 Editor in Chief Bill   | 21 Aug 2017 1:08 p.m. PST |
Which general was the best? |
| Winston Smith | 21 Aug 2017 1:21 p.m. PST |
|
nnascati  | 21 Aug 2017 1:21 p.m. PST |
Probably Montcalm, he was able to consistently beat larger British forces throughout most of the war- |
| Old Contemptibles | 21 Aug 2017 1:25 p.m. PST |
|
| Dan Beattie | 21 Aug 2017 2:20 p.m. PST |
|
| Gunfreak | 21 Aug 2017 2:32 p.m. PST |
Not that Scottish one that managed to get his entire column wiped out by a few Indians. He was quite heartless too. |
| Garde de Paris | 21 Aug 2017 2:35 p.m. PST |
Gunfreak, that is SOOOO bad! Colonel Munro "…was quite heartless too" thanks to Maqua! GdeP |
| Mooseworks8 | 21 Aug 2017 2:52 p.m. PST |
The guy that runs the 54mm F&IW game at Recruits but failing that then Wolfe. |
| Duc de Brouilly | 21 Aug 2017 3:11 p.m. PST |
De Levis. Came back and beat the Brits on the Plains of Abraham. |
| basileus66 | 21 Aug 2017 3:20 p.m. PST |
Pitt… Ok, he wasn't a general, but he was the true architect of victory. |
| nnascati | 21 Aug 2017 4:08 p.m. PST |
Basielus66, you have a good point, Pitt turned the war around. |
| nnascati | 21 Aug 2017 4:30 p.m. PST |
I'm reading Parkman currently. With all the infighting and arguing among the colonies, it really is a wonder that the British managed to win. |
| Steelkilt | 21 Aug 2017 5:44 p.m. PST |
I vote for John Bradstreet, even though he wasn't promoted to general until 1772. His battling Battoe-men and the 1758 sack of Fort Frontenac after the catastrophe at Ticonderoga are epic achievements! |
| Jeigheff | 21 Aug 2017 6:22 p.m. PST |
James Wolfe. If you want to include Pontiac's Rebellion, then I'd have to include Pontiac himself and ultimately, Henry Bouquet. |
| 15th Hussar | 21 Aug 2017 6:30 p.m. PST |
Henry BUCKET !  |
 Unlucky General | 21 Aug 2017 9:01 p.m. PST |
François-Gaston de Lévis, Duc de Lévis – a no-brainer for me. He was part of the taking of Fort William Henry, successfully defended at Carillon, missed the Plains of Abraham (good move) and won the bloodiest battle at Saint Foy in a marvellous come-back – just not good enough. Strategically neither he nor Montcalm could win in isolation but put up a hell of a defence and made the British pay dearly. Unlike Wolfe or Montcalm, he lived a comparatively long life to tell his tale – died aged 68. |
| historygamer | 22 Aug 2017 4:59 a.m. PST |
Montcalm was good, but part of being a good general is getting along with the civilian overseers, which he did not. That poor relationship hurt their cause. There weren't many battles that allowed a rating of tactical ability on either side. The English devoted more and sustained resources to the war, so it is hard (and somewhat unfair) to measure the efforts of their generals vs those of France. Amherst conducted a classic siege operation against Louisbourg. He coordinated a three pronged attack on Montreal – with the different columns arriving within days of each other. He did more than a credible job overseeing the military land operations across the continent. Don't underestimate the Royal Navy either, that strangled supplies and reinforcements to New France. My picks would be: 1. Amherst (he won)
2. Wolfe
3. Montcalm
4. Forbes (conducted a masterful campaign of fortified positions)
Some other commanders of note on both sides, but they weren't generals.
|
| Duc de Brouilly | 22 Aug 2017 11:20 a.m. PST |
I was always surprised at Fortescue's account of the Battle of Quebec: he seems to be trying to find excuses for Montcalm and saying that Wolfe got lucky. Not what you'd expect given his usual views on the British and the French! |
| Cluck Amok | 22 Aug 2017 9:17 p.m. PST |
"The guy that runs the 54mm F&IW game at Recruits". . . I'm that guy. More of a quartermaster than a general ; ) I don't know enough to pick a best general, but no single battle has captured my imagination more than the Plains of Abraham, where both Montcalm and Wolfe lost their lives. Parkman's telling is heartbreaking. |
 etotheipi  | 23 Aug 2017 5:29 a.m. PST |
General Militia Draft/Conscription – Can't argue it had a larger impact on the outcome of the conflict than the efforts of any one commander … |
| Bowman | 03 Dec 2017 3:39 p.m. PST |
Montcalm was good, but part of being a good general is getting along with the civilian overseers, which he did not. Because Montcalm was a man of honour and honesty, and Vaudreuil was anything but. The Governor General was rife with corruption and graft, and meddled with Montcalm's running of the military. Montcalm did very well considering the circumstances |
| Bowman | 03 Dec 2017 4:12 p.m. PST |
Don't underestimate the Royal Navy either, that strangled supplies and reinforcements to New France. Yep. After Historicon this summer I was talking to one of the historians at the Fredericksburg battlefield. He felt that the Union Navy never got the credit that was due to them in their role in the ACW. I think the same can be said about the Royal Navy's role in the FIW. After de Levis won at St. Foy, he could not drive Murray from Quebec City. So all he could do was watch for which ships appeared in the spring first. It was the British and he hightailed it back to Montreal. Again, Vaudreuil did little to stop British ships from sailing close to Quebec City. His gun batteries were too small, and too few. Same with the usual tactics like blockades and fire ships. Vaudreuil and the other governing officials arrogantly thought the St Lawrence was too unpredictable and dangerous for anyone but the French to safely sail down. It's interesting to read about a young Captain James Cook and his efforts to get the British ships safely past Quebec City. |
