Eugene of Savoy & Marlborough: Equal or not?

[hellas1]

Hi all,

I've been on some military kick!

I've picked up Christopher Duffy's book on the 1st Duke of Marlborough (Undefeated in his life.)

I understand that Eugene, prince of Savoy fought with him and was a great military leader.

How do you view Eugene in comparison to Marlborough?
Equall or not?

Napoleon named Eugene, along with Turenne and Frederick the Great as some of his all time best military commanders to study for military success, btw.

Comments?
hellas1

[hindov]

He was one of the gratest military leaders of his time but I avoid any comparison/classification.
It's funny that Louis XIV refused admission of young Eugene in the French officer corps and recommended for him an ecclesiastical career. As a result Eugene left France disguised as a woman and join the Habsburgs. The 20 years old Eugene joined the relief army sent to lift the siege of Vienna and after the victory was appointed at the command of an imperial regiment (Kufstein Dragoons). He fought in 10 campaigns against the Ottomans and 20 against the French. His list of victories includes Zenta (1697), Carpi and Chiari (1701), Luzzara (1702), Torino (1705), Peterwardein and Belgrade (1717) and in partnership with Marlborough Blenheim (1704), Oudenarde (1708) and Malplaquet (1709. He also played an important role in the reformation of Habsburg army.

[Prince of Darkness]

I don't think Turenne deserves the same place as Eugene or Frederick the Great. Conde was way better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Herbsthausen

[Gromovnik]

I view him not equal, but better. But I'm not being objective here.

[Prince of Darkness]

Marlborough, unlike Wellington, was an offensive general and was skilled in exploiting the weakness of the enemy army. Duc de Vendome said that the speed of his march was like Devil. His was the only great British general with enough offensive spirit and daring. Marlborough was clearly more of a military genius than any other British general in history. But his conduct in Malplaquet was not as decisive as his previous victories, Villars' French fought well and inflicted a phyrric victory over the Allies and denied Marlborough any hope of a favorable peace.
Eugene was also a great offensive general and had considerably more military experience and fame than Marlborough before the War of Spanish Succession. But his conduct in later wars (Polish Succession) was not as expected, but he was still one of the greatest allied generals.
The French also had a excellent general, Claude de Villars. But his fame was not as much as the two Allied generals because he only fought hard-won victories, not decisive ones.
The Battle of Denain clearly showed the decline of Eugene's generalship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Denain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Villaviciosa (Marlborough defeated Villars)
My personnal list: Eugene (Turkish Wars, War of Spanish Succession)> Marlborough>Eugene (later years)=Villars

[Belisaire_]

Marlborough, unlike Wellington, was an offensive general and was skilled in exploiting the weakness of the enemy army.

It's true, maybe because Marlborough's troops were mostly dutch and german whereas Wellington had british troops. British military is defensive not offensive.