Comments by "Bullet-Tooth Tony" (@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-) on "Biographics" channel.

@zak-de1lq I'd recommend reading up on Marlboroughs march across the Danube, that's a good start. Marlborough prioritised speed and aggressiveness both on the march and the battlefield. Marlborough always positioned himself in positions where he could both see and effect the outcome of the battle. When he saw the danger, he reacted quickly, or sometimes was proactive (as at the Schellenberg). He always had a tactical reserve, which he fed in and used at the precise moment it needed to be committed to swing the battle. He also had a formidable army, which was extremely tenacious, with commanders he empowered to make tactical decisions themselves rather than checking in, like the French had to do, This army always relentlessly pushed forward, even in the face of extreme danger, making it almost impossible to steal the initiative away from. He was very very tactically aware (like in using terrain at Ramillies to mask his reverse countermarch on the left flank to reinforce the flank for the push), which makes him not only one of the most formidable battlefield tacticians, but amongst the best in military history, imho
1
@zak-de1lq Marlborough by Richard Holmes and Marlborough: His Life and Times by winston churchill. There's also a documentary on here if you look up great british commanders.
1
@fredbarker9201 Despite a couple of good moments, Dresden and Hannu, Napoleon was quite poor in 1813. Napoleon totally failed to exploit the victory (for not the first or last time the French pursuit was late and mis directed) The Allies managed to withdraw down some truly horrible roads. Yet another truly bungled chance. And Napoleon hung out Vandammes corps at Kulm. And then he left the Garrison in place throwing away troops he would badly need later. Alexander and Caeser never made such bad decisions as Napoleon, even Wellington didn't.
1
Divalvaro Yes but their are also people who also want to know more on the backgrounds of the generals that they fought against. We all talk about Alexander, Caeser and Napoleon, but forget there are other generals who were also good on the battlefield like Scipio,Khalid Ibn Al-Walid, Subutai, Wellington, Sulla, Belisarius, Richard the Lion heart, Robert Lee, Pyrrhus, Frederick, Gustavus Adolphus etc
1
@fredbarker9201 He put himself in the position to be encircled when he wasted all of his troops in Spain and Russia. Combined they cost Napoleon over 900,000 men. Had he not done embarked on these conquests, he would most likely remain in control of the continent.
1
@fredbarker9201 I wouldn't compare him to the level of Hitler, Hitler wasn't a military genius, his generals like Manstein and Rommel were, and Napoleon didn't massacre millions of innocent people just because of their race and religion. However, Napoleon's wealth of enemies were partly his own doing. While he wasn't solely responsible for all the Napoleonic Wars, he does deserve at least a good chunk of the blame. As such I think he also deserves some of the blame for France's eventual defeat, and it must count as a blemish on his record as a strategist.
1
@fredbarker9201 Yes i can acknowledge that indeed he has shaped Europe, 5 isn't bad of course, because really there are only 5 captains of war who i can consider at the top tier of military history ie Alexander, Caeser, Hannibal and of course Napoleon among them. The reason for him being slightly lower than the others is because he has some campaigns that really could have been avoided altogether and the losses of manpower were just disastrous. Although despite that I would admit that his victory of Austerlitz is right alongside Cannae, Gaugamela and Pharsalus as one of the tactical master pieces of warfare. in fact he actually studied Gaugamela to apply the same methods, with the weakened flank and smashing the centre with brute force and for that i my raise my hat to him. As for top 10 commanders i would say Alexander the great Caeser, Hannibal, Subutai Napoleon Scipio Africanus Khalid Ibn Walid Alexander Suvorov Belisarius Marlborough Whats yours. You are probably surprised that i didn't include Wellington.
1
@fredbarker9201 Eugene did, but Marlborough never lost a major battle, if your referring to Malplaquet I wouldn't call it so much as a defeat, Marlborough managed to drive the French from the field, and capture Mons after the battle and win that part of the campaign.
1
@fredbarker9201 Oda Nobunaga is interesting, he innovated a lot of weaponry into the samurai, and his task was almost similar to Cromwell's. Having to take the country back and defeat the superior clans or royalists, in Cromwells case.
1
Divalvaro World power my ass i'm sorry but the austrians were such a poor army they were beaten by the french with ease, even the british army were better trained than the austrian conscripts that napoleon crushed. Russia is the exception.
1
Divalvaro If that's true why did it take 12 decades to kick the English out of France? This kind of contradicts your point.
1
Divalvaro The only time France was relevant was the Napoleonic Wars.
1
Divalvaro I know im just saying it wasnt as easy as winning the Italian campaign, the english had the best archers in the world.
1
Divalvaro Man all this constant fighting between the english and french reminds me of that scene from lord of the rings when everyones arguing over who wants to destroy the one ring XD
1
Divalvaro Losing to the English for a hundred years despite having cannons and the best cavalry on the continent must have been a head ache though xD
1
Divalvaro Can you read? I said it took A HUNDRED YEARS, so for a hundred years the French lost 30 battles and won 27. I'd have been more impressed if you had beaten us in 3 weeks.
1
Divalvaro last time i checked our flag was the cross of st george
1
@Flo-pl5mg You can laugh all you want, but the fact is Wellington was not as prone to making mistakes as men like Alexander and Kutuzov. He was just as good at reading a situation and understanding traps.
1
He is though, Scipio beat Hannibal, who did Napoleon beat?
1
@nuronw6886 I wasn't talking about nations, i'm talking about opponents as in other countries commanders, now once again, who did Napoleon defeat that can measure up to an excellent general like Hannibal Barca. i'll give you two examples, Julius Caeser defeated Pompey, Bernard Montgomery defeated Rommel.
1
@marcus4532 No it's not, it's pretty simple, how can you call yourself a great general if all of your opponents leaders you defeated were terrible at commanding battles? Most of the Austrians, Prussians, Russians all had poor generals that's why napoleon was able to dismantle them so easily. Scipio fought Hannibal who was an equal general.
1
@skyden24195 With casualties of under 9,000 men Market Garden would've been classed by the Soviets and Germans as a minor skirmish, compared to Bradleys Hurtgen Forest bloodbath.
1
@bigwoody4704 He sacked Lumsden because he was the one largely responsible for the armours lack of cooperation with the infantry, much preferring suicidal cavalry charges against the enemy armour where time and time again they ran straight into dug in anti-tank guns. This of course left the Allied infantry exposed without armoured support which the Germans could then exploit. By the time of Montys arrival the infantry had lost faith in British armoured formations, so Monty made sure that the armoured commanders at the next battle were given strict instructions at the Battle Of Alam el Halfa that they were not to engage in any unsupported attacks against enemy armour but to stay in their supporting defensive positions. This so frustrated the German commanders who were hoping that the British armour would once again charge the Axis armour being dangled in front of them that Rommel complained to Kesselring, "The swine isn't attacking". The battle was referred to by the Germans who took part as the 'Six Day Race' because they spent six days racing around the desert being shelled and bombed and achieving nothing. This battle was the first sign that the new general in charge of the Allied forces was using his own rulebook and the Germans were the ones who were going to have to try to cope with his methods.
1
@bigwoody4704 Do you also praise Lumsden for his disastrous conduct during the Battle of Gazala where he thought it was a good idea to charge British Cruiser tanks into German flak 88's? What he did at Dunkirk does NOT diminish his incompetence in the Desert campaign. Pendulum of War by Niall Barr Quote In a draft manuscript now in the British National Archives, they recorded: General Lumsden afterwards admitted that co-ordination with the New Zealand Division was faulty—one of the Yeomanry tanks was knocked out by the New Zealand artillery—and the opportunity of annihilating 21st Panzer was lost. “We should have obliterated the lot” was General Lumsden’s considered opinion. Quote The New Zealanders rejoined Eighth Army, then forming defensive positions along a line from El Alamein to the Qattara Depression. The Eighth Army was greatly weakened by its headlong retreat in the face of Rommel’s advance. In early July, it was down to just one complete infantry division, a reduced division, a brigade group, and the remnants of other divisions now dispersed into ineffective battle groups. Eighth Army had lost more than 1,000 tanks in just seventeen days of fighting in June. It had now only 137 serviceable tanks but most of these were obsolete and unreliable. Only thirty-six were the latest Grant tank.
1
@bigwoody4704 Lumsden at Gazala was leading suicidal cavalry charges against the enemy armour where time and time again they ran straight into dug in anti-tank guns 🙄 No wonder he got removed. Horrocks,O Connor, Pip Roberts and Dempsey were more comptetent than Lumsden. At least Monty could pick subordinates better.
1
@GentlemanPirate00 Scipio beat HANNIBAL, who did Napoleon beat? Archduke Charles? 😂
1
@fredbarker9201 Caeser defeated the Roman Republic and went up against his own best Lieutenants like Pompey the Great and Labienus, and his siege battle at Alesia had been never been done before. I'd recommend watching Caeser's series on kings and generals. Alexander conquered an empire stretching from Greece to India and never lost a single battle in his career. Napoleon's enemies were mostly weak and divided, and when they eventually united, he lost. The invasion of Russia was the biggest military disaster in history, of the 600,000 troops only 20,000 returned. No matter how good you are as a general there's no excuse to send so many men to meet their demise. For that he falls at number 5 not number one.
1
@Constantine The Great My votes are Frederick the Great,Erwin Rommel, Walter Model, Von Moltke, Paul Von Lettow Vorbeck.
1
@Constantine The Great Manstein was good but also somewhat overrated, Manstein's best achievements were the Crimea campaign of 1941/42 and the Kharkov counter offensive in 1943. His performance at Kursk and then the Ukraine operation of 1944 were downright terrible. That is because his mentality was always one of offensives using a weighted flank and giving ground and maneuvering to try and catch the enemy at a disadvantage. Which generally didn't work on the Soviets since they were more likely to just pound through regardless and had better maneuverability by 1943/44, as well as intel concerning German plans. I would rate Manstein as being above average, somewhere in the middle. Better than the earlier marshals like Von Rundstedt, Bock and Leeb but not as good as some of the later marshals.
1
@Constantine The Great That's ok man, you learn something new everyday lol, while Zhukov certainly destroyed larger German forces than any other general, he was also a butcher of men, he was like a Soviet Haig in my opinion, if i was to say, who was the best in the Red army it would probably be Konstantin Rokossovski. For Britain, I think O Connor, as much as i like Slim, Operation Compass was a master piece.
1
@Constantine The Great Yeah and it was also won during a time when the Axis was at it's peak, whereas the Japanese by 1944 were holding on for dear life. Although to Slim's credit he did rebuild an army that had been defeated and driven back multiple times. That was Hugh Dowding. For the US, on land I would say Jacob Devers, Macarthur actually took a lot of credit from Eichelberger for the efforts in the Pacific.
1
@Constantine The Great You know what would have been the ultimate cat and mouse game/ chess match? Rommel against O Connor.
1
@Constantine The Great Miles dempsey is an underrated British general, carried out an armoured advance of 450 miles in 4 days.
1
@Constantine The Great Absolutely, what would you is your favourite military campaign ever?
1
@Constantine The Great That speed march Is even more impressive when you realise that in that front is where the Germans sent their best and most numerous troops in Normandy. I and II SS Panzer Corps. It's really funny how the Americans love to brag about Pattons "blitzkrieg" after Operation Cobra but forget that he raced across mostly empty country sides and towns . Never had to face a single Waffen SS division or Tiger Battalion. British 2nd army faced 3 tiger battalions and 8 Panzer divisions.
1
@Constantine The Great What is your favourite campaign
1
@Constantine The Great My personal favourites Alexander's Indian Campaign (327-325 BCE) Hannibal In Italy (218-203 BCE) Scipio's Spanish Campaign (209-206 BCE) Caesar's Llerda Campaign (49 BCE) Genghis' Campaign against the Jin (1211-1215) Marlborough's Danube Campaign (1704) Belisarius's African campaign ( 533 – March 534 AD
1
@Constantine The Great You know whats interesting is Stonewall Jackson is said to have recommended the study of Wellington over Napoleon, “Don’t study Napoleon, study the man who beat Napoleon.” At the First Battle of Bull Run, Jackson adopted Wellington’s reverse slope defense to devastating effect on men commanded by a general who had studied Napoleon, the Union commanders repeatedly tried to get artillery into position to rake Jackson’s lines with canister only to be driven off by massed rifle fire and on at least two occasions Union batteries were seized by Confederate troops. Had the other Confederate generals mastered Wellington’s logistical abilities as Jackson did (he once volunteered to supply Longstreet’s Corps with three days rations when Longstreet said he couldn’t carry out a plan Jackson had come up with because he didn’t have enough food). Longstreet waited, Stuart screwed up and Pope’s Army of Virginia escaped the trap Jackson had maneuvered them into retreating from the Rapidan to north of the Rappahannock. This led to the Second Battle of Bull Run where Jackson once more used terrain features to negate superior Union numbers and finally to Antietam the drawn battle that sounded the death knell of the Confederacy.
1
@Constantine The Great which comment post
1
@Constantine The Great trying to find it, what does the original comment say
1
@Admiral Yi Sun-Sin Interesting, i'll remember that one 😆
1
American Caeser is just megalomaniacal nonsense. No American general stands up to Caeser.
1
@alvaro4867 Nah Wellington was the Scipio Africanus of the 18th century.
1
@alvaro4867 Wellington won 39 battles, defeated Napoleons generals in spain, including Napoleon in the final battle, and performed with brilliant tactics, notice how similar this is to Scipio, takes the fight to Napoleons generals like Scipio did to weaken him and then finally faces him in the last battle of the war and adapts to Napoleon and beats him.
1
@alvaro4867 Napoleon was not outnumbered, Wellington had 68,000 men, Napoleon had 75,000.
1
@alvaro4867 They showed up late
1
@bigwoody4704 "the Big Boys were now running the show." Churchill was included in the Big Three at the table.
1