Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best General of All Time?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    Well! I suggest you start studying more, and much, much more than you did in the sixties.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Dibble201Bty View Post
    I suggest that you do some more research. Marlborough's brilliance wasn't just battlefield ones. His administrative and logistical excellence was its equal.
    I was reading and studying about Marlborough and Eugene in the late 1960s while in high school. And I still prefer Turenne as a better all-round soldier and commander.

    From The Superstrategists by John Elting, 89-91:

    'It is one of the oddities of military history that Marlborough's campaigns have received comparatively little attention. Seemingly they have been overshadowed by those of Frederick the Great (whom Marlborough would have eaten for a midmorning snack), Napoleon (who considered Marlborough an outstanding general), and the Duke of Wellington (a junior-league Marlborough). No general has had to carry such responsibilities for so long and discharged them with such grace and courtesy. His soldiers [according to JFC Fuller] noted that he 'was particularly happy in an invincible calmness of temper and serenity of mind; and had a surprising readiness of thought, even in the heat of battle.'

    'Marlborough waged ten campaigns. He took every town he besieged and won every battle he fought. He utterly broke the French army's reputation as the finest in Europe, though its troops fought gallantly and well and its generals were mostly competent...'

    Napoleon also admired Turenne. Perhaps you should study just a little more about Turenne and Prince Eugene?

    I would highly recommend two books: Giant of the Grand Siecle: The French Army 1610-1715 and The Wars of Louis XIV both by John Lynn, the author of Bayonets of the Republic.
    Last edited by Massena; 06 Aug 20, 05:41.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    I suggest that you do some more research. Marlborough's brilliance wasn't just battlefield ones. His administrative and logistical excellence was its equal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Marlborough was probably,. if not undoubtedly, the best general and commander that Great Britain ever produced. However, you cannot ignore the partnership between Marlborough and Eugene, which was a winning combination.

    Further, the French commander, Turenne, who unfortunately was killed in action before the time of Marlborough, was also a great captain-an excellent tactician and strategist who was the equal to my mind of both Marlborough and Eugene.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dibble201Bty
    replied
    The 'Anglo-French' wars: 1202 to 1815 = 600 Years War.

    And 'unbeaten' Marlborough was the best General. He smashed the worlds most powerful, respected, feared and renowned army over and over, to the extent that they became afraid to fight him in open battle and he was also successful in all his sieges where took 26 of Vauban's much-vaunted fortresses.

    All this was done with enemies soaked in intrigue in London, a wife who would be a catalyst to his downfall and an Ally who was reluctant to commit fully and thwarted all that Marlborough tried to achieve. And he also had crippling Migraine attacks. If they were anything like what I have experienced where they have even put me in hospital, then he deserves even more accolades.
    Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 04 Aug 20, 22:20.

    Leave a comment:


  • BELGRAVE
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    As I pointed out, Edward III didn't have the population or economic base to really make his gains permanent. That doesn't detract from his success on the battlefield. He certainly did better than Napoleon who lost several key battles and in the end was exiled into obscurity, his empire very short-lived.

    It should be remembered that the population of England and Wales in 1450 was about 3,000,000, while the population of France totalled 14,000,000, so it's hardly surprising that France would eventually triumph.
    Losing the Hundred-years-war was,in the long term, a blessing in disguise for England, as it practically terminated the Plantagent ambitious for recovering the lost lands within metropolitan France.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    But was he a better general than Napoleon? I don't think so and his success on the battlefield was done with very small armies on either side.
    He didn't died as a prisoner, so yes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    As I pointed out, Edward III didn't have the population or economic base to really make his gains permanent. That doesn't detract from his success on the battlefield. He certainly did better than Napoleon who lost several key battles and in the end was exiled into obscurity, his empire very short-lived.
    But was he a better general than Napoleon? I don't think so and his success on the battlefield was done with very small armies on either side.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    He began the long war with France and couldn't finish it. And his successors lost the English holdings in France and then the Wars of the Roses began, ending with Henry Tudor becoming king of England.

    The point is that the Hundred Years' War lasted far too long and was generally worthless, no matter how good a commander Edward III was. He began a war he could not finish.
    Edward III's campaign in France was very much like Hannibal's in Italy. He was supreme on the battlefield, but failed to win the war. TAG is right to state he was a tactical genius, but luck was against him.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    As I pointed out, Edward III didn't have the population or economic base to really make his gains permanent. That doesn't detract from his success on the battlefield. He certainly did better than Napoleon who lost several key battles and in the end was exiled into obscurity, his empire very short-lived.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    He couldn't know the future. Lookign at the map, the situation was good for him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    He began the long war with France and couldn't finish it. And his successors lost the English holdings in France and then the Wars of the Roses began, ending with Henry Tudor becoming king of England.

    The point is that the Hundred Years' War lasted far too long and was generally worthless, no matter how good a commander Edward III was. He began a war he could not finish.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    76 years after Edward's death...

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    In terms of fighting on a battlefield and generalship I'd say Edward III would be near the top of the list. He fought numerous battles, almost always badly outnumbered, and utterly crushed the armies facing him. He also fought a number of sea battles where he did likewise.

    You have for example Dupplin Moor where Edward was outnumbered about 10 to 1, 1500 English taking on around 15,000 Scots of which roughly 3,000 were killed along with a big chunk of the Scottish nobility present. At Halidon Hill Edward outnumbered 2 to 1 did the same thing again to the Scots.
    At Sluys, the biggest naval battle in Europe in over a century, Edward's fleet captured 166 of 190 French ships present and killed more Frenchmen than died at Agincourt, Waterloo, or Dien Bien Phu.

    Crecy was saw the massacre of French chivalry with over 1500 nobles dead.

    More impressively, in the fifty years Edward reigned he never lost a battle. His victories would have been far more lasting had he had the population and economic base to really make the most of them.
    And yet the English lost the 100 Years' War and were kicked out of France...

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    In terms of fighting on a battlefield and generalship I'd say Edward III would be near the top of the list. He fought numerous battles, almost always badly outnumbered, and utterly crushed the armies facing him. He also fought a number of sea battles where he did likewise.

    You have for example Dupplin Moor where Edward was outnumbered about 10 to 1, 1500 English taking on around 15,000 Scots of which roughly 3,000 were killed along with a big chunk of the Scottish nobility present. At Halidon Hill Edward outnumbered 2 to 1 did the same thing again to the Scots.
    At Sluys, the biggest naval battle in Europe in over a century, Edward's fleet captured 166 of 190 French ships present and killed more Frenchmen than died at Agincourt, Waterloo, or Dien Bien Phu.

    Crecy was saw the massacre of French chivalry with over 1500 nobles dead.

    More impressively, in the fifty years Edward reigned he never lost a battle. His victories would have been far more lasting had he had the population and economic base to really make the most of them.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X