Masters of the Battlefield: The Five Greatest U.S. Generals in History

Dread Knot · 10-26-14, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Yes I know that but my question was posed as a hypothetical comparison between the achievements of both

I suppose it depends on what position Wellington holds in the overall command structure. By all accounts, Lt. General John Burgoyne at Saratoga was an able British general. But when you're part of a three prong effort and the other prongs don't do their part or even get started because your superiors let you down, you're somewhat screwed.

It's my understanding Wellington wanted nothing to do with the War of 1812, seeing it as a useless diversion from Napleon.

Sailor Steve · 10-26-14, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

It's my understanding Wellington wanted nothing to do with the War of 1812, seeing it as a useless diversion from Napleon.

Wellington also told the Parliament that the war was unwinnable, and the best he could do was negotiate the peace treaty they should have already signed.

August · 10-26-14, 02:50 PM

Washington and his Continentals were a vastly different type of opponent than Napoleons Grande Armée. Wellingtons success against the latter really isn't a good indicator at how he'd fare against the former. Conversely while Washington prevailed against the succession of competing British Generals things might have turned out different against a general of Wellingtons stature.

This illustrates a problem I have with designating best of anything but especially military leaders. Success in war is far too dependent on a multitude of factors that are out of the leaders control.

Take the Battle of Trenton for example. Had the Hessian pickets been a little more alert that chilly morning, or had Col Raul bothered to read the message in his pocket delivered the night before that detailed Washingtons plans the battle could have been a disaster for the Continental army.

What we call an example of the military genius of Washington we might well see as a prime example of his incompetence.

10-26-14, 02:50 PM	#3
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,226 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Washington and his Continentals were a vastly different type of opponent than Napoleons Grande Armée. Wellingtons success against the latter really isn't a good indicator at how he'd fare against the former. Conversely while Washington prevailed against the succession of competing British Generals things might have turned out different against a general of Wellingtons stature. This illustrates a problem I have with designating best of anything but especially military leaders. Success in war is far too dependent on a multitude of factors that are out of the leaders control. Take the Battle of Trenton for example. Had the Hessian pickets been a little more alert that chilly morning, or had Col Raul bothered to read the message in his pocket delivered the night before that detailed Washingtons plans the battle could have been a disaster for the Continental army. What we call an example of the military genius of Washington we might well see as a prime example of his incompetence. But that would involve the Germans actually defeating the Americans which as we all know from Hollywood movies simply can't happen. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.