The great Wellington, Napoleon debate.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I am not saying the OP did this for a reason or numbered anything but that this is common thinking amongst many. Oh come on Maidel deep down you truly know that Napoleon on even terms would destroy Wellington especially if Blucher or anyone cannot intervene. The nonsense about Sun Tzu must stop, that would be like if I put Carl von Clausewitz on a top commanders list.

These posts where moved from the The Top 100 Generals/Military Commanders thread to give this discussion a chance. Debate why one of these generals was better then the other one with sources and level headed arguments. If this thread will derail in any way moderation will be forced to close it and i personally will hunt down any other discussion or debate about these two generals. This is your chance to debate, take it and try to teach some of us something new about this age.

Hesus

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I am not saying the OP did this for a reason or numbered anything but that this is common thinking amongst many. Oh come on Maidel deep down you truly know that Napoleon on even terms would destroy Wellington especially if Blucher or anyone cannot intervene.

Both are great generals and they had their ups and down but I don't see why would anyone take away the glory of Waterloo from Wellington. Blucher was hardly responsible for the defeat of Napoleon whose infantry and cavalry were halted by the British regiments.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Both are great generals and they had their ups and down but I don't see why would anyone take away the glory of Waterloo from Wellington. Blucher was hardly responsible for the defeat of Napoleon whose infantry and cavalry were halted by the British regiments.

Because Ney is incompetent:
-wet ground
-large slope
ah yes let us proceed by taking all of the damn cavalry and charge it right into the British who will obviously make squares even though we don't have proper infantry or artillery support. Ney always broke ranks and charged straight into the enemy especially when Napoleon needed him to wait most of all such as at Bautzen, Jena (although this sort of was fixed) or Lutzen.

[Holman]

Because Ney is incompetent
.

Michel Ney: Wellington's on the run! I caught him at Quatre Bras! He's retreating!
Napoleon Bonaparte: If Wellington's retreating, what are you doing here?
Michel Ney: But, Sire...
Napoleon Bonaparte: If Wellington's retreating, what are you doing here? Why didn't you follow him? Why didn't you pursue?
Michel Ney: [Raises voice] where are the reinforcements you promised me?
Napoleon Bonaparte: [shouting] Don't you dare criticize me! Don't you dare! Don't you see if Wellington's free to choose his ground then everything I've won in this campaign you've lost!

this quote i bring you here, is one of the reason french lost the waterloo. if ney continue persuing the brits, that would have made a little, or perhaps a huge different.

unfortunatly, after waterloo, france have retain it's losing tradition since

EDIT:
ahh yes also don't forget the prussian

Gen. Drouot: [wounded on his horse] The Prussians are in the woods! Blucher is in the woods!
Napoleon Bonaparte: I made one mistake in my life; I should have burned Berlin.

[Dominicvs]

Wellington doesn't even qualify as a great military leader. He was a good tactician but made no great and stunning victory. Like Waterloo, it wasn't an amazing victory - all the odds were in his favour and he was later reinforced by Blucher.

I say Napoleon, defiantly! The number of great victories achieved by perseverance, hope and tactical design - whilst reshaping Europe was the greatest achievement any military leader can make. Sure Rome brought western civilisation to Europe, but that wasn't done by one man, but many. Sure Alexander the Great brought Hellenic culture to the east, but it didn't leave it mark like Napoleon did - and Napoleon fought more battles against the odds than anyone else.

[Darkhorse]

Wellington doesn't even qualify as a great military leader. He was a good tactician but made no great and stunning victory. Like Waterloo, it wasn't an amazing victory - all the odds were in his favour and he was later reinforced by Blucher.

I say Napoleon, defiantly! The number of great victories achieved by perseverance, hope and tactical design - whilst reshaping Europe was the greatest achievement any military leader can make. Sure Rome brought western civilisation to Europe, but that wasn't done by one man, but many. Sure Alexander the Great brought Hellenic culture to the east, but it didn't leave it mark like Napoleon did - and Napoleon fought more battles against the odds than anyone else.

Wellington was pretty hot in Spain and Portugal, just look at Torres Vedras. Wellington also had some element of strategic capability, scorched earth for example. Its little things Wellington did that others didn't, like actually buying local goods instead of stealing that made him a capable leader.

[Shneckie]

Wellington was pretty hot in Spain and Portugal, just look at Torres Vedras. Wellington also had some element of strategic capability, scorched earth for example. Its little things Wellington did that others didn't, like actually buying local goods instead of stealing that made him a capable leader.

Indeed. Wellington has some spectacular victories under his belt. The Battle of Salamanca and The Battle of Assaye are fine examples of how Wellington is a true tactical genius.

[Maidel]

Wellington doesn't even qualify as a great military leader. He was a good tactician but made no great and stunning victory. Like Waterloo, it wasn't an amazing victory - all the odds were in his favour and he was later reinforced by Blucher.

You do know about the penisular campaign....


And Assaye? Right?

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Wellington doesn't even qualify as a great military leader. He was a good tactician but made no great and stunning victory. Like Waterloo, it wasn't an amazing victory - all the odds were in his favour and he was later reinforced by Blucher.

I say Napoleon, defiantly! The number of great victories achieved by perseverance, hope and tactical design - whilst reshaping Europe was the greatest achievement any military leader can make. Sure Rome brought western civilisation to Europe, but that wasn't done by one man, but many. Sure Alexander the Great brought Hellenic culture to the east, but it didn't leave it mark like Napoleon did - and Napoleon fought more battles against the odds than anyone else.

I think you are mixing two completely different things here. If we want to compare Napoleon to Wellington, we must give Wellington an Empire and make him an Emperor. Wellington was just a general who had a certain job, which he completed in the best possible way.

[Ahlerich]

I think you are mixing two completely different things here. If we want to compare Napoleon to Wellington, we must give Wellington an Empire and make him an Emperor. Wellington was just a general who had a certain job, which he completed in the best possible way.

napoleon too when he started

[CiviC]

napoleon too when he started

OK, then lets compare Peninsular Campaign with Italian Campaign (1796-97).

[Prince of Essling]

Wellington doesn't even qualify as a great military leader. He was a good tactician but made no great and stunning victory. Like Waterloo, it wasn't an amazing victory - all the odds were in his favour and he was later reinforced by Blucher.

I say Napoleon, defiantly! The number of great victories achieved by perseverance, hope and tactical design - whilst reshaping Europe was the greatest achievement any military leader can make. Sure Rome brought western civilisation to Europe, but that wasn't done by one man, but many. Sure Alexander the Great brought Hellenic culture to the east, but it didn't leave it mark like Napoleon did - and Napoleon fought more battles against the odds than anyone else.

Salamanca stands out as a great victory by any sensible reckoning where Wellington shattered the Army of Portugal under Marmont. It also shook the French hold on Spain. Foy acknowledged that this qualified Wellington to be seen in the same light as Marlborough.

There is also no denying that Napoleon was a great military leader, but he did not have to operate under the same constraints as Wellington; so it is a bit like comparing apples & oranges.

[florin87]

Wellington doesn't even qualify as a great military leader. He was a good tactician

actually all he did was to come up with counters to napoleon's revolutionary (at the time) tactics. that hardly makes him a great tactician, as it's much harder to win by coming up with something new that to analyze your opponent and avoid his strong points.
compared to most generals of the age he was in fact pretty good, but compare him with other generals from history and you'll find him average at best.

@money Ney was the exact opposite of incompetent. his exploits in spain and portugal are proof enough. his performance as a general only worsened after the failed campaign in russia, which deeply traumatized him. the mess he caused at waterloo were not because he lacked skill, but because he was no longer able to make the distinction between a good and a poor decision.

[Azog 150]

Wellington doesn't even qualify as a great military leader. He was a good tactician but made no great and stunning victory.

First thats not true. Salamanca and Assaye have been mentioned

Like Waterloo, it wasn't an amazing victory - all the odds were in his favour and he was later reinforced by Blucher.

There is a reason Wellington often went into battle with the odds more in his favour and thats because he knew when and where to fight a battle which is an important part of strategy and often just as important as commanding the battles themselves.

You've also got to bear in mind that Wellington was just a General having to make-do with what the Government put at his disposal. At its peak in 1813 the entire British Army numbered no more then 250,000 men, and not all of them were at Wellingtons disposal. I believe the maximum number of British troops he had at his disposal at any one time in the Peninsula campaign was never more then 100,000. Wellington had to be far more careful with his men.

Napoleon on the other hand was the government and had millions of men at his disposal to use as he pleased.

Its a pretty key difference but one people often overlook.

[legate]

After the peninsular campaign and Napoleons abdication many of the battalions that served under Wellington were sent to North America. Many of the British and allied units at Waterloo were untried in battle.

[Rolling Thunder]

Like Waterloo, it wasn't an amazing victory - all the odds were in his favour and he was later reinforced by Blucher.

Substantially outnumbered, outgunned and with a high preponderance of low-quality milita in his army, and his reinforcements barely arrived in time. "Odds in his favour" indeed.

[Dominicvs]

Substantially outnumbered, outgunned and with a high preponderance of low-quality milita in his army, and his reinforcements barely arrived in time. "Odds in his favour" indeed.

Incorrect, Napoleons French troops were just fresh from conscription for the Waterloo campaign. After the abdication in 1814, the French troops were disbanded. When he return in March 1815, Napoleon had to start from scratch, the only elite"soldiers he had were from some of his regulars that had returned. Napoleon was severely out matched due to this. It was probably the biggest decider on the day. Plus Wellington had the geographical advantage plus later on the reinforcements from Blucher in the end. Depends on how you describe substantially, I don't see 72,000 French to 68,000 British as a substantial outnumbering. Thats just over 1 regiment difference.

[Keyser]

Incorrect, Napoleons French troops were just fresh from conscription for the Waterloo campaign. After the abdication in 1814, the French troops were disbanded. When he return in March 1815, Napoleon had to start from scratch, the only elite"soldiers he had were from some of his regulars that had returned. Napoleon was severely out matched due to this. It was probably the biggest decider on the day. Plus Wellington had the geographical advantage plus later on the reinforcements from Blucher in the end. Depends on how you describe substantially, I don't see 72,000 French to 68,000 British as a substantial outnumbering. Thats just over 1 regiment difference.

And by the way the french were attacking that day, on a wet ground, strong fortified positions, up a slope.
That's the kind of assault where you need infantry. And they were outnumbered in infantry, even more after the british cavalry charge who shattered their main infantry force and the part of the army who was supposed to spearhead the assault.
They had a stronger and better artillery, but the ground made it less effective than usual, they also had superior cavalry, but they couldn't use it against the strongpoints and lacked infantry reserves to support it on the offensive.

The quality of the army was rather good, better than in 1814 but as pointed it was hastily assembled and certainly not the sometimes vaunted veteran force...
And even the imperial guard lowered its standard to fill the ranks. Howver despite this the young guard performed exceptionnaly well by all accounts in all the battles of the campaign, the old guard fought according to its reputation, stubornly, the middle guard didn't do as well, it was not composed of the best men but it would have been more than enough if their assault was better supported. Too bad for the french that day, they didn't have any reserves left because of the prussian onslaught and the british cavalry charge earlier that day.

Despite all of this, it was closely run and the british line was on the verge of collapsing on several occasions. Blame it on the allied troops if you want (but its very arguable), but as i said, without the Prussian Wellington wouldn't have won. Now it's also true that without a prussian support he would probably have tried a delaying action and a retreat rather than fighting and risking being anihilated if he had to retreat after a rout.

[Condottiere 40K]

Napoleon tended to have spectacular victories, whereas Wellington preferred to slog it out, by carefully creating factors through which he believed he would win.

[LaMuerte]

I'd say Wellington : Can't remember him 'losing' or 'forgetting' an army. I seem to remember Napoleon lost/forgot more than one army.

I've never admired Napoleon for his brilliance . To me , I find it hard to admire a man who conquered it all , but also lost it all due to his irrational and egocentric nature. Looking at the painting of Napoleon sitting on his imperial throne , I cannot help thinking Napoleon really lost touch with reality after a while , that he really thought he was something 'special' , far above average man. Elevated as all his semi-fantasy childhood heroes like Alexander , Caesar , ...In the end he proved to be all too human. Sad , tragic and predictable. And at what a bloody price!

I could make an analogy here , but then I'd be doing a Godwin.Still too early in this thread for that.