The best coalition general?

Suvorov

One of the few great generals in history who never lost a battle along with the likes of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, he was famed for his manual The Science of Victory and noted for the sayings "What is difficult in training will become easy in a battle", "The bullet is a fool, the bayonet is a fine chap", "Perish yourself but rescue your comrade!". He taught his soldiers to attack instantly and decisively: "attack with the cold steel–push hard with the bayonet!" His soldiers adored him. He joked with the men, called the common soldiers 'brother', and shrewdly presented the results of detailed planning and careful strategy as the work of inspiration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Suvorov

Either Wellignton or Blucher in my case, love the way they both treated their men, especially Blucher and I dont understand how he managed all he did at his age...

Suvorov or Archduke Charles

it should be Mikhail Kutuzov, not Suvorov. Suvorov retired before the wars between russia and france started when napoleon was in charge.

Suvorov

Kutuzov was not a brilliant general, mediocre at best. It's the bravery of Russian people and force of their arms that defeated Napoleon, not Kutuzov's 'genius'

Blucher was very brave but he wasn't good in strategic or tactics. The main plains were made for his generals.

Suvorov was a good general but I think that he never fought Napoleón personally.

I prefer Wellignton not only for Waterloo but for Peninsular campaign.

Don Gregorio de la Cuesta.
One of the best generals that Spain has ever produced.

von Blücher, he was the wise old man, the others were rookies in comparison to him

Suvorov...How are the other guys even comparable?

Chuck Norris...

It took a while for me to decide but I went with Blucher, that guy was unkillable...

Suvorov wasnt part of the coalition! hes ineligible!

Suvorov, hands down.

Originally Posted by TheAussieDigger

Suvorov wasnt part of the coalition! hes ineligible!

Sorry but you're wrong; as Erebus26 already said, Suvorov fought in the War of the Second Coalition.

I would go for Suvorov due to his excellent Italian campaign during the War of the Second Coalition. I have no doubt that he would've been able to push the French right back into their homeland if not for the problems he had with his Austrian allies and his own Tsar.

This guy is worth a mention too. He was maybe over cautious and unspectacular but he got the job done. He was vital for the allied effort during the campaigns of 1813-14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Ph..._Schwarzenberg

I like Archduke Charles for the fact that whilst Napoleon was carrying all before him in Italy during 1796, Charles successfully pushed a French invasion of Germany (led by Jourdan and Moreau) back across the Rhine.

Suvorov. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think he ever lost a battle. How many Generals have achieved that distinction?

Originally Posted by Ezekielen

Suvorov. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think he ever lost a battle. How many Generals have achieved that distinction?

Its not about battles won, its about campaigns won, Greene never won a battle, but won every campaign...

Originally Posted by DoomBunny666

Its not about battles won, its about campaigns won, Greene never won a battle, but won every campaign...

Well Greene only led one campaign himself against the British in the South.

Suvorov on the other hand led successful campaigns against the Ottomans and their allies in the Crimea, the Caucasus and the Balkans. He suppressed the Kosciusko Uprising in Poland and his Italian campaign IMO would've been a complete success too if it wasn't for the actions of his Austrian allies and his own Tsar.

Originally Posted by DoomBunny666

Its not about battles won, its about campaigns won, Greene never won a battle, but won every campaign...

It depends on how you define "the best general". No other general ever stood across a battlefield from him and defeated him...that's amazing!

I'll probably get flamed but I think it had to be Wellsley.

The actions in India during the Maratha Wars of himself and his siblings effectively gained Britain an entire continent. The use of irregular tactics and methods of supply were of a sort rarely seen implemented by European leaders, and his actions during the Peninsula War show that he was not simply the 'Seypoy General'. He was always completely masterful in defense - probably unmatched - and the battles of Salamanca and Vitoria demonstrate a high level of skill in offensive tactics.

Oh and Ezekielen, Wellsley never lost a battle as a general either.

Blucher was not particularly gifted as a tactician, just tough as old boots. Gneisenau was far better (although admittedly he was wrong in his assessments before Waterloo compared to Blucher), and I'm surprised hes not on the list.

Originally Posted by calicheSCOT

Oh and Ezekielen, Wellsley never lost a battle as a general either.

I vote for Arthur Wellesley, because he is the only one I've read books about and I was impressed. Also I'm from England, he was Irish but not proud of it! ha.

Unfortunately Wellesley lost one battle in his career, a night attack outside Seringapatam. Other than that he completely mastered the French in the Peninsular War, using terrain and oppourtunities to his complete advantage!
The French mocked him claiming he needed a hill to win, but he definately quietened their meagre insults by thrashing them outside Salamanca!

Originally Posted by Demon

The French mocked him claiming he needed a hill to win, but he definately quietened their meagre insults by thrashing them outside Salamanca!

Indeed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Toulouse_(1814)