"Political generals (in a good way." Topic
7 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the General Historical Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleNeed some low-pressure clamps?
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
Korvessa | 26 Jun 2022 2:14 p.m. PST |
Not talking about political hacks that plagued the North in the ACW, but rather generals that had to master politics to keep coalitions in good working order. I have been reading a couple of really good books on the US army in Africa & Italy, and it occurred to me that Eisenhower was somewhat akin to Marlborough & even Wellington. I am not talking about battlefield performance, but rather the daunting task of keeping allies focused and working together toward a common goal, in spite of differing agendas. Of those three: Who had it he easiest? Who had the hardest time? Who was the most successful at keeping allies working together? |
robert piepenbrink | 26 Jun 2022 4:37 p.m. PST |
Hmm. First, I think we have to add Schwarzenberg to the list for his 1813-14 performance. Then I'd rank them Marlborough (hardest time) Schwarzenberg Wellington Eisenhower (easiest time) That's not to run down Ike. It's to acknowledge that his coalition was most unified politically. FDR and Churchill were close together on wartime goals in Europe, and the French and Poles didn't have the resources to go it alone. Wellington has something of the same advantage through 1814: the Portuguese and Spanish may not be thrilled by his decisions, but where else will they get muskets, artillery and ammunition in the quantities they need? The 1815 coalition was more delicate, but didn't undergo prolonged stress. Marlborough and Schwarzenberg, though, have a very real possibility of one or more major partners opting for a separate peace, or pursuing a war alone. A coalition is most stable when all the parties can win, but only if they all hang together. The stress comes when they might lose together, so the advantage is to the first one to defect, or when they don't really need everyone, so the "surplus" allies lack leverage. My opinion. I'm sure there are many others, but how can we measure the difficulties? |
ColCampbell | 26 Jun 2022 7:55 p.m. PST |
From all my reading, I tend to agree with Robert. Jim |
Frederick | 27 Jun 2022 6:14 a.m. PST |
Coalition generalship is a tough thing – I agree with the rankings for the reasons cited; Wellington's toughest job as a Coalition general was probably the Waterloo campaign, given how many of his troops were much more used to Vive L'Empereur than God Save the King |
enfant perdus | 27 Jun 2022 10:03 a.m. PST |
My thinking was very much along Robert's lines. My additional thoughts: 1) Ike had the advantage of same-day (usually) communications with both his superiors and subordinates, even if they were half a world away. 2) Ike was overseeing a coalition engaged in an existential struggle, in the most literal sense. For all that de Gaulle (for example) caused endless headaches, there was no way that the French were going to bow out due to dissatisfaction with Ike's command. 3) Ike also didn't have real political skin in the game. His fortunes didn't wax or wane depending on the power of his party, nor did he have to make considerations based on the potential benefit or loss for his party. 4) Relative to the above, consider Wellington and Marlborough. Both benefited greatly from their political connections, but were also burdened by them. In Marlborough's case it brought about his dismissal. |
robert piepenbrink | 27 Jun 2022 11:11 a.m. PST |
Good points, enfant. I would hedge on (1) being a self-evident advantage, though. There was talk in the latter 19th about a general being stabbed in the back with a telegraph wire, and it wasn't necessarily a joke. Yes, you can get a decision in a hurry--maybe. But you're also the beneficiary of a lot of ideas the Boss hasn't really thought through. Not that the Schwartzenberg position--two emperors and a king, all with staffs, and everyone within shouting distance--is anything a general would look forward to. |
Grattan54 | 27 Jun 2022 8:23 p.m. PST |
Ike had to deal with DeGaulle. Not all that easy. |
|