 |
 |
| William the Conquer's ancestors were Norse men (Normans), and came from Scandinavia and took most of northern France-called Normandy to this day. He then laid claim the the title of England and with a force of knights took the land from the Saxons under King Harold at the battle of Hastings. In the period after this take over the French speaking Normans would bring a huge number of French words into English language, before they eventually got tired of being mocked by similar speaking kin back in Normandy for their own form of French. William had also won many battle before coming to England as well. |
|
|
 |
|
|
Henry II, being brought up in France, had experienced the success of beating the French under his father leadership. So like Alexander the Great he had practical knowledge of what was needed to deal with the heavy horse. At Agincourt, as with his father's victory, bowmen were used in large numbers. Using stakes driven into the ground as the pikemen or hoplites, the bowmen are said to have crushed the French. Some of the latest investigation of the battlefield has suggested it was more of the mud and a stampeding of their own men that won the battle.
Unfortunately for the dissenters this means the ground was well chosen, and the lighter armored bowmen were better dressed. The difference here is in the honor department, where the English didn't play the keep you at a distance and send a lot of arrows at you all day. They stood their ground and mixed it up.
The French, as before, were filled with passion for the fight- while their king was some place else and their general on the spot wasn't listened to.
The French won the war because Henry II died from disease, because of the huge manpower/wealth available to the Franks and because Joan of Arc made every French fighter question his manliness. This is similar to how the Arabs reacted in their modern wars with Israel. Some Arab regiments were losing on their battle fronts fighting women, until they heard that they were fighting women and then went ballistic. |
|
|
 |
|
|
Oliver Cromwell succeeded in bringing forth, forever more, the supremacy of parliament. After the Magna Charta, which had made England a country ruled by laws-not by men. The next fundamental step in the chain for democratic rule was the stepping down of over control by the king. This was done by Oliver Cromwell's Leadership in the English civil war.
On the negative side, Oliver Cromwell in his hatred of the Catholics, butchered many in Ireland and sullied his good name. The whole of Europe at this time was a flame with religious murder, so this was a unfortunate sign of the times. It must be said that Oliver did, or allowed, his fair share of evil too. asull | |
|
 |
|
| General Wolfe defeated the French on many occasions and most importantly won North America for the British. His tactics were said by other generals to be so unorthodox as to be that of a Mad Wolf. The King told them he hoped that Wolfe would bite his other generals so as to make them as successfully rabid as Wolfe. Wolfe died in taking Quebec City, as did the opposing General, in a battle where he was at a tremendous disadvantage. | |
|
 |
|
|
Nelson, like Wolfe, had the theatrical good luck to die as he achieved his crowning jewel of victories. Victorious in battle at the head of the Nile (Alexandria), he went on to cut off Napoleon's life line to Europe. Isolated in Egypt Napoleon suffered his first real failure, and had to put his tail between his legs and abandon his men to go home to fight another day.
At Trafalgar Nelson led by example by putting his boat in the lead position and destroying any hope Napoleon had of gaining the upper hand at sea. |
|
|
 |
|
| Successful in Spain against Napoleon's underlings, Wellington had to wait till Waterloo to meet the little emperor himself. Many excuses have been given for Napoleon's loss. How about this one, "He was completely beat." Fighting too long too often allows smart generals to learn what you are doing. The smart Duke did learn and then taught the task master some new lessons. He also leaves us with a good maxim about wars in general too, "There is only one thing worse than winning a war and that is losing one." | |
|
 |
|
|
America, which still had dreams of Manifest Destiny (the desire to control all of the Americas), tried again to take Canada while the British were busy with Napoleon in Europe. A lack of principle that wasn't returned when America had its Civil War later.
Unfortunately for the War Hawks they hadn't counted on General Brock. Following on the idea of The best defense is a good offence he attacked Detroit with a much smaller force and took it. He continued to befuddle the American commanders, except on the Great Lakes where the Americans humbled the boast of some naval commanders. At Queenston Heights Brock again drove the Americans back by a force of will. In so matching again the other great British commanders who died in battle. To be the best you must lead from the front.
The Americans after Brock's death renewed their attacks and eventually burned York (present day Toronto). In retaliation the British and Canadian units burned Buffalo NY, and then burned Washington DC for good measure. This is why the White House is white, so as to cover over its earlier smoked black color. The Americans later won an important battle near New Orleans, after the peace treaty had already been signed in Europe.
Americans, till this day, claims this war was a victory , and therefore have never been defeated? In the least it was a draw, and more realistically they lost it, for Napoleon was finished in Europe and the British could have burned every city on the coast, for they were no longer looking to win the hearts and minds of the population of the United States-like they tried during the revolution.
The Americans gained no ground and suffered more from their adventure. Today the Canadian Army is but a joke, like that of New Zealand's, for the red diaper politicians in both countries have seen to it to rob their armed forces of any reasonable funds- as they have undermined other successful traditions. These same leaders then have the gaul to claim their systems are better, due to excess money at hand from other under financed departments. | |
|
 |
|
|
Churchill a great military commander? What about Galipoli? Here I may have a tough sell for many are much more inclined to give Churchill his due in the field of politics or some other field , but in Generalship?!
From his taking part in the last charge of British horse in the Sudan, to his quick thinking in his Boar War railway incident, Churchill did mix it up. Churchill did risk his neck for glory- and yes unbridled ambition. As later Lord of the Admiralty he kept his navy on top, yet where is the greatness?
As the Germans were marching on Paris in WWI, which they almost took for they did reach the suburbs of Paris, one thing slowed them down. The stubborn refusal of Churchill to give up on Belgium. He didn't just play it safe by staying at sea giving others orders. He, against almost all advice, moved and stayed on the ground there as the Germans were closing in- thus slowing the Germans down quite a bit- and thus saving Paris. Possibly the war. He also came up with the idea of tanks.
His idea of taking Turkey out of WWI, like his idea of taking Italy out in the second, were quite right. You attack the weak link, or Churchill's Weak Under Belly. This also delayed the Allies in having to answer Stalin's cry for a western front.
This is the same Stalin who had divided Poland with Hitler, was first to attack Finland and also had let England fight on her own for a while until she too was attacked by Germany. This Stalin wanted our green ally troops going against seasoned German ones in a terrible initial landing situation. Wise Churchill held back. By going thru practice runs in North Africa, Italy and the bomber raids on Germany day-and-night he allowed the system to improve in limited theaters of war.
Galipoli wasn't what Churchill had planned. He wanted, as stated before, to have the Royal Navy take the hits sailing up the sea of Maramara to Istanbul and hammering it with the British dreadnoughts' big guns. Thus taking Turkey out of the war sooner, supplying Russian man power with weapons (like he did in the WWII) and forcing the Germans to have even more men in southern Europe to deal with their Austro-Hungarians soft under belly. Most of the Balkans wanted out of the old Austrian Empire, and all they needed was support. In WWII Hitler could be said to have lost in Russia by going into the Balkans again to help Mussolini and the Italians.
While in WWII Churchill had to be asked by the king not to land at Normandy with the troops. With fronts widening in war, who can say whose in charge. In Belgium Churchill was in a bad position that was bound to end in the fall of Belgium, but he fought on. Modern warfare is slowly moving leadership upstairs as the battlefields tend to slowly get bigger and bigger. | |
|
 |
|
|
Wingate was another in a line of eccentric Englishman. He, like other generals before him, suffered for his individual nature.
First in Palestine then in Burma Wingate was one of the first to redefine the modern battlefield and prepare us all for the guerilla style method of war to be found in the next centuries. With his military units,called the Chindits, in Burma he slowed down the Japanese push into India.
In India the Japanese army would have quickly formed up an anti-England army group of Indians from the discontented masses living there. Due to the huge population it would have been noticable in numbers. It also would have also taken the best British staging area in the region out of action and turned in over to the enemy.
The battle of India would have turned out much differently if the Japanese hadn't had a constant thorn in their side. Like with Churchill in Belgium- delaying the enemy matters. Wingate like many greats again died in battle. | |
|
 |
|
| Gerald Templer fought in Burma against t the Japanese and had learned a great deal that would help him later in life when dealing with the communists in Malaysia. Here the British showed the Americans how one could successfully deal with the tactics the communists where using everywhere (including other parts of south-east Asia). Unfortunately first the Kennedy administration and later the Johnston adminsitration learned little, and suffered from the lack of learning from all the former British Burmese veteran fighters. |
cbcbcbcbcbcbcbcbc |
Copyright © 1997-2010 honornetwork.com, All rights reserved
|
