Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Greatest General?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
I have to confess to visiting some other message boards from time to time. One I was on a while back was about the Hollywood film, Alexander, and it sparked a lot of rather acrimonious discussion about whether Alexander was the greatest general of all time and, if not, who was. Of course, everyone had their favouties.
It got me to thinking about whether there is an objective way to decide this, and I came up with a list of criteria.
The greatest general would have to be a master of tactics, strategy, and logistics. Strategic withdrawals are OK, if successful, but he must not have been defeated in any battles. He must not have had significant superiority in numbers or equipment. He must have fought several battles.
Much to my surprise, these criteria eliminated Alexander ( March through the desert - bad move) Napoleon (Moscow and Waterloo) My own personal favourite, Hannibal (Failure to take Rome, defeat at Zama) Genghis Khan and Zhukov (overwhelming superiority in numbers and / or equipment).
I have whittled my list down to Julius Caesar (although his first invasion of Britain was not too clever and I think this might edge him out), Wellington, and Belisarius as serious contenders, but I don't know enough about Marlborough, Tamerlane and Shaka Zulu to decide whether to eliminate them or not.
Are there any other contenders? Are there any other criteria I can use to decide the winner?
P.S. This is just a bit of fun. I hope nobody takes it too seriously. -
Message 2
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Wow, an opportunity to rant!! I can't resist. Please, please let me go first.
I have to go for Uncle Bill Slim, he (I think) meets your criteria, strategic withdrawals successful, logistics the only army in WW2 to have been successfully supplied by air. Numbers and equipment, outnumbered by the Japanese and at the end of a very long supply chain. (Okay you can argue the Japanese equipment wasn't up to much but when the RTR (Royal Tank Regiments) got Lee Grants they were ecstatic about them). [Possibly amongst the worlds worst tank in any other situation than a jungle]. Tactics and strategy, well head and shoulders above anyone else in WW2. (My humble opinion).
Honourable mention: Sir Hugh Gough. C in C India. Fought the First and Second Sikh Wars. Attacked every time even though outnumbered and won every time (but one) which he followed up with a win. (My own personal favourite lunatic).
Honourable Mention: George Thomas (ACW). Possibly little known but I still vote for him, he still meets the criteria.
Honourable Mention: Jan Smuts. 2nd Boer War. Tricky blighter, yet like Churchill complex. (Don't know if he qualifies as "General" though.)
Marlborough, got to keep him in.
Apologies as this list is severely anglocentric.
AA. -
Message 3
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Tony
The answer is you cant,maybe the best general was Atpoyo who kept the forces of the other tribe ranking thousands in manpower at bay for some years.
A discussion like this is and must be,for obvious reasons biased.
You get my unsured vote Belosarus,the general whos actions I personally have admired the most.
The general with most influence of strategic thinking is undoubtly Tzun Tzu,with Clauswitch as runner up.
Hasse -
Message 4
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Oh, and Mannerheim.
-
Message 5
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
I would nominate an American Indian chief Hinmahtooyahlatkokht (translated "Thunder Rolling from the Mountains"), known in English as Chief Joseph.
As chief of the Nez Percé tribe in Idaho in 1877, he was illegally ordered to leave his tribal lands. Breaking away, with he led his people towards sanctury in Canada, over 1,500 miles, fought 17 engagements (against big odds) and was chased by 2,000 troopers. Through his skill and courage he almost made it, finally surrendering 40 miles short of the border.
He died in a reservation, but for months he was headline news in the USA in that year, receiving great sympathy at a time when the nation was still recovering from the defeat of Custer at the Little Big Horn.
Cheers, hes. -
Message 6
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
AA
Manerheim was a really good administrator and focusing point.
As a figthing general average.
Hasse -
Message 7
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
HasseTh,
Okay, I'll admit it, I was trying to find a non anglo General off the top of my head. Manerheim sprang to mind. Okay, Gustavus Adolphous. Think I've got one here!
AA. (Made me think). -
Message 8
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Some great suggestions, guys. I don't think Clausewitz and Tsun Tzu count, though. Great theorists, but did they actually win many battles?
I had completely overlooked Slim, I must admit and my knowledge of Native Americans is limited toi Little Big Horn.
I must admit that I am personally leaning towards Wellington. Yes, I am biased.
Keep them coming. -
Message 9
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
TonyG,
Overlooked Slim!, overlooked Slim!!!! You will have to forgive me but anyone who suggests that Uncle Bill was not the greatest General of WW2 will have to answer to me.
Stilwell admitted that Slim was the only commander he could deal with. Omar Bradley (the only American army commander that I can understand!) said that Slim was a man he could do business with. Even the Australians had him as Governer for longer than the usual 5 years. OOps, gone off on one again.
AA.
I can also say that Wellington deserves mention, but wht about Suvarov?
AA. -
Message 10
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
AA
Right on he wasnt only a great general but did change tactics.
He spelled the dome of for the last 200 years dominatng terticos(Phalangs),with platton fire.
Tha carracole of the Cavalry also died,his tactics was predominant up to ACW.
Undoubtly he is one of the great ones.
Hasse -
Message 11
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Tony
I didnt say that Tzun Tzu and Clausewitch where outstanding fighting generals.
Tzun Tzu was a real good figthing general,he did against the odds create the first united China.
Clauswitch was not his main importance att the battlefield is that he turned "traitor" and fought with the Russians against his own country against Napeleon for what he thought the good for Germany.
If Napoleon had won he would be a Quisling,another point that the victors whrite the history .
What I meant in tactical sense Tzun Tzu and Clauswitch is outstanding you still read them at military accademies around the world.
Hasse
PS. My vote is still on Belosarius. -
Message 12
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
Thanks HasseTh.
Knew I'd get a right answer finally. (And before Jozef joins in) he (Gustavus) did learn something from the Poles. Full on Cavalry charge, shock tactics. Still, Gustavus did teach the Europeans about war and how to win. Pike and shot, firepower, simple if you know how. Oh, the caracole tactic of the reiters, why oh why did that work?
A What if? springs to mind. What if Gustavus didn't die at Lutzen? I'll fully admit that if he didn't I'm out of my depth.
Cheers AA. -
Message 13
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Sunday, 4th September 2005
AA
About Slim agre that togheter with Mannstein,and maybee Connel and Rommel the best of WWII.(Altough I have a liking for Patton a truly fighting general)
If Gustav had lived it wouldnt be soo good for Sweden he would have made himself,the votings was already cleared emperor of Holy Roman empire.
Meaning Sweden would play at the best second fiddle,like Scotland with the Stuarts.
For the world I dont know,Poland and Russia would soon be subjugated as they more or less already was by Swden alone.
With Scandinavia and HRE united in 17 cent,the domination of Europa would be secure,if not to much interneal strife.
Hasse
PS Gustav Adolph did get voted the title the great when he lived,but since we dont like the title the great on any of ours,is he still just called Gustaf Adolf.
It in the same thought their isnt any rivers in Sweden,the biggest is called Älv,the rest in all other languages ranking as rivers is Å.Rivers exist only outside Scandinavia in our language,silly but true. -
Message 14
Posted by Duke of Northumberland (U1751006) on Monday, 5th September 2005
For me two people stick in mind
1. Me I wiped out the clans of Scotland and I suppose created the beginnings of Great Britian!
2. more interesting one is Rommel yes I know he got kicked but he saved a lot of soilders from dying by withdrawing even though he knew it would be a matter of time before the SS would come for him. Also he was not a nazis just a very clever german officer who could see defeat and was not prepare to sacrifice 10,000 lifes. -
Message 15
Posted by numberonebillyboy (U1689004) on Monday, 5th September 2005
It has to be Wellington. He meets your criteria, never lost a battle, was a master of strategic withdrawal. Take a look at the Peninsula campaign. Withdrawal behind the Lines of Torres Vedras to let the french army starve and wither. he kept his army supplied unlike the french in Spain. Always fought a battle on ground of his own choosing with good lateral lines of communication.Even Waterloo, saddled with incompetent people like the young prince of orange, who did his best to throw away good troops,lord Uxbridge and Ponsonby who cost him his cavalry and the desertion of many of the Belgian and Dutch units. the Imperial guard was beaten before the prussians arrived
-
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 5th September 2005
Alexander was no general, he was the greatest man in history that walked the earth and one cannot employ arguments like 'he ordered his armies to walk on the dessert, and that was a bad move' - he could order them to walk to the moon and they would do it for him (the greek ones only if they wanted that also themselves!!!). Mind you that army was 80,000, less than 20,000 Greeks and 60,000 Persians - so you can never known what was his motive under that decision...
The greatest generals following you criteria 'not having large and superior forces, and not having lost any battles' could be one of the following:
Tzenkis Han: he was a great general, he started from nothing, became a leader, united tribes, organised continuously larger armies that hit the chinese and the central Asian muslim empires (usually he was on 'similar terms' with enemies that were also large empires having large armies), and practically he was rarely or never beaten.
Parmenion: the general behind the success story of Greek troops in Asia, during Alexander's 'epic voyage'. He started from being under king Philip the general of a small and pathetic macedonian army so obsolete as to fight in the likes described in Iliad (even their weapons were more close to Mycenean than to hoplite fashions), an army of a state that was 80% conquered by barbarians, Thessalians, Athenians, etc. Due to his work and within a decade that army was transformed into one of the most formidable armies in history and that was no easy project (some might say, at that time it was all shields and swords...). He beat enemies on all directions, Greeks and barbarians, Europeans and Asians, tactical armies and undisciplined guerrilas. As far as I know he is reported to had lost no battle (which seems quite the truth regarding the success of the greek armies in asia and how far they reached).
The third is Belisarius, the formidable general of Eastern Rome (Byzantine empire), who under the orders of ambitious empreror Justinianus, utilised to maximum potential the relatively small byzantine army to sweep all kinds of barbarians all around the mediterranean. He is not very well known in history due to the relatively few texts mentioning him - not to mention that the same Justinianus was rather afraid of his reputation so he showed more political preferance to... general Narsis (who was a known eunuch I think...so he could never become an empreror).
Other great generals exists but do not cover all your criteria.
Ceasar is very close though he fought mainly with Romans or Gauls.
Sun Tzu is the absolut strategist (my favourite one) but some even deny his existence (I believe he existed and that he was a great general but we do not know much details).
The formidable Basilios Bulgaroktonos (unbeatable byzantine emperor) he was an emperor and not clearly a general, and had much help from strategists though he usually lead his various armies.
Saladin had 2,3 really great victories for the arabs but organised no long lasting far going campaigning like Mongols or Greeks. Christian kingdoms in Palestine were anyway rather weak ones.
Great European generals appeared well after the Rennaissance, I believe count Marlboro was one of the greatest since he reformed the english army and introduced the first "modern" battle tactics (modern until more or less the late 19th century).
Napoleon is rightfully the most famous but had lost a war (Russia) with 800,000 French casualties!!!!
More modern generals have also their rights in fame but usually they utilised huge armies, with state of the art weaponry most of the times against inferior or smaller armies. -
Message 17
Posted by Landwehr (U1664897) on Monday, 5th September 2005
then of course there is Wellington's own favourite general, Marlborough. He also won a series of victories over the French, only this time he was fighting the main french army including its best guard regiments (whereas Wellington in the Peninsula was up against a French "second eleven")
-
Message 18
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Monday, 5th September 2005
Hi Hasse, For the world I dont know,Poland and Russia would soon be subjugated as they more or less already was by Swden alone.
With Scandinavia and HRE united in 17 cent,the domination of Europa would be secure,if not to much interneal strife.Ìý I knew we’d clash.
With vast countries like Poland (as it was in the 17th century, see any map) or Russia you can never say it’s over till it’s over.
I don’t know if you Swedes learnt anything from Polish 17th-century military tactics (in fact I think our methods of fighting were quite different), but nor did you ever find anything to counter a classic Polish hussar charge. In 1605 a Swedish army was certainly cut to pieces by Chodkiewicz’s hussars at Kircholm near Riga.
Gustavus Adolphus’s conflict with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was of a very limited nature. Basically he captured a few of the less important southern Baltic ports to tap into the then extremely lucrative Polish grain trade and thus finance his foray in the 30 yrs war. And it didn’t all go his way. In 1627 his ships were successfully repulsed by a Polish flotilla off Oliwa (though we were lucky that your flagship the Vasa later sank in a storm), he failed to capture the big one, i.e. Gdansk, and in June 1629 he himself almost got captured by Polish cavalry near Marienwerder (his sword belt and scabbard were taken as trophies). By then the Swedish King was quite willing to make peace with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was in fact and quite uniquely ruled by nobles. So he allowed himself to be bought off by getting for a time 3 point 5 percent of the toll on the Vistula trade, which helped finance his war in Europe but hardly broke the nobles’ budget (who always preferred wallowing in wealth to war). See Truce of Altmark 26 Sept 1929. And that was that. Both sides happy, because the Polish nobles, whether they liked it or not, still had to deal with rebel Cossacks, Tatars, Turks and Muscovites on the Republic’s far-flung southern and eastern borders.
Perhaps when you say that Poland was subjugated by Sweden you mean the 1655 all out offensive launched by Gustav Adolf’s nephew, Charles X, together with the Muscovites, Prussians, Transylvanians and treacherous Polish-Lithuanian magnates (treason was a favourite pastime among many Polish nobles in those days) which indeed wrong footed the patriotic nobles. Commonly referred to as the Deluge (which incidentally happen not long after the great Khmelnitsky Cossack Rebellion), it may have looked for a time that the Polish Republic was done for, but then the Jasna Gora monestary fortress at Czestochowa miraculously held out. All epic stuff and one of the reasons why Poland (the nobles, that is) changed from being a fairly Protestant country to a far more predominately Catholic one. The tide turned. Led by Stefan Czarnecki, the Poles drove the Swedes from Warsaw, the Prussians were persuaded to defect and the Transylvanians routed. By the late 1650s Czarnecki was attacking Swedes from Danish bases in Jutland. In the1660 Treaty of Oliwa the Swedish side renounced all claims to the Polish Republic and the Polish King Jan Kazimierz Vasa renounced all claims to the Swedish crown (big deal, he was only an elected monarch). You kept Livonia, but returned all other territories, so it was hardly a major Swedish victory. Mind you, you Swedes did keep a lot of the stuff looted from places like Warsaw. Is any of it now in your museums?
Cheers, Jozef -
Message 19
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 5th September 2005
Dear AA,
I've been doing a little research on Slim. I confess he is not a general I know a lot about (The Forgotten General leading the Forgotten Army?). Howeevr, one website I found gave a very brief biography and had the following comment:-
"During the summer of 1943 Slim attempted to recapture Akyab but the offensive ended in failure".
This is a campaign I know nothing about. Does it rank as a defeat? I will grant that an unsuccessful attack is not necessarily a defeat, but I made up the rules, and this may disqualify him. (in the purely selfish interests of getting Wellington to top spot, I have to eliminate all other candidates by fair means or foul).
I look forward to your robust defence of your prime candidate. -
Message 20
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 5th September 2005
Hes,
In response to message 5.
Chief Joseph (forgive the use of the English name). What a great nomination. Given the numbers of troops involved, though, can he be classed as a general? I may have to invent a new rule here about numbers of troops involved to qualify. Also, when you say he surrendered, does that not imply defeat, or , at best, a strategic defeat?
Sorry to nit pick, but as a completely biased judge, I need to dispose of all these claimants so that Wellington comes out on top.
-
Message 21
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 5th September 2005
Re mnessage 15.
Numberonebillyboy,
You will get no argument from me. Wellington meets all the criteria.
There are a few others we need to dispose of, first, though. Nobody has yet been able to disqualify Belisarius or Tamerlane. Parmenion, whom I had forgotten about, Slim and Marlborough are also strong candidates. -
Message 22
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
TonyG: Alexander the Great still holds the top. Just because he did something you didn't like doesn't take that away from him. He fought in all types of terrain. He fought on sea and land. He fought armies many times his superior in numerical strength. The only thing that stopped him was time, (and maybe Festion's thighs). But I have never seen any list by any historian that didn't place Alexander at number one. On almost all of those lists Napoleon is number two.
-
Message 23
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
Jozef
You are right that with big empires you never know.
Karl X did find a bit to easy to shot the said Hussars to pieces 1656,on the march to Warsaw,that he did forget the goals to take northern Poland and Lithuania.
When Austria,Brandenburg and Denmark moved into the conflict treathening,Swedens heartlands he had no choice but to turn back.
Doing the famous icemarch over the belts in Denmark forever takinng and incoporate,the provinces of Skåne,Blekinge,Halland,Bohuslän and Jämtland,about 30% of Swedens terrotory and population today.
Dont forgett we was back 50 years later
.
About cavalry you are right we didnt copy your cavalry tactics,altough the Polish cavalry has always been one of the finest in Europa,and far suprior to ours.
We did base our tactic on firepower not at least was the cannon especially the lightweight ones a lethal weapon.
So we did use cavalry different yours was mostly the very mobile leightweight types that the farflung empire craveed.
We on the other hand moved on waterways thats why having secure ports alover the Baltic was so important,our cavalry was for screening and to give the coup de grace in the openings the cannons and musketers had done.
Since the 15 cent,and about 300 years forward was Sweden,Poland and Russia mostly quite even matched,sometimes had one of the other the upper hand.
When Swedish and Polish forces did fight eacother in the outskirts of Moscow,in the great Russian unrest did our general De la Gardie say lets finnish the Russians of before we have a go at each other.But with kings that where relatives,and enemies dont listen to sencible advices.
But Jozef my friend with a living Gustav Adolf,with the backing of the Roman German empire you wouldnt stand a chance.
Their wouldnt be another Tannenberg,a great but sadly neglected battle at least outside Poland.
Hasse -
Message 24
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 6th September 2005
jesw1962,
You are right. I do have a problem with Alexander. I can't explain why, although the fact he was a psycopath may have something to do with it. I could argue that he hardly won a battle after he killed Parmenio, so perhaps it was Parmenio who was the real general. And in terms of the parameters (which I did set out myself) Alexander was clearly no great strategist, even o fhe was tacticlaly brilliant. Losing a huge part of his army in a pointless march through a desert was hardly a strategic master stroke, and the fact that his troops threatened to mutiny when he went too far from home, shows he misjudged what he could achieve.
Possibly a more reasonable argument than these is that, although often outnumbered, he had a significant advantage in the phalanx. The Persians never could stand against it, right from the time of Marathon, through Plataea and on to Xenophon's march. With the Macedonian development of the sarissa making the phalanx even more powerful, I would argue Alexander had a huge technological advantage.
We all have our favourites, as this thread has proved. All of those mentioned are remembered as great generals for a reason. And, of course, nobody will ever be able to prove who the best was. But it is fun discussing it. -
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 7th September 2005
I fully agree with you on the fact that Parmenion was the genious behind the success story of Alexander's army, he had a whole range of very capable officials, his armies were already veterans before enterring Asia due to Philip's impressive wars beggining from North Greece to western and southern. Yes Alexander himself was the creation of his ingenious father who unfortunately is largely overshadowed by the shine of his son.
Alexander was not a general, he was the leader of the greek army. Thus he was above generals. In modernity governors decide for wars and generals are sent to guide their troops into battle and soldiers and lower officials carry out the burden of the battle. Even at that time, Persian kings and generals worked in exactly that way. Alexander was their king, their general and their co-soldier at the same time: he was making the plan of war, he was arranging the plan of battle, and he was fighting in the first line and his soldiers knew that he had as much war-wounds as them that is why they were calling him by his name 'Aleksantre' not 'my highness, holyness or even my king' - that, answering all venomous attacks on his s.pref. (by the way, Hephestion was the childhood friend (and not lover) of Alexander, thus he was his most trusted man, he was a man and was known to frequent with women not be a royal concubine - all those venomous attacks on Greeks in general forget that there were laws from Athens to Sparta, and from Syracuse to Pella specifying who could be the leader of an army (will not tell you more cos ethicists and as-if 'politically-correctists' will start shouting, and that is not my point but on the other hand I cannot sit down and listen to all that venom and blatant lies). Do not forget, lies about Alexander started as soon as he died (people claimed he was this he was that Persians said he was persian Egyptian said he was Egyptian, extra terrestrials said he was UFO whatever...)
He certainly participated in the planning, and he was the main orchestrator of that unimaginable epic campaigne (the only known campaign of an organised army of its kind). Above all he was a great politician that managed for the first time to make inter-cultural bridges within his empire. His generals, the successors in Egypt and Syria, though they had strongly resented the 'equality of Greeks and barbarians they followed to an extend his example of intercultural mixture.
That march through the dessert cannot be seen as a failure (searching for a failure on that man is really a nice one...), afterall we do not know clearly the factors that made them take that decision.
The soldiers' unrest was not exactly an unrest. For all those who are not informed (and I do not expect everyone to be informed of course on greek history), the Macedonian society was something like a fossil of 7th century greek societies that survived up to the time of Philip and Alexander having the same social divisions that other greek states had untill the mid-archaic times. Thus the king was nothing more than the first among equal aristocrats, while the absolut decision instrument on war/peace decisions was not the king or aristocrats but the council of the army were common soldiers had the right of expressing their opinion by voice (a bit like Spartan and early Athenian councils). Thus even at that point Alexander for macedonians was still their king in the old fashion, thus they had every right if they wanted to refuse his orders during the assembly. Therefore, Alexander talked to them in the end in a really bitter way of the style: 'my father took you from being enslaved to non-Greeks and made you rulers of them and then of all Greeks, i took you from that point to make you rulers of the earth, you were dressed in shabby cloths I gave you all the riches and what do I earn for a thank you? This 'no'.... of course he had no other option but to respect their orders -
Message 26
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 7th September 2005
Thanks, Nikolaos. Very informative. I must admit that I admire Philip more than Alexander.
-
Message 27
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 8th September 2005
Tony
I think you are refering to the Arakan offensive, Akyub is in that area. It has been described as the most incometantly handled British offensive of WW2, and that is saying a lot. But Slim was only brought in after it had failed to try and sort out the mess. The person responsible did try to saddle the blame on Slim and get him sacked as the scapegoat. Howver for once the high command realised who was really responsible and he got sacked.
cheers
Tim
By the way I also rate Slim as a very good general. -
Message 28
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Thursday, 8th September 2005
Hasse, Jozef
You are right that with big empires you never know.
Karl X did find a bit to easy to shot the said Hussars to pieces 1656,on the march to Warsaw,that he did forget the goals to take northern Poland and Lithuania.
When Austria,Brandenburg and Denmark moved into the conflict treathening,Swedens heartlands he had no choice but to turn back.
Doing the famous icemarch over the belts in Denmark forever takinng and incoporate,the provinces of Skåne,Blekinge,Halland,Bohuslän and Jämtland,about 30% of Swedens terrotory and population today.
Dont forgett we was back 50 years later.
About cavalry you are right we didnt copy your cavalry tactics,altough the Polish cavalry has always been one of the finest in Europa,and far suprior to ours.
We did base our tactic on firepower not at least was the cannon especially the lightweight ones a lethal weapon.
So we did use cavalry different yours was mostly the very mobile leightweight types that the farflung empire craveed.
We on the other hand moved on waterways thats why having secure ports alover the Baltic was so important,our cavalry was for screening and to give the coup de grace in the openings the cannons and musketers had done.
Since the 15 cent,and about 300 years forward was Sweden,Poland and Russia mostly quite even matched,sometimes had one of the other the upper hand.
When Swedish and Polish forces did fight eacother in the outskirts of Moscow,in the great Russian unrest did our general De la Gardie say lets finnish the Russians of before we have a go at each other.But with kings that where relatives,and enemies dont listen to sencible advices.
But Jozef my friend with a living Gustav Adolf,with the backing of the Roman German empire you wouldnt stand a chance.
Their wouldnt be another Tannenberg,a great but sadly neglected battle at least outside Poland.
±á²¹²õ²õ±ðÌý Thanks for replying so swiftly and apologies for me taking my time to respond. (Apologies are also due to TonyG for speaking so much off topic, but such are these new boards that you can’t discuss a side issue without coming across as a thread crasher.)
You’ve made a Pole very happy by recalling the 1410 Battle of Tannenberg (in Poland it’s always referred to as the Battle of Grunwald, not to be confused with the 1914 Battle of Tannenberg, when the Germans thrashed the Russians and in which Poles took part on both sides – such is our peculiar history). Like all great Polish victories, and there were in fact many of them, Grunwald has been largely ignored by historians beyond Poland; though perhaps not by the Germans seeing as they took so much trouble to construct an OTT monument marking the 1914 victory that was to make amends for the crushing defeat over half a millennium earlier.
You might well ask if, as I claim, Poles have won so many battles and have a very long and impressive military tradition, why did their state (from 1569 the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth alternatively called the Republic) ultimately fail and actually for a time ceased to exist?
The answer lies in the First Republic’s system of government. Poland never had absolutism, it never had autocratic rulers. Only the British Parliament is more ancient than the 500-year-old Polish Sejm. And unlike in England, from the 15th century onwards the Polish nobles always had the upper hand. That’s why right up to the 18th century Poland was unique for its religious tolerance. Polish legal and political thought in the First Republic’s Golden Age, mid 16th to mid 17th century, was exceptionally sophisticated. But such sophistication also eventually became a great weakness. The noble elected their monarch’s for the successful candidate’s lifetime only. This was an open invitation for foreign powers, particularly the Hapsburgs and their bitter rival France, to meddle in Poland’s internal politics. The Polish Vasas were in fact candidates backed by the Hapsburg faction. (BTW, the term Austria in the 17th century simply meant lands belonging to Hapsburgs, not the country whose football team Poland beat 3-2 last week). And I haven’t forgotten Charles XII (a far more interesting Swedish king than Charles X), it’s just that by then most patriotic Polish nobles were actually rooting for him and his candidate for the Polish throne, the Pole Stanislaw Leszczynski, rather than the Saxon Augustus the Strong (apparently father 300 children ergo ‘strong’ in one physical respect at least ), who was backed by a newly formed Russian Empire that wished to turn Poland into a Russian protectorate. Poltava was a catastrophe for Poland too.
The other great weakness was that military matters and foreign ventures were also the domain of the Polish nobles rather than the monarch. It might seem ridiculous, but even in the 17th century defence of the realm, and this was an exceptionally vast realm depended on a feudal levee en mass! The fact is that once they got their act together, the nobles formed extremely formidable armies. The taking of Moscow in the so-called Time of Troubles (in a far more concrete way than Napoleon managed to do and where Hitler simply failed) was merely the private venture of a bunch of Polish nobles. But the down side was that nobles were always more interested in their particular needs. The crushing defeat of the Teutonic Knights at Grunwald (Tannenberg) was never properly capitalised by Jagiello, the Polish-Lithuanian King, because the nobles were eager to get back home in time for the harvest. Poland’s internal political weakness caused by unruly nobles, led one Polish King, Jan III Sobieski, to seek glory exclusively in foreign escapades. I called together an army of those nobles willing to follow (including a certain captain who was my predecessor, and left behind a diary of the whole adventure) and in Sept 1683 relieved Vienna from a siege laid on by the Ottoman Turks in their very last great push into Europe. Thus once again Poland saves the rest of Europe from the Infidel, and does it get any thanks? …I don’t think there’s a single monument of our valiant King Sobieski in the whole of Vienna and in fact we have always received greater respect from our one-time enemies the Turks.
Finally, (if I haven’t bored you enough) I’d like to explain what I meant that the Swedes never found an answer to a Polish Hussar charge. Pitched battles were extremely important up to the 19th century and in the first half of the 17th century the dominant method of fighting was using the matchlock or musket and pike. I remember at school (in England) being told how Gustavus Adolphus revolutionised tactics by using highly portable, light., bronze cannons and a cavalry that would approach enemy lines to fire volleys and then retreat. The Polish method was quite different. Their hussars would simply have 5m lances that were longer than the enemy’s pikes. They could have such long lances because they were hollow inside and would in fact usually break at the moment of impact. The Polish cavalry would start their charge slowly and fairly dispersed so as to minimise the effects of enemy fire, then they’d rapidly pick up speed and converge on one point in the enemy lines. Once they broke through it was basically over. Lances were discarded and sabres pulled out. Any infantry wishing to stay and fight didn’t really stand a chance against an adrenalin fired cavalier expertly swishing his sabre, most did the sensible thing and ran. I suppose this tactic never caught on in other armies because the equipment was expensive and it required a great deal of discipline and training. It was really something only nobles could afford to do. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen a picture of a Polish hussar. They frequently had wings with eagle feathers attached to their armour, which was usually also covered with a leopard skin and even the disposable lances were works of art – quite an impressive sight, as I’m sure it was supposed to be.
BTW, what 1656 battle are you referring to?
Cheers, Jozef -
Message 29
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 9th September 2005
Dear AA,
I've been doing a little research on Slim. I confess he is not a general I know a lot about (The Forgotten General leading the Forgotten Army?). Howeevr, one website I found gave a very brief biography and had the following comment:-
"During the summer of 1943 Slim attempted to recapture Akyab but the offensive ended in failure".
This is a campaign I know nothing about. Does it rank as a defeat? I will grant that an unsuccessful attack is not necessarily a defeat, but I made up the rules, and this may disqualify him. (in the purely selfish interests of getting Wellington to top spot, I have to eliminate all other candidates by fair means or foul).
I look forward to your robust defence of your prime candidate.
Ìý
TonyG, no problem and apologies for late reply but pressures of work meant I didn't have time to reply before now. Thanks TimW for stepping in.
Slim at the time of the Arakan offensive was V Corps commander in the Eastern Army under Irwin. Although the troops involved in the Arakan offensive were almost exclusively V Corps Irwin bypassed V Corps HQ (even to the extent that Slim was able to take ten days leave during the offensive!). Thus I'd argue that Slim had little or no control over the offensive. Slim was only appointed Army Commander (of the renamed XIV Army)in October 1943 by Mountbatten. TimW is correct in saying that Slim was sacked by Irwin for his "part" in the Arakan debacle. He was only saved by Irwin being sacked shortly after. Irwin sent a telegram to Slim "You're not fired, I am".
If I can I'd urge you to continue finding out about Slim, one of the reasons (I think) is he is often overlooked is because he seems to have an almost magical ability for peers, subordinates and superiors to if not like and respect him, to at the least respect him. Thus he appears a very mild character whereas the opposite is actually true. (When he took over from Montgomery as CIGS, Montgomery took a lot of time to explain a certain problem, together with possible solutions and Montgomerys own preferred idea. Slims response, Why didn't you do it then?
To digress one of my favourite quotes from him is after a visit to front line troops on R&R someone called out something along the lines of "Don't worry, we'll follow you anywhere". Slim replied "You'll be leading, I'll be safe in the rear." and got away with it.
Feel free to quote Wellington and change the rules, your discussion.
Cheers AA. -
Message 30
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 9th September 2005
Jozef,
No need to apologise. It is easy to get a bit off-topic. My knowledge of Polish history is scanty to say the least, so I have enjoyed reading your messages.
Regards,
Tony. -
Message 31
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 9th September 2005
Daer Arnald,
Point taken. Slim sounds like a proper general. I may have to fall back on the sheer number of Wellington's victories. I haven't done a precise count, but, including assaults on towns & cities, I reckon it is at least 15 undefeated.
Quotes? I'm sure there are a few, but I'd need to dig out some old books.
It's nice that two of the main contenders (by my rules) are British. -
Message 32
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 9th September 2005
It's nice that two of the main contenders (by my rules) are British. Ìý
Dear TonyG,
Before anyone else says it it's what you'd expect from a Â鶹ԼÅÄ board. (The first B does stand for British after all). So, in the interest of harmony I'll just point out that both Slim and Wellington won with the help of (what are now) many other nations, Wellington with the Portugese, Spanish, KGL, Irish and Americans in the Peninsula and later with the Dutch and Belgians, Brunswickers and Prussians, Slim with British troops, the Indian Army (including all there diverse ethnic and religous groups), Australians, New Zealanders, West Indians, Africans, the local Burmese and the odd bit of support from the Americans flying safely overhead. Aplogies to any I've missed, I'm sure Canadians were also there but not as a national group within the army.
Oh and good luck with your question on another thread re Waterloo, I fear you'll need it.
Best Wishes, AA. -
Message 33
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 9th September 2005
Arnald,
Thanks. In my defence, I would say that the point of this thread (which has been very lively,hasn't it?) was about the generals, not the troops. Everything you say is correct, but the same could be said of many armies. Hannibal is famous for having several nationalities in his army. Alexander didn't just have Macedonians. Napoleon had many non-French troops.
P.S. There are so many threads on the go I wasn't aware I had asked a question about Waterloo. Or are you referring to Nikolaos and his amazing statements on the troops involved? If so, I suspect you are right. I doubt I will get an answer, as I have challenged him twice on that very point. I am perfectly happy to listen to a challenge if it can be backed up, but there has been no evidence produced to support his claims. -
Message 34
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 10th September 2005
AA
I entirely agree and thanks for your support. I was quoting from memory and so could not fill in the details, cheers Tim -
Message 35
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 10th September 2005
Message 5
Hes
honestly this is not a personal vendetta but you are pedelling a legend.
Joseph did not command the Nez Perces in battle. He was not a war chief and although he took part in the fighting once or twice he usually took charge of the camp to see that it was struck, packed for travelling and on its way with woman and children tajken care of. The Nez perces victories were due, not to any brillaince in battle but a combination of bravery, determination, and the ability to stand fast when caught off balance coupled with overconfidence and fortuitous mistakes by the whites. It was the whites sho built up Joseph into a military geneous because he was the one who lead the negotiations with the whites.
See @The LOng Death' and also, from memory 'The patriot chiefs'.
regards
Tim -
Message 36
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Saturday, 10th September 2005
P.S. There are so many threads on the go I wasn't aware I had asked a question about Waterloo. Or are you referring to Nikolaos and his amazing statements on the troops involved? If so, I suspect you are right. I doubt I will get an answer, as I have challenged him twice on that very point. I am perfectly happy to listen to a challenge if it can be backed up, but there has been no evidence produced to support his claims. Ìý
TonyG, yes I am referring to E_Nikolaos_E and your challenge to his (to my mind) dubious figures. I had to get by some of his posts to reply to PaulRyckier in a different thread. As far as I'm concerned you don't need to defend youself against me (yet).
When E_Nikaolaos_E reads this let me point out to him that the consort of our current monarch is Greek. AA. -
Message 37
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Cheers AA.
I have used David Hamilton-Williams, "Waterloo - New Perspectives" as my source. He quotes figures for the strength of all the armies involved, and is pretty specific about the number of British (as opposed to Dutch, Belgian, German, etc.) troops under Wellington's command.
I am still waiting for Nikolaos to name his sources for his highly dubious claims, particularly the one about 50,000 Prussians being with Wellington instead of with Blucher. If they were, it is strange that nobody seems to have noticed them. -
Message 38
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
For Tony G (sorry for not mentioning it earlier)
Hofschröer, Peter. "Wellington's Smallest Victory: The Duke, the Model Maker and the Secret of Waterloo". London, UK: Faber & Faber, 2004.
In his book Hofschröer analyses the way that officer William Sibourne (one that was not present in the battle of Waterloo ) was pressed to change the historic facts in order to raise the contribution of the English army and of course that of Wellington and belittle the large contribution of the Prussian army.
Wellington was no great strategist, and his name Iron Duke had nothing to do with war but with his difficult character: he hated nearly everyone but himself and a small group of people within his one social class. Among the Blacks, Indians, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Jewish he also hated Prussians (but the fact that he did not aid them in the battle was more because he was not willing to 'risk' his troops in order to help his allies - that is typical english strategy anyway). Not hat he loved his own troops anyway, he was calling them 'the scum of the earth'. What a general! Amazing!
That is why among English generals I rather prefer Marlborough whose epic achievement against the French in Bavaria was great (had to face superior in terms of number and quality) forces in a struggle that went on long in terms of time and distance covered). Count Marlborough had invented tactics and reformed the english army and his work lasted well until the late 19th century when the advent of automatic machine guns and advanced artillery changed largely the way war was fought. -
Message 39
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
For Arnald, just for the record!
The consort of your monarch is not exactly Greek in all the sense of that.
The last Greek monarch Konstantinos Palaiologos died in 1453 AD defending in a hand-to-hand/street-to-street battle his City against the invading armies of Ottomans. In 1821 the Greeks rebelled, in 1822 the Greeks organised their first National Parliament formed by policians and militar leaders and held elections: Greeks were largely inspired by the French Revolution as well as by their own past not to mention their dislike of monarchs and kings and sultans so the whole idea from the beggining was to form a democratic state. In 1827-1828, Kapodistrias who was the ex-Russian minister of external affairs (of Greek origin - there were many Greeks in Odessa) became the first governor of liberated (small) Greece having its capital in the city of Naupaktos. However, despite his swift and extraordinary work in such a poor and powerless country that was ahead of its time (sometimes even by european standards!), he was disliked by English and French as well as by many local chiefs who saw their previous powers being shrinked. Thus two members of the powerful family of Mauromihalaioi (=Black Michael family, indeed black), assasinated him in 1829 outside the main church of Naupaktos.
Until that time Greece was not officially recognised and English,French and the rest pointed out that in order that this recognition takes place, the Greeks have to accept a king. As the descendants of the family of Palaiologos could not be easily traced and any other Greek rising to that seat would imply new civil wars (one already happened in 1823 amingst revolution!), English, French, Germanic states and unwilling Greeks agreed on the solution of ..... .... .... Othon of Wittelsbach, a Bavarian semi-retarded prince who came all along with some 3000-5000 Bavarian army of soldiers, ministers and courtisans. Othon refused to denounce his catholic faith and become an orthodox and for that fact he was never accepted as a proper king in Greece, wanted a capital that Europeans knew so he chose the village of Athens (2000 population at the time) as his capital. Fortunately his initial plans to make the Parthenon his palace (that was his stupidity!) changed when poor Bavarian ministers and Greek advisors adviced him that that act would provoke a revolution so he would rather built a new one (that is the house of Parliament). Of course, Othon was never accepted as a Greek in Greece, ancient Greek war heros were being in prison, revolution happened in 1843 and people asked for a Parliament and a Constitution. Othon had to finally to flee the country in 1862 amingst trouble (when he dismissed the hero of revolution naval leader Kanaris), and since he was impotent (poor Queen Amalia resorted to have an affair with the chief officer of the revolutionaires of 1843!!!), English, French and Germans again intervened so that Greece has a monarch and brought us George (named George the I) from Danemark who became quite more popular since he did not see the country as a protectorate like Othon and the barvarians, and he opted to make his sons Orthodox to rule more successfully as kings of Greece. As a reward to the Greeks for adopting a pro-British King, Britain ceded the Ionian Islands to Greece (imagine...).
Hence all the Greek kings were of that Danish royal family called Gluxbourg or whatever. Despite some of them had been seen sympathetical by some Greeks, the majority of Greeks never felt these kings as Greeks, they largely retained their Danish consciousness and links with their country of orginis, they tended to be affiliated to Germany (when Germany became a state) risking Greek-English relations repeatedly and when the 1967 dictatorship threw all the royal family out of Greece, though Greeks were stronly opposed to dictatorship, few of them felt sorry for the royal family - they just found it a nice opportunity to get rid of them once and for good. In the 1975 elections 75% voted no to the return of the monrach despite. Nowdays Konstantine (the last of them) who is seen sympathetically in Greece (he is not a bad guy afterall), he is called with his proper sirname Gluxbourg.
Thus after this long didactic story, where does the association of the consort of the english monarch derives from? He is of no greek origins, he barely lived in Greece, he most probably cannot speak Greek properly, thus I cannot see the connection. -
Message 40
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Nikolaos,
Thank you for naming your sources. When I get time, I will try to read that book. However, I suspect this is another of your conspiracy theories. By all means challenge accepted viewpoints, but please don;t use arguments which are so clearly wrong.
Wellington may, or may not have hated anyone who was not of his social class or background. He is, indeed, remembered as rather aloof, cold and demanding. This does not make him a bad general. You might want to check out the "scum of the earth" quote which is often selectively used by his critics. What he actually said, was, "Some of our men are the scum of the earth, but it is wonderful what fine fellows we have made of them". Hardly sounds to me like he hated them. It is actually a very shrewd comment as some of his men were felons who had only joined the army to escape the law. They were renowned for their drunkeness as much for their ability in a fight.
It also seems very harsh to say that Wellington did not come to the aid of the Prusians at Ligny ( I assume that is what you are referring to). He personally visited Blucher, advised him not to fight there as he thought Napoleon would beat him, but sent troops towards the Prussians anyway. Remember that both Wellingotn and Blucher were surprised by Napoleon's sudden attack and had to gather their widely disperesed forces together. In an age when infantry had to march everywhere, this took time.
There was a fight at Quatre Bras where the French, under Ney, although not entirely successful in breaking communications between the British and and the Prussians, did manage to stop them joining together so that Napoleon could, as Wellington predicted, defeat the Prussians. Wellington withdrew to Waterloo where he told Blucher he would only stand and fight if the Prussians came to join him.
I suspect that the figure of 9,000 Rnglish troops is another very selective choice. It is clear from just about every source I have read that about one third of the army was British (and, yes, that includes Scots and Irish - but it always has done), one-third German (not Prussian) by virtue of Britain having a Hanoverian king and one-third assorted Ducth and Belgain troops of largely unreliable quality by virtue of the fact many of them had previously been supporters of Napoleon.
And yes, Marloborough was a great General, but he did not win as many battles as Wellington did. That is why Wellington was the commander in chief of the Allied army.
To say that Wellington is no great strategist is, quite frankly, insulting. On what is this based? He repeatdely showed in the Peninsular War that he had a superb grasp of stategy and logistics as well as tactis. He was not afraid to withdraw when the odds were not in his favour and often surprised the enemy by unexpected flanking marches (Salamanca & Vittoria spring to mind). He insisted his troops pay for food and respect the Catholic religion of the Portuguese and Spanish people, thus contrasting severely with the French who simply took what they wanted. -
Message 41
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Incidentally,
Whoever did, or did not, put pressure on anyone to write up the British part in the waterlood campaign, it was not Wellington. He disdained the whole idea. I believe he stated that it would be as well to write the history of a dance, as to write the history of a battle. -
Message 42
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Sorry, this is turning into a Waterloo thread, instead of a great generals thread, and therein lies the flaw of your argument, Nikolaos. Even if I were to agree that it was Blucher who was solely responsible for winning at Waterloo and Wellington was no more than a bystander, it does not make Wellington's reputation any less. His victories at Assaye, Gawilghur, Rolica, Vimiero, Talavera, Fuentes de Onoro, Cuidad Rodrigo, Badajoz, Salamanca, Vittoria & Toulouse are what make up his reputation. Not to mention Torres Vedras, where he defeated a massive French army through secretly building a massive netwrok of fortifications. A master stroke of strategy, rarely equalled in military history.
-
Message 43
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Thus after this long didactic story, where does the association of the consort of the english monarch derives from? He is of no greek origins, he barely lived in Greece, he most probably cannot speak Greek properly, thus I cannot see the connection.Ìý
Dear E_N_E, thank you for a most interesting read. When a person is born on Corfu (Greek since 1864), his grandfather was King of Greece and his father was called Prince Andrew of Greece it may go some way to explaining the association of Prince Philip with Greece. You have fully and expertly presented the other side of the coin.
I fully accept that "being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse." (Duke of Wellington).
Regarding the gift of the Ionian islands by Britain to Greece, in the interests of balance can I just point out that the British were the last in a long line of occupiers stretching back to the Romans, then Byzantines, then the Sicillians (who were actually Normans), then the Venetians, then the French and finally the British. Isn't it also true to state that during the British occupation roads were built, the water supply organised and the first (modern) reek university built together with adoption of Greek as the official language? Wasn't this also a time for Corfu of peace and prosperity? Okay the British gave it to Greece in recognition of their appointing a pro British King, thats called a trade. As long as the people of Corfu were generally happy about it (and I believe they were) surely that's all right?
Cheers AA. -
Message 44
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Damn typos "reek university" should of course read "Greek university". Normally I wouldn't bother but this one subtly changed what I meant.
AA. -
Message 45
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Are you actually claiming that Ionian islands could be whatever else than Greek e? That is funny. Romans and their Roman-Greek sucessors (byzantine is artificial) ruled for the most since say 1000 BC but these islands spoke from at least 3000 BC till now one language: Greek. All that because they were habitated by Greeks... not Sicilian Normands! Amazing what people try to find as arguments! See, the first languages of modern 'greek kings' were Danish, German and English perhaps French for the fashion and they learnt Greek as the 4th or 5th language. According to your argument a Dutch Boer in South Africa is a bushman because he was born in the traditional land of the San people.
I can understand that history of other civilisations can be quite difficult to understand once you come from a place where every looting invader came, built his house, changed also the customs, the way of living, and above all the language.
No, by any standards, the greek royal family are not Greek at all - they never had the greek citizenship anyway. They are only associated with that land bacause of their history nothing more than that.
PS: The British possesion of Corfu and Cyprus was convinient to a lot of people (that was obviously preferable than the uncivilised turks) who made money being suppliers to british. However it was not any secret that every Greek expected the annexation to Greece as soon as Greece was able to demand that (it seems that it was not). Greeks afterall were not San or Zulus to be regarded as colonised. Hence, things got a bit more difficult for English after the WWII - they had to organise a civil war in Greece to keep them off Cyprus, they had to supress demands for independence, they had to hang 16 and 17 year old boys for stone throwing in the 1950s, then they had to call the Turks in... -
Message 46
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
For Tony G,
Yes, I am always salty on my descriptions and yes I have been too much critising Wellington, atfer all the English would not be so stupid to have chosen an incapable general to lead their armies all around Europe. I am not claiming he was lacking the capabilities. He was just not that great strategist people tend to think and his fame arose partially due to his own will of supporting it, something like those modern politicians that like their name appear everywhere, in front of every great project etc. In that context he influenced historians of the battle to change key elements. Prussians did not write much details on that battle, or we have not yet paid attention their reports thus they did not preserve their contribution to the battle.
This is not the first or last time that historic events are bent, isn't it?
PS: While not being a specialist, still I regard Marlborough as greater than Wellington -
Message 47
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
E_Nikolaos_E,
I am not claiming that Corfu isn't Greek, I was merely pointing out that the British were the last of many foreign "owners" of Corfu and that (we actually agree on this!) it was the British who returned possession to Greece.
I certainly wasn't suggesting that someones cultural identity could be decided by something as simple as where they were born, in fact, if you read what I wrote exactly the opposite.
I accept your arguement that you don't believe the Greek Royal Family to be Greek. I hope you also accept my belief that the British Royal Family is British (despite there ancestors being Greek/Danish, German and British). This comes down to a matter of belief and I've learnt not to attempt to change what people deeply believe to be true. It only ends in heartache for both.
Regarding your last paragraph. As it's getting severely off the original topic I won't respond, but will do if you care to repost under a new topic.
Cheers (and please note I am agreeing with you on some things). AA. -
Message 48
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Tony
I agree with you that whatever the arguement about Waterloo it does not destract from Wellington's achievements in the peninsula and India, howver, I consider Marlborough to be the Greatest British general.
regards
Tim -
Message 49
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
To 28
Jozef my friend,the battle I primary ment was the batlle of Warsaw 1656,when a Polish army at least 3 times bigger,than Swedens. I´ve seen rekonings as high as 8 times,but a Polish colonell on a seminar we both where at said about 4 to one,was as you know shot to pieces includinng the Hussars.
Jozef the following is sounding a bit chauvinstik,I trust that you dont get offended,your so pro Polish I just have to tease you,naturaly is my comments correct in the history books I´ve read in the late 50ths,and somewhat still is.
We did invade Poland,Lithuania 1655,because you wouldnt go to war against Russia that threatend Daugivra,with thre army corps non exeding eleven thousands.One did march to stop the Russians.
Up to 1605 you did with your good cavalry win most battles,the last at Kexholm 1605 when aprox 5000 cut 15000 Swedish infantry to pieces.
To my study was that the last pitched battle you won Poland versus Sweden.So how your hussars could be invinceble against us is a riddle for me . I know how you beat the Turks,Austrians and Preussians with the hussars ,the Pruusians even complained that the howling feathers gave you an unfair advantage.
Im glad that you find the stupidity and strategegic disaster of Poltava a disaster for Poland to,but remember it was Denmark-Norway,Poland and Russia that declared war on Sweden 1700.So my guess is that you didnt cheere us we we took Warsaw,Krakow and so on.`
About the peace of Altmark we wasnt after Danzig,we just wanted the rest of the flank free,after Stolbova with the Russians some Polish ports was neded and that we did get.
To be continued I often lose my long essays on this boards
Still your friend
Hasse -
Message 50
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Sunday, 11th September 2005
Jozef
We took Warsaw 1655,you took it back a year later,and we retook it again.
Lets stop this bickering.
You gave me some flashbacks of Poland-Li.thunasias great past and it great victories.
I do agree that you are underated.
Their is at least three big Polish victories,(I´m not counting king Henry of Poland France as one),that changed the world,Tannenberg 1410,Wienna 1667,Warsaw 1919.
I give you some flash on us.
Sweden was until the 13 cent a losly coalition,by Swea,East Göta and West Göta,unlike Denmark and Norway that was united a couple of hundreds years before.
He who in one part was elected king had to ride thru the other two and if he was to cocky he was killed.
Mostly in Westgöta that always has looked to the west via Göta Älv commining out in nowdays Göteborg..
In the 13th did the superpover of northern Europa Denmark try to invade at least three times.
The first was stopped by Blenda and her friends,probably a myth likke that the black maddona stopped the whole Swedish army with aid by just some monks.It was a raidng party of about 250 Swedes that was stopped raid the monastary by at least an equal number polish soldiers,but it worked it turned the tide for all future remember Solidarnoch,and Poland isnt lost yet .
We probably stopped that invasion with log and shot tactics a thing we(I) still use in modern wargames,altough the women from Värend where Blenda was had a speciall stus for 500 years.
The two seconds attemps where (miracously)apart Lena and Gestrilen,at Lena was it the last time acording to folkthru Oden did ride.
So by reasons to long to put down here Swden was united ,and in a decade whent from the old trade place of Ã…bo,to embrace whole Finland down to todays St Petersburg.
Still the king was elected at the ting,herredag or riksdag different names for the same thing,but they held the superior power of the realm,a strong king put more power to himself but couldnt pas it on,our parlament is still called the riksdag meaning realm day,since you couldnt be in seccion all times.
The first of our kings that had the thron by birtright,was Sigismunds uncle Erik,he was ousted by Sigismunds father Johan.
Sigismund was the second king by birth,he was as you know ousted by his uncle Karl IX.
That is what differ Sweden from Poland,in Poland did the crown rest on the nobility,we had and have a weak nobilty,our base in the riksdag was the free farmer.
Since we didnt have serdom,was the mayoroty farmers,free and proud.
The inabelity to see this is was cost Sigismund the Swedish crown.
Sigismund versus Karl,Sigismund an intellegent sensitive man,right by birth 2/3 of Swedens nobiltiy behind him ,and the sofar invincible Polish cavalry.
The peasants in Finland did rise by biding of Duke Karl,they did naturly lose against Sigismunds Polish cavalry and Swedish nobles,its called klubbekriget(somewhat quarterstaff war),now come the thing that did lose Sigismund the Swedish throne.As the ordinary thing in the Polish-Lithuanian empire rebbelling serfs was to be teached a lesson,so the surviving farmers was put under the ice of the lakes by long poles about 5 meters long(hussars lances?),to drown and to be seen to do so by their relatives.
The problem was in Sweden didnt the king rule by consent of the nobles,as he always and in some respect still do,its in the consent of the commoners farmers.
So Sigismund was kicked out,rest is history.<quote>To 28
Jozef my friend,the battle I primary ment was the batlle of Warsaw 1656,when a Polish army at least 3 times bigger,than Swedens. I´ve seen rekonings as high as 8 times,but a Polish colonell on a seminar we both where at said about 4 to one,was as you know shot to pieces includinng the Hussars.
Jozef the following is sounding a bit chauvinstik,I trust that you dont get offended,your so pro Polish I just have to tease you,naturaly is my comments correct in the history books I´ve read in the late 50ths,and somewhat still is.
The first king we had that ruled on his own(by god) was KarlXI who did take back about 90% of the nobilitys lands,ruining my forfathers the second was Karl XII,whose sureness in that he was put their by god and didnt listen to his generals did lose our empire.
Strangly enough did his stubborness regaining our wealth since,another of my ancestors refused to lead his regiment to disater and was send home to be a Chinamerchant,he did a ouple of years later bring home a ship with profit equaling two years state budget.
Hasse
P.S
I agree that Poltava was a disaster more so for Poland than for Sweden.Russian ,Danish,Polish and Prussians attemp to invade our heartlands was stopped with ease.
With the threat of a northern front taken care of could Prussia and Russia go after Poland.As they with Austria did a couple of decades later.
PPS
I´ve tried to take away my former message from this but succesfull or not is in the hands of the norn.
Exept the smileys was the old board superior to this,mishmash.
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 Ìýto 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
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ 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.