"Best British General?" Topic

Best British general, ever?

(Historical nominations only, please – no fictional characters…)

FM Bill Slim – turned 'Defeat into Victory' in the FE and did so without trashing his predecessors and falsifying history like Monty did…

(Normally I'd nominate Lord Wellington for his knack of turning up at the crisis spot just at the right time, but unfortunately some of the crowd here seem to have a hard time accepting he was even present at some of 'his' battles, such is the power of revsionist historians!)

Alfred the Great- kept the Danes from conquering England.

So this would exclude those of Irish or Scottish origin?

I believe the question was the best and not the one that saved England, etc..

Slim is a tough one to beat.

Montgomery was definitely over-rated in my opinion. He sure knew how to blow his own trumpet though.

Marlborough had the advantage of a stead-fast ally that bailed him out of trouble ;-)

Wellington certainly had his good points but I wouldn't say he was a brilliant tactician. Choosing your ground and deploying properly is very, very prudent. I don't know of him performing well offensively against a great general. Prussians definitely bailed him out at Waterloo. Sparker, Wellington did quite a bit of his own revisionist history too :-)

Along the same lines, you wouldn't say Henry V was brilliant either but he sure chose his ground and deployment well.

I don't know enough about Cromwell but his reforms and training certainly caused a major change in warfare. I believe he sent some of his New Model troops over to Holland to help out against the French.

My vote goes for William Slim too.

As a citizen of the United States, I'd say that General Howe gets my vote. "Best" outcome anyway.

We did this discussion back in October, didn't we?

TMP link

Wellington
Marlborough
Slim
…
…
…
…
…
Monty

I note that while Alexander couldn't control Monty in Sicily, later he couldn't control Clark before Rome. Guess he could not handle prima-donnas.

I always like guys who win battles they should lose – those who can make something out of nothing. Even if they are overwhelemd and lose in the end.
I like Montrose.

Montrose would get my vote too.

Marlborough, Wellington, Slim of those who commanded Army level formations.

(O'Connor showed great potential but was captured)

"We did this discussion back in October, didn't we?"

It comes round twice a year, so it must be a cyclical thing.

I'll choose Bill Slim, with Marlborough/ Wellington tied for a close second.

Slim

Wellington is the one I know most about, tied with Henry V.

Wellington.

I'd probably go with Montrose then Wellington. Or maybe Wellington than Montrose. Nah, Montrose first.

Oh no, not again…

Bill Slim for me too.

[Awaits the inevitable round of Monty-bashing]

I think it's Wellington, hands down. Who else can say they won a battle against Napoleon? And no, the Prussians didn't "bail him out," he only stood and fought at Waterloo because he knew they were close enough to help, and Blucher promised he would come. That's not being bailed out, that, in A-Team terms, a plan coming together.

don't know of him performing well offensively against a great general.

Well if you rate Marshal Soult as a great general, then Wellington's ligtening assault at Oporto would probably be his first great offensive victory in Europe, but certainly not his last…

But I agree with your conclusion!

Generals are not measured just by the quality of the opposition, Great Generals beat whatever is in front of them.

Wellington Strategically outfought Massena, and if he wasn't a great General then no one deserves the title.

However my vote goes to Slim and then Marlborough as they were both excellent commanders as well as able to handle polyglot forces with all the politcal issues that had as baggage.

Honourable mentions go to Wellington, Plumer, Wavell.

However being British our best ever commanders were…

Sir Keith Park, Admiral Lord Nelson, Admiral Lord Rodney, the Duke of Marlborough, 1st Viscount Slim and Edward the first in no particular order.

Montrose

Greatest living British General Julian Thompson.

Caused Russia to re-evaluate the threat level of Gt Britain after the re-taking of the Falkland Islands. Up to then we were seen as has beens. Afterwards we were seen as a nation that could project power to the other side of the world and defeat entrenched defenders who outnumbered us at four to one, while inflicting four times as many casualties on them as we received while doing so. Britains finest post WW2 hour.

Monty was a general of his time and it is difficult to argue against his record of wins – however he achieved them.

He was the first British General of WW2 to be able to deal with the politicians effectively, he was keenly aware of the effect of public opinion and the press and knew how to inspire an army.

Greatest ? – probably not, Wellington, Marlborough & (I'd agree) Slim deserve that more than him but he doesn't deserve all the stupid carping about his personality he gets.

I'd also agree that Britain has far more 'best' admirals than it has generals.

George Washington – he was born British

ML

Grouchy.

Ivan DBA, the problem with taking sides with Wellington on Waterloo and his plan coming together is that he distinctly says that the Prussians arrived late. Point of fact is that they arrived much earlier than Wellington states. Wellington brooked no disagreements. He was pompous and denigrated his troops and his allies. If you look at German language sources and what Siborne tried to portray, the Prussians arrived earlier than Wellington stated and took tremendous pressure off of him. Say what you want about a plan coming together, even with the French mistakes, the Prussians arriving later in the day would have had Wellington losing. Grouchy could just as easily arrived at Waterloo and held up the Prussians too.

If forced just to pick one, then John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough.

T. E. Lawrence (AKA Lawrence of Arabia). Id more with less than any of them.

mjc

Another notch for William Slim.

Here we have a general who defines the qualities of a major general rather well.

YouTube link

@ ancients gamer:

Wellington on Waterloo and his plan coming together is that he distinctly says that the Prussians arrived late. Point of fact is that they arrived much earlier than Wellington states.

May I respectfully suggest that you read Wellington's Waterloo Despatch. This is a primary source document that he penned immeadiately after the battle, and which he knew would be the mould for the subsequent retelling of the story by society, and indeed by responsible historians:

'I should not do justice to my own feelings, or to Marshal Blücher and the Prussian army, if I did not attribute the successful result of this arduous day to the cordial and timely assistance I received from them.'

'Timely' in this context has been interpreted by most responsible historians as meaning ' in good time'…

Major General Stanley

link

I vote for Slim also. Allenby in second place. Marlborough for the bronze.
Weaselhoffen.

Wellington. Better known to the layman than any of the others and there's no smoke without fire. He's close with Slim and Marlborough, as many have stated, but if one is being pragmatic about it then his enduring fame is the tie-breaker.

Anybody who thinks Wellington could have beaten Napoleon, sick old man that he was, without Blucher's help is… English.

Anybody who thinks Wellington could have beaten Napoleon, sick old man that he was, without Blucher's help is… English.

Can't see where anyone's saying that. Wellington and Napoleon were born in the same year, 1769, BTW.

Anyway, another vote for Marlborough here.

So this would exclude those of Irish or Scottish origin?

Er, why?

Anybody who thinks Wellington could have beaten Napoleon, sick old man that he was, without Blucher's help is… English.

None of us will ever know.

Anybody who thinks Wellington could have beaten Napoleon, sick old man that he was, without Blucher's help is… English.

Can't see where anyone's saying that.

Least of all Lord Wellington himself:

'I should not do justice to my own feelings, or to Marshal Blücher and the Prussian army, if I did not attribute the successful result of this arduous day to the cordial and timely assistance I received from them.'

That's not a crack against Wellington. For all that he gets accused of arrogance, he knew who the best soldier in Europe was.

"If Boney'd been there, we'd have been beaten."

It also is not by way of saying that Wellington was not a great general. But he was well on his way to losing when the Prussians showed up. No shame in that.

A request for clarification, by "British general" do we mean:

A.) Any general who originates from the British isles, regardless of time period
B.) Any general who commanded forces of the British army (established in 1707)
C.) Any general who commanded forces of the British Commonwealth
D.) Something else

I think it's Wellington, hands down. Who else can say they won a battle against Napoleon? And no, the Prussians didn't "bail him out," he only stood and fought at Waterloo because he knew they were close enough to help, and Blucher promised he would come. That's not being bailed out, that, in A-Team terms, a plan coming together.

I'm amazed at how many people can't seem to get this.

Richard I deserves a mention. He showed a tactical skill at Asauf that eluded his contemptories, kept headstrong knights under control for a long time, his presence instilled fear in the Saracens and contributed to his breaking of the siege of Tyre, and he had the strategic vision to realise that Jerusalem could not be held and so negotiated a more realistic settlement.

Cornwallis doesn't get the credit he's due.
Everyone remembers his defeat in the American Colonies, but nobody mentions his career in India where he distinguished himself brilliantly.
And Richard III gets short shrift, too.
But I think it's got to be Henry V.
Agincourt, baby. 'Nuff said.

I fancy some controversy. What about a mention for Dougie Haig? He turned a mass of raw volunteers into a highly professional army that invented armoured warfare, revolutioised artllery usage and maintained the best logistical system of the war. It went toe to toe with the hitherto best army in the world and beat it. He made mistakes but it was a period where the 'rule book' was constantly being rewritten and it would be interesting to add up the cost of Napoleon's mistakes.

Richard I, Henry V, Cornwallis, and whoever the heck was in charge of the air defenses during the Blitz.

What about a mention for Dougie Haig? He turned a mass of raw volunteers into a highly professional army

Only after he'd managed to murder most of them. Including the death warrants he signed for the victims of shell shock.

I have nothing but contempt for the man, and no after the fact apologia will change my mind.

Oh dear the 'Lions and Donkeys' brigade is in town. He didn't murder or even kill most of them, in fact the death rates in the British army were lower than for the other major protagonists; you don't fight the German army for 4 years and get off lightly. No apologia, just imagine what Monty and Ike would have had to do in order to win WW2 had the Russians not done it for us.

<<Only after he'd managed to murder most of them.>>

Factually incorrect. British casualties were the lowest of all the major (and most of the minor) combatant nations, both in pure numbers and as a percentage of those called up. And they were certainly nowhere near 51%, as you imply.

<<Including the death warrants he signed for the victims of shell shock.>>

Ah yes, I forgot – they all had shell shock, didn't they. Even the ones who deserted before they had even served one stint in the front line. Or who murdered/raped French and Belgian civilians (1 in 6 of those exceuted). Presumably the fact that he found grounds to commute slightly more than 90% of the sentences handed down by properly constituted military courts – the comparable figure for civilian society at the time was only 85% – would come under your heading of "apologia"? Thought so.

<<I have nothing but contempt for the man, and no after the fact apologia will change my mind.>>

Chinese proverb: A closed mind is like a closed book: just a block of wood.

As Tommy Atkins may have said, "tough luck chum"

Take your digs at me, I'm quite content to appear a blockhead to you. You figure slightly below Haig on the Sage scale of 'people I give a damn about'

I'm somewhat puzzled as to why that should concern me, but be that as it may,

1) had Haig adopted that attitude, all 3,600+ would have been executed; and

2) have you ever considered that your view of Haig has been conditioned by propaganda based on class bigotry which, in itself, was "apologia" for politicians like Lloyd George who wanted the kudos of winning the war, but not the fall-out from prolonging it?

In 1915, the Imperial General Staff visited him. They gave him chapter and verse on how they thought the war would pan out – including a million dead from the UK alone – if there was no attempt to negotiate a peace. Everything they told him came true (they even predicted the Russian Revolution and American entry into the war), except that the conflict ended six months early – they predicted Spring 1919 – and the British dead numbered 800,000. That night in his diary, LG wrote: "These men are idiots, they know nothing."

Because like Gazzola you have a pathological need to get the last word in?

Your turn.