Britain's Greatest General - National Army Museum (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Gazza
- Start date
The final five and their advocates:
The Duke of Wellington - Peter Snow – TV presenter, military historian, who recently published a book To War with Wellington.
Douglas Haig – Dr. William Philpott of the Department of War Studies at King’s College London
Oliver Cromwell – Dr. Andrew Hopper University of Leicester who has written considerably on the ECW
The Duke of Marlborough - James Falkner ex-British army and military historian who has published numerous books on the Duke
William Slim - Robert Lyman ex-British army and military historian who has written several books on the war in the East and on Slim (a new Osprey book is due in 2011)
I am looking forward to this next week as there is a great panel – should be very interesting.
Brad – I will check when I go whether there is a podcast etc
Cheers
Gazza
The Duke of Wellington - Peter Snow – TV presenter, military historian, who recently published a book To War with Wellington.
Douglas Haig – Dr. William Philpott of the Department of War Studies at King’s College London
Oliver Cromwell – Dr. Andrew Hopper University of Leicester who has written considerably on the ECW
The Duke of Marlborough - James Falkner ex-British army and military historian who has published numerous books on the Duke
William Slim - Robert Lyman ex-British army and military historian who has written several books on the war in the East and on Slim (a new Osprey book is due in 2011)
I am looking forward to this next week as there is a great panel – should be very interesting.
Brad – I will check when I go whether there is a podcast etc
Cheers
Gazza
That is because it was a tie between Wellington and Slim :smile2::smile2:
The votes on the day meant the five were ranked as follows:
1. Wellington and Slim
3. Marlborough
4. Haig
5. Cromwell
One Haig supporter became very bombastic at the announcement and started shouting down the National Army Museum (NAM) host; arguing that Haig should have won :rolleyes2:
It was then that it became something out of Black Adder...
Security had to be called – but unlike most public museums where the security are not up to much the NAM generally employ ... ex-Gurkhas ^&grin^&grin
The bombastic Haig supporter then became a quiet Donkey when confronted by Lions ^&grin^&grin
Brad – The lectures were filmed and will be on the British Forces Broadcasting Service and hopefully at some point on the NAM website as a podcast. I’ll post some of the interesting comments tomorrow
So all in all a good day and got home to see my WB’s AZW Collector Club figure has arrived earlier than expected
Gazza
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,368
Wellington and Slim won. Sanity and good sense won out.:smile2:
Rob
Four Star General
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 26,622
I believe it's part of Haig's rehabilitation in the public eye Mitch. Back in the 90's he wouldn't have made the top twenty, I think it's a sign the Public have looked at both sides of the story. Good Wellington and Slim
Rob
QUOTE=Mitch;384278]Not bad for Haig so abused to come fourth
Mitch[/QUOTE]
Rob
QUOTE=Mitch;384278]Not bad for Haig so abused to come fourth
Mitch[/QUOTE]
The debate was held in the Art Gallery room which is a beautiful room.
This magnificent painting by Charles Fripp rests there – interestingly, it was presented to the National Army Museum (NAM) by the 21 SAS.
The NAM spoke person stated that a reason for launching the contest was to raise the profile of the less known Generals such as Roberts and Sale. He said that they had always known who the Top 5 were likely to be including of course, Monty ... oops, they were not quite expecting that outcome.
Below is a summary of the main points that were made of the 5 Generals, starting with Cromwell.
Oliver Cromwell
Started his military career at 43; self taught unlike others who were schooled in military matters
In 8 years went from Captain of Horse to supreme Commander
An aggressive cavalry commander; pivotal in the success of Marston Moor and Naseby.
Key skill was reading terrain; advised Fairfax at Naseby; even used a series of rabbit warrens to protect his cavalry flank from attack (Being able to read the terrain became less of a feature with generals in 20th Century)
Battle of Preston defeated a Scottish / Royalist force twice his size; at Battle of Dunbar he destroyed the Scottish force; in both he lost few men
Ireland is where Cromwell is most controversial because of massacres at sieges of Drogheda and Wexford; but argued that myth that Drogheda was Irish as English Royalist town but concedes that lost control at Wexford. Argued defeated Irish more than any other because emphasis on logistics.
Political dimension; promoted officers based on merit not class; he cared for his soldiers; had excellent subordinates such a Monke.
He allowed his troops to campaign for rights we do not even have today – such an elected House of Lords.
Legacy of Cromwell – Cromwell created the first standing army but not NMA; the oldest regiment in the British Army and made Britain feared in Europe
In WWII, on average every 2 months his name and his speeches was invoked in speeches in parliament; Cromwell was the codeword to UK forces in WWII that the German invasion was imminent; Cromwell stood for God, unbeaten and unshaken.
More to follow...
This magnificent painting by Charles Fripp rests there – interestingly, it was presented to the National Army Museum (NAM) by the 21 SAS.
The NAM spoke person stated that a reason for launching the contest was to raise the profile of the less known Generals such as Roberts and Sale. He said that they had always known who the Top 5 were likely to be including of course, Monty ... oops, they were not quite expecting that outcome.
Below is a summary of the main points that were made of the 5 Generals, starting with Cromwell.
Oliver Cromwell
Started his military career at 43; self taught unlike others who were schooled in military matters
In 8 years went from Captain of Horse to supreme Commander
An aggressive cavalry commander; pivotal in the success of Marston Moor and Naseby.
Key skill was reading terrain; advised Fairfax at Naseby; even used a series of rabbit warrens to protect his cavalry flank from attack (Being able to read the terrain became less of a feature with generals in 20th Century)
Battle of Preston defeated a Scottish / Royalist force twice his size; at Battle of Dunbar he destroyed the Scottish force; in both he lost few men
Ireland is where Cromwell is most controversial because of massacres at sieges of Drogheda and Wexford; but argued that myth that Drogheda was Irish as English Royalist town but concedes that lost control at Wexford. Argued defeated Irish more than any other because emphasis on logistics.
Political dimension; promoted officers based on merit not class; he cared for his soldiers; had excellent subordinates such a Monke.
He allowed his troops to campaign for rights we do not even have today – such an elected House of Lords.
Legacy of Cromwell – Cromwell created the first standing army but not NMA; the oldest regiment in the British Army and made Britain feared in Europe
In WWII, on average every 2 months his name and his speeches was invoked in speeches in parliament; Cromwell was the codeword to UK forces in WWII that the German invasion was imminent; Cromwell stood for God, unbeaten and unshaken.
More to follow...
Duke of Marlborough
France was the continents super power and between 1704-1709 Marlborough defeated the leading military generals of the day - The French Marshalls in every battle he fought and 26 sieges.
Ensured the Grand Alliance of GB, Netherlands and Austria remained intact because his Allies trusted him
Strategically his march to the Mosselle was a masterstroke as he outmaneuvered the French; maintained his logistics during the 250mile march and then at the Battle of Blenheim destroyed the French army. 10,000 prisoners were taken including Tallard
Tactically at the Battle of Ramillies he realised the French arc formation was a weakness; he attacked the right flank of Taviers, pinned the French on their left flank; used his shorter lines to outmaneuver the French; and like Wellington used ridges (to move troops without the enemy knowing); a third of the French army some 20,000 men were killed.
He was referred to fondly as ‘Corporal John’ by his troops; who had confidence in him
‘He never rode off a field he lost, never sat down in front of a town he did not take’
Encouraged lighter artillery so increased mobility; platoon firing
Ensured GB would be regarded now as a World Power; also indirectly saw GB established as a financial centre because concept of ‘credit’ ensured war could be waged
Wellington
Presented by Peter Snow who is a great presenter and persuasive historian
Destroyed one of the greatest threats to GB and Europe; undermined Napoleon in Europe and then delivered the knock out blow
Men had confidence in him because he would win battles
Battle of Assaye demonstrated his sense of the battleground as he outmaneuvered the Mahrattas and his force of 7,000 beat a force of 200,000 (his numbers)
Battle of Vimeiro saw him deploy GB troops in line to defeat French columns and position them below ridge line. He redeployed his entire force in 2 hours.
He believed in hearts and minds and cultivated politicians in Peninsula whilst also ensuring his army did not plunder and steal.
Battle of Oporto he used barges to move his forces and attacked before breakfast catching the French off guard; at Salamanca he acted decisively after Marmont’s deployment became over stretched and at Vitoria launched 4 simultaneous attacks to secure victory.
At Waterloo he combined experienced troops with in experienced Allies; realized the importance to hold Hougoumont; used the ridge to conceal troops and ensured that GB fired in line into French columns.
But he was a Conservative and was not really a reformer of the army
France was the continents super power and between 1704-1709 Marlborough defeated the leading military generals of the day - The French Marshalls in every battle he fought and 26 sieges.
Ensured the Grand Alliance of GB, Netherlands and Austria remained intact because his Allies trusted him
Strategically his march to the Mosselle was a masterstroke as he outmaneuvered the French; maintained his logistics during the 250mile march and then at the Battle of Blenheim destroyed the French army. 10,000 prisoners were taken including Tallard
Tactically at the Battle of Ramillies he realised the French arc formation was a weakness; he attacked the right flank of Taviers, pinned the French on their left flank; used his shorter lines to outmaneuver the French; and like Wellington used ridges (to move troops without the enemy knowing); a third of the French army some 20,000 men were killed.
He was referred to fondly as ‘Corporal John’ by his troops; who had confidence in him
‘He never rode off a field he lost, never sat down in front of a town he did not take’
Encouraged lighter artillery so increased mobility; platoon firing
Ensured GB would be regarded now as a World Power; also indirectly saw GB established as a financial centre because concept of ‘credit’ ensured war could be waged
Wellington
Presented by Peter Snow who is a great presenter and persuasive historian
Destroyed one of the greatest threats to GB and Europe; undermined Napoleon in Europe and then delivered the knock out blow
Men had confidence in him because he would win battles
Battle of Assaye demonstrated his sense of the battleground as he outmaneuvered the Mahrattas and his force of 7,000 beat a force of 200,000 (his numbers)
Battle of Vimeiro saw him deploy GB troops in line to defeat French columns and position them below ridge line. He redeployed his entire force in 2 hours.
He believed in hearts and minds and cultivated politicians in Peninsula whilst also ensuring his army did not plunder and steal.
Battle of Oporto he used barges to move his forces and attacked before breakfast catching the French off guard; at Salamanca he acted decisively after Marmont’s deployment became over stretched and at Vitoria launched 4 simultaneous attacks to secure victory.
At Waterloo he combined experienced troops with in experienced Allies; realized the importance to hold Hougoumont; used the ridge to conceal troops and ensured that GB fired in line into French columns.
But he was a Conservative and was not really a reformer of the army
Bill Slim
Uncle Bill was very popular with his troops; men fought with him, not under him. The 14th Division had confidence in him.
The retreat from Burma was that; not a rout. He withdrew 1000 miles in 100 days and it left the Japanese exhausted and their supply lines over-extended. Also his mental statue was impressive – he had lost Burma but still carried on
He rebuilt the 14th Division in India; he ensured it was trained, molded and equipped. With 500,000 men it was the largest GB army and went on to defeat 2 Japanese armies in 1944-45. He focused on spirituality – men believed in cause; Intellect – destroy notion Japanese were invincible and believe in efficiency of own unit; Physical – health, welfare and fair deal from army
Stopped India being invaded
Coalition Commander; only 15% of Division were British so he was skilled at uniting this multinational force. This was achieved during political and social upheaval in India.
His approach to warfare is now modern military doctrine; practical strategist – ‘Hit the fellow as quick as you can and as hard as you can, where it hurts him most, when he ain’t looking.’ He did not meet force with force; he used deception, airdrops and delegated command.
Lord Mountbatten said Slim was ‘The Greatest British General of the Second World War’
The last fact I personally thought was staggering and shows how hard the war in Burma was; between 1942-45 as the 14th Division fought two Japanese armies (hundreds and thousands of men) and they only captured 600 POW’s until the final surrender.
Uncle Bill was very popular with his troops; men fought with him, not under him. The 14th Division had confidence in him.
The retreat from Burma was that; not a rout. He withdrew 1000 miles in 100 days and it left the Japanese exhausted and their supply lines over-extended. Also his mental statue was impressive – he had lost Burma but still carried on
He rebuilt the 14th Division in India; he ensured it was trained, molded and equipped. With 500,000 men it was the largest GB army and went on to defeat 2 Japanese armies in 1944-45. He focused on spirituality – men believed in cause; Intellect – destroy notion Japanese were invincible and believe in efficiency of own unit; Physical – health, welfare and fair deal from army
Stopped India being invaded
Coalition Commander; only 15% of Division were British so he was skilled at uniting this multinational force. This was achieved during political and social upheaval in India.
His approach to warfare is now modern military doctrine; practical strategist – ‘Hit the fellow as quick as you can and as hard as you can, where it hurts him most, when he ain’t looking.’ He did not meet force with force; he used deception, airdrops and delegated command.
Lord Mountbatten said Slim was ‘The Greatest British General of the Second World War’
The last fact I personally thought was staggering and shows how hard the war in Burma was; between 1942-45 as the 14th Division fought two Japanese armies (hundreds and thousands of men) and they only captured 600 POW’s until the final surrender.
Haig
Haig was the last general to be discussed and invoked the most heated discussions and interesting debate. I have to say there was some very interesting and thought provoking comments and observations made – certainly was the most impressive defence for someone whom I did not feel initially deserved to be in the Top 5
Firstly, Dr. Philpott challenged why the NAM had Haig’s write up at the ‘Butcher’ as this is not a name used or associated with Haig but has now been added to Wikipedia. Or why Haig is referred to in the Boer War section of the NAM but not mentioned in the WWI section.
Philpott argued for objectivity; to review Haig with dispassionate military precision and put this into the context of the first modern war.
On the Somme, we remember the first day but not the next 140. At Passchandale the weather stopped the capitalization on success.
Haig was a managerial commander not a political commander (Cromwell); or a soldier commander (Marlborough); or a battle commander (Wellington) or a military historian’s commander (Slim); he was not exciting but this was modern war
Haig was youngest Maj. Gen; created BEF, created Second Army for home; developed military doctrine; re-organised Indian Army so it could integrate to GB Army in event of war and created the Imperial Army on same lines. These achievements were before 1914.
In 1916 Haig was best qualified for role; by 1916 true nature of war meant need to mobilize nations. Army increased 10 fold in short period; lacked skills and talent of BEF; a citizen army was not a professional army
By 1918 Haig’s citizen army had been taught to be professional and defeated Germany on the industrial battlefield; but this type of new war was traumatic. Wellington had c.60,000 at Waterloo, Haig had 70 Divisions and a total force of 5 million.
In 1918 at Amiens tanks were used; then there is a series of blows; between August and November in 1918 there were 9 major battles and all were victories. The march to victory saw the largest ever GB army, win the most about of battles in the shortest time then has ever been seen.
The gut reaction to Haig is the casualties but he was fighting the best military in Europe – the German Imperial Army. It was a war of attrition. Perhaps Monty did not make the Top 5 because of his sluggish performance in Normandy – but he was fighting an attritional war against determined German defenders, like Haig. In many WWII battles casualties were comparable to WWI.
Someone asked whether Haig was vilified like ‘Bomber’ Harris and not given the correct recognition because of the nature of the war they fought and the casualties
Someone asked whether we simply chose to ignore the attritional battles in WW2 that were comparable to the Somme because they were fought in Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow
It was commented that the British are parochial with their military history; and it is interesting how we can recollect the Battle of Britain, El Alamein, Normandy and Arnhem but the attritional campaigns in the North Atlantic, Bomber Command, Italy and the Pacific are overlooked. Is this because it is too much like the Somme and reflects the true horror of war? On here people have made comments about the lack of appreciation of the US war in the Pacific, incomparison to Europe; but again it was an attritional war.
I think these last few points were interesting and thought provoking; I certainly viewed Haig more favourably; but not quite enough to vote for him.
Haig was the last general to be discussed and invoked the most heated discussions and interesting debate. I have to say there was some very interesting and thought provoking comments and observations made – certainly was the most impressive defence for someone whom I did not feel initially deserved to be in the Top 5
Firstly, Dr. Philpott challenged why the NAM had Haig’s write up at the ‘Butcher’ as this is not a name used or associated with Haig but has now been added to Wikipedia. Or why Haig is referred to in the Boer War section of the NAM but not mentioned in the WWI section.
Philpott argued for objectivity; to review Haig with dispassionate military precision and put this into the context of the first modern war.
On the Somme, we remember the first day but not the next 140. At Passchandale the weather stopped the capitalization on success.
Haig was a managerial commander not a political commander (Cromwell); or a soldier commander (Marlborough); or a battle commander (Wellington) or a military historian’s commander (Slim); he was not exciting but this was modern war
Haig was youngest Maj. Gen; created BEF, created Second Army for home; developed military doctrine; re-organised Indian Army so it could integrate to GB Army in event of war and created the Imperial Army on same lines. These achievements were before 1914.
In 1916 Haig was best qualified for role; by 1916 true nature of war meant need to mobilize nations. Army increased 10 fold in short period; lacked skills and talent of BEF; a citizen army was not a professional army
By 1918 Haig’s citizen army had been taught to be professional and defeated Germany on the industrial battlefield; but this type of new war was traumatic. Wellington had c.60,000 at Waterloo, Haig had 70 Divisions and a total force of 5 million.
In 1918 at Amiens tanks were used; then there is a series of blows; between August and November in 1918 there were 9 major battles and all were victories. The march to victory saw the largest ever GB army, win the most about of battles in the shortest time then has ever been seen.
The gut reaction to Haig is the casualties but he was fighting the best military in Europe – the German Imperial Army. It was a war of attrition. Perhaps Monty did not make the Top 5 because of his sluggish performance in Normandy – but he was fighting an attritional war against determined German defenders, like Haig. In many WWII battles casualties were comparable to WWI.
Someone asked whether Haig was vilified like ‘Bomber’ Harris and not given the correct recognition because of the nature of the war they fought and the casualties
Someone asked whether we simply chose to ignore the attritional battles in WW2 that were comparable to the Somme because they were fought in Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow
It was commented that the British are parochial with their military history; and it is interesting how we can recollect the Battle of Britain, El Alamein, Normandy and Arnhem but the attritional campaigns in the North Atlantic, Bomber Command, Italy and the Pacific are overlooked. Is this because it is too much like the Somme and reflects the true horror of war? On here people have made comments about the lack of appreciation of the US war in the Pacific, incomparison to Europe; but again it was an attritional war.
I think these last few points were interesting and thought provoking; I certainly viewed Haig more favourably; but not quite enough to vote for him.
Rob
Four Star General
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 26,622
I think to a certain extent its perfectly normal that people remember some battles/theaters more than others. Its obvious for instance the Battle of Britain is remembered more over here than say the Pacific War. The B.O.B was responsible for saving this country from Nazi invasion and helping to keep the world free,whereras I imagine your average Joe believes the Pacific War was fought mainly by the US Marines and perhaps not as important. (not my view you understand). In the same breath I've had US visitors ask me where the B.O.B was fought and what it was about, so I'm sure they know more about their own History than hours. I think gradually the Battle of the Atlantic and the Bombing of Germany are growing in the public eye and the forthcoming new memorial to our Heroes in Bomber Command will also help this.
Rob
Rob
VIRIATO
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 2,393
I know I am playing with fire here but here it goes: I have a hard time comparing the way the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic were fought with the Bombing of Germany. Thousands of German civilians were on the line when bombing Germany, and surely there was intention to do so. Apparently after Dresden even Churchill balked at how far bombing was being taken. Of course the Nazis had no regard for civilians during their bombing raids, and you can always argue that this bombing was a means to end the war earlier. Same discussion that can be brought up with Hiroshima/Nagasaki. But incinerating babies and mothers, even if arguably necessary...no, that's not the same as the Battle of Britain, IMHO.
Interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
Paulo
Rob
Four Star General
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 26,622
Hey Paulo,
First off I don't think anyone was actually comparing any Battles as such, what we were saying is that perhaps someone in one country could be reasonably expected to know more of their own Battles than that of other countries, I'm not saying its right but I guess it happens a lot.
Whilst as you say mate the ACTUAL FIGHTING in the Battle of Britain is of course nothing to do with bombing , when the Luftwaffe switched tactics the bombing of London began and thousands and thousands of men,women and children were killed in their homes , shelters,schools and work places. This was of course the start of the Blitz in which around forty thousand people died half of them in London. Now whilst these figures are not as high as those in Germany, a death of a civilian through bombing is no worse in Germany than it was in London. Last year during the 70th anniversary of the UK Blitz I sat and listened as a tearful fire fighter told how he attended a building in Liverpool in which people had been trapped in rubble in the basement and could do nothing but listen to the pitiful screams as the people trapped within were slowly boiled alive from the searing hot water pouring from large industrial boilers into their space.
Its peculiar that we the victorious nations always feel we have to apologize for ending a War that we did not want and was visited upon us by an arrogant , aggressive nation bent on domination of others who'd already invaded many countires and were busy exterminating a race of people. Whilst on one hand and on a humane level of course I have sympathy for German victims as such, I'm afraid that sympathy has limits. At least the people of Germany had air raid warnings for our raids, the men , women and children who died in my country had no warning of V1's or more so V2's that fell at random on Schools,work places packed railway stations etc.
We can discuss the moral issues about the bombing of Germany etc over and over, but we MUST remember that the German people have to take SOME responsibility for their actions, millions of people in that country worshipped the most evil tyrant the world has seen when he was winning, they were happy giving the Nazi salute and singing ' Bombs on England', not one of them were shedding a single tear when those people were boiled alive in Liverpool.
Just my views of course mate:wink2:
All the best
Rob
Last edited:
Simpson & his donkey.
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,801
I can't think of one great general who won any battles own his own. Infantryman with great NCO'S won every battle with there blood and lives. Sorry guy's I just don't cop this at at all. How many great infantryman were there in the British army who were great. Maybe all of them. Simmo.{bravo}}