Who was generally better: Frederick the Great or Napoleon?

[Abendstern]

I take it your Prussian (German) .

Due to the winners of WW2 prohibiting the mere existance of Prussia those are increasingly rare these days.

Im a Frank. As in Franconia. At least thats where I live at the moment.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

Thanks to the Prussian commanders splitting their forces into three parts for no apparent reason.

Napoleons strategy, for the double battle division of the enemy was imperative. Split your enemy, hold one force with at the least a single corps and then concentrate superior numbers on the other body of enemy forces.

Napoleon actually believed HE was faicing the main body of the Prussian army. He led Davout straight into what was really it. Thus Napoleon had two and a half times more numerous forces at Jena. Prussian commander Hohenlohe had his troops standing in range of French artillery for hours, waiting for reinforcements.

Probably because of the fog, know one knew exactly what was going on in the early morning.

Since they havent met on the field we will never know. Each of them was by far the best in his own time.

You seem pretty fit to declare Frederick better earlier. But still, you have missed my point.

[Abendstern]

Napoleons strategy, for the double battle division of the enemy was imperative. Split your enemy, hold one force with at the least a single corps and then concentrate superior numbers on the other body of enemy forces.

That explains the Prussian forces at Auerstedt being split into two by King Friedrich Wilhelm.

That explains how Napoleon thought his main body was facing the Prussian.

Im sure when and whereever his enemies made mistakes twas intruth Napoleons mastermind leading them into it. How mystic.

Probably because of the fog, know one knew exactly what was going on in the early morning.

And still everything that went in favour of the French was due to brilliant leadership on Napoleons part alone whereas everything that didnt was of course due to bad luck. As in every other battle.

You seem pretty fit to declare Frederick better earlier.

Because others saw fit to declare otherwise first. Weve been through that already.

But still, you have missed my point.

Oh that may well be and as of yet I could hardly care less.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

That explains the Prussian forces at Auerstedt being split into two by King Friedrich Wilhelm.

That explains how Napoleon thought his main body was facing the Prussian.

Im sure when and whereever his enemies made mistakes twas intruth Napoleons mastermind leading them into it. How mystic.

Of course the Prussians leaderships in competence and horrendously out-dated army was a reason for them being crushed, but you cant deny Napoleons role in it all.

And still everything that went in favour of the French was due to brilliant leadership on Napoleons part alone whereas everything that didnt was of course due to bad luck. As in every other battle.

Luck as in ?

Because others saw fit to declare otherwise first. Weve been through that already.

Equaling yourself with others is by no means an accomplishment.

Oh that may well be and as of yet I could hardly care less.

Then why do you even bother posting ?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

actually napoleon did not often have more men than his enemies because in most battles he was outnumbered almost 2 to 1 like in Dresden he was outnumbered 3 to 1 and this was after the Russian invasion. When Napoleon destroyed the prussians at Jena napoleon had some 80 000 and the prussians had about 60000 but Napoleon only used 40000 in battle while the prussians were required to use all men. Also Frederick did not carry out most reforms as his predecessors did most of them and in comparison frederick's reforms were lesser while many reforms came from the french revolution Napoleon made more reforms than the revolution so much so that his enemies copied his reforms to defeat him, also frederick won because Russia secretly made peace with him and he was aided by britain thus distracting france.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

-the Battle of Leipzig (1813): 330000 Allied against 191000 French and allied
52000 losses for Allied and 67000 for France.
The allied offensives achieved little and were soon forced back, but Napoleon's outnumbered forces were unable to break the allied lines, resulting in a hard fought stalemate. And the 17th October The French received only 14,000 additional troops. Russian General von Bennigsen and Prince Carl Johan of Sweden had arrived with other troops also arriving for a total of 145,000 for the Allies, greatly increasing their strength. On the 18th the Allies launched a huge assault from all sides. In over nine hours of fighting, in which both sides suffered heavy casualties, the French troops prevented a breakthrough but were slowly forced back towards Leipzig.
Actually 410000 allies vs 180000 french (Napoleon did not want to use his full force and never did because the saxon regulars turned and shot their french allies so Napoleon gave up)



-Battle of the Pyramids (1798): Western-style tactics destroy an Egyptian army led by brave but foolish mamelukes. 6,000 Egyptian casualties vs. 300 French.
Napoleon had 20000-25000 while the turks had 50000-80000

-Battle of Mount Tabor (1799): French forces hovering around 2,000 crush a Turkish army of 35,000 in the Levant.
Forgot to say that only half the French army had gun powder but still won

-Battle of Jena (1806): The French crushed a Prussian army, inflicting 25,000 casualties out of 38,000.
You forgot to mention that although Napoleon had more men he only used half in combat so in reality in the battle of jena Napoleon used less men than the prussians and still destroyed them.

[Tiberios]

Necro post.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Why does patton matter in this conversation he is overrated and not even close to napoleon's or Frederick's level.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The reason Napoleon only usually not always fought only 1 major power in a battle is because that was his strayegy to split the armies and take them out one-by-one besides many battle he fought more than one power yet got a victory
Lutzen
Bautzen
Dresden
Eylau
Six days
Austerlitz
Toulon
How can you compare the two without taking in the italian campaign where napoleon was outnumbered and had the worst troops in the world.

[Trax]

Frederick wrote better music and played the flute.
Napoleon couldn't even sing well.

[Prince of Darkness]

Another thing worth to note about both leaders is the capability of their opponents.
Frederick's opponents were mostly members of the aristocracy. They were not always capable of commanding and rose in rank only to court connections. Only the Austrian field marshal Daun had the capability to face him on equal terms. However, he is often critisized for over-caution and failure to follow up his success. After the victory at Kolin, Daun failed to enforce an effective pursuit (probably shocked by the fact that Frederick was finally defeated for the first time), which allowed Frederick to retire without much losses. The same happens to Prussian defeats such as Liegnitz and the notable Kunersdorf. The Russian commanders, fearful of the rage of the future tsar, often tried to hover around in East Prussia. The French, blocked by the allies of Prussia, never fought Frederick again after the embarassing disaster at Rossbach. Throughout the war of Austrian Succession, Frederick fought his enemy on equal or superior numbers thanks to the freshness of his army and his able French allies. The Seven Years War was indeed very tough for the small nation, but if the allies had the same determination as the anti-French Coalition, Prussia's demise would be extremely possible.
Napoleon, on the other hand, faced many brilliant and aggressive generals throughout his whole career. Able commanders such as Archduke Charles, Kutuzov, Wellington, Blucher, Scharnhorst, von Bulow, Yorck, Benningsen, de Tolly, Schwarzenberg, and Liechtenstein. Although his enemies were nowhere as brilliant as his, they were certainly far more aggressive and determined than the inactive generals of the Silesian wars. The Prussians refused to surrender even after the Jena-Auerstadt debacle, and it took Napoleon two more battles (including a near-catastrophic one at Eylau) to finish them and the Russians off. The Austrians were easily driven back to Vienna in the War of 1809, but they didn't buckle even if their capital was lost the second time to the French emperor. The first French landing attempt at Aspern-Essling was thwarted (the Emperor suffered his first personal defeat), and the eventual French victory at Wagram was a close one (in addition, the Austrians were outnumbered). Needless to say, the efforts of the Allied Anglo-Spanish-Portuguese (I wrote this to avoid any nationalist sentiment) were heroical. The campaign of 1812 reflected the utmost stubborness and the endurance of the Russian army. Despite costly initial defeats, the stiff resistance everywhere against the dispersed Grande Armee finally destroyed Napoleon's iron grip of Europe.
Frederick's greatest virtue was not his military genius, but of his determination against almost hopeless situation. I personally think that if Frederick was in the same position as Napoleon, he would not achieve the same military fame. But he would not push as far as the over-ambitious Napoleon, and his empire would survive.

[alhoon]

As military commander Napoleon the Great for sheer number of victories. As administrator I would say Frederic the Great because he made Prussia a powerful state that turned to an Empire.

[Prince of Darkness]

-the Battle of Leipzig (1813): 330000 Allied against 191000 French and allied
52000 losses for Allied and 67000 for France.
The allied offensives achieved little and were soon forced back, but Napoleon's outnumbered forces were unable to break the allied lines, resulting in a hard fought stalemate. And the 17th October The French received only 14,000 additional troops. Russian General von Bennigsen and Prince Carl Johan of Sweden had arrived with other troops also arriving for a total of 145,000 for the Allies, greatly increasing their strength. On the 18th the Allies launched a huge assault from all sides. In over nine hours of fighting, in which both sides suffered heavy casualties, the French troops prevented a breakthrough but were slowly forced back towards Leipzig.
Actually 410000 allies vs 180000 french (Napoleon did not want to use his full force and never did because the saxon regulars turned and shot their french allies so Napoleon gave up)

The ''Saxon betrayal'' was a dramatic exxageration. Only a few Saxon and Wurttemberg battalions and batteries defect to the enemy. Most Saxon cavalry regiments chose to stay with Napoleon even after he retreated back to France. And most importantly, the defected Germans refused to attack their French ex-comrades even though they had treated them badly.
The problem of Leipzig was that Napoleon shouldn't be there at the first place. Wellington once commented that if Napoleon had retreated back to the Rhine the Allies would not venture to attack him.
The whole 1813 cmpaign was a huge strategic error for Napoleon. Many troops were tied up in isolated fortresses in Northern Germany, and the Emperor under-estimated his enemies. Also, he shouldn't gave individual command to inept generals such as Ney, Murat, Vandamme, Oudinot, and MacDonald. The only one capable was Davout, but he was wierdly assigned to the defense of Hamburg, which prevent him from commanding in the critical spot.
Battle-wise, Napoleon failed to prepare for the inevitable withdrawal or at least basic fortification of the town. His deployment and conduct in the battle was flawless,. but he underestimated the enemy strength and overestimated the ability of his conscripts. And he didn't order the French engineers to build more bridges for the withdrawal, which caused the French to have only one bridge to retreat.

-Battle of the Pyramids (1798): Western-style tactics destroy an Egyptian army led by brave but foolish mamelukes. 6,000 Egyptian casualties vs. 300 French.
Napoleon had 20000-25000 while the turks had 50000-80000

Wrong. Napoleon had 20,000, while the Mamelukes had about 21,000. Only about 6,000-8,000 Mameluke cavalry actually fought in this battle, and they fought indeed bravely. The Mamaluke Fellahin infantry simply ran away without a fight. And beating a medieval-era army with western technologies is nothing to be proud of.

-Battle of Mount Tabor (1799): French forces hovering around 2,000 crush a Turkish army of 35,000 in the Levant.
Forgot to say that only half the French army had gun powder but still won

The battle was a skirmish. And again, using modern technology to beat the outdated enemy is not great. Another thing worth to note is that Napoleon lost the siege of Acre despite having numerical and technological superiority.

-Battle of Jena (1806): The French crushed a Prussian army, inflicting 25,000 casualties out of 38,000.
You forgot to mention that although Napoleon had more men he only used half in combat so in reality in the battle of jena Napoleon used less men than the prussians and still destroyed them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena-Auerstedt
The French HAD more men in Jena, but more importantly, they had experienced commanders and veteran infantry, while the Prussians didn't fight a war after the First Coalition. Napoleon's victory at Jena was clearly overshadowed by Davout's victory at Auerstadt.
I'm not denying that Napoleon was not a great general, but he, like Wellington and many others, were over-exxagerated by their own people.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The ''Saxon betrayal'' was a dramatic exxageration. Only a few Saxon and Wurttemberg battalions and batteries defect to the enemy. Most Saxon cavalry regiments chose to stay with Napoleon even after he retreated back to France. And most importantly, the defected Germans refused to attack their French ex-comrades even though they had treated them badly.
The problem of Leipzig was that Napoleon shouldn't be there at the first place. Wellington once commented that if Napoleon had retreated back to the Rhine the Allies would not venture to attack him.
The whole 1813 cmpaign was a huge strategic error for Napoleon. Many troops were tied up in isolated fortresses in Northern Germany, and the Emperor under-estimated his enemies. Also, he shouldn't gave individual command to inept generals such as Ney, Murat, Vandamme, Oudinot, and MacDonald. The only one capable was Davout, but he was wierdly assigned to the defense of Hamburg, which prevent him from commanding in the critical spot.
Battle-wise, Napoleon failed to prepare for the inevitable withdrawal or at least basic fortification of the town. His deployment and conduct in the battle was flawless,. but he underestimated the enemy strength and overestimated the ability of his conscripts. And he didn't order the French engineers to build more bridges for the withdrawal, which caused the French to have only one bridge to retreat.
I still don't bloody know why Davout was in Hamburg and why the hell Napoleon didn't give him a better command, maybe he was doubting his over caution during the russian campaign. As for the German campaign it was mostly because Napoleon was afraid to lose his german allies.

Wrong. Napoleon had 20,000, while the Mamelukes had about 21,000. Only about 6,000-8,000 Mameluke cavalry actually fought in this battle, and they fought indeed bravely. The Mamaluke Fellahin infantry simply ran away without a fight. And beating a medieval-era army with western technologies is nothing to be proud of.
Usually the egyptian campaign is underestimated because of the technology of the ottomans but the mamelukes actually had guns, it was mostly their lack of cannons that defeated them and their horrible corps structure.


The battle was a skirmish. And again, using modern technology to beat the outdated enemy is not great. Another thing worth to note is that Napoleon lost the siege of Acre despite having numerical and technological superiority.
Mount Tabor was 3000 french vs 25000 turks who also had guns and ONLY half of Napoleon's men had gun powder so the question is when are bayonets better than ottoman guns and swords also at acre Napoleon was outnumbered 2 to 1 and lost his cannons during a british raid on his supply lines from the sea.

The French HAD more men in Jena, but more importantly, they had experienced commanders and veteran infantry, while the Prussians didn't fight a war after the First Coalition. Napoleon's victory at Jena was clearly overshadowed by Davout's victory at Auerstadt.
All I am saying is that although Napoleon had more men than the Prussians he only actually used 40000 in the actual combat as opposed to the 60000 that the Prussians engaged. Although it is true that Davout's 20000 vs 40000 was better than Jena.

[AdamWeishaupt]

Frederick wrote better music and played the flute.
Napoleon couldn't even sing well.

This is a wonderful antithetic remark.

[Summary]

Frederick the Great is better, proof is in his name.

Although he was a great military tactician, he did not have an insatiable appetite for bloodshed. He had to fight to defend the integrity of Prussia against great odds. Napoleon on the other hand was a transgressor threatening the balance of power in continental Europe similar to The Third Reich (Nazi Germany).

Apart from being a military genius, Frederick the Great was one of the secular leaders in Europe at the time and also was the one of the most enlightened minds of that century. His books on administration and military tactics is studied till date by many military analysts. Even Napoleon learnt a great deal from Frederick the Great's writings and on many occasions claimed that Frederick the Great was better.

Frederick the Great was also an accomplished musical composer who played the flute at a near professional level. He is famous for his composition "Der Hohenfriedberger" which is a part of the "Konnigratzer Marsch" and also a very common tune during German parades today.

Even if we were to say Napoleon was a better military tactician, there is no doubt Frederick II was the better human being, just all round brilliance! It is very right that history remembers him as Frederick the Great.

[❋ Flavius Belisarius ❋]

Don't bring Napoleon's greatness down by putting him on the same level with Frederick.

This.
Nothing else need to be add in this topic.

[G-Megas-Doux]

2 years and 1 day, necrothread lives.

Well I would say that they both were involved in state building. The differences were that Bonaparte rose from ignoble birth to power and Fredrick II inherited power, Bonaparte was deposed twice and Fredrick II was never deposed. So judgement has to be which of those two differences adds or takes away from the individual accomplishments. Then you have to consider who had more influences on the advances of the States they governed during their reigns. I would give the edge just to Fredrick because Napoleon actually had a lot more innovators in his state at the time.

[hellheaven1987]

He had to fight to defend the integrity of Prussia against great odds.

Don't annex Silesia then.

The good thing is Frederick somehow learned his lesson during Seven Years War.

[Summary]

Don't annex Silesia then.

The good thing is Frederick somehow learned his lesson during Seven Years War.

He annexed Silesia because it was supposed to fall under the Duchy of Brandenburg upon the extinction of the Silesian piasts as per the Treaty of 1537 agreed between Duke Frederick II of the Silesian Piasts and Joachim II Hector of Brandenburg. However, the Austrian (Holy Roman) Emperor rejected Prussia's claim for obvious reasons. Frederick II initiated the War of Austrian Succession to claim what was supposed to be a part of Brandenburg itself, annexing Silesia could have happened peacefully had the Austrians allowed it to take place as agreed.

His accomplishments saw the creation of a new Kingdom of Prussia from a mere Duchy of Brandenburg. This Kingdom would later on go on to unite Germany (excluding the Austrians) a century later. I am not against the Austrians, they did what was in their best interests which was trying to keep Brandenburg in-check, under control by limiting their power/influence, they had no idea Frederick II would march against them, especially considering the fact that they married off the emperor's niece to him. So, in fact it was very well played by the Austrians to deny power and attempt to win over the Prussians with a marriage. But Frederick II had different plans.

Silesia is also very abundant in mineral and natural resources. The majority of Silesia is now in modern-day Poland as it was stripped away from Germany and Austria after the WWI and WWII.