Who Was the Greatest Commander to Face the British?

[svalbard]

Originally Posted by paranoid marvin

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.

Wellington leading his forces to victoiry over the French through a foothold in Portugal - 'The Few' defending the skies of England against Goering's all-conquering Luftwaffe. Bobby Moore leading his team to glory.. ok I'm getting carried away now, but you know what I mean.

Having said that , we would probably not have won the Battle of Britain if it hadn't been for pilots from occupied territories like Poland; it's unlikely that we would have forced the French back if it hadn't been for his 'Spanish ulcer' with the brave Spanish guerillas, Waterloo would have been Napoleon's greatest triumph if it hadn't been for Blucher's intervention at the 11th hour, and without the intervention of the US it's unlikely that D-Day would ever have occurred.

But I digress... All of the British defeats (since we became British) have been overseas. Yes Washington was a determined leader, but he had the Atlantic on his side. Napoleon was a great tachtician and would have been a tremendous threat to the British - if he had ever faced them on equal terms; he certainly ran rings with them away from the battle field.

The Zulu nation has to be admired for their bravery in several successful encounters with the British, however the greatest military leader (although it was admittedly against the English not the British) was the Dutch admiral De Ruyter. at a time when we 'ruled the waves' the Dutchman was a man to be feared when he took to the sea.

You might not also have won many a battle in the Napoleonic era without Welsh, Scottish and Irish troops. You say Britain, yet, a lot of the men fighting in the Empire's army did it because they were left with no choice through economic/political reasons. England has always talked up this British 'never say die attitude'. This is complete 'b......s' to be honest. It is all part of the myth building exercise.

I voted for the Afghani bloke.

[Vertigo]

It seems they have hit some problems on the Nationa Army Museum website. Over the weekend Ataturk jumped from less than a hundred votes to 7,887 (the next contender only has 777 votes). Over the same period comments on Ataturk in the voting went from 3 or 4 up to 43 - all with suspiciously Turkish sounding names! Methinks they now have a bit of a problem on their hands with how to hande this fairly.

Unfortunately we have had to suspend the voting temporarily due to irregular activity over the weekend. We are currently reviewing the situation and hope to be back up and running soon.

[Geddon's Wall]

My vote would go to Rommel. I believe that he was badly let down by the German High command,

[alchemist]

Originally Posted by Vertigo

It seems they have hit some problems on the Nationa Army Museum website. Over the weekend Ataturk jumped from less than a hundred votes to 7,887 (the next contender only has 777 votes). Over the same period comments on Ataturk in the voting went from 3 or 4 up to 43 - all with suspiciously Turkish sounding names! Methinks they now have a bit of a problem on their hands with how to hande this fairly.

Obviously, the person who orchestrated this campaign should now be on the list.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by alchemist

Obviously, the person who orchestrated this campaign should now be on the list.

Very funny, Alchemist.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by paranoid marvin

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.

Wellington leading his forces to victoiry over the French through a foothold in Portugal - 'The Few' defending the skies of England against Goering's all-conquering Luftwaffe. Bobby Moore leading his team to glory.. ok I'm getting carried away now, but you know what I mean.

Having said that , we would probably not have won the Battle of Britain if it hadn't been for pilots from occupied territories like Poland; it's unlikely that we would have forced the French back if it hadn't been for his 'Spanish ulcer' with the brave Spanish guerillas, Waterloo would have been Napoleon's greatest triumph if it hadn't been for Blucher's intervention at the 11th hour, and without the intervention of the US it's unlikely that D-Day would ever have occurred.

But I digress... All of the British defeats (since we became British) have been overseas. Yes Washington was a determined leader, but he had the Atlantic on his side. Napoleon was a great tachtician and would have been a tremendous threat to the British - if he had ever faced them on equal terms; he certainly ran rings with them away from the battle field.

The Zulu nation has to be admired for their bravery in several successful encounters with the British, however the greatest military leader (although it was admittedly against the English not the British) was the Dutch admiral De Ruyter. at a time when we 'ruled the waves' the Dutchman was a man to be feared when he took to the sea.

Washington is overrated because of his historical importance for the american war. Not like there werent a huge Alantic in the way. Sometimes it sounds like he singlehandly beat the British empire in Europe.

Napoleon is impressive how he went from nobody to a conquerer on his military ability. France wasnt rich,powerful like the british Empire. You cant compare Wellington to what he did if you arent a patriot english/brit. As you said Napoleon didnt fight the British on equal terms.

[Bowler1]

I was very surprised to see Rommel do as well as he has on the survey against Napoleon.

Napoleon not just fought the British out of Europe he also attempted to blockade the country into submission. Napoleon's only problem was his lack of understanding of how warfare was fought on the seas, which the British understood only too well. This is why Nelsons victory was so important as it broke the French grip on the seas and allowed the British nation to survive. It was only after his Russian failures and his lost armies that the British were finally able to defeat Napoleon, and yet he still attempted a Rocky style come back.

Rommel was a great general - Napoleon was a great general/statesman.
Napoleon failed because of his greed, he had Europe as his and wanted Russia!

Rommel, all he did was run round a desert - with a corps - Napoleon commanded nations and conquered nations. Britian was lucky to escape - Rommel was never a danger to the whole country, not even close.

[Bowler1]

Never mind our voting, go check out the real survey.

Makes me proud to be Irish, don't understand the results, but still proud.

[J-Sun]

Originally Posted by Bowler1

Napoleon's only problem was his lack of understanding of how warfare was fought on the seas, which the British understood only too well.[...]It was only after his Russian failures and his lost armies that the British were finally able to defeat Napoleon

I think what you say is precisely part of why some people have Rommel higher - Napoleon had virtually everything and still managed to squander it all, implying an underlying lack of skill. Rommel understood precisely what to do in all situations and sometimes managed it even with insufficient force. The Emperor of All Europe couldn't defeat England but a mere tank commander who had to deal with his own incompetent Emperor of All Europe often did defeat England in what sphere he had some slight control over.

But I'll definitely grant that, regardless, the whole list is sort of apples and oranges.

[Connavar]

Napoleon is also the enemy of europe, even alot of french hate him. Rommel is the the martyr, romantic commander who wasnt a Nazi, nice to his enemies prisoners and was killed due to Naziz.

People underrate Napoleon like he could have on his own changed the naval strength of the British. He got too much of an ego fighting Russian winter, Brit, the rest of europe at the same time.

[Bowler1]

Very much apples and oranges ok, which will give us plenty of fruit to chuck at each other and have some fun in the process!

I accept Rommel shows great character while Napoleon shows the poor side of human nature. That was not the question! Napoleon acheived by feat of arms a great deal. The fact that he lost it all does not make his acheivements any less great. Rommel also lost to the British.

Both are very similiar but with two differences, scale and likability.

[Arkose]

Originally Posted by Connavar

Washington is overrated because of his historical importance for the american war. Not like there werent a huge Alantic in the way. Sometimes it sounds like he singlehandly beat the British empire in Europe.

Napoleon is impressive how he went from nobody to a conquerer on his military ability. France wasnt rich,powerful like the british Empire. You cant compare Wellington to what he did if you arent a patriot english/brit. As you said Napoleon didnt fight the British on equal terms.

I would like to know who was less rich and powerful between America and French at the time. I also wonder about military strength and financial backing. The British was one army away from crushing the whole thing.

I just think it is interesting that you disregard Washington because of an ocean, and hold up Napoleon for the exact things America and Washington had to do.

[Bowler1]

Washington bashed farmers into a working army that was able to take on the British army, he acheived a great feat of arms and is a great commander.

I really think my Napoleon was a much better commander and like Washington, was able to move to the next level and operate as a statesman. The USA at the time was not a great power, not an Empire. France rose to rule all of Europe when the world was Europe. No-one votes for this frenchy because he is not popular, the baddie in history.

[Peter Graham]

You might not also have won many a battle in the Napoleonic era without Welsh, Scottish and Irish troops.

Without wishing to get political, "you" in the context of the OP is "British" rather than "English" and, as such, the contribution of the Welsh and the Scottish is surely implicit. But i agree that no-one could or should underestimate the contribution of the Irish, whether or not any particular Irish person considers themselves to be British.

England has always talked up this British 'never say die attitude'. This is complete 'b......s' to be honest. It is all part of the myth building exercise.

In all fairness, it is equally a part of Scottish or Welsh or even Irish myth building. In fact, it is pretty much universal.

My vote - although his name is not on the list - is for Edwin of Deira. In a period of twenty years, he destroyed the British kingdoms north of the Humber and thereby ensured that those areas - which were ultimately the industrial powerhouse behind empire and without which Britain would not have achieved what it did* - were firmly part of England. "British" may have meant something a bit different back then, but the nation state that became Britain was undoubtedly defined during the Dark Ages.

Regards,

Peter

* For better or for worse

[Peter Graham]

Whilst I'm on the subject, let's sort out this confusion between England and Britain that seems to exist in the minds of some posters.

England - a country which ceased to exist as a separate political unit in 1707.

British Isles - a geographical term referring to the physical landmasses which today make up Great Britain and Ireland.

Great* Britain - often shortened to "Britain" or (more accurately) the "UK", but more properly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - the modern, political unit consisting of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Rommel and his Nazi pals fought Great Britain (not just England).

Napoleon fought the British (not just the English).

In both cases, the British had help from allies.

Wellington was Irish - although he didn't like being reminded of the fact.

These distinctions are important - no-one conflates USA with North America or Norway with Scandinavia.

Regards,

Peter

* Merely a reference to size, not perceived might or general splendidness, despite what the Daily Hatemail seems to believe. "Less Britain" is now Brittany in France.