"Best generals of the First World War" Topic

Well, they've had these threads over on the WWII board, and I'm interested to see some discussion on that other big war that happened in the 20th Century, and to see who can offer some interesting reasoning behind their choices or produce some of the old canards. As is usual with these sorts of things, I'm not defining the parameters of 'best'. Just jump in with your considered judgements or your gut-instinct-I-never-liked-his-moustache comments.

I'll start the ball rolling with Rawlinson for the British. First day of the Somme excepting, (where there are plenty of other factors aside from his generalship at work), his willingness to use new tactics and technology were, I feel, a major contribution to Allied victory. At a slightly lower level, the Canadian Arthur Currie would be the best of the Corps commanders, largely for the same reasons.
For the French, Mangin is an army commander who was particularly effective, and is one of my favourites (gut instinct time!). "Whatever you do you lose a lot of men." sums up WWI (and 2) for me. The French could have done with him 22 years later.

For the Central Powers I have to choose von Mackensen. The campaigns against Serbia and Rumania in charge of multi-national forces were masterpieces.

But overall, my picks would be Rawlinson and von Mackensen. Jump in with your choices people.

For the Germans you have to go with Ludendorff. Master logistician, innovative, and came close to winning the war. Plus he did this while bucking the Junker hierarchy -- no small thing even if you do hob nob with Hindenberg.

For the Allies. Black Jack Pershing. Started with essentially nothing and within a few months produced an army. Many of his commanders were political appointees (who were often appointed by congress -- removing them for incompetence was no small thing) with little or no experience and the men that made up the AEF were weeks distant from civilian life. For the most part, the US soldiers arrived in France with no equipment, no transport and no logistical support. Allied shipping was entirely inadequate to transport American war materials -- much of this piled up at the docks on the Eastern Seaboard. Almost everything had to be bought, begged and borrowed in France (and surplus war materials were not exactly abundant -- much of what was obtained had been abandoned by the French Army). Say what you want about the tactical performance of the AEF (poorly led, raw troops do perform poorly at times) but the Americans managed to bludgeon their way through terrain that was arguably the toughest on the Western Front. Credit Pershing for keeping his finger on the pulse of the AEF and rotating units in and out of the line to keep the pressure on the Germans and avoid a collapse in morale.

mjc

Sir John Monash. Australian of Prussian Jewish heritage. Last person to be knighted in the field in person by the King, and the first in 200 years.
link

Allenby for the British and Lettow von Vorbeck for the Germans.

2nd for Von Vorbeck

Brusilov. He originated the shock and infiltration style warfare that the Germans would perfect late in the war.

Thanks,

John

"I would name Sir John Monash as the best general on the western front in Europe". Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery.

Herbert Plumer, commander at Messines for his bite-and-hold strategy.

And I do like his moustache!

I'll start the ball rolling with Rawlinson for the British

I'd agree…his tactics at Ndidi's Kraal were outstanding!

Plumer, not only for bite and hold, but his ability to damage the defender as they prepared to counterattack, turning the defencive advantages back.

T E Lawrence (is he a general…) raise and lead an army from basically scratch.

Pershing was saved because his underofficers learned and learned fast. His opening attacks were exactly the kind the British and French had learned not to make and told him so, but he knew better. The followups were much more efficient and French in style.

Monash was excellent as was Brigadier-General Edward Morrison, in amny ways the architect of most of what was achieved in 1917 and 1918.

Joffre for the Marne.

Haig for simply hanging in then allowing France to have the unified control.

Byng of Vimy
- withdrawal from Gallipoli (only part that went right)
- Vimy Ridge
- Cambrai

Monash
Lettow-Vorbeck (there was a clause in the treaty of Versaille that dealt solely with him!).
Maybe Mackensen in his blitz through Romania.

Ludendorff: The man who took the best trained, most tactically proficient army in the world and threw it away in a series of unconnected offensives. "Let's punch a hole and see what happens."

Ludendorff: The man that drove the French army into mutiny with his Verdun offensive.

You mean Falkenhayn then, not Ludendorf !

French Army was not driven into mutiny with Verdun in 1916 but with the total failure of French General Nivelle offensive on the Chemin des Dames in 1917.

Moreover, driven to mutiny is a bit abusive: French soldiers refused to be wasted in new pointless offensives before the American and the tanks arrived. That said, the Poilus surely fought back any German attacks in 1917.

I would vote for Lettow Vorbeck for the German and Colonel Driant (even though not a general) for the French for his heroic resistance in the very first days of Verdun: managing to hold off 10,000 Germans including Stosstruppen for 2 whole days in Bois des Caures with only 1,000 chasseurs ΰ pied (90% casulaty rate) is somewhat admirable in my view. Plus, he had repeatdly flagged the German would attack Verdun, generating no reaction from Joffre, and when the attack finally happened he just said in essence "Gosh, it's hard to prove right !". He was the last man to evacuate Bois des Caures and was killed during the fighting withdrawal on 22nd Feb 1916.

True hero to me !

Sir Arthur William Currie – link

He was responsible for the many successes of the Canadian Corps, and would have gone on to replace Haig if the war had continued.

One which hasn't been mentioned yet, Ivor Maxse for his contribution to the developments of infantry training.

How about Crown Prince Ruppecht of Bavaria, both for his dashing attacks at Verdun, and for his implementation of elastic defence at Ypres (and recognition of its limits as a tactical technique).

I'm not sure I'd choose Butcher Mangin as my best WW1 French General…Papa Joffre.

For sheer doggedness and perhaps the highest annoyance factor you'd be hard pressed to beat Lettow Vorbeck

Ludendorff, Petain and Haig, all of whom recognised what had to be done and got on with it (often against political or peer pressure).
Plumer gets my vote for the sheer brilliance of his operational strategy and his ability to take his divisional, brigade and battalion commanders with him (something I don't think Byng necessarily achieved as effectively).
Putnik, Brusilov, von Mackensen, von Straussenberg, any Commonwealth commander, Allenby (especially in the Middle East) all deserve an additional mention IMHO.

Marechal Foch, what other WW1 general has a wine grape named after them?

link

I hadn't realised tha Byng was the mastermind behind the withdrawal from Gallipoli, or that Cambrai was such a dazzling success. You learn something new every day!

For mine, Rupprecht and Lettow-Vorbeck for the Central Powers, and Monash and Currie for the Allies.

T E Lawrence (is he a general…) raise and lead an army from basically scratch.

To my knowledge, the highest he made was lieutenant-colonel or so.

Sir Arthur Currie I thought was the best Allied commander. He was an excellent planner and frequently sought out advice from others. Before Vimy he examined how the other Allies conducted attacks, raids, etc and took the best techniques from them and adapted it to the Canadian attack.

Third vote for Sir Arthur Currie.

In no particular order;
Plumer – Colonel Blimp-like in appearance but an effective & successful commander who was a quicker learner than many of his contemporaries. He also seemed to be more concerned about casualty rates than many of his colleagues.
Monash – along with Currie the most succcessful & best of the Corps commanders. His plan for the Battle of Amiens demonstrated considerable skills.
Currie – not a nice man by all accounts but an effective genreal.
Maxse – who essentially trained the BEF of 1918. Was one of the few successful British divisional commanders at the Somme.
Allenby – mediocre on the Western Front but showed great ptitude in the more open fighting in Palestine. An unsung pioneer of combined arms tactics.
Petain – not withstanding his subsequent career, one of the best French generals. One wonders how the course of the war would altered if he'd been listened to in 1914.
Foch – marvellous fighting spirit, if a bit indifferent to casualties.
Hutier link & Hoffmann link , who between them developed many of the tactics & techniques used by the Germans in their 1918 offensives.
Rupprecht – who almost broke through at Verdun, even though that wasn't the plan!
Lettow-Vorbeck, for his exploits throughout the war.

Thanks guys. What a gentlemanly and reasoned series of selections. Not at all like the WWII discussions. Do you think that this board just doesn't attract the intolerant?

I have to agree with aercdr about Ludendorff. Not the most rational human being to be given supreme command.

As regards Monash, if you get the chance pick up Chris Pugsley's book 'The ANZAC Experience'. He makes a convincing case for Currie as a more capable Corps Commander, and Russell (NZ Division) as better at the divisional level. It doesn't make Monash a poor general, but as we are talking about who was 'the best', I thought it would be good to bring up.

It was a toss-up between Plumer and Rawlinson for me, but I feel that although Plumer excelled in trench warfare, he never really had a plan that called for exploiting a break-in of the German front. Bite and Hold didn't allow for 'take advantage of…'. Rawlinson not only understood what was necessary for break-in, but also for follow-up. He also had good Corps Commanders and got the best out of them in 1918.

"Do you think that this board just doesn't attract the intolerant?"

I wonder if WW1 gamers are so used to having to defend their period from criticisms of it being a dull slaughterfest (and sometimes a tasteless, dull slaughterfest) of lions led by donkeys, that we can be pleasant to each other.

WWI gamers rule.

My votes would go to –

Central Powers: von Lettow-Vorbeck

Allies: Henri Pιtain

Petain …..his ideas on artillery support and defensive battles was unpopular early in the war but neccesary later.

I visited the battlefield of Verdun in 2005 whilst on my honeymoon and I made sure I made a little trip to the Bois de Caures to visit Lt Col Driant's tomb…..certainly a hero of mine…alas never a general

Monash was good too but as an Aussie I am biased.

cheers

FM