his imperial army with Marlborough’s British one to thrash the French at Oudenarde in the Low Countries, using his bold cavalry flanking strikes to turn and break the enemy’s lines, a tactic he repeated in the following bloody victory at Malplaquet. By 1710, Eugene and his British ally had cleared the French armies from Europe and sent them reeling back into the borders of France. While Marlborough’s success and fame ended in 1715, Eugene went on to greater success with his cavalry flank attacks in the wars against the Turks over the next decade. In one instance, he moved against an Ottoman army twice his size and shattered their flank with his characteristically well-placed cavalry attack, killing over 40,000 turks. With Eugene’s conquest of Belgrade in 1717, much of the previously Ottoman-owned Balkans fell into Imperial hands.
Pros: Exceptional energy and expert cavalry tactician.
Cons: Rarely challenged by circumstance, usually had superior troop numbers or allied assistance.
I end on an ominous number: 9. Perhaps someone else can add the tenth? Please criticize the list, and for godsake try and prove me wrong on points made. Let’s have some fun! But either way, name your best Modern General.