Joined Sep 2010
3,538 Posts | 10+
Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Britains Greatest Foes. (GMC?)
- Thread starter Kevinmeath
- Start date
Joined Aug 2010
18,694 Posts | 3,383+
Welsh Marches
Not at all, it seems odd that there aren't any naval commanders on the list; I would probably have voted for de Ruyter myself if he had been there.
Joined Mar 2011
437 Posts | 2+
The poll used the word 'greatest'. The question doesn't necessarily mean who directly defeated the British. Napoleon is definitely the front runner for greatest foe. Certainly no man made the British so nervous for so long.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
The post above couldn't be any more contradictory; Gral Washington was a greatest foe against Britain than Monsieur Buonaparte precisely because Britain was actually defeated by the former; such criterion simply supersedes any other comparison between both British foes.
As making the British "nervous" goes, Herr Hitler ("other") would easily exponentially surpass any other contender either in or out of that list any day of the week.
Joined Mar 2011
5,554 Posts | 1+
Bedfordshire,England.
Joined Jul 2011
5,952 Posts | 32+
Belgium
I agree on this
Too bad I hadn't noticed the "other" button and clicked Napoleon, since he'd be my second choice for this
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
As naval commanders go, IMHO Admiral Dönitz deserves no doubt the first place; De Ruyter would be my choice indeed for a distinguished second position.
It seems everyone is voting for their fellow countrymen at that website. Michael Collins? Mustafa Kemal? Greatest british foe? Na.
If it was just a british poll, Napoleon Bonaparte would be way ahead. Followed second by Rommel.
If it was just a british poll, Napoleon Bonaparte would be way ahead. Followed second by Rommel.
Joined Aug 2010
6,752 Posts | 17+
The Far East
does it really matter that napoleon did not eventually defeat them. hitler did not defeat them either yet you feel he should be considered. all respects to Washington but is threat was only in britain losing the 13 colonies were napoleon and hitler threatened the very invasion of britain and the end of the british government.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
At the risk of overstating a nice tautology, when talking about "greatest foes" actual defeat simply couldn't matter any more.
Joined Oct 2010
6,504 Posts | 7+
Éire
Last edited:
Arra, threatened. If that's the basis for Britain's greatest foe then Red Hugh O' Neill has to get a look in, and if it were narrowed to England, what of Edward the Bruce or Robert? What of William Wallace? They all threatened much, as much if not more than Bonaparte. For Bonaparte threatened takeover, those men wanted to drive the English into the sea. The greatest foe surely needs the distinction of winning the conflict he was party to ... For the same reason, Washington is a more likely candidate than Bonaparte. Even at that, Washington had logistics on his side, whereas poor ould MC lived in apartments across Dublin, with a price of £10,000* on his head, some in sight of British HQ.
*From Google searches I gather that £10,000 at that time would be equal to about £375,000 pounds today.
*From Google searches I gather that £10,000 at that time would be equal to about £375,000 pounds today.
Last edited:
If we started narrowing it down to individual countries greatest foes, the whole list will be filled with english, scottish and welsh people. With a German and Frenchman thrown in.
Joined May 2010
3,399 Posts | 1+
Orion arm of the milky way
Last edited:
That is Marshal, Erwin Rommel to you.
Also, the British empire actually thrived after Napoleon, after Hitler there was no Empire. Napoleon simply didn't have the ships, were as Hitler was actually bombing London.
Joined Jun 2011
2,141 Posts | 2+
California, USA
You also need to compare the threat they posed. Washington defeated the British because he was helped by other powers but first and foremost because the British survival was not a stake. So what happened was that Yorktown caused the victory of the pro-peace party in Britain, which pushed for negotiations. Very different from Napoleon : though they were people in favor of appeasement too, they never won, because most British felt really threatened by him. Of course, it is even worse for Hitler, there we actually have a total war wagd by the British.
Joined Oct 2011
40,550 Posts | 7,631+
Italy, Lago Maggiore
George Washington
The main problem of this thread is the definition of "enemy".
In which conception?
If we think to a leader who fought against Britain causing to UK physical losses of land and in perspective the loss of a potentially huge and rich region of the Empire ... well George Washington comes to mind.
But also Gandhi, if we follow this criteria [of the leader in general, not only military].Napoleon lost against the Great Britain, in Egypt and on the continent.
About Hitler, it's the same.
On the other hand, if we intend with foe, someone who have fought many times [battles / wars] against Britain, Napoleon and Hitler are two good candidates.
The main problem of this thread is the definition of "enemy".
In which conception?
If we think to a leader who fought against Britain causing to UK physical losses of land and in perspective the loss of a potentially huge and rich region of the Empire ... well George Washington comes to mind.
But also Gandhi, if we follow this criteria [of the leader in general, not only military].Napoleon lost against the Great Britain, in Egypt and on the continent.
About Hitler, it's the same.
On the other hand, if we intend with foe, someone who have fought many times [battles / wars] against Britain, Napoleon and Hitler are two good candidates.
The USA was and is Britain's greatest foe.
Britian spent all of its money fighting the French in North America and when the French were gone and the moment was right, they backstabbed the Brits and took over.
When the Brits had all their forces in Pourtugal and Spain in 1812, the US pounced on Canada.
And then the USA stole the Panama Canal from the Brits.
A friend who stood behind it in WW1 and WW2, letting it slowly exhaust itself until the moment was right and then stepped out from its shadow and took over everything.
And then even after Britain was a second rate power, the US has continually dragged the British into interventions large and small. Korea, The Gulf War, NATO war, Afghanistan, Iraq 2003, Libya. Making sure that now in 2012 the British military budget has been ground to powder. It'll try and drag them into Iran and Syria if it ever intervenes there too.
Don't worry Britain. The US will always have your back, and shove you forward.
Britian spent all of its money fighting the French in North America and when the French were gone and the moment was right, they backstabbed the Brits and took over.
When the Brits had all their forces in Pourtugal and Spain in 1812, the US pounced on Canada.
And then the USA stole the Panama Canal from the Brits.
A friend who stood behind it in WW1 and WW2, letting it slowly exhaust itself until the moment was right and then stepped out from its shadow and took over everything.
And then even after Britain was a second rate power, the US has continually dragged the British into interventions large and small. Korea, The Gulf War, NATO war, Afghanistan, Iraq 2003, Libya. Making sure that now in 2012 the British military budget has been ground to powder. It'll try and drag them into Iran and Syria if it ever intervenes there too.
Don't worry Britain. The US will always have your back, and shove you forward.
Joined Apr 2011
97 Posts | 0+
Aspen Hill, Maryland
Wow, I'm not touching that.
Any choice I make would have to be someone who threatened Britain itself, as opposed to an Imperial colony or overseas holding. To me, that leaves me with four or maybe five choices: Hitler, Napoleon, Mary Queen of Scots, Oliver Cromwell, and mayyyyybe Michael Collins. As this is from the National Army Museum, I'll discount Mary, as her threat wasn't military. Hitler and Cromwell are, for whatever reasons, not on the list, and so I'll give it to Napoleon over Collins, as I believe the former, if given the chance, would have taken Britain over completely.
Although I could make an argument for William the Conqueror as well, but, well, that's just making things too alternate-history-ish.
Any choice I make would have to be someone who threatened Britain itself, as opposed to an Imperial colony or overseas holding. To me, that leaves me with four or maybe five choices: Hitler, Napoleon, Mary Queen of Scots, Oliver Cromwell, and mayyyyybe Michael Collins. As this is from the National Army Museum, I'll discount Mary, as her threat wasn't military. Hitler and Cromwell are, for whatever reasons, not on the list, and so I'll give it to Napoleon over Collins, as I believe the former, if given the chance, would have taken Britain over completely.
Although I could make an argument for William the Conqueror as well, but, well, that's just making things too alternate-history-ish.
More History Discussions
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-