I'm looking for a good biography of General Wellington. We have plenty of biographies on famous American generals but I already know which ones are good, where the bias lies, etc. Mostly I want an honest history.

Also, does anyone in the British military give a damn about him anymore or is it seen as old fashioned?

Do you mean Field Marshal The 1st Duke of Wellington? (IIRC at least one subsequent duke has made it to general rank.)

The three most recent I've read and enjoyed are:

Richard Holmes' Wellington - The Iron Duke, Harper Collins, London 2003.

Christopher Hibbert's Wellington - A personal History. Harper-Collins, London 1997.

And the comparative biography:

Andrew Robert's Napoleon and Wellington. Weidenfield and Nicholson, London 2001.

Holmes' is probably the best all rounder, Hibbert gives a really good impression of the man himself but is not militarily detailed and Roberts book is fascinating in it's juxtaposition of the two.

There is an excellent TV series that goes along with Holmes' book that's well worth having a look at.


Wellington and Marlborough are the two titans of British Army history and both are held up as icons of the classic British strategy of allied expeditionary warfare. However from our period it's quite easy to see the faults in Wellington's style - notably that he was uncommunicative with his subordinates in a way that seems wholly strange these days.
One point about him that I always find most interesting is that in practical terms he cared for his men far more than, for example, Bonaparte (Wellington always tried to ensure his men were fed for a start) but is much less demonstrative of this than Napoleon.

Well when you think about communication then: It wasn't just like getting on the batphone and telling someone what to do. You can look at these battles and wonder why orders got screwed up - there are so many ways. An Aid gets rain on the letter, a General can't spell something, the two generals don't get along, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Thrust_0311:
Well when you think about communication then: It wasn't just like getting on the batphone and telling someone what to do. You can look at these battles and wonder why orders got screwed up - there are so many ways. An Aid gets rain on the letter, a General can't spell something, the two generals don't get along, etc.

What I mean by uncommunicative is highlighted by this quote:

quote:

An extraordinary affair. I gave them their orders and they wanted to stay and discuss them.

He was quite often the only man in the army with any real idea of not just the armies strategic plans but it's tactical plans as well.

EDIT: I should point out that the above quote is usually attributed to following his first Cabinet meeting as "Prime Minister" (not a title used at the time) but similar sayings are attributed to him during his military career and it does give a clear idea to his attitudes towards subordinates.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bladensburg,

Yeah reading about the battle of Albuera, it's such a massacre you wonder what the commander is up to.



I have a nice, small biography on Marlborough but if I remember right, he never actually faced Count Turrene in battle. (sorry I'm bad with titles but other than that I try to get things straight)

quote:

Originally posted by Thrust_0311:
Yeah reading about the battle of Albuera, it's such a massacre you wonder what the commander is up to.



I have a nice, small biography on Marlborough but if I remember right, he never actually faced Count Turrene in battle. (sorry I'm bad with titles but other than that I try to get things straight)

Beresford commanded at Albuera rather than Wellesley and I often wonder if it was such a mess because the Allied forces lacked the latter's tactical ability.

I think that one of Wellington's major faults as an officer is that he was a very bad teacher, few of his juniors who went on to higher command really developed any real talent and given that talented British commanders had a habit of getting themselves killed (Moore and Ross for example) this was particularly bad. Look at Pakenham's poor performance in the Louisiana campaign which although RN/Army infighting didn't help was embarrassing compared with Ross' curtailed success to the north.
Perhaps the ultimate example of Wellington's failure as an instructor is Lord Raglan who "led" British forces in the Crimea. As FitzRoy Somerset he had been one of the Peer's ADCs yet the Crimean campaign suggests that he hadn't managed to many of the secrets of Wellington's success, principally the overriding importance of logistics in expeditionary warfare.

I've got so much on my plate it will probably be a while before I actually get around to the books. What interested me were a few remarks I heard about his style of leadership: Professional, hiding emotions, cautious. Cautious isn't normally something a Marine would try to emulate, but I'm guessing that there are good times for it: Especially when you have a mix of units under your command like Wellington did.

I have no dog in this fight. Personally I've always admired the Grande Armee and Napoleon more than most generals. He was the one who said to write history "without vanity" and get the true conclusion. Either way I think there is something to learn from studying both sides, and it was no small thing to have beaten the Grande Armee.

I think the "cautious" criticism has a lot to do with a misunderstanding of the British style of battle which has traditionally relied on making the enemy come to you on ground of your choosing. Wellington had a brilliant eye fro ground and if he didn't like the ground he wouldn't fight on it. To the French (and latterly the Americans) who had lots of troops and could afford to attack wherever they got the chance this seemed like caution. it is also I think why he wasn't particularly good at sieges.


If you can't find the time to read the book search YouTube for "Wellington - the Iron Duke" and have a look at Holmes' TV programmes, they are well worth watching and some actions may perhaps dispel the charge of over caution. Assaye for example.

I've looked for some videos at the Library or at netflix but nothing has come up yet. I'm not totally ignorant of the campaigns and battles; what I'm after is something to flesh out the story and maybe present this certain style of leadership.

Certainly caution isn't necessarily a bad trait: Had the Marines been reckless in North Korea, the legendary Chosin campaign would have gone Mao's way instead.

quote:

Originally posted by Thrust_0311:
I've looked for some videos at the Library or at netflix but nothing has come up yet. I'm not totally ignorant of the campaigns and battles; what I'm after is something to flesh out the story and maybe present this certain style of leadership.

Certainly caution isn't necessarily a bad trait: Had the Marines been reckless in North Korea, the legendary Chosin campaign would have gone Mao's way instead.

I agree and would add: Had the UN commander not been reckless Mao might not have had his excuse.

I'd try that YouTube search if I were you, the first episode should perhaps provide some of the background you seek. If you feel guilty about copyright send a small donation to the Princess of Wales' Royal Regiment fund, Holmes is their Colonel I'm sure he'd appreciate the gesture.

Ned Almond is more to blame than MacArthur for hasty movements towards the Chinese border, but there were commanders who basically gaffed off the order and saved their men. Thousands of South Koreans never saw their homeland (an entire Corps was eliminated) because they got too close. I don't think it was necessarily wrong to try and unite Korea, mostly because I think that most people are wanting to dodge the blame when they are questioned it. Easy to blame one guy when you've never been in the position. On the other hand, we could have done more to coordinate the advance and then prepare for the Chinese attack.

As for Wellington, I don't think that caution is really a criticism. We had some cautious commanders in WW2 and in the Civil War. GH Thomas is sometimes considered the best Northern general, and he would never move unless things were completely in order. Even Longstreet was that way.

Thrust,
BBC Radio 4 has been broadcasting a short series about Wellington in remembrance of the 1808 landing in Portugal.

Whether they are accessible from a non-UK IP I don't know, they should be as it's all Beeb copyright but you never know these days. In any case I'll post the URLS.

First up is a series of short radio programmes based upon the diaries and letters of the Peninsula Army, many from the RGJ regimental archive: The Radio Series

Secondly there's a series of short web documentaries by Peter and Dan Snow: Introduction
The Snows are perhaps not the most authoritative historians, but the source material is at least interesting.



By the way, there is also a series of TV documentaries made by Discovery in which Bernard Cornwell introduces the historical background to his Sharpe books. They are of a similar flavour to the "Author's notes" at the end of said books and therefore well worth watching.
Having just re-read Sharpe's Fury I'm currently trying to track down a biography of Sir Thomas Graham, commander of the British troops at Barrosa, as he seems an interesting character.

When I get back in town I'll check and see which one my library has in. I've got a few big ones to get through in this next week and a half but then we'll see.
I did read yesterday, in a completely different subject, that Michael Howard thought very much of Wellington. Now that is a historian I hold in high esteem.

What interests me is whether Wellington is universally considered to be the best British general. I understand that Montgomery is not. Well at least he isn't here....really NO WW2 general is universally admired or esteemed.
Is it mostly a national thing? French argue that Napoleon was better, British side with Wellington, and fights break out..... I'd say that the best American General was Lee but probably few of the officers today would agree with me (even though most WW2 leaders would have).

There is quite a large school arguing that John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough is the greatest British general.
As you say Montgomery isn't, although not perhaps for the same reasons as Americans deride him. Field Marshal Slim is probably the most widely respected of the WWII commanders.

The French will always argue for Bonaparte but in many ways it's a case of comparing apples with oranges. For most of his career, even before his coronation, Boney controlled the full power of the French state, he made as well as executed policy. Few British generals of the modern era have been able to do that since Marlborough and even he had the Crowns of several countries looking over his shoulder. In contrast to Napoleon Wellington was serving the Crown and Parliament.


By the way Prof. Holmes has a new biography of Marlborough out that's received good reviews.

Personally I think many of the big names of WW2 are overrated: Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery, Manstein, and - to a lesser extent - Rommel (if only because of a misunderstanding of the importance of combined arms). Zhukov was the best of the war. Slim is indeed underrated or not as well known as he should be. Same thing with Halsey, Yama****a (who captured Singapore), and certain others.

Personally I think this top tier stuff - trying to rate generals like athletes - is pointless. War in Iberia isn't at all like Marlborough's audacious campaign in Germany. A 'perfect record' isn't the only way to rate or study Marlborough either. You can learn different things studying either.

Ho Chi Minh, for instance, knew when to apply George Washington.

Thrust,

What about Sir Admiral Andrew Cunningham of the RN's Mediterranean fleet during WW2? I thought some of his accomplishments- such as the Battle of Matapan, were worthy of Nelson.

What about USN Admiral Spruance?

Or US Army General Joseph Stilwell- one of the few allied officers at the time who even knew Mandarin Chinese! And who called ROC/Nationalist Chinese Generalissimo Chiang Kai Shek a peanut!

All these names are certainly BIG NAMES to those who have more than even a passing familiarity with World War II. I know your topic covers more than just that era, but I believe that there are few more notable military figures on both sides overshadowed by others who are supposedly more famous.

It must have been a freudian slip or something but I was thinking of Adm Spruance when I typed Halsey. He and Nimitz weren't friends but it was a war winning duo. Nimitz was one of the exceptional theater commanders while Spruance was probably more of the old school of Admirals.

Unfortunately my knowledge of the Mediterranean war is not as complete so I can't say definitively what I think of Admiral Cunningham of the RN.

At any rate, there are some great and underrated commanders to learn from. John Elting's book, The Superstrategists, does a great job at combining many of them that are not remembered as often.