quote:

Originally posted by Allan D:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bretwalda:
Difficult call. Marlborough or Wellington. Both have a claim as Britain's greatest general. QUOTE]

Oliver Cromwell? Ok, he didn't fight foreigners(unless you count the Irish) but at least he was the only general since Henry V (who also might be included) who fought without allies. Even Montgomery at Alamein had the Australians and New Zealanders.

Agree Cromwell also has a legitimate claim as a great general. But I don't see the relevance of whether a particular commander had foreign troops or not. Greatness as a general is surely about how forces at one's disposal are used along with tactical nous, use of terrain, knowing one's enemy etc. Of course it helps if you have good troops and good subordinates but I would not favour Cromwell over say Wellington just because he had only English troops. Don't rate Henry V in the same league as although Agincourt was a remarkable victory he was helped by total French incompetence and arrogance nor did he really sustain miltiary performance in anything like the same way as Cromwell, Marlborough or Wellington (or Montgomery). Some good posts here though and a good healthy debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Fil2:
Anglo-Spanish War.

Fascinating link. I wondered if anyone would mention Cromwell's war with Spain. However there seems to be no evidence, either from the link or from Antonia Fraser's biography ("Cromwell: Our Chief of Men") that I can find, that Cromwell participated directly in any of the campaigns. His state of health was deteriorating at this stage and the political in-fighting of the Council of State would have precluded an extended absence abroad. It seems the last battle at which he was present must have been Worcester in 1651.

The English only contributed a subordinate force, about 6000 men, to both campaigns on the Continent which resulted in the Battle of Mardyck (or Mardike) in 1657 and the Battle of the Dunes in 1658 (which resulted in the capture of Dunkirk) and French forces outnumbered the English about 2-1 and both were under the overall control of Marshal Turenne, another great commander who might appear on the list (it would have been fascinating if Cromwell, who had already made his reputation, had commanded side by side with Turenne, who was in the process of making his, but I suspect there may have been an Eisenhower-Montgomery style clash of personalities).

The Parliamentary commanders at Mardyke were Sir John Reynolds and Lt-Gen.White who were drowned off the Goodwin Sands coming home from
the expedition to be replaced by Sir William Lockhart and Thomas Morgan. At both engagements they were opposed by forces of Royalist exiles led by Charles II and the Duke of York (later James II) so in many ways it was an extension of the Civil War as well as an intervention in the conflict between France and Spain (Cromwell ended an almost thirty year period of isolation from European conflict- Britain's only intervention in the Thirty Years' War had been the disastrous expedition to La Rochelle in 1628 which had led to the assassination of the Duke of Buckingham which in turn probably resulted in the Eleven Years'Tyranny of personal rule of Charles I which was one of the main causes of the Civil War- the longest period of non-intervention in European conflict until the C19).

I often thought Dunkirk, a British possession from 1658-62, not Calais, lost under Mary Tudor when England was allied with Spain against France, was Britain's last possession in France. However it was part of the Spanish (subsequently Austrian) Netherlands (later Belgium) and ceded to France by Charles II (it was after all Turenne who had captured it). It was our last foothold on the continent of Europe until Rooke seized Gibraltar in 1704.

The other great commander, apart from Turenne, who participated in the war with Spain was Robert Blake who might be considered above James, Duke of York (later James II) as the founder of the British (if not Royal!) Navy.

The only lasting result of our participation in what should really be called the Franco-Spanish war (apart from the collapse of Spain as a major European power) was the acquisition of our first imperial possession in Jamaica (our second was Bombay (Mumbai) in 1662 as a result of Charles II's marriage to Catherine of Braganza). Cromwell might vie with Pitt the Elder for the title of Father of the British Empire although this was hardly his intention.

Cromwell was criticised by one historian as being so obsessed with Imperial Spain he neglected the rise of Royalist France and, in a dejected moment towards the end of WWII, Churchill quoted this judgment back at himself, substituting Germany for Spain and Soviet Russia for France. However it seems that during his European war Cromwell played the role of Churchill, not Montgomery, attempting to direct operations from Whitehall Palace and sending despatches to Turenne urging him to be more aggressive. Interesting also to see that when Charles II negotiated secret treaties with France he was following a precedent set by Cromwell. Many thanks, again.

quote:

Originally posted by Bretwalda:
I don't see the relevance of whether a particular commander had foreign troops or not. Greatness as a general is surely about how forces at one's disposal are used along with tactical nous, use of terrain, knowing one's enemy etc. Of course it helps if you have good troops and good subordinates but I would not favour Cromwell over say Wellington just because he had only English troops. Don't rate Henry V in the same league as although Agincourt was a remarkable victory he was helped by total French incompetence and arrogance nor did he really sustain miltiary performance in anything like the same way as Cromwell, Marlborough or Wellington (or Montgomery). Some good posts here though and a good healthy debate.

A general in charge of multi-national forces or part of an alliance often finds he has to compromise or risk losing a large chunk of his forces. Different languages or simply national pride may make it difficult for a commander to ensure his orders are carried out effectively, even in the heat of battle, as they have to be "filtered" through subordinate commanders. Non-military considerations may have to enter a commander's decision-making. Freyberg persuaded Montgomery to switch his troops from a critical sector of the line of attack at El Alamein for fear the effect of heavy casualties might have on the New Zealand population.

A general in charge of a multi-national or allied force needs political skills which a general in charge of a homogeneous force does not necessarily need to possess. Marlborough and Prince Eugene were, on the whole, able to form a good working partnership during the Spanish Succession War which Eisenhower and Montgomery famously weren't during WWII (although Eisenhower's political skills made up for those Montgomery lacked). Wellington was able to develop political skills to form a reasonable partnership with his Portuguese and Spanish allies during the Peninsular Campaign. However if you are fighting without allies such considerations do not apply and a commander can be much more decisive.

However "going it alone" in what is clearly an allied campaign can have its drawbacks. "Black Jack" Pershing, the commander of US forces in WWI, under instructions from Woodrow Wilson, refused to serve under Allied command, which Haig, the commander of British forces had accepted with the setting-up of the Supreme War Council and the appointment of Foch as Allied Generalissimo, and insisted that US forces would fight separately although alongside the British & French.

This resulted in the non-appearance of US forces on the Western Front for almost a year after the US declaration of war in April 1917 while the US mustered an army large enough to be commanded separately (probably resulting in WWI being unnecessarily extended). The refusal of the US to learn from the bitter experience of almost four years of fighting by the British and French also led to far heavier casualties than were necessary or inevitable. In three months of the Argonne offensive in 1918 the US lost more troops than in the whole of the Vietnam conflict.

You may be right about Henry V overall (although he was able to dictate his own peace terms at the Treaty of Troyes in 1420 after two more campaigns and might have well have become King of France had he lived) but Agincourt ranks as one of the more remarkable victories in the history of warfare when a much smaller force has defeated a much larger force at comparatively little cost. Even more remarkable when you consider the state of Henry's army which was in retreat (like Corunna in 1809 and Dunkirk in 1940 Agincourt was one of the many, if not the first, fighting retreats in the history of the British Army), wet, exhausted and depleted by disease.

Henry V must rank high in the list of monarch-commanders (not counting Napoleon) which must be headed by Alexander the Great (although almost a mythic figure) and Frederick the Great (although rather saved in 1762 by his reputation).

Ceasar would be up there with wellington