The "VS" Thread

[bodidley]

The capture of the USS Chesapeake was one of many small-scale naval engagements of the war which didn't have much strategic impact on their own. The only naval battle with decisive consequences would probably be the Battle of Lake Erie.

As for the American Revolution, the British Empire was using its full naval and land strength in an attempt to crush the rebellion. During the campaign to take New York Britain sent 32,000 troops and even had to supplement its strength by borrowing regiments from German princes in exchange for money. Even during the Napoleonic Wars there were only about 40,000 British troops in the peninsular campaigns and a similar number in the Waterloo campaign.

In the American there were several catastrophic defeats which convinced parliament to end the war after eight years of fighting. During the Saratoga campaign about 14,000 British troops were involved. More than 10,000 were lost and Burgoyne's army was forced to surrender. Cornwallis surrendered with about 9,000 troops at Yorktown after an extensive campaign.

In the War of 1812, Britain did make a big effort again even though the Napoleonic Wars had been so expensive. Some 5,000 troops were committed to the Maryland campaign which ultimately ended in failure. Pakenham had about 11,000 troops when he was disastrously defeated at New Orleans.

*Edit P.S. During the revolution the colonists considered themselves British. Paul Revere actually said "The Regulars are coming" not "The British are coming." I disagree with modern writers calling the rebels "Patriots" because at the time they were just the opposite- traitors. To call them "Patriots" would deny that the war was a revolution rather than a war of independence against a "foreign" overlord.

[Shen Ai]

To be fair, Britain won more engagements and lost less men than the Americans in the 1812 war.

Also, New Orleans ment nothing politically or militarily.

[Liao Ce]

I got one...
As commanders with equal sizes:

Shaka Zulu -vs- Zhang Fei

[Shen Ai]

Shaka Zulu, most probably. COnsidering that he was fighting better organized opponents and used effective strategy, we can probably say that he would win over Zhang Fei, who's military talent is questionable in comparison due to the lack of reliable records.

[Liao Ce]

I would take Skaka....
But I think Zhang Fei is a more intelligent person than he gets credit for. I'm speaking novel wise, since i don't know the real histories very well. But he looked good during the taking of the lands of shu. He became smarter with age. Plus (like Shaka) he was a commander that was at the front lines. So I figured it would make for a close debate to pick those two.
I was originally going to say Shaka -vs- Lu Xun (two of my favorite people in history) but Lu didn't fight on the front lines.

[bodidley]

Shaka fought against disorganized neighboring tribes, not westerners. He was an innovator and somewhat of a military genius, but many of the reforms he took directly from his mentor Dingiswayo. Aside from being an inspiring leader (sometimes using execution to inspire) and great strategist Shaka's real genius was as a politician and diplomat. His extreme ruthlessness became a liability later in his life, however. The Zulu social reorganization was remarkably similar to the army of the Roman republic after the Samnite wars. It's possible that Shaka was actually somewhat resistant to new ideas that he hadn't seen proven, since he's said to have been fairly unimpressed by a demonstration of western firearms, but it's also possible that he was pretending to be unimpressed, because he was a great actor and master of psychology.

Zhang would have been familiar as an experienced general with a very sophisticated military machine, and would have had the advantage of knowledge of combined arms tactics, siege warfare and logistics. Although my inclination is that Shaka was much smarter than Zhang Fei it's a very apples and oranges comparison, so I can't make my mind up. Competent and experienced leaders who were not necessarily geniuses have often defeated more intelligent foes by following proven doctrines in use by a well-organized force.

[TooMuchBaijiu]

I'll go for Shaka myself, considering his skill as a tactician and leader-the comparisons to Marius are spot on. I'd say the same if someone were to say "Shu vs. Zulu", if the armies were of equal size, and perhaps even if Shu had a numerical advantage. The Zulu were unbelievably fast, and if an enemy came at them with a large and cumbersome army, they may well have been shooting themselves in the foot. Consider what happened to the Romans at Teutoburg, Yarmouk and Manzikert when their numerically superior armies encountered more mobile enemies.

It's possible that Shaka was actually somewhat resistant to new ideas that he hadn't seen proven, since he's said to have been fairly unimpressed by a demonstration of western firearms, but it's also possible that he was pretending to be unimpressed, because he was a great actor and master of psychology.

I believe he was unimpressed with their slow rate of fire. He figured after the first volley, his men could sucessfully Zerg a line of riflemen before they could reload

[Zhuanyong]

I'd go for Shaka Zulu over Zhang Fei as well. Pretty much for what was mentioned above.

Anyone who hasn't watched this or may be interested, there is a TV series about Shaka Zulu that came out back in the mid-80's. I thought it was great. In fact, as a child it was rotated on our VHS at home very often. Some mysticism and romanticism but, overall I enjoyed it and may try to find it on DVD.

[Shen Ai]

Toussaint Louverture vs Zhu Yuanzhang

[Aygor]

Zhu Yuanzhang all the way.


Cao Mengde VS Gaius Iulius Caesar.
My opinion:
I see Caesar as the better commander, general and warrior, becouse he led troops into battle, he was never defeated during Gallian wars, civil wars, leading his victorious troops in Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Greece, Egypt. He emerged victorious even against all odds (Alesia, Farsalo).
As a polititian he was a great innovator, but lacked the insight to not gain all the power on himself at once, leading to his own assassination. Being Rome a republic at that time, more caution was needed, and he trusted the wrong people (Brutus and Brutus Albinus among the others)
Although great, Mengde was defeated numerous times, so as a general i regard him as a top one, becouse of his insight, but not in the same league as Caesar.
Politically speaking though, Cao Cao bested Caesar in my opinion: he mantained his power, although nominally servant of the emperor, aquiring the wealth, fame and loyalty that allowed his son Pi to usurp the throne easily.
Two great men of antiquity, what is your view?

Then:
Napoleone Bonaparte VS Erwin Rommel
My opinion:
it's a close one, Napoleone was the best general of his time, Rommel probably the best general of modern history.
Rommel as a general was incredibly versatile, an all around innovator of tactics and warfare: He won skirmishes in the Alps in WWI, he won desert battles in WWII and he commanded the Ghost Division, a dreadful tank corp.
Politically speaking, I know Rommel advised nicely during WWII, hadn't Hitler been an idiot, history would have probably gone differently.
Napoleone on the other hand, conquered the whole europe, was the best tactitian of his time, but could not see the limits of his aggressive politics and thus created his own demise on the long run. As a general unparalleled at the time, but as an emperor he lacked the capability to reach a compromise for stability, he tried to break Europe into his view, but was broken in the process.
I'd say Rommel has a tiny tiny tiny tiny edge over Napoleone as a commander, but on every other aspect probably Napoleone bests him. I only wonder how far would have Napoleone gone with the right men to advise him in the times of need.