Forostar
Ancient Mariner
LooseCannon said:
Interesting project.
I also wonder what your motivations will be for every person.
For 20th century I nominate Józef Piłsudski, who could win battles just by gazing over the battlefield. The enemies were so frightened of his stern looks, that they ran away.
On a more serious note: Naturally he was important for Poland, but there's more.
Under his leadership, the Polish-Sovier War was won.
You could say this victory prevented the West from being overrun by Communism around that time.
... According to the British historian A.J.P. Taylor, the Polish–Soviet War "largely determined the course of European history for the next twenty years or more. […] Unavowedly and almost unconsciously, Soviet leaders abandoned the cause of international revolution." It would be twenty years before the Bolsheviks would send their armies abroad to 'make revolution'. According to American sociologist Alexander Gella "the Polish victory had gained twenty years of independence not only for Poland, but at least for an entire central part of Europe. ...
When we look at war and psychology, the following man is very interesting. Therefore I also nominate Stanisław Sosabowski because he led his men in very difficult circumstances, and he had one of the most difficult responsibilties (e.g. check his role in the failed campaign of the Battle of Arnhem).
(left)
He was loved very much by his men, not in the least because he fought with them (important for the morale). The sad story is that Montgomery made Sosabowski a scapegoat for the failure of Operation Market Garden. Very unfair when you understand Sosabowski's role, and what his men have done.
His experiences and deeds show why a general can be great even if a major battle in which he plays a part is lost.
Will you also do naval commanders? Then I advice you to check these pages:
http://www.deruyter.org/ENGLISH_SECTION ... ology.html
http://www.deruyter.org/ENGLISH_SECTION ... raphy.html
http://www.deruyter.org/ENGLISH_SECTION.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michiel_de_Ruyter
NOTES from some of these pages
The question of “Who was the greatest, Nelson or de Ruyter” has been asked many times and both sides claim the answer in favour of their Admiral. However it will always remain unanswered as both admirals were undoubtedly unique in their time, and Robert Blake, as a third contender, confuses the issue even more.
However, England would probably have won their struggle at sea against Napoleon, even without Nelson or his Battle of Trafalgar. but the fledgling United Provinces had caught the envy of so many European nations that without de Ruyter’s victories that young nation would have been gobbled up by its larger neighbours. So in a political sense de Ruyter has had the most impact on the affairs of his country and indeed of the world at the time.
+
How did he manage to beat the combined fleets of the greatest navies of those days.?
He trained his men and indeed the entire fleet in mock battles till they outperformed every other navy of his time, (Dutch gunners were known to fire two rounds in the same time that the opposing ships only fired once.)
He was a charismatic leader, and greatly improved the living conditions of the sailors, who respected and admired him and gave him the nickname “Bestevaer” meaning: “Gramps”
He insisted on strict obedience and discipline during the battle, but encouraged an unrestricted brainstorm from his captains in the councils of war prior to every major encounter.
But most of all, He was a intuitive master tactician in battle conditions
Many times he opened the attack of the opponent's fleet in such a foolhardy manner, that his adversaries believed that it would be an easy victory for them, only to completely change his attack strategy by wheeling his entire fleet of sometimes more than a 100 ships, as if attached to strings emanating from de Ruyter's flagship.
The French admiral Abraham Duquesne said in a report to King Louis XIV
"The Dutch fleet under de Ruyter can enter a moonless night, in a gale force wind and heavy fog, and emerge the next day in perfect Line Ahead"
His new mode of attack was much more threatening to the opposing fleet, but when that fleet tried to counter the new threat by regrouping this usually failed and their entire Line came into disarray. Making it easier for de Ruyter to seperate the various squadrons and attack one after the other with his entire fleet that was wellhandled as a unit.
In all the 19 battles that he fought, his opponents had had always more and bigger ships, with more men and more and heavier guns.
However, skilfully seperated from each other these seperate squadrons were no match for his well disciplined fleet..
Separately these traits did not make him a genius the combination, however, made him
The greatest Admiral the world has ever known.
(Quotation from: A.T. Mahan, D.C.L., LL.D., and Prof. C.R. Boxer.)
A.T. Mahon said from de Ruyter: "He excells in the obvious"
meaning, that he did nothing more than what every admiral was supposed to do, and probably wanted to do, but could not do it better, because the shiphandling of his captains, and the discipline and obedience to orders was superior to that of his opponents.
On a more serious note: Naturally he was important for Poland, but there's more.
Under his leadership, the Polish-Sovier War was won.
You could say this victory prevented the West from being overrun by Communism around that time.
... According to the British historian A.J.P. Taylor, the Polish–Soviet War "largely determined the course of European history for the next twenty years or more. […] Unavowedly and almost unconsciously, Soviet leaders abandoned the cause of international revolution." It would be twenty years before the Bolsheviks would send their armies abroad to 'make revolution'. According to American sociologist Alexander Gella "the Polish victory had gained twenty years of independence not only for Poland, but at least for an entire central part of Europe. ...
When we look at war and psychology, the following man is very interesting. Therefore I also nominate Stanisław Sosabowski because he led his men in very difficult circumstances, and he had one of the most difficult responsibilties (e.g. check his role in the failed campaign of the Battle of Arnhem).
(left)
He was loved very much by his men, not in the least because he fought with them (important for the morale). The sad story is that Montgomery made Sosabowski a scapegoat for the failure of Operation Market Garden. Very unfair when you understand Sosabowski's role, and what his men have done.
His experiences and deeds show why a general can be great even if a major battle in which he plays a part is lost.
Will you also do naval commanders? Then I advice you to check these pages:
http://www.deruyter.org/ENGLISH_SECTION ... ology.html
http://www.deruyter.org/ENGLISH_SECTION ... raphy.html
http://www.deruyter.org/ENGLISH_SECTION.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michiel_de_Ruyter
NOTES from some of these pages
The question of “Who was the greatest, Nelson or de Ruyter” has been asked many times and both sides claim the answer in favour of their Admiral. However it will always remain unanswered as both admirals were undoubtedly unique in their time, and Robert Blake, as a third contender, confuses the issue even more.
However, England would probably have won their struggle at sea against Napoleon, even without Nelson or his Battle of Trafalgar. but the fledgling United Provinces had caught the envy of so many European nations that without de Ruyter’s victories that young nation would have been gobbled up by its larger neighbours. So in a political sense de Ruyter has had the most impact on the affairs of his country and indeed of the world at the time.
+
How did he manage to beat the combined fleets of the greatest navies of those days.?
He trained his men and indeed the entire fleet in mock battles till they outperformed every other navy of his time, (Dutch gunners were known to fire two rounds in the same time that the opposing ships only fired once.)
He was a charismatic leader, and greatly improved the living conditions of the sailors, who respected and admired him and gave him the nickname “Bestevaer” meaning: “Gramps”
He insisted on strict obedience and discipline during the battle, but encouraged an unrestricted brainstorm from his captains in the councils of war prior to every major encounter.
But most of all, He was a intuitive master tactician in battle conditions
Many times he opened the attack of the opponent's fleet in such a foolhardy manner, that his adversaries believed that it would be an easy victory for them, only to completely change his attack strategy by wheeling his entire fleet of sometimes more than a 100 ships, as if attached to strings emanating from de Ruyter's flagship.
The French admiral Abraham Duquesne said in a report to King Louis XIV
"The Dutch fleet under de Ruyter can enter a moonless night, in a gale force wind and heavy fog, and emerge the next day in perfect Line Ahead"
His new mode of attack was much more threatening to the opposing fleet, but when that fleet tried to counter the new threat by regrouping this usually failed and their entire Line came into disarray. Making it easier for de Ruyter to seperate the various squadrons and attack one after the other with his entire fleet that was wellhandled as a unit.
In all the 19 battles that he fought, his opponents had had always more and bigger ships, with more men and more and heavier guns.
However, skilfully seperated from each other these seperate squadrons were no match for his well disciplined fleet..
Separately these traits did not make him a genius the combination, however, made him
The greatest Admiral the world has ever known.
(Quotation from: A.T. Mahan, D.C.L., LL.D., and Prof. C.R. Boxer.)
A.T. Mahon said from de Ruyter: "He excells in the obvious"
meaning, that he did nothing more than what every admiral was supposed to do, and probably wanted to do, but could not do it better, because the shiphandling of his captains, and the discipline and obedience to orders was superior to that of his opponents.
)
