ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8

Who was better? Round #2 .


I'm going with Prince Eugene. Marbourough seem to be a good organizer and a diplomat but again, overrated.

Delenda est Roma

Prince Eugene!! Corned Frenchman turned genius Austrian general! Invested his own money in his army crushed Ottoman and French armies! I only rate Hannibal and Alexander above him. Genius man and to think he mightve become a priest. Oh and he owned abbies and such and used those as income.

Belisarius

Eugene was bold and highly competent, but nothing special. The Turks were a spent force by the early 1700's; European/Habsburg armies had evolved effective tactics against them and were becoming more technologically advanced. Eugene needed Marlborough more than Marlborough needed Eugene, but together they were a formidable partnership; with Eugene, Marlborough knew he had a subordinate who understood his plans and would carry them out efficiently.

nuclearguy165

Turin Campaign of 1706. Arguably one of the most brilliant campaigns of that war. I think I may have to disagree with what you have stated above. Though I did still vote for Marlborough.

Belisarius

Maybe, but for me Eugene lacked the strategic vision of Marlborough and was very lacklustre the following year at Toulon. Several time during the war he allowed himself to be outmanouvred by the French and his performance at Denain in 1712 was, shall we say "below par".

nuclearguy165

Perhaps, but the Toulon fiasco can be partly explained, I think, by the fact that he didn't receive the greatest support here by either Austria or Savoy itself (Austria especially, was more concerned about conquering Naples). Plus, Eugene's heart really just wasn't in the whole thing here since he didn't exactly understand combined land and sea operations (which was something of a novelty at the time). I think all that can mostly explain the issue, even if he can be blamed somewhat for the latter. He wasn't actually present at Denain either. If I'm correct, that was lost by Albemarle and the fact that the British had withdrawn support. So I don't necessarily believe that he was out-generalled in this campaign so much as he didn't have the resources necessary to counter Villars at this point. I will agree, however, that he didn't possess the same strategic skills that the great duke had.

Belisarius

Unlike Marlborough, which by default makes Marlborough the better General, no?

ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8

Eugene did more with less. Considering he didn't get much support from the home states I think he did pretty damn good in Italy.

nuclearguy165

I'm not necessarily saying he wasn't, I simply trying to explain away, to the best of my knowledge and ability, Eugene's own shortcomings. However, as the guy below you says, it is true that Eugene did have less to work with.

Mangekyou

Duke of Marlborough overrated?

I happened to finish reading an extensive book on his campaigns. He most certainly was not overrated.

As for this battle, Eugene was a very good commander but I dont think as better as Marlborough. Eugene lost to French Marshals, Marlborough did not.