Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Wellington or Marlborough?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Friday, 23rd September 2005
Here's a question, who was the best?
Both Generals had made a reputation before fighting in the campaigns that made them famous. Wellington in India and Marlborough in Flanders, sedgemoor and Ireland.
Both understood logistics, both worked well with foreign allies, both defeated French armies that appeared invincible and both used their armies to the best of their abilities.
Marlborough never fought a battle that he did not win and never laid siege to a town that he did not take.
Wellington had set backs at Burgos and almost defeats at Fuentos d'onerou, Cuidad Rodrigo, Badajoz. (rubbish spelling).
Both had enemies in court, at home and in government yet both were supreme commanders and it is hard to think of generals who could have taken their place.
Anyone got any thoughts?
Redcoat -
Message 2
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Saturday, 24th September 2005
Both lived on the coattails of German Generals - Prinz Eugen and Blucher respectively - but it is a reflection of how we read about history that those who did the real fighting get fogotten, while two Generals, who fought relatively few battles under favourable conditions - and in W's case with a small army on short supply line sget all the glory.
-
Message 3
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Saturday, 24th September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='DaveMBA' USERID='1360771'>Both lived on the coattails of German Generals - Prinz Eugen and Blucher respectively - but it is a reflection of how we read about history that those who did the real fighting get fogotten, while two Generals, who fought relatively few battles under favourable conditions - and in W's case with a small army on short supply line sget all the glory. </QUOTE><BR /><BR />Dave <BR /><BR /> That's not very accurate. Don't know as much about Marlborough's career. However Wellington was only involved with Blutcher in the Waterloo campaign. His career would have been considerable without that and he also earned as much fame as Blutcher from that series of battles. For much of his campaign he did manage relatively small armies but often against larger forces. At times he had considerable advantages in terms of supply and logistics, but often that was because of his own management and organisational skill. As such it was to his merit rather than any black mark in his career.<BR /><BR /> Steve<BR />
-
Message 4
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Saturday, 24th September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='DaveMBA' USERID='1360771'>Both lived on the coattails of German Generals - Prinz Eugen and Blucher respectively - but it is a reflection of how we read about history that those who did the real fighting get fogotten, while two Generals, who fought relatively few battles under favourable conditions - and in W's case with a small army on short supply line sget all the glory. </QUOTE><BR /><BR />Try counting Wellington's battles. "relatively few"? It is very hard to think of any general of any age who actually fought (and won) more. An dnumbers have nothing to do with it. He was almost always outnumbered. <BR /><BR />For me, Wellington has the edge over Marlborough because of the sheer number of his victories. It has to be said, that both were superb.<BR /><BR />People who insist Blucher won Waterloo seem to forget that Napoleon easily beat the Prussians at Ligny only a few days before. Blucher fought there against Wellington's advice, and he lost. Fortunately, the French failed to follow up, which decided Wellington on standing to fight,knowing Blucher would come to join him.
-
Message 5
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Saturday, 24th September 2005
I would do a bit of reading up on the history of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars.
"It is very hard to think of any general of any age who actually fought (and won) more." Well, you could start with Napoleon! The senior Austrian commander, Prince Johannes Lichtenstein fought in 132 battles and smaller actions.
"An dnumbers have nothing to do with it. He was almost always outnumbered." Erm, ever read about Waterloo (prussians were quite numerous!)?
Napoleon won every battle with superior numbers as that as his great skill - he lost where he had smaller numbers or the intelligence net did not deliver, so what does that say about Allied comanders? Indeed, looking at Sparrow: Secret Service, the asssessment by the founder of MI5 was that W won his battles with int in advance. In terms of numbers, the Austrians were outnumbered by about 40,000 at Wagram - but even there, they had more troops than the British and French armies at Waterloo. So, how would W have got on with something larger than two corps? Well, we can't know any more than how he would have fared against the GA at its best - the UK did not have troops in Europe between 1794 and 1808 (Naples aside in 1805).
I think you will find Waterloo is put up as W's greatest victory - and Peter Hofschroer's research shows that he was a bit economical with the truth before and after - indeed, the claim that he advised the Prussians not to fight at Ligny was ex post facto and he had of course induced them to think he would arrive to help. Pretty shabby stuff along with the Convention of Cintra, which he somehow avoided getting the blame for. -
Message 6
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 25th September 2005
I'll admit I haven't go tround to reading Hofschroer's version of events, but othe rposters on these boards have quoted from him and, quite frankly, he seems to be very selective in his presentation of facts. Apparently he claims that here were only 9,000 English troops at Waterloo. This may be correct (although I doubt it) but ignores the fact that Britain also incudes Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Additionally, the Hanoverian British army always had a large proportion of German troops. It seems a bit rich t criticise Wellington for usin gthe troops he had been given. Was he supposed to say to teh non-English trops. "Sorry guys, we pay your wages, you wera our uniform, but you can't fight Napoleon because you're not English"? And presumably Hofchroer discounts Napoleon's Polish and German troops. After all they are not French.
Yes, the Prussians were quite numerous, but they did not reach the battle until very late in the day.
There also seems to be a focus on Waterloo here. It may have been Wellington's most important victory, but it was not his greatest. He himself, thought Assaye was his "best" battle, alothough Salamanca has been described as his "masterpiece".
I am very impressed by Johannes Lichtenstein's battle wins. How long was his career as commander of an army? He must have won a battle every couple of weeks or so. It's amazing he did not conquer the whole of Europe. -
Message 7
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Sunday, 25th September 2005
Peter's comments about the number of English as oppsoed to german troops were to illustrate the biased approach in sourcing, which have been taken with the battle. Indeed, were you to read his work, you would find that one of hte biggest myths is that "the Prussians ... did not reach the battle until very late in the day." That is wellingtonm's claim, not a reflection of any source from the time.
As for your sarcasm about Prince Lichtenstein, it merely demosntrates your ignorance of European history (see the above!!). -
Message 8
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 25th September 2005
We do seem to be getitng off thread here, but I bow to your greater knowledge, Dave. I'll readily admit European history is not a field I have studied in depth at all. Ignorance does not prevent me from wondering how any commanding general who won 132 battles is so little known (See Greatest General thread where nobody has mentioned him at all).
I'm afraid just don't see how constantly decrying Wellington because the Prussians came to help him, as he and Blucher had planned, makes him an over-rated general.
Incidentally, I'd be interested to know what time the Prussians did arrive at Waterloo. According to my source book (which may be biased, although the author claims to be quoting from contemporary sources), General Muffling recorded that the first attack, by only one corps of the Prussian army, did not start until around 4.30 p.m. Wellington could not possibly have known this as he was under attack by Ney at the time. It was not until around 7 p.m., according to one of Gneisenau's aides, that the Prussians acually managed to seize the village of Plancenoit and they were then driven out again. As thee battle had started aounr mid-day, I would say that qualifies as "late in the day". -
Message 9
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 25th September 2005
Redcoat, reply to message #1,
Well, aside from pointing out that you haven't included Bill Slim for comparison with Marlborough and Wellington as the top British Generals, and admitting that I know relatively little of Marlborough, possibly Hill, Baird or Moore (if Moore had lived) could have performed as well as Wellington.
Cheers AA. -
Message 10
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Monday, 26th September 2005
Cheers AA for sticking to the point.
I agree Slim et al could have done as well, but I was only comparing the two generals due to the way of combat at the time. Musket, horse and cannon. I like many others know more about wellington than Marlborough, but am learning more and more about the captain general.
Just his march to outfox Tallard in the 1704 campaign leading up to Blenheim was a marvel of logistics.
All the battles he fought including Blenheim, Rameillies, Oudenarde, Malplaquet easily rank next or above Wellingtons victories at Salamanca and Vittoria! -
Message 11
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Monday, 26th September 2005
redcoat
IMHO has Marlbourough a slight edge,he had to outfight the enemy all the times.
While Wellington often brilliantly used the land to fight for him,like the Torres Vedra.
But which one of them who was the best is more and less a toss up.
Other good English generals from 18 cent and onvards,Wolfe(Quebeck),Cornwallis,Moore,Napier(the Ethiopan campaign a master piece),O Connor and Slim.
Their is more naturally but to be quite frank,England hasnt been granted with an affluence of great generals.
Hasse -
Message 12
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Monday, 26th September 2005
<QUOTE' USER='HasseTh' USERID='1882612'>redcoat<BR /><BR />Other good English generals from 18 cent and onvards,Wolfe(Quebeck),Cornwallis,Moore,Napier(the Ethiopan campaign a master piece),O Connor and Slim.<BR /><BR />Their is more naturally but to be quite frank,England hasnt been granted with an affluence of great generals.<BR /><BR />Hasse</QUOTE><BR /><BR />True but possibly partly because we have been lucky enough not to need too many. {Between the channel and the navy, so often in the past supported by governments we had no great need of one]. I think its a fundamental reason why British society differed so much from that of continental Europe.<BR /><BR /> You do realise you have probably angered a number of my fellow countrymen from the other side of the border? Moore and I think also Napier came from Scottish backgrounds. Know Slim was English but not sure about O'Connor's origins. Wellington could be claimed by the Irish, by birth but as a member of the Protestant aristocracy and with his long opposition to Catholic emancipation they probably wouldn't want to.<BR /><BR /> Steve<BR />
-
Message 13
Posted by MDAustin (U1110379) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
"Both lived on the coattails of German Generals - Prinz Eugen and Blucher respectively"
That hardly takes account of the Indian campaign and the Peninsula war. -
Message 14
Posted by MDAustin (U1110379) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
Oh the joy and arrogance of the iconoclast.
-
Message 15
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
Yes, but there is a group of opinion that suggest that Marlborough only came up against 2nd rate french generals like Tallard and that most of his victories were due to the skills of Prince Eugene his austrian ally.
-
Message 16
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Tuesday, 27th September 2005
Steve
You are right about Moore and Napier,Wellington resented to be called Irish.
Sometimes do I use the continental way to say England when I mean GB,its a bit like Holland instead of the Netherlands.
You are certainly right about why GB amount of good generals are rather small,since most of innteligent officers whent to the RN.
But sometimes at those boards does it look like the majoroty thinks that all great generals the last 1000 years are from those islands
.
Hasse -
Message 17
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Tuesday, 16th May 2006
Apologies (well, not really) for resurecting this thread, but I've just finished reading "The History of the British Army" (and a cracking read it was.) Whilst by no means an expert, I was surprised that I hadn't heard more about Marlborough before. Leaving aside my ignorance, why isn't Marlborough as well known as Wellington, given his achievements? Is it because he lived that bit earlier? Did he have less enthusiastic biographers? Were his victories less popular at the time?
Cheers,
SW -
Message 18
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Wednesday, 17th May 2006
He owed his position to his wife being Queen Anne's lady in waiting. Then they fell out. That's politics, eh? The Succession wars have been rather forgotten about as they are overshadowed by the much larger brutal wars, which followed.
-
Message 19
Posted by paddygough (U4010557) on Thursday, 18th May 2006
I believe Marlborough studied warfare under the French. He fought under extreme conditions i.e. hinderance from the States General to his proposals, rotation of leadership between 3 just before Bleinheim and opposition from enemies at home. What he accomplished in an age were pitch battles were the exception rather than the norm puts him up among the greatest of commanders. Before Marlborough the Sun King thought himself invincible.
-
Message 20
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 18th May 2006
I have read several accounts of Malplaquet - this seems rather a blood bath to me - rather tha the work of a military genius - surely there were better tactics avilable - for someone who has been regarded as one of our best ever generals
st
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.