I believe it’s bogus nonsense but I’m all ears if you have evidence?
Napolean would have been way back at HQ if he’d had access to wireless, for me ‘leading in the field’ suggests leading - Henry V, Richard III, etc
I didn’t present it as factual, but anecdotal, so no, not interested in that. Going by standard definitions of the term Napoleon lead most of his battles from the field of battle. He also suffered wounds in combat early in his career, so it’s well established historical record he was in the thick of it at least at some point.
That’s not how anyone I’ve ever met who studies military history, or any historians I’ve read, define the term. You of course are free to define it however you wish and that definition will be afforded the full respect to which it is entitled.
I think that’s a very sexist comment to make about the queen.
I don’t know if I would name Washington but I don’t know if I wouldn’t. He had to overcome the inherent weakness of the colonies not having a strong central government or a professional army, having to train them himself. He had weakness and lost a number of battles but learned from them and never surrendered. There was also widespread support for the Crown in the 13 colonies that he had to overcome. One third were loyalist, according to John Adams. Britain a decade earlier had beaten the French and would do it again 25 years later. She then went on to steal 25% of the world from its rightful owners so its class system that put blue blooded boobs in command didn’t hurt them that much.
If I was asked, I’d probably say that the rules should be changed and vote for Hitler. He was a a real micro manager anyways, so he practically commanded armies in the field anyways.
Yes. If you never kill the bedbug, and it lays eggs that hatch, and it’s offspring eventually eat most of your body. Definitely the bedbug would be the greatest foe.
I don’t know of any link but there was a British officer who had to opportunity to shoot and quite likely kill Washington in 1777 but etiquette frowned on his shooting an officer in the back.Scots Great and Small, People and Places: The Man Who Almost Shot George Washington
There was also the strategy that was tried and almost succeeded of dividing the colonies in half by conquering New York. It was halted by rebel victories at Saratoga and Oriskany (plus an earlier naval battle on lake Champlain where Benedict Arnold delayed an advance from Canada).
To claim Washington is stupid. But to claim *Collins *is absolutely crazy!!! He was a pin prick on the arse of Great Britain.
Cannot see why Hitler should be disqualified. He was certainly a “military foe” - he was head of the German Armed Forces after all. This “leading in the field” requirement is just odd - so no wonder you get odd responses.
In any case, this is not an issue that should be subject of a vote - it is not a talent competition. It is Hitler - never have we come so close to being destroyed as 1940. Close the thread.
The Battle of Arcola probably qualifies as evidence.
Whilst he did not actually enter hand to hand combat, he did lead off the charge across the famous Bridge and exposed himself waving a flag on the top of the dyke exposed in full to the enemies fire. Several members of his staff were killed or wounded whilst trying to remove him to safety.
Hitler and Napoleon and whomever the Germans had in charge in WWI that qualifies (not Willy) all were far, far more dangerous and lethal to England than GW. GW has the distinction of having had his gains consolidated and lasting. But he never came near destroying England.
If the French/Spanish fleet had won at Trafalgar… If the Spanish Armada hadn’t been chivvied into unfavorable winds… If the Germans had more U-Boats, either in 1916 or 1942…
You guys been lucky!
Of these, only the Armada seems to me to be a “what if”. There was no way that Nelson’s fleet was not going to win at Trafalgar. Their gunnery and training were just far too superior. The Germans didn’t have significantly more U-Boats because the high command thought they had more than enough, Doernitz and Rader should have been able to manage. The real fortune for the Brits in the Battle of the Atlantic was that the Poles stole enigma and gave a great jump start to the brilliant code breakers. The code breakers (especially the undersung Poles) get the credit here.
As for the Armada, looking at the wiki article, Spanish Armada - Wikipedia it is not as miraculous a thing as school children are led to believe. The Spanish did outgun the English, but the English had more ships and more familiar waters. The Spanish intended to engage the English ships while barges from the Netherlands would ferry 50,000 troops ashore. Had the barges arrived, the English warships might have sunk them all. It was not a surprise attack. A very good job by the English navy, but not an Agincourt at sea.
And yes, the English have been very lucky in constantly having their nation on an island with a minimum of 30 miles of North Sea moat!
But what you’re really saying is that that England’s opponents were stupid or unprepared or both, which seems pretty damn lucky to me.
I’d rule out “stupid,” but, yeah, unprepared. Kaiser Wilhelm tried to win the “battleship race” with the British, but the British economy could afford more. Napoleon didn’t allow enough funds and expertise to raise the standards of French/Spanish gunnery. There is no significant reason this couldn’t have been done. A serious “Naval Training Institute” in France under Napoleon could have done a lot of damage to Nelson’s fleet.
(This is why the U.S. stands out today as a military power. We spend a LOT of time in training. Our pilots get vastly more air hours than nearly anybody else.)
One of the “great debates” in military history is the question of lots of cheap weaponry vs. small amounts of really, really good weaponry. (And training, and personnel, and etc.) The lesson, with very few exceptions, is that it is better to have a small, highly-prepared force rather than a big, dumb one.
Inspiring one of the very few memorable quotes from Joseph Stalin – “Quantity has a quality all its own.” It certainly worked well for them in WWII, not so much since.
^ Decent battlefield leadership helped.
Rhetorical q: On the field of battle, who would you confidently put up vs. Wellington or Nelson, or even that scoundrel Drake…
There is no question that Nelson was a superior commander. But having trained his officers and fleet, Trafalgar would have had a similar result had he been boinking his mistress in London. Nobody would have crossed the T, but the French would have been soundly defeated.
As for Wellington, he was an excellent general without question. He succeeded in surrounding and outnumbering Napoleon, no mean feat. But could Wellington have defeated Napoleon with roughly equal troops? Blucher’s arrival was what ended Napoleon with less and unready troops. If I can control Napoleon, yeah, I will put him up against Wellington. But you really can’t control Napoleon. Waterloo was as much a result of the Russian campaign as anything else. Inevitable with an ego as big as Napoleon’s.
I suspect Wellington found the measure of Boney in the Peninsular War.
So as not to undersing the Poles, I’ll point out that the initial and arguably most critical breakthroughs the Poles made were entirely the product of logical analysis and mathematics – a brilliant combination of brainpower and inspired guesswork – not stealing a machine. Marian Rejewski’s work has been called one of the all-time greatest feats of applied mathematics.
Sorry to nitpick, but the British didn’t “cross the T” at Trafalgar. As this diagram shows, they sort of deliberately got their own T crossed. The maneuver was properly called “breaking the line from windward,” and its point was to isolate a smaller portion of the enemy line and defeat it with a local superiority of ships and guns before the rest of the enemy fleet could come to its rescue. The weakness of “breaking the line from windward” is that you have to sail into a bow rake, your lead ship(s) getting fired on from the bulk of the enemy line, much as if your own T had been crossed. Nelson’s great insight was an exact appreciation for how much damage the Franco-Spanish gunnery would do during this risky approach, and how much the British ships could endure, to reach the desired position from which to isolate and destroy sections of the opposing fleet.
“Breaking the line from windward” itself was not an idea that originated with Nelson, however. It was first proposed (as a solution to the inconclusive nature of orthodox line-of-battle engagements) by a young Scot whose name I forget, and variations had been attempted by several British admirals before Nelson (Rodney, for one).
Absoluely agree with this. You’ll probably also agree it wasn’t the selection of this tactic in this battle that made Nelson so extraordinary.
Ah it’s a bit silly but I wouldn’t say it’s absolutely without merit. Collins’ actions brought about a contraction of what was the United Kingdom. Napoleon and Hitler never managed that. 