Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 24th, 2011, 10:18 AM   #1
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cali
Posts: 152
Winfield Scott vs Duke of Wellington


Ok, this one has been in my mind forever. Who do you guys believe was the better commander? I know Wellington is more popular, but I hope that those who make a strong opinion here actually have some knowledge of Scott (considering he is the greatest U.S. general).

I think most people around here are pretty knowledgable on Wellington's military career, however not as much as Scott.

So just to name his highlights:

-He had several successful engagements against the British in the 1812 War. His memoriable showings here were the capture and defeat of the British at Fort George and his involvment in the Niagara Campaign (specifically Chippawa).

-Ofcourse his overall masterpiece was his Mexican campaign, which is the greatest in U.S. history. Leading a quick defeat against Santa Ana (who hired European mercenary veterans to advise), who had an army with more cavalry, infantry, artillary, fortifications, and just as well equipted, is a very underrated task.

-And ofcourse he initially came up with the Anaconda Plan to defeat the South. Had he not been to old to take command I think it's safe to say the Civil War would have ended faster and MUCH less blooder.

And that is doesn't even scratch the surface of Scott's tasks. Like I said I hope people who make a strong opinion on this know about Scott, cause the above are just very vague highlights. Definitely not enough to make an informed decision.


And just for kicks:

"Scott is lost" Duke of Wellington. After hearing Scott was heading towards Mexico City! I wonder if that would be the same as lets say, trying to get to London by defeating the British Navy.

"His campaign was unsurpassed in military annals", "Scott is the greatest living general", Duke of Wellington.
Ricdog is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 24th, 2011, 10:54 AM   #2
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricdog View Post
And just for kicks:

"Scott is lost" Duke of Wellington. After hearing Scott was heading towards Mexico City! I wonder if that would be the same as lets say, trying to get to London by defeating the British Navy.

"His campaign was unsurpassed in military annals", "Scott is the greatest living general", Duke of Wellington.
Thanks for such nice quotatons; Mr Wellesley clearly had simply no idea of the pathetic opposition Mr Scott was facing.

Mr. Wellesley by a long shot.
sylla1 is offline  
Old April 24th, 2011, 11:10 AM   #3
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cali
Posts: 152

Pathetic opposition? Mexico may not have had Benito Juarez at the time but they certainly had enough to win. Infact the U.S. I would say just as bad if not worse of a military on paper compared to Mexico's (atleast given the circumstances of them being the attackers).
Ricdog is offline  
Old April 24th, 2011, 11:15 AM   #4

historian_dave's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Sussex, United Kingdom
Posts: 152
Blog Entries: 2

You surely cannot compare the Duke of Wellington's military campaigns with Scott's?! I'm not sure that's entirely wise...
historian_dave is offline  
Old April 24th, 2011, 11:45 AM   #5
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,933

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricdog View Post
Pathetic opposition? Mexico may not have had Benito Juarez at the time but they certainly had enough to win. Infact the U.S. I would say just as bad if not worse of a military on paper compared to Mexico's (atleast given the circumstances of them being the attackers).
Let just say that you must be kidding to the Nth degree; period.
sylla1 is offline  
Old April 24th, 2011, 12:42 PM   #6
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cali
Posts: 152

Will I'm not kidding. Maybe im just not knowledgable as much as you on the subject, but what I've stated is what I truely believe. If im wrong well then I guess its on me, but so far I dont think im entirelly off here.
Ricdog is offline  
Old April 24th, 2011, 12:52 PM   #7

Congo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: USA
Posts: 2,360

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricdog View Post
Ok, this one has been in my mind forever. Who do you guys believe was the better commander? I know Wellington is more popular, but I hope that those who make a strong opinion here actually have some knowledge of Scott (considering he is the greatest U.S. general).

I think most people around here are pretty knowledgable on Wellington's military career, however not as much as Scott.
Ricdog, you are correct to say that Winfield Scott is the greatest U.S. general (but I doubt he would be in the top 5 of most people's lists).

But, to compare him to the Duke of Wellington? That is a really, really big stretch. Some things that Wellington says, you have to take with a grain of salt (hence, his comment).
Congo is offline  
Old April 24th, 2011, 12:55 PM   #8

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,362
Blog Entries: 6

I'm sure Wellington was operating with much better resources than Gen. Scott.
I'll go with Scott for making due with less.
tjadams is offline  
Old April 24th, 2011, 12:56 PM   #9

unbroken_shieldwall's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 272

i like winfield scott, but imo he is not america's greatest. And I think wellington's campaign in india, alone is enough to make him the superior general
unbroken_shieldwall is offline  
Old April 24th, 2011, 01:00 PM   #10
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cali
Posts: 152

Quote:
Originally Posted by historian_dave View Post
You surely cannot compare the Duke of Wellington's military campaigns with Scott's?! I'm not sure that's entirely wise...
In strategy Scott invinted the Anaconda Plan, which shows he correctly called how to defeat the South. That alone puts him equal to Grant and possibly better than Lee. And thats just ONE of his feats, and not even the best. Once you factor all he did, he outshines so many commanders by a long shot.

I dont wish to accuse you, but maybe I take it aswell that you might not know as much about Scott because you are from the UK. Which is fine cause I can also say a lot of americans probubly wouldnt know who John Churchill (the Duke of Marlborough) is. Given that Scott's masterpieces are in 2 wars that are usually given a "cold shoulder" in historical studies, I can understand people's disagreement at first about him being compared to great generals. Let alone be the best the U.S. ever produced.
Ricdog is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
duke, scott, wellington, winfield



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duke of Wellington Irish or English? Grenadier European History 111 April 5th, 2017 04:49 AM
Francis Scott Key meaandcutie13 American History 7 November 18th, 2009 11:07 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.