Surely whichever one won was the better general?
Henry V and Agincourt and Crecy, oh wait what was the question? Actually Admiral Horatio Nelson was the true genius in that war. It was his adept maneuvering against superior naval forces that allowed and supported much of Wellington's victories in Spain and later. Without it there would be know way the British could have maintained forces in Spain in the first place. Probably the finest naval commander in history. But, like always, land commanders geta ll the credit and everyon ignores what the anvy did. Plus much of the war was also won in the overseoles of France and England and the loss of trade and money provided by naval embargoes.
Napoleon has won so much beattles because of his soldiers.
The french soldiers wasnt scared´about the enemys but for example the prussia soldiers was scared of the french soldiers (Jena 1809)
But it was wrong to try to beat Russia
600000 soldiers died and so napoleon was beated ................
The french soldiers wasnt scared´about the enemys but for example the prussia soldiers was scared of the french soldiers (Jena 1809)
Not wellington neither Napoleon....... Francisco Castaños For The Win!!!!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bail%C3%A9n(click to show/hide)
yeah, and despite all the constraints to his command, and retarded nobles that were assigned to him as officers, he still shit kicked the french from Portugal to France.
ha, even if you dont give wellington credit for waterloo... what about every other battle he ever fought (which were all victories)
Of course Napoleon was the better General. Wellingto was a fine general but he never commanded the size of forces Napoleon did. He systematically for inferior forces--even at Waterloo, Napoleon's were a shadow of what he commanded. Moreover, Wellington almost lost the encounter save for Bloucher come came to the rescue.
Don't get me wrong Wellington was a fine General, among the finest in the coallition forces, but he was not in Napoleon's stratospheric stature.
It is Napoleon who revoltuionized warfare, it is Napoleon who was immitated. I mean Austerlitz was a sheer masterpiece, in where Napoleon induced his opponents to behave as he preconcived it.
Wellington even said as much.
I don't see Wellington conquering most of Europe.
Then again, Napoleon never had a beef named after him.
Henry V and Agincourt and Crecy, oh wait what was the question? Actually Admiral Horatio Nelson was the true genius in that war. It was his adept maneuvering against superior naval forces that allowed and supported much of Wellington's victories in Spain and later. Without it there would be know way the British could have maintained forces in Spain in the first place. Probably the finest naval commander in history. But, like always, land commanders geta ll the credit and everyon ignores what the anvy did. Plus much of the war was also won in the overseoles of France and England and the loss of trade and money provided by naval embargoes.
There are, roughly speaking, two types of generals: maneuvering generals and attrition generals.
However, I think Caesar puts them both to shame, demonstrating successfully both attrition and maneuvering strategies in his campaigns to great effect.
(click to show/hide)
Henry V and Agincourt and Crecy, oh wait what was the question? Actually Admiral Horatio Nelson was the true genius in that war. It was his adept maneuvering against superior naval forces that allowed and supported much of Wellington's victories in Spain and later. Without it there would be know way the British could have maintained forces in Spain in the first place. Probably the finest naval commander in history. But, like always, land commanders geta ll the credit and everyon ignores what the anvy did. Plus much of the war was also won in the overseoles of France and England and the loss of trade and money provided by naval embargoes.Do you also type on the forum on his account?
the British Army has had some wild ups and downs over the past 300 years, unlike their navy, which has been damn good straight through. The redcoats we faced in 1776 weren’t much of an army—the troops were seldom-fed unemployables and the officers mostly dim-bulb second sons. That was one of the reasons the US woofed so loud at the Brits leading up to 1812: we were bigger and stronger and figured if we beat them back in the 1780s it’d be a cakewalk now.
Trouble is, they were bigger and stronger too—a lot bigger and stronger. They’d been fighting the French for a decade, and what people forget is that at the start of the 19th century the French were by far, and I mean by far, the best soldiers on the planet. Nobody in the Anglo world, either us or the Brits, likes that fact, so they deal with it by saying they fought “Napoleon” as if that stubby Corsican was a one-man army, a freak of Nature doing all the bayonet charges, cavalry sweeps, and pulling the lanyards all by himself.
Truth is, the French won almost all the time in that era, even when outnumbered, like they were at Austerlitz, and against anybody—Prussians, Russians, and English. Not to mention Austrians, because frankly Austrians don’t count for anything except comic relief. If you’re in an alliance with Austria, your insurance automatically goes up because stats show you’re gonna lose, lose, lose.
Napoleon was a great general, sure, but he was one of hundreds of great commanders in the Grande Armee. It’s weird how little you read about these guys, growing up as a war nerd in an English-speaking country. You can read all you want about Wellington, a mediocre commander, but you have to work damn hard to find out about guys like Lazar Hoche, one of the great commanders in history, a stable boy who soldiered all day and did general labor for pennies all evening so he could buy books. By the time he was 25 he’d made general by sheer brains and ferocity and smashed every Prussian army he met—and somehow he still found time to die of TB before Bonaparte was even a celebrity.
The French made war with the bayonet and cannon — the musket wasn’t worth much yet. Suvorov, the one general early 19th-century French armies were afraid of, had a saying he taught his men: “The bullet is a fool, the bayonet is a fine fellow” — meaning that the bullet usually misses, but the bayonet generally goes where you stick it. Hard to miss a guy’s torso at bayonet range, but very easy to miss with an unrifled musket, especially when it’s being fired by the typical infantryman circa 1800: a half-starved drunk who’s been beaten by his sergeant every day until he’s learned to stand still while being fired at by big, slow cannonballs. Very distracting, standing in a line waiting for the order to advance or fire while you watch the guys next to you turn into hamburger helper, or find themselves a leg short when one of those big balls hits them on the bounce.
The French were easily the best at that kind of fighting, mostly because they were the first enlisted men to call each other “citizen” and treat each other with some respect. Made for good morale. Whereas the non-stop beating that was the main morale-building technique in most European armies made for guys who were too flinchy to run but not all that eager to distinguish themselves in close combat, either. Every time an army of scared conscripts fought the French, they lost, which is why the British troops under Wellington in the Peninsular War had a simple rule: Always engage the Spanish if you can, never French troops (like Monty’s rule in Africa: Always fight Mussolini’s guys, not Rommel’s Germans).
Even when French armies lost, they fought very hard and very well. In fact, you’ll notice that most of the time, when French armies of that time did lose, it was to a tag-team of two or three big powers swarming them—very, very rarely to any other single European power.
We’ve made a real effort in the Anglo world to forget the French of that time because they were scary—much scarier than the Germans were in the next century, because you couldn’t just blow them off as “evil.” All that “liberty, equality, brotherhood” stuff may seem obvious now, but it sure as Hell wasn’t obvious if you were a typical lice-ridden serf in Central Europe. The first time those poor bastards had ever heard that they were even human was when the French arrived and told them so. So once you got below the landlord class in Italy or Germany, the arrival of the revolutionary French armies was the best thing that had ever happened. Hard to get your head around this if you’re an Anglo, but the sad truth is that the bad guys won at Trafalgar and Waterloo, a gang of hereditary vampires like Mister Burns in one of those sideways admiral hats.
I love being the bad guys, its so much more fun.
The French were an OP warmachine ever since the revolution and accomplished in 5 year what all them scrubby absolutist kings had tried to accomplish for centuries, shitkicking every major power. Although I think The War Nerd's post is a very good one, it fails to mention that the French army was also simply fucking enormous due to mass conscription which none of the other nations could match for decades to come. 800.000 troops was quite a ridiculous number back then.
lol wtf is wrong with you guys saying napoleon won just because his soldiers weren't scared lol.. that's the most idiot thing i've ever heard.
The morale of the french armies in the era is one of the reasons why they kicked so much ass, yes.
One of the most idiot things I've ever read personally is you trying to type intelligibly in english. Please stop trying before you hurt yourself.
French tactics of that era? They were based around intimidation and massing untrained troops to soak up fire. It worked for most of Europe, when a block hits a line the line breaks and runs. The difference with the British was that they managed to keep firing and suppress the blocks from reaching them. Waterloo wasn't just one battle, Wellington fought through Portugal then Spain and into France against that French tactic constantly outnumbered and won battle after battle.
And you can't just say the victories were won by the experience of the British soldiers, because as the campaign progressed Wellington took on Portuguese and Spanish troops and volunteers who hadn't had the same level of drill and practice with live ammunition, and he still used those soldiers to great effect.
I've read Sharpe therefore i'm an expert xD and we all know Richard Sharpe's the real reason Wellington won his battles.
(also, shout out to my bro Nelson! The most pivotal victory in British history, a loss would have collapsed the Empire overnight and seen Britain invaded by overwhelming numbers)
(also, shout out to my bro Nelson! The most pivotal victory in British history, a loss would have collapsed the Empire overnight and seen Britain invaded by overwhelming numbers)
This plan was typical of Napoleon in its dash and reliance on fast movement and surprise, but such a style was more suited to land than to sea warfare, with the vagaries of tide and wind and the effective British blockade making it ever more impractical and unlikely to succeed as more and more time passed. Only the Toulon force eventually broke out (on 29 March 1805) and, though it managed to cross the Atlantic, it did not find the Brest fleet at the rendezvous and so sailed back to Europe alone, where it was met by the force blockading Rochefort and Ferrol (where invasion vessels had been prepared), defeated at the Battle of Cape Finisterre and forced back into port. Therefore, on 27 August 1805 Napoleon used the invasion army as the core of the new Grande Armée and had it break camp and march eastwards to begin the Ulm Campaign. Thus, by the time of the battle of Trafalgar on 21 October, the invasion had already been called off, and so this battle further guaranteed British control of the Channel rather than preventing the invasion. The comment attributed to Admiral John Jervis - "I do not say they [the French] cannot come - I only say they cannot come by sea" - had been proved right.[8]
:O That was tough.
oh btw i love to see how people get so aggressive, arrogant and sure of themselves while behind a pc, that's such a nice thing C: i also really doubt they behave this way IRL i'm soo much sure §:D
You obviously don't know me. I can guarantee you if these types of arguements happened in person they would get a lot more heated.
I know Wellington was fighting trash in the peninsula (the same way the US got to fight our trash generals in the War of Independence) but he still won remarkable victories.
I don't think we can dismiss the battle of Trafalgar, because those were the entire French, Spanish and British fleets- whoever won that battle won the water. If Napoleon had won he could have focused on closing his second front with Britain early by organising another invasion, or much more likely Britain would have been willing to accept terms of surrender or peace if they'd lost their entire fleet. They could not have landed or supplied troops in the Peninsula war if Trafalgar had been lost, and Napoleon would have likely been able to secure Western Europe and turned his whole attention eastwards. Maybe a loss at Trafalgar might not have led to an invasion of Britain, but it would have killed any chance of British soldiers fighting in mainland Europe.
Napoleon started reading the Art of War from the second page, so he missed the #1 rule : Never Attack Russia. Just like some chocolate chip cookie guy did several decades later, I guess.
Wellington was the better general, by far.
Napoleon wasn't present in the iberian pennisular throughout Wellington's campaign. He was fighting lesser generals of less cunning. Had Napoleon focused less on his grandiose schemes for europe and more on winning wars he probably could have crushed Wellington.
They all would've gotten their asses kicked if Alexander was still alive 8-)
French tactics of that era? They were based around intimidation and massing untrained troops to soak up fire. It worked for most of Europe, when a block hits a line the line breaks and runs. The difference with the British was that they managed to keep firing and suppress the blocks from reaching them. Waterloo wasn't just one battle, Wellington fought through Portugal then Spain and into France against that French tactic constantly outnumbered and won battle after battle.
And you can't just say the victories were won by the experience of the British soldiers, because as the campaign progressed Wellington took on Portuguese and Spanish troops and volunteers who hadn't had the same level of drill and practice with live ammunition, and he still used those soldiers to great effect.
I've read Sharpe therefore i'm an expert xD and we all know Richard Sharpe's the real reason Wellington won his battles.
(also, shout out to my bro Nelson! The most pivotal victory in British history, a loss would have collapsed the Empire overnight and seen Britain invaded by overwhelming numbers)
I wouldn't take anything Wellington says about himself particularly seriously. In terms of his achievements he was a very humble man. He's often compared to Nelson for being a direct opposite. There's a rather famous story of how they both entered London when they came home from their great victories. Nelson came home following the Nile and the crowds unhooked his carriage from its horses and dragged it themselves through the streets and he basked in it. When they tried the same with Wellington following Waterloo he ducked out the carriage and made a hasty escape to his house. He despised hero worship, which is one of the reasons he's often quoted as thoroughly disliking Napoleon's character.
There is no doubt however that the British could not have won Waterloo without other countries. You'd have to be a fool blinded by patriotism to think that. But equally I find it hard to pick between the two because they both had hugely different leadership qualities and styles of fighting battles. Plus Napoleons later blunders really dampen his name somewhat.
That said Wellington always maintained his proudest achievement was Assaye in India.