|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
Thanks afraidfortherepublic. |
|
|
|
|
Posted on 04/15/2012 3:20:17 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
The American was voted the winner in a contest run by the National Army Museum to identify the country's most outstanding military opponent.
He was one of a shortlist of five leaders who topped a public poll and on Saturday was selected as the ultimate winner by an audience of around 70 guests at a special event at the museum, in Chelsea, west London.
In second place was Michael Collins, the Irish leader, ahead of Napoleon Bonaparte, Erwin Rommel and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
At the event, each contender had their case made by a historian giving a 40 minute presentation. The audience, who had paid to attend the day, then voted in a secret ballot after all five presentations had been made.
Dr Stephen Brumwell, who had championed Washington, said: "As British officers conceded, he was a worthy opponent."
The shortlist of five were selected from an initial list of 20 candidates, drawn up by the museum's curators.
To qualify, each commander had to come from the 17th century onwards – the period covered by the museum's collection – and had to have led an army in the field against the British, thus excluding political enemies, like Adolf Hitler.
The contest was designed to not only identify Britain's most outstanding opponent, but also to draw attention to some lesser-known adversaries.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
In the end that didn't matter.
BTW, the other day I found an interesting local history regarding old Fort St. Joseph on the St. Joseph river in Southern Michigan during the Revolution.
The local militia in Cahokia went up to the Fort and retook it from the Brits UNDER A SPANISH FLAG.
Ah, this does my heart proud! Yes you Limies, the Father of our Country is indeed your greatest foe and he catalyzed the fall of your Empire.
At least the British can take consolation in knowing that their greatest foe was himself an Englishmen. The colonists were all British subjects right up until the day they declared their independence from the King. So at least it took a fellow Englishman to soundly beat them and be their top foe. If you are British, you can take a little pride in that.
Thanks!
I expect Mr. Reagan would agree with you that Washington was the best US president.
You caught me lol
My tagline used to be “Remember the River Raisin” but that was the war of 1812.
Niles Michigan is known as the city of 4 flags.
My family was there and I have done research on my own. thanks
Now I'm not saying there's no reason for Niles and environs having a 1601 date ~ after all, Terre Haute and Vincinnes had a visit by DeSoto in 1541, as did Evansville, but I'm trying to link that into what seems to have been a truly incredible bout of line drawing along the 42nd parallel BY, ta ta ta daaa, Spain in about 1601 to 1617!
That runs from the Mouth of the St. Joe on Lake Michigan to the tip of Cape Cod ~ no doubt a koinky dink ~ but a useful one. Laying out the 40th would have been much more difficult.
I think this is the line that Spain meant to d-mark the French Southern border ~ NOT THE OHIO! In fact, as late as 1718 the chief cartographer of France (d'Isle) referenced Michigan as Nouvelle Canada, not as Nouvelle France!
Check out Spanish Hill Pennsylvania. They found historic references to surveyors (supposedly Dutch) and dug up an old Spanish ship near that site, as well as various Spanish artifacts ~ all with a late 1500/early 1600 date.
This deal over on the same line in Michigan is exciting ~ and to find the good ol'caballeros down in Cahokia still thought of the South Shore as New Spain is ~ to say the least, a total rewrite of French and Canadian history.
BTW, I'm also on the trail of some of my ancestors who plastered their names on several Spanish boundary markers, landmarks, villages, towns, roads, trails, etc in the East and Midwest, and might have even carved the Kensington stone (about 1585 to 1615 or so) which is pretty clearly a Spanish boundary stone (except done in 15th century runes in Swedish).
I've moved my survey of the nation North another 100 miles and found a good half dozen towns in the bottom tier of Michigan laid out according to the Law of the Indies ~ all along the St Joseph.
For those who don't know that river is the short cut to a host of feasible or known portages to other rivers that lead to Lake Huron, Lake Erie, the Great Miami River, and to the Wabash. In an age where rapid travel was possible only by canoe such information was almost a national security matter.
Then they turned to Africa then the Middle East.
Not a bad job of catalyzation!
My 5 greatest American military foes:
Lee
Jackson
Ho Chi Minh
Yamamoto
Cornwallis
For me, Lee wins the greatest foe contest hands down. Thankfully, we have never had to face a soldier like Lee since. Ho Chi Minh is up there as well. I also like your choice of Tecumseh and Sitting Bull as foes.
The history of the great lakes region is largely ignored but the St Lawrence seaway and great lakes offered an easy route deep into the continent. It explains why Sault Ste. Marie Michigan is one of the oldest continuous settlements in North America. There were even some fairly sizable and important naval battles on the great lakes.
if Lee and Jackson aren’t Americans, then, yes, I’d certainly include them. An alternative perspective might be:
Grant, Sherman, Yamamoto, Ho Chi Minh and #5.
Cornwallis - commanded the lead division in General Howe pasting of Washington in the Battle of Long Island; but, embarrassed by Washington in New Jersey a few months later.
He again, in command of lead elements, bested Washington at Brandywine and Germantown, and then Washington held him to a standstill at Monmouth.
In the Southern campaign, where he was the overall commander, he achieved two major victories over American forces, but also suffered defeats at Kings Mountain and Cowpens. He then marched north, through the Carolinas and into Virginia, sweeping aside state militias, only to get trapped at Yorktown.
For a commander of British regulars, this mixed record is not very commendable. Add to this his ignominious defeat at Yorktown, on a campaign of dubious strategic importance. So, didn’t include him in the list.
In contrast, the Brits give Washington credit for surviving his many defeats on the battlefield, as well as some draws, because he was able to keep the revolution going.
Ditto, in both our lists, for Ho Chi Minh.
It was a lot easier to keep Santa Ana off the list, since he wasn’t a very good general at all. In contrast, the soldiers of his army, and many of his subordinate commanders fought with distinction. I will mention only the Battle of Churubusco, where the Mexicans held off the Americans until they ran out of ammunition. When the American commander demanded the unexpended ammunition of the Mexicans, their commander replied, “if I had any ammunition, you would not be here.”
Too old. I think that the criterion was that the “enemy” had to be from the 1700s forward.)
Excellent! Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
|
Thanks afraidfortherepublic. |
|
|
|
|
“...the Brits give Washington credit for surviving his many defeats on the battlefield, as well as some draws, because he was able to keep the revolution going.”
This is a major point when discussing General Washington. It’s not that he won battle after battle against the British. It is that he survived to fight again and again; by force of will it almost seems. He won because he could not be defeated and won when it most counted - a lot like Ho Chi Minh.
I agree about Santa Ana. Not a great general.
The other great indian foe that I considered was Geronimo, except that he didn’t command large numbers of troops. Tecumseh is a great choice!
How about the British in the War of 1812 as great foes? I don’t know any great British generals to come out of that war, but these were veterans of the Napoleonic Wars and gave the Americans quite a drubbing both in Canada and at home.
The difference is that Napoleon met his Waterloo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.