From a purely military/strategical standpoint, how good was Francisco

>>1256824
Winning the civil war was no mean feat surely?

Damn the catalonians

>>1256824
He was kind of like Wellington. He mostly enganged inferior armies and preffered the safe strategies. That is probably the reason why the civil war lasted so long.

>>1257192
>Wellington was bad

The countercharge tactic he loved was pure insanity.

>Charged by 3k Frenchmen who think you'll break.

>Let off a single volley until they come closer

>Then Charge straight at them while their charging at you.

>>1256824
dull but effective

he also understood the importance of logistics which is a big plus in my book.

>>1257192
The civil war lasted so long because Franco wanted to ''clean'' Spain

>>1257483
>Franco wanted to ''clean'' Spain
He could do that later. No Franco choose to pick the periferia,before taking the main republican focuses (Valencia,Madrid and Barcelona). He really liked to go step by step,and take things calmly,focusing mostly on logistics and cutting repubkican manpower, isolating the republican focuses,first in the north,and then Madrid with the east coast

>>1257490
Which actually Sounds like a bloody good strategy my dude. I think a good commander has to preferably take it slow and engage inferior forces IF he has has the opportunity.

Bravado and risky battles actually only make sense when the general situation is critical or your forces are inferior.

>>1256824

He was the youngest general in Europe since Napoleonic times.
Or thats what they claimed in the propagandistic film which he starred back in the day.

>>1257609
Yes, but the thing is that there were too many generals in the Army. The ratio general per soldier wasn't comparable with that of Napoleonic France.