Is Napoleon underrated these days?

[Kennylz]

I'm not about to lay out hard statistics, but I have to admit that even myself, until I actually began to learn something about the man didn't think about him too often when the discussions of 'Top Generals/Leaders of all time'. Alexander, Ceasar, Hannibal, Rommel, Patton? I don't know why this guy gets snubbed. It isn't like he is banned from recognition, but a lot of people base how great someone was by the size of the Empire they formed, innovation, and odds against them.

Wasn't Napoleons conquests great? Europe was incredibly rich, populated, and advanced. It isn't like he won one battle and inherited a giant swath of land with a far superior force inherited from his father. This wasn't the wild Europe of Ceasar's time. He didn't have incredible allies like the powers of WW1 and WW2 did. If you were to balance all qualities that we judge great Generals by, he has to be the most rounded.

When I look at some of the favorites I see a trend;

Hannibal is known for his innovation with cavalry and early battlefield tactics, but not of conquest of large amounts of land.

Alexander is known for his sheer glory and the size of his victories. It probably doesn't hurt that he never lost either, though I think a very strong argument could be made to bring the reason for his greatness back down to reality. Great father/superior armies/less daunting opponents.

Ceasar is known is his great decisiveness and leadership, and a nice area of conquest as well, but I think similarly to Alexander one could say that he didn't 'invent' the very solid tactics the Roman Legions used, nor were the Gauls quite on the same level equipment and organizationally.

The mighty Khan? Well... I have to admit he was pretty impressive... Can't say anything bad about him, but he gets quite a bit of recognition already.

Napoleon was a master of warfare and compared to the great advisors surrounding Alexander and the mighty collection of Generals that made up the Nations of WW1 and WW2 he was a very singular figure. Much of what he accomplish is credited directly to him. He loses, comes back and gives Europe hell all over again. A united Europe too. Bismark lost and he never got another shot. Germany did, but it isn't all one person. He was also not going up against barbarians or an enemy still using tactics from hundreds of years ago.

Sure, he lost, but I think it is safe to say that even the great Generals in history that won didn't exactly live long enough to actually maintain it afterwords so 'victorious' isn't very relevant to me, only how well they performed in their roles. Btw, if I was to judge the pleasantness of a Generals end as a measure of 'happy ending' Napoleon didn't suddenly die like Alexander or the Khan. He

"In his exile, he ran Elba as a little country; he created a tiny navy and army, opened some mines, and helped farmers improve their land."

So once he was done conquering Europe he got to relax and play a small scale version of Empire: Total War and be a good Master over his subjects.

Opinions?

(PS, I'm not a historian. Tear my fragile ideas to pieces if need be.)

[Xavier Dragnesi]

I don't think he's really that much neglected, but he just didn't seem to have lived in an era that was as interesting as the others you mention. That era doesn't get that much attention, so neither does the man, in my opinion.

[roy34543]

The french worship napolean. Funny because he inflicted a lot of pain and suffering like any general in existance did. Or maybe its just the francophones of quebec who consider themselves more french then the french.

[Juvenal]

I think that the legacy of Napoleon is labouring under some negative influences.

He failed to die gloriously at the height of his achievements. This has helped Alexander's reputation no end, and Caesar's as well. Napoleon's fortunes declined publically and he ended his days reviled and in exile (Hannibal also suffered from this effect).

Too much is known about Napoleon. Because he lived in recent times, there is a wealth of subsidiary information about Napoleon, much of it unflattering. Heroic figures of ancient times suffer less from this since the tales of heroism and achievement survive better than other material. Knowing that Napoleon was a meglomaniac interferes with the appreciation of his military prowess. Also, his attitude to the well-being of his soldiers left a lot to be desired in 1812 and 1813 when he managed to be responsible for the death of many hundreds of thousands of his own men.

He was the enemy of most of Europe. The French may worship him (although their population never really recovered relative to the rest of western Europe after the Napoleonic wars) but Spain, Austria, Germany and Russia all have memories of invasion and depredation at his behest. The hatred of Napoleon has been particularly strong in Britain and it took the form of character assassination (they could not just hate the French as a whole because France immediately became an ally when the monarchy was restored). Britain also had the luxury of being able to diminish the memory of his achievements since they were never defeated by him in the field (yes I know we lost at Corunna, but the "Dunkirk" effect has mitigated this defeat).

Despite all this, I recognise that Napoleon was a military genius. He was a "big picture" man able to hold a whole campaign in his head and to coordinate the movements of a hundred thousand men in a dozen corps and still manage to arrange for them all to arrive at the decisive point at the right time.

Militarily his weaknesses were that he failed to foster initiative in his marshals, and that his battle techniques were crude and wasteful of human life.

Napoleon was also a great statesman, with the charisma to inspire a nation and the drive and energy to transform society (the code Napoleon still exists in France). Sadly he lacked the powers of flattery, manipulation and compromise necessary to succeed on the diplomatic stage, or to arrange a lasting peace that might have cemented France's position as the dominant power in Europe.

[NoFrag]

The french worship napolean. Funny because he inflicted a lot of pain and suffering like any general in existance did. Or maybe its just the francophones of quebec who consider themselves more french then the french.

what the are you talking about?

[Kennylz]

Those are all pretty important reasons, but I don't have any of those points holding back my view of him because I've only recently learned much about him and I do not hero worship (outside of Hannibal) so I don't care about his unflattering traits, and he didn't attack my country last year so I don't see him as a personal villian.

I look at what he did back then, the odds, and the level of success he reached, and all that other 'stuff' and see a far more impressive resume than he gets credit for. All of Europe declared war on one man, and he wasn't some Muccolini figure, he actually fared very well in war. Wellington even said he was the greatest general of any age. He gets captured, and is about to be shot, when he persuades his army to join him again and go on to another huge war. Come on now. Pretty neat stuff. (He also wasn't that damn short either. Thank you, British propaganda.)

[Sharrow]

Well, I think Napoleon had strategic flair and created a tremendous sense of elan amongst his troops. He did, however, have the largest population in Europe that shared a common national ideal, a good (for land conquests) strategic location and an army based on merit.

Pound for pound, resources and manpower taken into account, Wellington was a superior tactical battefield commander - he never wasted his troops if at all humanly possible. Napoleon seemed to rather do that too often - yes it can bring victories but dead veterans are still dead and unable to either fight or pass on what they know to fresh troops. A fact that greatly hindered French operations in later years.

I think a confrontation between the Peninsuala Army at its peak in 1814 and Napoleons Grand Armee pre Russia would have been fascinating. My money is on Us Brits simply because Boney would have had to attack and the Redcoats were far better then the French in defence.

Napoleon had elan but Wellington had both elan (in a very British way) and was simply shrewd as hell.

[jackwei]

Well, I think Napoleon had strategic flair and created a tremendous sense of elan amongst his troops. He did, however, have the largest population in Europe that shared a common national ideal, a good (for land conquests) strategic location and an army based on merit.

Pound for pound, resources and manpower taken into account, Wellington was a superior tactical battefield commander - he never wasted his troops if at all humanly possible. Napoleon seemed to rather do that too often - yes it can bring victories but dead veterans are still dead and unable to either fight or pass on what they know to fresh troops. A fact that greatly hindered French operations in later years.

I think a confrontation between the Peninsuala Army at its peak in 1814 and Napoleons Grand Armee pre Russia would have been fascinating. My money is on Us Brits simply because Boney would have had to attack and the Redcoats were far better then the French in defence.

Napoleon had elan but Wellington had both elan (in a very British way) and was simply shrewd as hell.

Wellington's troops against Napoleon's Veterans if they didn't go to Russia NO WAY!! Despite how great our army and allies fought against the French in the Peninsular War, these veterans of the Grande Armee were too good and since this time Napoleon have a huge army with Experience too lol i very much doubt the allies in Spain would win.

[Sharrow]

Yes Way!!

British Peninsuala forces did fight against Napoleons veterans in Spain. Just not Boney himself. And when that happened......We won.

Wellington was a rapier, Boney a big heavy hammer.

I grant you though, in terms of numbers the British Army would have struggled to raise one of the required size (60K plus) to take on the Grande Armee at its height. Regiment for regiment though my money is on the chaps in red.

[Juvenal]

The French system of war didn't work in Spain (or Russia for that matter). Napoleon relied on forced marches and "foraging" (i.e. pillage) to enable his columns to out-manoeuvre and destroy his enemies.

The French Marshals in Spain faced a hostile population and found they could not concentrate a large army for any significant length of time without horrific attrition (and outbreaks of rebellion in the areas of Spain no longer properly garrisoned).

Wellington still used the 18th Century system of small professional armies supplied by a supply train and by requisition (i.e. purchase).

Wellington's small professional force could defeat small French armies, while Spain itself destroyed large ones.

[Nikitn]

Wellington was a superior tactical battefield commander - he never wasted his troops if at all humanly possible. Napoleon seemed to rather do that too often

Wellington was not even close. What do you mean he never wasted soldiers lives? Napoleon was by far the better.

- yes it can bring victories but dead veterans are still dead and unable to either fight or pass on what they know to fresh troops. A fact that greatly hindered French operations in later years.

No, tell me once napoleon wasted his troops for little reason... In battles, people die. You dont throw men into the meat grinder. I fail to see why brits think Wellington was such a good commander. Im Russian, and i honestly say Kutuzov and Bagration by far outgo Wellington. Napoleon, at his time was a genious. Some bloody battles like Borodino, took lives. It was because Napoleon was sloppy. When he was full of energy, and had a great tactic, his men would suffer minimal casualties, while the enemy would suffer enourmous casualties.

I think a confrontation between the Peninsuala Army at its peak in 1814 and Napoleons Grand Armee pre Russia would have been fascinating. My money is on Us Brits simply because Boney would have had to attack and the Redcoats were far better then the French in defence.

lol.. The fact the French forces would outnumber the british so greatly, is enough. The fact Napoleon would be precent, he would crush any redcoats.

Well if he was an Englishman he would already have constelation or planet named after him and there would be tons of threads about him on this forum and we would all have to listen what a military genius he was.

Man... This is the most true thing ive heard in ages. Brits always underate Napoleon and say he was a Maniac, a semi hitler.
Wellington is the saint which saved europe etc.
This is the opinion of most British people ive dicussed with.

[Erebus Pasha]

Wellington was not even close. What do you mean he never wasted soldiers lives? Napoleon was by far the better.

I'm in agreement that Napoleon was the better commander, especially at his peak. Wellington rarely wasted his soldiers lives though because the British Army wasn't of a great size and Wellington wasn't always able to take risks and gambles with his men.

No, tell me once napoleon wasted his troops for little reason... In battles, people die. You dont throw men into the meat grinder. I fail to see why brits think Wellington was such a good commander. Im Russian, and i honestly say Kutuzov and Bagration by far outgo Wellington. Napoleon, at his time was a genious. Some bloody battles like Borodino, took lives. It was because Napoleon was sloppy. When he was full of energy, and had a great tactic, his men would suffer minimal casualties, while the enemy would suffer enourmous casualties.

Kutuzov and Bagration weren't actually that good compared to Wellington. Suvorov would be a far better comparison. Wellington was a great british general because prior to the Peninsular War the British Army was at a low ebb and had been since the American War of Independence. Wellington and the Peninsular War helped restore both the British Army's confidence and it's reputation. Similarily after the disasters of Austerlitz and Friedland it was Barclay de Tolley that undertook important reforms in the Russian Army so that they performed well in 1812.

lol.. The fact the French forces would outnumber the british so greatly, is enough. The fact Napoleon would be precent, he would crush any redcoats.

I'm in agreement here but it wouldn't be a walkover.

Man... This is the most true thing ive heard in ages. Brits always underate Napoleon and say he was a Maniac, a semi hitler.
Wellington is the saint which saved europe etc.
This is the opinion of most British people ive dicussed with.

Not me (aside from my joking with Darsh of course! ). I think Napoleon was a genius at his peak but he became a megalomaniac later on in his career. Wellington couldn't have touched him during is 1805-1807 vintage, and I'm far from arrogant enough to think that the Iron Duke saved Europe, although it is folly to totally dismiss his contribution to the outcome of the Napoleonic Wars.

[Nikitn]

I'm in agreement that Napoleon was the better commander, especially at his peak. Wellington rarely wasted his soldiers lives though because the British Army wasn't of a great size and Wellington wasn't always able to take risks and gambles with his men.

Yes, i agree. But Napoleon wasnt a mad man who just sent people to theire suicide attacks to buy time..

Kutuzov and Bagration weren't actually that good compared to Wellington. Suvorov would be a far better comparison. Wellington was a great british general because prior to the Peninsular War the British Army was at a low ebb and had been since the American War of Independence. Wellington and the Peninsular War helped restore both the British Army's confidence and it's reputation. Similarily after the disasters of Austerlitz and Friedland it was Barclay de Tolley that undertook important reforms in the Russian Army so that they performed well in 1812.

Well, Suvorov only lived to participate in the beggining of the napoleonic wars (where he won mulyiple battles commanding austrians and Russians).
Barclay de Tolly did indeed use the scorthced earth tactics, which won the war. Both Bagration and Kutuzov had theire achievements.

Not me (aside from my joking with Darsh of course! ). I think Napoleon was a genius at his peak but he became a megalomaniac later on in his career. Wellington couldn't have touched him during is 1805-1807 vintage, and I'm far from arrogant enough to think that the Iron Duke saved Europe, although it is folly to totally dismiss his contribution to the outcome of the Napoleonic Wars.

Wellington did contribute to the defeat of Napoleon, but it was Barcal De Tolly was the most responesble, in my eyes.

[Quink.NL]

I don't think Napoleon is underrated. He's considered to be one of the greatest tacticians and military commanders by most historians.

The fact that people here on this forum don't pick Napoleon in the polls, is probably because the Total War games do not cover the period. Maybe, when E:TW is out, Napoleon will rise in the 'Best general ever' polls here...

[jackwei]

Yes we indeed fought some of Napoleon's Veterans in Spain indeed and were victorious with allies, however the majority of Napoleon's best troops were in the Russian Campaign. We seem to forget too that Boney just crushed the Austrians and Prussians not long ago and had plenty of Supplies and men available. I've always wondered if we had one decisive defeat then it could ruin us all, while the French had many men left to replace their dead.

I am not try to underrate our glorious Wellington and his troops, but we seem to forget that this War Machine would of not been beaten easily just like that if it never went to Russia. Wellington was in the best British general of the 19th century a mile and recognized in history indeed who was finally a man we've been waiting for since Malborough to take command of the army.

I will always say that Napoleon was the best general in his day and remember as one of the greatest commanders in history who revolutionized warfare indeed. He sides along Alexander, Julius Caesar, Hannibal and Genghis Khan as one of the super generals of history as Wellington said Napoleon was better than him.

One more thing is that British Army did for some reason always perform well against the French in the majority of their campaigns, and you hardly see such a crushing defeat the British experiences against the French.

[gaius valerius]

Napoleon underrated? WAKE UP MAN !!!

No I don't think he is really underrated. What you do have is that in history - as part of a general trend since the late 1920's with the Annales - the strong individuals that were believed to singlehandedly craft history in the past have been pushed aside for more structural/macro-explanations. The agency-structure dichotomy you know. Agents today are deemed less important - though IMO not fully correct. On the other hand Napoleon is also known for much more than just being a general, he was foremost a statesman.

[Sharrow]

Jackwei
To be fair I was thinking a single battle or a short campaign.

Am not convinced the British Empire could have (or been bothered) to grind down the French if We had been the only ones left fighting. Easier to concentrate on empire building I suspect.

[Darsh]

Jackwei
To be fair I was thinking a single battle or a short campaign.

Am not convinced the British Empire could have (or been bothered) to grind down the French if We had been the only ones left fighting. Easier to concentrate on empire building I suspect.

One battle??? the 50000 British/Spanish/Portuguese troops against the 700000 veterans of "La Grande Armée" of the Russia campaign???? Are you really serious???
I think in this case the result would be the same than the battle of Corunna, a glorious British retreat in their safe island.
Perhaps some British guys should stop watching Sharp's serie and open a real historical book.

[Erebus Pasha]

Wellington was one of Britain's finest ever battlefield commanders but he wouldn't be able to touch Napoleon of 1805-1809 vintage. The only time Napoleon met the British in battle was at Waterloo and by this time he was way past his prime.

[Sharrow]

We shall have to honourably disagree

No duelling pistols required!