Britain's Greatest General - National Army Museum (2 Viewers)

Mitch said:
Chris...

That last comment is the best comment I have seen in relation to these topics.
Mitch
Click to expand...

now don't go saying something positive- you should have said "Chris, being the king of dumb posts, this one takes the cake"!!! then we could get pretty close to getting this thing shut down by post 125.

But instead, here we are, at 121, making kind words and moving in the opposite direction. ^&grin^&grin

Cheers and thanks for the kind words
CC
 
Ok... What on earth was that about?? Do you mean that people sitting at home who have never served cannot grasp warfare??? Outrageous, I am stunned!!!! Call the police, and lock this terroble thread down LOL. (too much??)

Sorry,,, I just can't do it as I think unless we have served or led men into battle especially in an era of military revolution (in terms of new weapons MG's gas, aircraft, tactics as happened in WW1) its easy to say how bad or inept, or are murderers the generals were.

Can anyone Show me a military leader who has not got something wrong in a battle where events are fast and furious and a situation is fluid and unpredictable and, has led to casualties??

For me, the generals in question did their duty and what they thought was right to win a ''must win'' war (both WW1 and WW2) sometimes things go wrong sometimes they go right I wonder really if we could be transported to that era and put in that situation if we would have done differently. I know I would be out of my depth.
Mitch
 
Mitch said:
Ok... What on earth was that about?? Do you mean that people sitting at home who have never served cannot grasp warfare??? Outrageous, I am stunned!!!! LOL.

Can anyone Show me a military leader who has not got something wrong in a battle where events are fast and furious and a situation is fluid and unpredictable and, has led to casualties??
Mitch
Click to expand...

^&grin^&grin

Fair enough question, though I think everyone accepts casualties as par the course. I think most of the arguments have been focused on what seems like squandering lives and/or potential advantages.

Anyway, like I said, I think Nelson for the group listed here. But, given my knowledge of British "generals"- I still gotta go with the fairer sex- the Queen herself

Lady Boudicca

laugh all you want but she had absolutely no formal military training at all and fought the Roman Legions to an absolute standstill and darn near threw them off the island- in a guerilla type fashion Louis:wink2:. She raised an army out of several tribes- not something easily done as there was so much deep animosity amongst Britain's early settlements. To unite these tribes- some of who were Roman allies, into an organized fighting force and accomplish what she did- pretty doggone amazing- the mere fact that her name has lasted through the ages- when woman were seen as so inferior-speaks volumes to her as well. Her name is as revered in ancient lexicons as Hannibal, Vercingetorix and dare I say, Alexander. Something to think about.
 
Currahee Chris said:
^&grin^&grin

Fair enough question, though I think everyone accepts casualties as par the course. I think most of the arguments have been focused on what seems like squandering lives and/or potential advantages.

Anyway, like I said, I think Nelson for the group listed here. But, given my knowledge of British "generals"- I still gotta go with the fairer sex- the Queen herself

Lady Boudicca

laugh all you want but she had absolutely no formal military training at all and fought the Roman Legions to an absolute standstill and darn near threw them off the island- in a guerilla type fashion Louis:wink2:. She raised an army out of several tribes- not something easily done as there was so much deep animosity amongst Britain's early settlements. To unite these tribes- some of who were Roman allies, into an organized fighting force and accomplish what she did- pretty doggone amazing- the mere fact that her name has lasted through the ages- when woman were seen as so inferior-speaks volumes to her as well. Her name is as revered in ancient lexicons as Hannibal, Vercingetorix and dare I say, Alexander. Something to think about.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree. To me though, when I think of Boudicca and her daughters, all I think of is the tragedy of what happened to them, and, as a result, to her people. When I read history, it really scares me how brutal the "civilized" Romans were.
 
thebritfarmer said:
125 it was lads.......thanks for coming out !! :D
Click to expand...

Ha!! Good to see we made it- there were some bumps in the road but it looks pretty sunny still

Simon- I got you for 100 quid- soooooo, after paying my commission (45.673%) and then the VAT (10,000%) you still got enough to pay for the box of one of those new KC jagdtigers- box only mind you ^&grin^&grin
 
Currahee Chris said:
Ha!! Good to see we made it- there were some bumps in the road but it looks pretty sunny still

Simon- I got you for 100 quid- soooooo, after paying my commission (45.673%) and then the VAT (10,000%) you still got enough to pay for the box of one of those new KC jagdtigers- box only mind you ^&grin^&grin
Click to expand...

Can't argue with a CPA on figures, so they must be right. :rolleyes2:
 
if people think some of the other choices cause controversy I wonder what they would make of his actions in South africa???

Quite happy with the choices as most will be aware of the choices put forth others are somewhat obscure
Mitch
 
One nominee I would have had on the list (although not necessarily expecting to win) would be Lord Alanbrooke who, as CIGS during most of the Second World War contributed a mighty effort towards the winning of the war, which included reining in Churchill when he could from some of his grandiose plans.
 
the ''uncut'' diaries of Allenbrooke are very interesting in the understanding of the rather complex relationship between Churchill and himself. I don't know about grandiose plans but, I do recall Allenbrooke actually saying he was never a ''yes'' man to churchill but, often overlooked or did not appreciate the political importance of some of Churcills decisions that had to be taken and influenced churchills military wants.

I think had Allenbrooke took the far east command when offered, then we could gain a better insite. we could see how good a general he was in the early war he did well especially, in relation to seeing the fact that the french were a waste (A view he himself held) and that the continent was in reality lost and undefendable. so, he had good foresight just not enough large scale combat control IMO to judge him with some of the others discussed to date
Mitch
 
Have you read Masters and Commanders by Andrew Roberts. It's a study of how Roosevelt and Churchill, and Brooke and Marshall, and by extension, the Chiefs of Staff of both countries, got on during the War, and the winning strategy that developed.

Brooke stood up to Churchill when he had to and Roberts tells of one episode (recounted by Joan Bright of the War Cabinet secretariat) where Brooke in one cabinet meeting was quite rude to Churchill, who later remarked to Ismay that Brooke "hates me. You can see the hate in his eyes." Ismay talked to Brooke who said "I don't hate: I adore him tremendously; I do love him, but the day that I say I agree with him when I don't, is the day he must get rid of me because I am of no use to him any more." Ismay went back and told Churchill what Brooke had said and Churchill's eyes filled with tears and said "Dear Brookie." That was the last fight they ever had.

That is what great men are made of.
 
jazzeum said:
Have you read Masters and Commanders by Andrew Roberts. It's a study of how Roosevelt and Churchill, and Brooke and Marshall, and by extension, the Chiefs of Staff of both countries, got on during the War, and the winning strategy that developed.

Brooke stood up to Churchill when he had to and Roberts tells of one episode (recounted by Joan Bright of the War Cabinet secretariat) where Brooke in one cabinet meeting was quite rude to Churchill, who later remarked to Ismay that Brooke "hates me. You can see the hate in his eyes." Ismay talked to Brooke who said "I don't hate: I adore him tremendously; I do love him, but the day that I say I agree with him when I don't, is the day he must get rid of me because I am of no use to him any more." Ismay went back and told Churchill what Brooke had said and Churchill's eyes filled with tears and said "Dear Brookie." That was the last fight they ever had.

That is what great men are made of.
Click to expand...

Great men indeed Brad.

I love Churchill's wit.

During the War one of Churchill's aides came to him with the news that the previous night one of his top officers had been caught with another man in one of the Royal Parks. Churchill said to his aide ' Wasn't it very cold last night'?. The aide replied ' Yes Sir, very, well below freezing' to which Churchill replied ' Makes you proud to be British doesn't it'!^&grin^&grin

Rob
 
I just visited the National Army Museum website to read up on the vote for Britain's Greatest General.

This question is put to voters on the 25 selected commanders: "Who has the Military X Factor ?"

I am not sure how to define this and a web search has not been helpful.

My thoughts are that the selection of the winner has to be made on personal qualities of exemplary leadership and military genius independent of time period.

Raymond.:smile2:
 
Last edited:
It may be of interest that Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templar was the first Director of the National Army Museum when it was formally established in 1960 by Royal Charter.

The existence of the National Army Museum today is in no small part due to the hard work of Gerald Templar towards this end.

I remember Gerald Templar for his containment of the Communist insurgency in the Malayan Peninsula with his unique approach of winning the "hearts and minds" of those most susceptible to the Communist recruitment. He realised the strategic value of field intelligence to put down the insurgency rather than troop surges.

Raymond.%^V
 
glossman said:
It may be of interest that Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templar was the first Director of the National Army Museum when it was formally established in 1960 by Royal Charter.

The existence of the National Army Museum today is in no small part due to the hard work of Gerald Templar towards this end.

I remember Gerald Templar for his containment of the Communist insurgency in the Malayan Peninsula with his unique approach of winning the "hearts and minds" of those most susceptible to the Communist recruitment. He realised the strategic value of field intelligence to put down the insurgency rather than troop surges.

Raymond.%^V
Click to expand...

Raymond,

I was educated about Field Marshal Templar by Kevin (Panda1gen) Elliott. The combination of winning over the hearts and minds of the populace via ensuring they were fed and had adequate medical care the insurgents were unwilling or unable to provide, with the emphasis on the value of field intelligence are techniques I wish our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan could effectively employ today. I can think of no better example of an effective means of counteracting a guerilla and terrorist enemy. Field Marshal Templar certainly deserves consideration on this thread.
 
Any update to the vote count? This is a very interesting thread. -- Al
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top