Ok how about we try WW1 this time.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Who was a better General?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Who was a better General?
14August von Mackensen14.29%2Henri-Phillipe Petain7.14%1John Monash35.71%5Arthur Currie14.29%2Marie Fayolle0.00%0Oskar von Hutier7.14%1Edmund Allenby14.29%2Herbert Plumer0.00%0Paul Maistre0.00%0Horace Smith-Dorrien7.14%1Last edited by Speedy; 05 Jan 08,, 15:18.Tags: None
-
He got better as he got promoted and each job got harder, didn't he, Speedy?
He was a mere divisional commander at Gallipoli ... became the only decent corps commander against the Russians in the Caucasus (he even successfully counterattacked) ... then took over from the defeated German Liman von Sanders as the army commander in the Middle East and stopped Allenby (who I voted for) in 1918 ...Last edited by clackers; 24 Jan 08,, 12:07.
Comment
-
What I liked about your list, Speedy, was its diversity ... they each did different things. You went for Hutier over Ludendorf and Falkenhayn, for instance, and weren't afraid to go for someone like Currie who only commanded at corps level.
I think that while these guys and Fayolle, Plumer, Maistre, and co had the benefit of advanced armies and industries behind them (look at our fellow Aussie Monash's tanks and aircraft), Kemal was a guy fighting for the "Sick Man of Europe", and continued getting successes after being promoted (Aleksei Brusilov has a similar story, also lumbered with a very backward army).Last edited by clackers; 25 Jan 08,, 14:06.
Comment
-
Who is a better General?
Montgomery said, "For a comparison, I would say Napoleon and Alexander are the only other two!
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
Comment
Comment