IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote:

Lee, Stonewall Jackson are up there but both had some major flaws. But there is no way Napoleon isn't #1 in this list.

His track record for winning wars and battles wasn't exactly flawless though was it?

Though it pains me to say it, Oliver Cromwell was a pretty good general.

Even though he was a complete bastard.

Clarino wrote:

Though it pains me to say it, Oliver Cromwell was a pretty good general. Even though he was a complete bastard.

He wasn't a complete bastard. God help England and the world if he hadn't won the Civil War for Parliament....

Mr.Bill wrote:

Heinz Guderian pretty much changed everything..

When I saw this thread, I was thinking the same thing. He did so much to change the face of modern warfare, but gets little to no recognition. Highly underrated, imo.

Snake wrote:

Mr.Bill wrote: Heinz Guderian pretty much changed everything.. When I saw this thread, I was thinking the same thing. He did so much to change the face of modern warfare, but gets little to no recognition. Highly underrated, imo.

No, what he did was take the ideas on mechanised warfare from JFC Fuller, Basil Liddel-Hart and ironically, Charles de Gaulle, and employ them against the nations of those who came up with them.... Those three are the ones who don't get the enough of the recognition IMHO.... Although whether giving your enemy the ideas with which to kick your ass with greatest effect is worthy of recognition as such is probably debatable....

thundertaker wrote:

Clarino wrote: Though it pains me to say it, Oliver Cromwell was a pretty good general. Even though he was a complete bastard. He wasn't a complete bastard. God help England and the world if he hadn't won the Civil War for Parliament....

Why do you say that?

thundertaker wrote:

Snake wrote: Mr.Bill wrote: Heinz Guderian pretty much changed everything.. When I saw this thread, I was thinking the same thing. He did so much to change the face of modern warfare, but gets little to no recognition. Highly underrated, imo. No, what he did was take the ideas on mechanised warfare from JFC Fuller, Basil Liddel-Hart and ironically, Charles de Gaulle, and employ them against the nations of those who came up with them.... Those three are the ones who don't get the enough of the recognition IMHO.... Although whether giving your enemy the ideas with which to kick your ass with greatest effect is worthy of recognition as such is probably debatable....

Yes, much of the Lightening War/Mechanized Warfare concept was Fuller's, the problem with giving him more credit was that the British Military didn't take his idea and run with it. On the other hand the German's did use Gurderian's ideas, and used them with deadly efficiency.

Thus, IMO, it was Gurderian who changed how modern warfare was fought.

Clarino wrote:

thundertaker wrote: Clarino wrote: Though it pains me to say it, Oliver Cromwell was a pretty good general. Even though he was a complete bastard. He wasn't a complete bastard. God help England and the world if he hadn't won the Civil War for Parliament.... Why do you say that?

We'd have gone down the path of monarchical absolutism like most of the rest of Europe at that time. And without an example to set to the rest of the world in limited and representative government and individual rights, its debatable whether another revolution further along the line to change this state of affairs could have happened the way the French Revolution did....

Heinz Guderian or Rommel, Guderian for the Blitzkrieg, and Rommel for his use of tanks

Rommel was good at deception, placement, and movement, but he became too obsessed with taking Tobruk. Rommels' reputation had more to do with his popularity than his actual military career.

Snake wrote:

Rommel was good at deception, placement, and movement, but he became too obsessed with taking Tobruk. Rommels' reputation had more to do with his popularity than his actual military career.

Tobruk was vital for the Axis campaign though. It was a major port and leaving it in the hands of the British and Commonwealth forces meant that his supply lines in the rear would be at risk if he advanced any further towards the Suez Canal, as well as severely overstretched for the fact that he didn't have access to the port for his own forces....

He was unable to take it, because the British and allied forces kept kicking his ass.

Snake wrote:

He was unable to take it, because the British and allied forces kept kicking his ass.

Considering the fortifications at Tobruk, concentration of artillery and AA, the fact that the besiegers barely outnumbered the defenders and allied naval superiority, Rommel was already fighting a battle were the odds were against him....

Don't forget the Brits were also reading Rommel's mail.

Because the Brits were breaking the Enigma Code and then sinking most of Rommel's supply ships, by the time The Afrika Corps surrendered 80% of their mechanized vehicles were captured Allied equipment..

Alexander the Great is most likely the greatest general of all time. In a decade he had carved out a vast empire, was the victor of numerous battles, and had destroyed the Persian Empire. His use of the phalanx was skilled, he won most of his battles behind it. He fought sieges, guerrilla warfare, and pitched battles. The confidence he inspired in his men, his own grasp of battlefield strategy, and the extent of his vision all make him one of the greatest generals of all time.

Stonewall Jackson deserves a mention on the list also.

thundertaker wrote:

IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: Lee, Stonewall Jackson are up there but both had some major flaws. But there is no way Napoleon isn't #1 in this list. His track record for winning wars and battles wasn't exactly flawless though was it?

Who was flawless? Besides Alexander?

Napoleon pulled off a number of ridiculous things before the odds were finally too great. Take even just the Italian Campaign for example, or his defense of Paris right before his first fall from power. Not his best known campaigns but remarkable.

His flaws:
- Navy never performed (not really his fault)
- Went into Russia (miscalculated like so many others have)
- Egyptian campaign (goes back to the navy)
- Waterloo (brilliant campaign marred by his subordinates screwing it up)
- Eylau (bloody battle that is closest to his first "defeat")

And that is in almost 20 years of fighting. Pretty damn good when you consider his victories.

IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote:

thundertaker wrote: IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: Lee, Stonewall Jackson are up there but both had some major flaws. But there is no way Napoleon isn't #1 in this list. His track record for winning wars and battles wasn't exactly flawless though was it? Who was flawless? Besides Alexander? Napoleon pulled off a number of ridiculous things before the odds were finally too great. Take even just the Italian Campaign for example, or his defense of Paris right before his first fall from power. Not his best known campaigns but remarkable. His flaws: - Navy never performed (not really his fault) - Went into Russia (miscalculated like so many others have) - Egyptian campaign (goes back to the navy) - Waterloo (brilliant campaign marred by his subordinates screwing it up) - Eylau (bloody battle that is closest to his first "defeat") And that is in almost 20 years of fighting. Pretty damn good when you consider his victories.

His nemesis Wellington never lost a battle that I can recall...

And although Julius Caesar suffered a couple of minor tactical defeats, he always ended up on top eventually.

Napoleon's massive strategic blunder in invading Russia is quite a huge flaw that you have understated....

thundertaker wrote:

Clarino wrote: thundertaker wrote: Clarino wrote: Though it pains me to say it, Oliver Cromwell was a pretty good general. Even though he was a complete bastard. He wasn't a complete bastard. God help England and the world if he hadn't won the Civil War for Parliament.... Why do you say that? We'd have gone down the path of monarchical absolutism like most of the rest of Europe at that time. And without an example to set to the rest of the world in limited and representative government and individual rights, its debatable whether another revolution further along the line to change this state of affairs could have happened the way the French Revolution did....

I agree, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a complete bastard. He basically set himself up as a military dictator after the King was killed, and consider what he did in Ireland.

IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote:

thundertaker wrote: IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: Lee, Stonewall Jackson are up there but both had some major flaws. But there is no way Napoleon isn't #1 in this list. His track record for winning wars and battles wasn't exactly flawless though was it? Who was flawless? Besides Alexander? Napoleon pulled off a number of ridiculous things before the odds were finally too great. Take even just the Italian Campaign for example, or his defense of Paris right before his first fall from power. Not his best known campaigns but remarkable. His flaws: - Navy never performed (not really his fault) - Went into Russia (miscalculated like so many others have) - Egyptian campaign (goes back to the navy) - Waterloo (brilliant campaign marred by his subordinates screwing it up) - Eylau (bloody battle that is closest to his first "defeat") And that is in almost 20 years of fighting. Pretty damn good when you consider his victories.

You say that the failure of the French Navy to perform wasn't Napoleon's fault, but he was prominent in the creation of the Frist Republic, which killed off all the aristocrats, who made up the officers of the French Navy, so his ships were being commanded largely by overpromoted midshipmen. He has to take some responsibility for the cause that ultimately brought him to power.

Clarino wrote:

I agree, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a complete bastard. He basically set himself up as a military dictator after the King was killed, and consider what he did in Ireland.

I don't honestly believe he intended to be a military dictator. He really didn't have a choice though, because once he had killed the impossibly conniving and obstinate Charles I, it was impossible to return to harmonious relations with his heir Charles II while his father's death was unavenged, but without the Crown, the government could have no legitimacy, and so had to be ruled by a strongman backed up by an army, and Cromwell was the only one who fit the bill. Even today, the government's right to rule is 'legitimised' by the Crown. It may be somewhat less neccessary now, but in 17th Century England, Republicanism was simply not feasible without a corresponding social revolution that in spite of the radical ideas of the levellers and others, never really took place within that time frame...

As for what he did in Ireland, it was par for the course in 17th century warfare. In the case of Drogheda, the garrison refused to surrender, and under the rules of war at the time, this meant that the garrison was no-longer entitled to quarter once the besieging army was forced to take the town by storm.
As you can probably imagine, doing this would have entailed an enormous amount of risk for the attacking army, and the 'forlorn hope' or the first ones through the breech were going to almost certain death, and casualties would be enormous for those following behind them. After forcing Cromwell's soldiers to do all that because the defenders insisted on fighting till the bitter end, it seems a bit much to have expected them to be in a magnanimous or generous mood after they've just watched a load of their comrades die unneccessarily and then been forced to walk into the valley of the shadow of death themselves, especially when that army is made up of people who come from a 17th century society were public executions for often fairly trivial offences are what passes for entertainment, and so are hardly likely to have any comprehension of 21st century ideas of human rights and civilised values....

However, when Cromwell subsequently compelled the town of Clomnel to surrender after a siege which cost many Parliamentarian lives, he respected the terms of surrender and didn't take revenge, even though the garrison had been allowed to escape, which wasn't part of the deal. Cromwell adhered to the rules of war as they were at the time. He was not, contrary to popular belief, a particularly bloodthirsty or cruel soldier.
He also allowed the Jews to return to England after a 400 year absence, which somewhat belies his reputation as a religious bigot, when he was in fact extremely tolerant for his day....

Clarino wrote:

You say that the failure of the French Navy to perform wasn't Napoleon's fault, but he was prominent in the creation of the Frist Republic, which killed off all the aristocrats, who made up the officers of the French Navy, so his ships were being commanded largely by overpromoted midshipmen. He has to take some responsibility for the cause that ultimately brought him to power.

It has to be remembered that the failure of the French Navy really only means defeat in one fleet action. An action in which Nelson and Collingwood broke every exisiting rule of naval warfare to win. And one that the French had the pleasure of elements of the Spanish fleet to let them down.

The biggest problem the French had was not their commanders but the lack of sea time. The British spent the greater part of the war bottling up the French Fleet. A task even Nelson described as arduous. This lead to the sailors becoming demotivate and loss of skill sets. Best evidenced during the Battle of the Nile and Trafalgar when British gunners fired at a 2:1 rate over the French, even though the French were only arming with chain shot.

In the Indian Ocean, the French and British fleets fought a series of something like 8 fleet engagements - Each side had around 15 ships. Virtually all the battles ended in inconclusive draw, which in reality was the expected result for fleet actions of the era. Vessel construction had out stripped gunnery so it was virtuall impossible to sink the enemy with gunfire.

If Napolean had let the fleet of its leash more instead of spending years swinging at anchor, there is a chance that battles like Trafalgar would have gone the other way - depending on the Spanish, or at worst a bloody draw.