Who Was the Greatest Commander to Face the British?

[Bowler1]

The lack of direct command I think removes Gandi from the list - but a great name to chuck into the ring - good call PM.

Now where was I - Napoleon, how could I forget.

 

[comickaze89]

washington hand down

 

[Peter Graham]

Gandhi wasn't a general - being a pacifist, he was pretty much the antithesis of everything the military stands for.

One also has to be careful about attributing too much to one man. He was undoubtedly a fine, principled fellow who did great things and is utterly worthy of our respect, but he was not the first person who tried to undermine British rule through non-violent protest. Plenty before him had tried, failed and had been treated disgracefully by the British for their pains.

Like everyone on the list, Gandhi was a man of his time. One must place his achievements - great as they were - in the context of that time. Fact is, the British Empire was a busted flush by 1945. It was only ever going to be a matter of time before Britain (graciously or otherwise) dismantled her Empire - as demonstrated by the following decade or so. This isn't to take anything away from Gandhi, but it is important to understand the wider context in order to appreciate why he was so successful.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Parson]

Peter, Amen! Context is of paramount importance in any evaluation.

 

[Bowler1]

Indeed context is every thing, which is what I have been asking you all to do for Napeolon. Acheivements out of the fighting ring as well - best to also remember Britian at his time was one of the worlds great powers!

 

[Vertigo]

Peter is quite right about Ghandi and indeed the context. As he says the writing was already well and truly on the wall for the British Empire at that time.

Indeed context is every thing, which is what I have been asking you all to do for Napeolon. Acheivements out of the fighting ring as well - best to also remember Britian at his time was one of the worlds great powers!

However "out of the fighting ring" is, I consider, specifically outside the context of this question. To consider their status as statesmen to be part of this question would change the question to something like: who is the greatest national leader to face the British? And it would also remove a lot of the people in the National Army Museum's list.

I stick to my guns that the Museum's question is in the context of millitary tactics and (possibly) strategy.

 

[Bowler1]

I'm sticking to my guns as well - big cannons that Napeolon had!

Napeolon fought all his life, even as Emperor, he was the state and the armies he fought with were his. There is no dividing line with him which is why its difficult to judge him on just a military basis - a complicated man - unlike me!

Such a simple question, who would have thought......

 

[Bowler1]

Another vote for Rommel - that's two to one against my man.

I'm getting a sinking feeling here!

 

[Connavar]

Like everyone on the list, Gandhi was a man of his time. One must place his achievements - great as they were - in the context of that time. Fact is, the British Empire was a busted flush by 1945. It was only ever going to be a matter of time before Britain (graciously or otherwise) dismantled her Empire - as demonstrated by the following decade or so. This isn't to take anything away from Gandhi, but it is important to understand the wider context in order to appreciate why he was so successful.

Regards,

Peter

That is given how British Empire was post WWII if you have had decent history classes in school. Of course we humans tend to mythologize men and women like Gandhi like he changed everything on his own. Still fading Empires like the British wouldnt give away power,freedom to countries,people if it wasnt fought by people who was lead by a few. People like Gandhi had to go to prison,demonstrate and make trouble to their goals.

I find it mostly interesting how you could achieve things,change a country history with pacifist idelogy, you can lead people without being a military leader who killed 1000s in wars.

He doesnt belong in this thread of course.

 

[Boaz]

Vertigo, interesting thread. Thanks for posting. I've not read all six pages of it, but I'll chime in anyway.

Commander. What does that mean? Commander in a battle? Series of battles? A Commander-in-Chief? A King?

In various battles and wars, the British have faced many nasty opponents. North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, South Asia, East Asia, the Americas, Europe... The fact that the British have fought all over the globe is a testament to their many martial, economic, and cultural virtues/vices.

I cannot denigrate any of the opponents on this list. I'm only an amateur historian and I'll volunteer my view as such.

As for a battlefield commander, the British saw tough fighting against Ntshingwayo, Yamashita, and Rommel. As an American, I'm a big Old Hickory fan, but I'd like to add Daniel Morgan to this list. Even though "The Old Waggoner" suffered greatly from sciatica, he came out of retirement to fight for two years in the back country and rugged hills of the Carolinas. He is one of the inspirations for Mel Gibson's character in The Patriot. His outmaneuvering of Banastre Tarleton and his smashing victory at Cowpens saved the southern states, gave heart to the U.S. morale, encouraged the French to back us, and set an example for Nathiel Greene at Guilford Courthouse (a Pyrrhic British victory) that forced Cornwallis to retire to Yorktown.

Regarding an overall commander, I'd say George Washington. Of course, I'm severely biased as an American... and I just don't know the history of resistance in India like I do the U.S. Washington's brilliance was not on the battlefield. He knew how to identify able battle commanders and how to spot political appointees. Arnold, Morgan, Greene, Lafayette, and Von Steuben won almost all the battles for the Americans. Washington was smart enough to never get caught by the British. Keeping his army intact and as a poised threat bogged the British down for seven years. And the important thing is... he won. There was no Thermopylae. Thermopylae was self-sacrifice. Thermopylae was honorable. Thermopylae was legendary. Thermopylae was death. Washington survived and outlasted. I'd include Ghandi on this list.

Regarding a king or a national leader... I'd have to say Hitler. Napoleon was a threat, but not quite as immediate. Hitler bombed England, sank shipping, and assembled his forces. Churchill was forced to say, "We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France. We shall fight on the seas.... we shall never surrender." France, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Poland had already fallen. The Third Reich was an extremely real threat.

But as a combination... a battlefield general, a commander-in-chief, and an Emperor... Napoleon is it. The British battles in India, Afghanistan, Asia, Africa, and the Western Hemisphere were serious affairs, but none of them were a real threat to the soil of the British Isles. Those wars all were about locals resisting British dominance. As their next door neighbor, Napoleon put Britain to the test. I can't say anything that has not already been said... Who are the greatest British heroes? Nelson? Wellington? Well, then that tells you who the greatest enemy commander was!

I'd also like to say that even though the Britons are not the British, it's a shame to leave Gnaeus Julius Agricola off this list.

Edit: After posting, I read page six of this thread. I contend that Ghandi was not a pacifist. Pacifists are Quakers and Amish. Ghandi did not want peace. Ghandi wanted radical change, but without bloodshed. He knew the British Christian cultural values would win out if he refused to bear arms. By doing so, Ghandi forced the Brits to evaluate the situation with themselves as the oppressors... and that did not sit so well viewing the recent oppressors Hitler and Mussolini and the current oppressor Stalin. The Brits (and I contend any nation with Christian values) could not use force against people not willing to use force in return. Yes, and the Brits needed to recover economically.

Was Ghandi a military tactician? No. Did he lead men in a battle? No. Did he dismantle the British hegemony of his native country with a minimum of bloodshed? Yes. He achieved in a few years what India had not done in three hundred some years of British occupation. I say he was a brilliant commander.

The discussion has to be military strategy? What if it's just strategy? Isn't the guy who wins without losing a man better than all his predecessors who lost hundreds of thousands over hundreds of years? Doesn't the result make men who choose a military option look foolish?

But don't get me going on Ghandi's religious views and his betrayal of the Untouchables or I'll be here all day.

 

[Vertigo]

Interesting comments, Boaz. As with any list like this there will always be some glaring omissions and the original question from the museum, that this was based on, was equally ambiguous. I guess that ambiguity will always be a problem; the only way around would be a question that ran to several paragraphs

 

[J-WO]

I'd like to have seen General Haig on the list.

 

[Boaz]

J-WO, what can I say to that? Haig was in a messy situation. Was there anyone with any imagination to have avoided the trench warfare of the Western Front? Did Haig have any imagination? Did he take suggestions for new tactics? Did he have to make those assaults in 1917? I don't know the answers, but I know it was a giant $&!% sandwich and everyone had to take a bite. I can't believe I'm actually semi-defending the Butcher of the Somme. Was the Western Front that the largest Pyrrhic victory in history?

 

[Venusian Broon]

J-WO, what can I say to that? Haig was in a messy situation. Was there anyone with any imagination to have avoided the trench warfare of the Western Front? Did Haig have any imagination? Did he take suggestions for new tactics? Did he have to make those assaults in 1917?

It's a tough one to try and call from this distance.

I'm pretty sure Haig knew that the British army wasn't ready - 1916 was when the army truly became a citizen force and the millions of volunteers flooded across. They were green, fresh and not ready - Haig repeatedly set the date back for the offensive to the abject annoyance of the French. But the French were bleeding to death at Verdun and they needed a British offensive to save them. He was handcuffed into it.

Then the technology of static warfare - the big guns and the machine guns were light years ahead of the technology of mobile warfare, and it needed about 20 years more development before mobility became dominant. On the western front the Germans were on the defensive and constructed formidable positions.

Yes in 1916 people in the British army were trying to find ways to break the deadlock - the first tanks went into operation on the Somme, the supply chain was improving as Britain was shifting to a much more intense war footing, aircraft were getting faster, deadiler and more versatile, they were starting to learn how to combine artillery-infantary attacks (creeping barrages started in 1916)

But still for all the innovations, against a motivated well trained and well dug in enemy it wasn't enough in 1916, plus this largely inexperienced army still had a lot to learn - particularly about coordination and communication, in fact I'd say it wasn't till 1918 till all of the above really came together. (1917 was a disaster as they were mired in the abomination that was Passchendaele/Ypres where they also fought nature as well as the Germans.)

As I said, tough call. Haig should bear responsibility for what happened - he was in charge, but what would anyone else have done or thought in May 1916?

 

[paranoid marvin]

Exactly. Haig followed the usual conventions of war at that time. Where were the questions in Parliament or the front page headlines denouncing his tactics?

Yes, he lost far too many men, and it's obvious that there were some major ****-ups in his time in charge, but at a time when mechanised warfare was only just coming to the fore , with unclear and dificult lines of communications, it's dificult to say he was a bad commander.

Did anyone else do any better? And at least he ended up winning. Even with the benefit of hindsight, it's hard to see what better tactics could have been employed.

 

[Boaz]

I agree. From my reading (and let me reiterate that I am not a professional historian, I'm just a guy who likes to read), Haig was widely popular with the masses. He ran afoul of Lloyd George and some other politicians who disparaged him publicly after his death. But the numbers are just staggering... mind blowing to me. But then I did not live in those times. What I'm used to are the fights with U.S. servicemen in my adult life. The coalition forces in the Gulf War, the Second Gulf War, and Operation Enduring Freedom in all it's myriad forms and locations have achieved more objectives with minimal cost. Granted the times are different, weapons technologies are improved, and communications are instant so comparing eras is difficult... but I'd just like to comment about how we are accustomed to things. The people during WWI knew the death counts were horrific... basically fifty percent of all men on the Western Front were killed, wounded or ended up listed as missing... but the people got used to it. By 'used to it', I don't mean to say that they liked it or became ambivalent, but that it just became part of life for that moment. Contemporary Americans are accustomed to casualties of less than two percent of personnel. In our times, it's easy to see Haig as the worst commander.... ever. But the people back then were willing to pay the price and Haig was a hero.

What were the alternatives? Could the British have successfully invaded the Low Countries or Germany from the North Sea? My understanding is that it would have ben disastrous. Could the Entente have landed in Greece or Montenegro and moved through Serbia to attack Hungary? My understanding is that a move of that scope would have drained the Western Front defenses and left Paris open to attack. In hindsight, it appears a no-win situation.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I agree. From my reading (and let me reiterate that I am not a professional historian, I'm just a guy who likes to read),

That describes me too!

What were the alternatives? Could the British have successfully invaded the Low Countries or Germany from the North Sea? My understanding is that it would have ben disastrous.

I think ships would have been extremely vulnerable to shore batteries (look at the losses that the French and British took while trying to support their landings at Gallipoli) Hence although they could land troops ashore the problem would most likely have been their ability to supply them.

Could the Entente have landed in Greece or Montenegro and moved through Serbia to attack Hungary? My understanding is that a move of that scope would have drained the Western Front defenses and left Paris open to attack. In hindsight, it appears a no-win situation .

They actually did, but the moment they landed divisions there the Greek government which had been pro-allied was sacked by the king and the Greeks turned neutral. The troops landed were not allowed passage through, so were just stuck in camp in limbo. Eventually however they did convince the Greeks to return to backing them and along with the Serbs they did push up back to Serbia and forced Bulgaria to surrender near the end of the war.

On a related note:

If you like your tv military history I can thoroughly recommend The Great War. It's the BBC series that was first broadcast in 1964 and charts the whole history of World War 1 in 26 episodes or about 20 hours. It's black and white but it uses a wealth of footage shot at the time and interviews with veterans. Brilliant tv.

 

[Alien Dynasty]

As an American, I'm tempted to say Washington, but while he was good, he wasn't the best. I think it's a toss-up among Napoleon, Rommel, and Tipu.

 

[jasminevincent]

[FONT=&quot]Erwin Rommel is my answer

[/FONT]

 

[Rommel]

[FONT=&quot]Erwin Rommel is my answer[/FONT]

Took some time to think it over? Only 8 months?
HeHe, Yes, i tried my best, but that ruddy ol' tightlipped bugger did not give me the support.