Lonnie D56 Posted 11 April , 2003 Share Posted 11 April , 2003 just to get a feel on opinion of generals... you are the primeminister and you have two appointments commander in chief in the field ie haig chief of the imperial general staff ie robertson who do you choose, the fate of millions is in your hands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 11 April , 2003 Share Posted 11 April , 2003 Rommel and Hindeburg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 11 April , 2003 Share Posted 11 April , 2003 If we're using any nation and any time : Rommel and Rundstedt. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonnie D56 Posted 11 April , 2003 Author Share Posted 11 April , 2003 hang on guys get those tongues out of ya cheaks i meant world war one and on the british side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Bowbrick Posted 11 April , 2003 Share Posted 11 April , 2003 WW1 but not British: Foch and Pershing Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 11 April , 2003 Share Posted 11 April , 2003 OK I will kick off with the British coupling … my choice would be Plumer as CinC in the field and I would say in 1914 Haig on paper would have made a very good CIGS (although in retrospect this would be disputed by some - including me - as we have seen elsewhere on the forum). Shall I get my coat ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Gibson Posted 11 April , 2003 Share Posted 11 April , 2003 Smith-Dorrien/Plummer and Haig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egbert Posted 11 April , 2003 Share Posted 11 April , 2003 Bonnie&Clyde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 11 April , 2003 Share Posted 11 April , 2003 Bonnie&Clyde Egbert, I don't think you are taking this seriously! How about any two from Monash, Currie, Allenby and Plumer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 11 April , 2003 Share Posted 11 April , 2003 Gotta go for Monash and Allenby. (Though thinking about it, if he went for British citizenship, I'd go for von Moltke (the 1st) whom I rate as one of the best ever(for his time)) Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 13 April , 2003 Share Posted 13 April , 2003 I would like to second Dave's proposal As Chris B. mentioned in another thread, 14-18 was a learning curve Monash exemplified this better than most being a greenhorn at Gallipoli in 1915 and outstanding on the WF in 1918 Allenby fulfilled Napoleon's prerequisite for generalship: he was lucky In Palestine he had access to impeccable intelligence To his everlasting credit he also knew how to make use of it Regards Michael D.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonnie D56 Posted 14 April , 2003 Author Share Posted 14 April , 2003 I would go for Smith-dorrien as c in c and Robertson to stay as Cigs bit contriversal but if Smith-Dorrien had stayed i think he would have made a good C in C., health permitting. thanks for all the feed back lads it was good to see who youd pick Monash i believe was good Allenby good in open country, the desert Plummer, soldiers general Rommel, wrong war but an overated general anyway Hindeburg..do not know enough to comment Haig as Cigs, i think he would have done well but Robertson was better suited militaryly though not politically thanks again lonnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted 15 April , 2003 Share Posted 15 April , 2003 Good to see Allenby getting a mention. I'd go for Allenby and Byng. If we can travel through time my ideal coupling would be Wellington and Templer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 16 April , 2003 Share Posted 16 April , 2003 Good to see Allenby getting a mention. I'd go for Allenby and Byng. If we can travel through time my ideal coupling would be Wellington and Templer. If time travelling....... Alexander the Great and Hannibal ? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 18 April , 2003 Share Posted 18 April , 2003 Pershing makes my list of those not in the donkey category, French for instance, but a stubborn man who refused to learn from British, French, and tried to do far too much, at one time he was CIC of AEF and First Amry and previously AEF and Services of Supply. He was not very good. At the time they were needed Joffre, Foch and Petain were quite good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhill Posted 18 April , 2003 Share Posted 18 April , 2003 I presume a good starting point for this discussion is the often quoted passage in Lloyd George's memoirs where he stated that if the war had continued into 1919 he would have appointed Currie to command in the field and Monash as Chief of the General Staff. Of course, one has to take this with a grain of salt. The tension was between the Prime Minister and the General Staff as a class, rather than just with individual generals. Lloyd George found Currie and Monash, being outsiders, as useful levers (in addition to their genuine abilities) in the struggle between the government and the generals. Of course, this is only an opinion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 19 April , 2003 Share Posted 19 April , 2003 James You are of course correct in stating that, being a politician, Lloyd George's motives must be suspect, however as you also indicate, he backed-up his case by providing as examples, generals with genuine ability. In the case of Monash, Lloyd George was not alone in recognizing his talents and potential: e.g. The editor of Monash's published letters, F. M. Cutlack, quotes Liddell Hart: "Monash would almost certainly have risen to an army command and might even have risen to Commander-in-Chief." FM Montgomery, who's WWI service was in FF, also considered "Monash to have been the best general on the western front." (see his 'A Concise History of Warfare') Regards Michael D.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now