"Britain's "Greatest Ever Foe"" Topic

link

"The American was voted the winner in a contest run by the National Army Museum to identify the country's most outstanding military opponent."

Napoleon came in THIRD.

Ataturk?

They must grow this stuff in grenhouses and smoke it in hi tech devices!

If you are going to vote for your greatest opponent, you may as well vote for an English Gentleman who was only standing up for his traditional rights!

Napoleon lost.. Washington won.. and took a sizable chunk of the British Colonial world with him.

Go GW!

I'd have said, Yamashita. He won in a dizzyingly rapid campaign and captured 100,000 British imperial troops with less than 1/3 their number.

Washington never won a major battle until Yorktown ( where he received lots of help from the French army and fleet), and wash thoroughly thrashed in tHe New York campaign.

Interesting.

I'd keep Washington up there, Rommel 2nd, Ataturk 3rd, Collins 4th and Napoleon 5th.

General Sir John Cope gets my vote!

Washington never won a major battle until Yorktown ( where he received lots of help from the French army and fleet), and wash thoroughly thrashed in tHe New York campaign.

Do Trenton, Second Trenton and Princeton count? All he did was drive the Limeys from New Jersey and revive the Revolution. "Major" need not be counted by numbers. How would the War have progresed with Howe in control of all of New Jersey at the start of 1777?
How many major battles did Ho Chi Minh win?

As for the Frogs… Well, I still think we could have won the war without their help, merely by outlasting the British. Hang on until they get totally sick and tired of it. Oh, thanks for the muskets and gunpowder, Hortalez et Cie! Much appreciated!

I'd vote for Washington too, but right after the Daleks.

Germany in the 2010 World Cup…?

Greatest ever? HM Treasury :)

Got to be Adolf!

He did more damage than anyone else, lend-lease debt and all its knock-on effects amongst it.

I think Washington is a good choice – might have lost a lot of battles, but won the war

While I can see where Ataturk figures in, what about all those Germans on the Western Front who almost brought Britain to bankruptcy?

I'd have voted for Aulus Plautius or William The B*stard… none of the others achieved a beachhead in Britain

However if you want to talk about total amount of land lost Washington caused the more acres to be lost than Willam.

…by that measure Washington was OK but he was no Gandhi.

This poll just shows how foolish some of our so-called experts are.
Many Wargamers have an amazing insight into who we fought (IE The British/English etc)and I think they would have made a far more logical and informed decision!

What about the Imperial Roman Legions?

They were only voting for 17th century to present since that is what eras the museum covers. Discounts the ancient and dark age foes.

Adolph never commanded an army in battle against Britain so he couldn't qualify.

It was also looking for commanders not troop types or nations.
It was Britains greatest enemy not England's/ Scotland's/ pre Anglo Saxon Britains greatest foe so it couldn't be anyone from before 1680 something really.

I think the choices are sound given the criteria. The order is a little odd perhaps.

Greatest enemy? Has to be Black Adder, First he gets Ritchard the IV killed, then he gets Queen Elizabeth killed, who is then inpersonated by a mad german, he then gets the king Regent killed, og granted he didn't kill any regents the fourth time, but later he does give up king Charles, and even later he goes back in time, and scruwes up histry so Boney wins, and England speaks French, Granted he does fix it, but still he has done alot of bad to this country, responsable for atleast 4 regicides.

'As for the Frogs… Well, I still think we could have won the war without their help, merely by outlasting the British. Hang on until they get totally sick and tired of it. Oh, thanks for the muskets and gunpowder, Hortalez et Cie! Much appreciated!'

You've contradicted yourself in the posting. First you say that the US could have won without them, and then thank them for some mateial help.

You can't have it both ways.

Without the French and the Continental Army, the United States would have lost. The Yorktown campaign, and the siege that ended it, would have been impossible without the French.

From 1778 onwards, the issue musket of the Continental Army was the French Charleville.

As to winning or losing, an excellent example of how the combat operations went is illustrated quite well by Greene's campaign in the Carolinas. He never won a battle tactically, but won strategically by driving the British our of the Carolinas except for Charleston, thanks to the Royal Navy.

The only thing the British held by 1783 was Charleston, Savannah, and New York-all thanks to the Royal Navy.

Sincerely,
K

'…by that measure Washington was OK but he was no Gandhi.'

And thank God for that. That's all the US needed. No, I'm not an admirer…

Sincerely,
K

There's a new book out, Washington and Napoleon by Matthew Flynn and Stephen Griffin, two academics.

Its worth a read and is pretty good on Washington but weak on Napoleon, using very few primary sources for the Napoleon sections. Some of the references for Napoleon are dubious at best. Still, worth a read and comment.

Sincerely,
K

Why not? If the Colonials would have lost and gave up how soon after would have hostilities broke out again?

"Oh, thanks for the muskets and gunpowder, Hortalez et Cie! Much appreciated!"

And the gold to pay our troops with (since the Continental Congress could not levy taxes to pay them), and the whole second army to chase Cornwallis into Yorktown, and the fleet that managed to beat the British Navy long enough to trap Cornwallis. And all the uniforms to clothe our boys.

And again, the gold that finally put the French Monarchy into bankruptcy and led directly to the summoning of the Estates General three years after the war ended, just in time give us wargamers a rich troves of battles to play.

You've contradicted yourself in the posting. First you say that the US could have won without them, and then thank them for some mateial help.

You can't have it both ways.

But I am not having it both ways.
I still say we would have won without their fleet and army, but not as quickly.
The munitions certainly helped, as do they help any revolutionary mvement.
Not a contrdiction at all.

The French were much more interested in revenge on the British than aiding us. If they could have prolonged things a few more years they should have.
The smart thing for the French to have done would have been to ship just enough armaments to keep things boiling, but not enough to actually end the war. (They did that quite well at Savannah and Newport. )
However, these are foppy aristocrats we are talking about, so the smart thing is not the usual choice for them.

BUT, this is not the proper thread to continue this.

I'm not doubting that we could have outlasted the British will to fight and pay for the war, but the quaestion was which general was the UK's most outstanding military opponent.

I'm a fan of Washington's because he knew what he needed to do to win the war (keep the continental army intact, and prevent the British from occupying so much of the colonies that the rebels couldn't sustain the war). However, he wasn't a military genius. I'd rate him as slightly above average.

Trenton/ Princton: A nice piece of operational maneuver that, as you say, kept the heart in the revolution in some very dark days. However, it was a very small victory vs. risking another major defeat and the survival of the main army. They were almost trapped actually.

Given the limitations of the poll Washington was a very good choice. I have often wonder if the Americans could have won without the French. I say no. The French made it a world war.

It is not all about what the French provided to America but rather it was that Britain had to protect all it's Empire. It lead directly to the abandonment of Philadelphia by the British. I believe it was fear of the French Fleet and Army cutting of Cornwallis and the need for more troops in New York which lead Clinton to order Cornwallis to Yorktown to be moved by sea to New York to help ward off a combine American/French attack there.

Add the Netherlands and Spain into the mix and Britain was pretty much alone. America almost became secondary to the overall war effort.

Good point earlier about Britain trade with America increased after the war. Britain could reap the benefits of American trade without having to pay to maintain 13 troublesome Colonies.

The original post should have been cross posted to the American Revolution Board. They have started a similar thread.

I'm actually curious about Napoleon being third more than I am GW being first.

'But I am not having it both ways. I still say we would have won without their fleet and army, but not as quickly.
The munitions certainly helped, as do they help any revolutionary mvement. Not a contrdiction at all.'

Then your assumption is incorrect. No Rochambeau, no de Grasse; no French fleet, no Yorktown. In short, no French, no victory.

If you disagree then support your contention.

Sincerely,
K

If Britain had done more to keep The South in the fold….where we belonged and where a good number wanted to stay…we would both have been a lot better off.

Charles De Gaulle
We (British and Americans) took him from obscurity, gave him everythig he had, gave him an army, and he whuppud us with it. Somehow we never realized he was our puppett and we let him pull the strings.

''identify the country's most outstanding military opponent'' Erwin Rommel

I second McLaddie's Romans suggestion.

So where did Mel Gibson come in?

Rommel was not outstanding; he showed no grasp whetever of logistical issues and took far too many risks.

A massively over-rated commander IMO.

I think I would have voted for Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck. He and his army were undefeated and still very active in East Africa when Germany surrendered in 1918.

Jim

ColCampbell,

I had forgotten about von Lettow-Vorbeck but, now that I am reminded, I would put him at the top along with Konteradmiral Karl Dönitz during his tenure as Befehlshaber der Unterseeboote; as Churchill later said: "The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U Boat peril".

If you disagree then support your contention.

"What-if" propositions are by their very nature impossible, or at the very least difficult to support. They did not happen, so…
Even "professional" card-carrying historians make asses out of themselves with their "counter-factual" scenarios. So, I feel I am in good company.

However, it is my OPINION that from the perspective of the best interests of the French, it would have been better to keep the Americans afloat with material, period. No armies, no fleets.
Just enough support to keep America a running sore for the British. Heck, even a few chests of gold.
Frnace was bankrupted by sending and supplying fleets and armies.
I am arguing that she could have done it better and cheaper.

It is also my OPINION that Washington could have SURVIVED and kept the army more or less intact, for quite some time.
He COULD have won a political victory by surviving and outlasting a long host of British commanders.
Without straying into blue Fez territory, modern history shows the viability of such a strategy.
Heck, he might even have come out of it as Lord Washington.

Sure, there were many difficulties. However, our American mythology embraces Washington for facing and overcoming his difficulties.
Half the fun of "counter-factual" arguments is that facts are not as important. They are mostly opinions, in my case based on slight(!?) Francophobe tendencies.

BTW, anyone who dismisses the victories at Trenton and Peinceton as "not major" has no comprehension of the importance of politics in warfare. Didn't Clausewitz have a word or two about that subject?
Wasington showed that theRevolution was still viable, which in late 1776 and early 1777 was what was needed.
Note that the victories at Trenton/Princeton and Saratoga were accomplished without French aid, with the exception of the sinister and clandestine Hortalez et Cie. Note that this is what I think theyshould havecontinued doing.
I have read that post Saratoga, the British were actually contemplating a political compromise settlement. Perhaps. But the French ACTIVE entry into the war scupperred any political settlement.
Negotiations could easily have collapsed without the French entry, and the war continued, to the delight of the French.

As I said, this is my OPINION, but not entirely implausible. War is not totally about calculations and certainties, but much more about human performance.
I think Washington could have pulled it off. Whether or not it would have been a Good Thing is a different matter.
The AWI lasted long enough to make Washington the Hero of the Revolution, and also long enough to discredit Gates. I have argued before that that was the main benefit of the Feench intervention.

Mohammad Akbar Khan

Sadly American mythology has turned Washington into a wooden-toothed granny looking', thin lipped Yankee type…no wonder some Brits are balking at the notion. In fact he was a dashing Southern Cavalier…and a worthy opponent.

My personal mythology of the awi is that my people were loyalists killed in battle with Rebels in South Carolina.

I vote for Von Lettow too.

Why not Napoleon?

Possibly because he only engaged us in one battle as a commander. And he lost that.

RE France and the AWI: Right, they didn't intervene because they were in love with our liberty but because they wanted revenge against Britain. Pretty much like we liberated France in WWII to beat Germany rather than love for La Belle France.

As for staying in there, our economy was coming apart at the seams because of the British blockade. Our normal economy was based on coastal and overseas shipping. Both were pretty much strangled. Colonial roads were a joke.

Check out Buell's "In Irons" for the near total collapse of the economy. A couple more years and we might have just caved. We came close even with the French in. They were terrified we were going to leave them holding the bag with Britain.

The Emperor Claudius
The Anglo Saxons
The Danes
William of Normandy
William of Orange

Druzhina
sites of wargaming interest

Napoleon was an enemy of Great Britain for 20 years. He fought them in more than that one most famous battle – he drove the British out of Spain.

British money was used to finance Napoleon's opponents. He escaped under their watch, and ended his life in their captivity.

He may have lost, but it cost the British greatly and gave them their most famous battle and most famous general.

Napoleon was certainly more of any enemy than Michael Collins, at #2.

Clay,

I am afraid your thread has been hijacked. It happens. The French lost in Spain, at Waterloo he lost. Napoleon had an established country with a military tradition. Lot's of resources and could not be considered an underdog.

Washington and Franklin pulled off a miracle against a world class army. The Americans had only a few trained militia to start with and had to build a regular army from scratch. Not to mention a new nation with a new form of government, all at the same time.

Franklin talked the French into assisting us, which was a remarkable feat in and of it's self, and saved the revolution. Napoleon was expected to win, the Americans were not. After 1805 the French were no threat to invade Britain and attack it's empire.

The French in 1777 was a real and legitimate threat to invade Britain. The British lost a big chunk of their Empire because of Washington. Napoleon never came close to doing that. Napoleon was supposed to win, but did not. Washington should have lost but he won. IMHO that is what makes George Washington the right choice.

He might of been in Spain at the time ordering people about but he still didn't fight a battle. Only Soult did.

So with one battle which he lost. How can he be?

Now if the poll was asking for which enemy was the greatest, then Napoleon would be possibly No 1, what with conquering pretty much most of Europe.

And i still don't know why people are suggesting whole cultures! The Danes? One brief campaign with only two small land battles in 1807 apart from that … Nothing. Anglo Saxons!!! Large swathes of GB were anglo Saxon. Claudiois and Norman Will both long dead before the time frame of the poll, and Britain didn't even exist in their day.

Orange. Might be greatest enemy to Ireland, but don't think he did anything to England or Scotland.

In terms of "all to lose" GB IMO came closest at the time of the Spanish Armada and the 7 Years War (aka the first real world war). Losing either of those would have been very damaging.

In terms of "best generals they faced" I'd say Rommel, some of the Boer generals, the Zulus did a lot all things considered – before Napoleon.

I think Washington played his hand very well, but the American colonioes were not the colonial jewel in the crown at the time so they put comparatively little resource into it. But it probably does count as the largest British defeat.

"…the American colonioes were not the colonial jewel in the crown at the time so they put comparatively little resource into it."

What was the jewel in the crown in 1776? Not arguing, but curious. IIRC India wasn't British then.

Edwuff:

I did not say Napoleon lost in Spain. I said the French lost in Spain. They were still his commanders. He mis-manged the whole Spanish affair. Napoleon is ultimately responsible for all the loses in Spain. He choose not to prosecute the war personally and instead wasted the best of his army in Russia.