Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Battle of blenheim?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Sunday, 26th February 2006
Was the battle of Blenheim won due to Marlborough's genius in command (with eugene) or errors and bad judgement on tallards and the french's part?
For example Tallard cramming too many men into Oberglau after the allied attack on the french right. And allowing the crossing of the nebel and the cavalry and infantry to form up relatively unmolested. -
Message 2
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Sunday, 26th February 2006
Yes, plus Tallard formed his centre entirely with cavalry, with no infantry support.
-
Message 3
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Sunday, 26th February 2006
Cheers ironaxe,
Could tallard have won, even though his much vaunted cavalry were routed in a few minutes on the allied left.
Surely when the allies crossed the nebel, that was the time to attack the allied centre with everything -
Message 4
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Sunday, 26th February 2006
Although John Churchill was famous for having never lost a battle, his victory here was by no means certain. Louis XIV's troops had also never been defeated, and there were more of them than Churchill had under his command.
There were effectively three battles going on at once and Marlborough had to oversee all three, pulling troops from one sector to another as necessary - all without any means of communication other than runners and horsemen. The fighting at Blenheim began in the early hours of the morning, and victory was not certain until late that night. Churchill's ability to predict the enemy's actions and to counterattack swiftly and effectively, demonstrated clearly here for the first time, made him the supreme tactician and general of his era. Another factor was his command of the logistics of supplying his troops - such matters as feed for horses and fresh bread and dry boots for men were taken more seriously under his command than anywhere else, and guaranteed his soldiers' loyalty and trust. -
Message 5
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Sunday, 26th February 2006
At this stage of the war did he have his so called double 00 agent in Louis's court. If so this might explain how he could continually outfox the french!
-
Message 6
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 26th February 2006
I would say that it was a combination of the both. How many desicive battles ahve been won by an ackowledged military genius over another except whn the odds were stacked against one. Am example would be Zama Scipio against Hannibal but the odds were definately stacked against Hanibal.
-
Message 7
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Sunday, 26th February 2006
How many desicive battles have been won by an ackowledged military genius over another except when the odds were stacked against oneΒ
How about Spartacus's final and doomed battle at the end of his revolt of 73-71bc? -
Message 8
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 26th February 2006
Who were the Military Genius' on either side? And wahy are tyou still posting here?
-
Message 9
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Sunday, 26th February 2006
I'm just asking.
Because I'm allowed to every so often? Though maybe I won't.
Why are you? -
Message 10
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 26th February 2006
I never announced that I was leaving these pages. You did.
βAfter much thought, and after witnessing in exasperation a gradual quality decline in the relevance of posts to history on this board(triggered partly by the recent 'upgrading' of this site), I will be leaving.
No offence intended against many of you good people here who clearly do love this great subject.
These boards used to have a regular fan base of history-lovers that posted intelligent, searching and interesting history questions, and received equally stimulating answers. But they have mostly left before me.
Consequently, I shall leave you in possession of the field...
Warm regards.β
Ironaxe -
Message 11
Posted by Huscarl (U1753368) on Sunday, 26th February 2006
Yes I know you haven't, I'm fully aware of what I said.
I was giving you the same welcome you offered.
Goodbye Dim. -
Message 12
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 26th February 2006
βAfter much thought, and after witnessing in exasperation a gradual quality decline in the relevance of posts to history on this board(triggered partly by the recent 'upgrading' of this site), I will be leaving.
No offence intended against many of you good people here who clearly do love this great subject.
These boards used to have a regular fan base of history-lovers that posted intelligent, searching and interesting history questions, and received equally stimulating answers. But they have mostly left before me.
Consequently, I shall leave you in possession of the field...
Warm regards.β
Ironaxe
I am afraid you have shown yourself to be exactly the same as the people you complained about. I have not insulted you (Dim) at all just pointed out your inconsistancy. AS I said at the time that you you were leaving I would welcome some discussions on Anglo-saxon matters.
regards
Tim -
Message 13
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Monday, 27th February 2006
Marlborough's reputation owes a great deal to the writings of his descendant Winston Churchill. It might be better to read something about Prince Eugene - preferably in German to avoid the 20th century biases - and then ask yourself, who was the great commander.
-
Message 14
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 27th February 2006
Marlborough's reputation owes a great deal to the writings of his descendant Winston Churchill. It might be better to read something about Prince Eugene - preferably in German to avoid the 20th century biases - and then ask yourself, who was the great commander. Β
I was reading a book on Guderian and in that the author quoted from a chief of staff of one of the German armies during the invasion of Russia. In his diaries he talks about various of the German Panzer Generals including Guderian. One of them he descibes as being an excellent subordinate, just like Eugene. I assume he viewed this based on the campaigns that Eugene fought with Marlborough -
Message 15
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
I think you might find that is Prussian disparagement of an Austrian commander with family roots in Italy. Eugene commanded on his own most of the time and certainly ranks far above Marlborough. M was senior at Blenheim, but had the easier task with more troops than his opponent.
-
Message 16
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
Dave
we have debated this before. I entirely agree that Eugene was a first rate commander but I just happened to think Marlborough was as well as witnessed by Ramillies. It was Marlborough who marched his army to the Danube and made the breakthrough at Blenhiem.
I would have said that describing someone as 'an excellent sub-ordinate' is hardly disparaging. It clearly shows a German view of Eugene from a senior German commander. -
Message 17
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
I agree with Dave. Eugene's campaign in the Balkans culminated in taking Belgrade from the far more numerous Turks. Similarly in Italy, despite being massively outnumbered he succeeded in taking Turin and tying down 3-4 times the number of French troops which could have been used elsewhere. Blenheim shows just how far Eugene could lead his troops against the odds and still have the confidence to release reserves to Marlborough. The British troops at the time thought Eugene almost a god and Napoleon rated him among the greatest generals of all time.
Whilst I rate Marlborough highly, I do wonder whether he'd have performed if Eugene had been in overall command. Even when nominally under the command of others Marlborough often did his own thing. -
Message 18
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
"Whilst I rate Marlborough highly, I do wonder whether he'd have performed if Eugene had been in overall command. Even when nominally under the command of others Marlborough often did his own thing"
Perhaps that is why the German staff General considered Eugene a perfect subordinate.
Eugene did lose the last campaign of the war without Marlborough. But as I said before I do not dispute Eugenes abilities I just have a higher opinion of Marlborough than Dave seems to have.
By the way to what occasions are you applying your comment that "Even when nominally under the command of others Marlborough often did his own thing". I would agree in the Sedgemoor campaign but then Marlborough did not have a high opinion of Faversham.
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
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ 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.