The Better General (Wellington or Napoleon)

[Casimir]

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)

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.

[Overdriven]

I'm not sure about that. You see Wellington's great skill was knowing when to fight. He took a small force against an enormous one on the Peninsular. The french military presence there was huge, even if Napoleon wasn't there himself. As a result much of Wellington's campaign involved lots of marching and counter marching and picking his moments precisely. If Napoleon turned up at the head of however many men, I'm pretty sure Wellington would have denied Napoleon the chance to bring his full force to bear.

(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)

Not at all accurate. Whilst Nelson's battle was significant because of the scale, the French invasion fleet had already been sunk in a storm. Made up of shitty barge type ships that couldn't handle a storm. That pretty much ended all Napoleon's dreams of an invasion of Britain. Trafalgar was simply the final nail in the coffin. But arguably the Nile was of far greater significance because it cut Napoleon off and destroyed the French Med fleet.

From wiki, it doesn't mention the storm that destroyed the transport ships but I've read it from several other sources:

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]

[Oberyn]

: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.

[Casimir]

Or Napoleon would have driven him back into the sea. The point is we don't know so we cant draw conclsuions about the two generals based on the pennisular campaign alone.  The overwhelming evidence suggest that Napoleon was easily able to best all other opponents on the field.

[darmaster]

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.

well i wouldn't brag about it, i prefer the diplomatic way, especially if my reasons are valid. but that's your choice, gl with that

[Overdriven]

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.

Not to mention Wellington's victory at Assaye. He always said it was his greatest. Not Waterloo or Vitoria or any other. But Assaye.

I'm not dismissing it. And it certainly was a remarkable victory and one of the largest ever naval battles. But I just think the significance is always over blown. The French fleet involved was pretty much it's last. The same with the Spanish fleet as it had been beaten previously some years before. After that Napoleon tried to capture ships from nations he conquered, where the British promptly made sure to get those fleets for themselves. The thing is, the battle involved some 27 British ships of the line and just over 30 French/Spanish ships of the line. 27 British ships. Whilst it's immensely impressive for a naval battle, that was only a fraction of the total British force. For example, in 1814 we had 100 ships of the line. Had we lost Trafalgar it would have certainly been a set back. But it wouldn't have caused us as much trouble as it could have against a smaller fleet. There would have been no threat of invasion if the French had won because Napoleon was already engaged in fighting on the continent. Furthermore, the French total naval force was already severely weakened after previous losses so it's unlikely they could have pressed home any real advantage against British naval power anyway. They certainly wouldn't have gained any ships. Just like the British post Trafalgar lost their prizes because of weather, the French would have had the same trouble and would have gained very little.

[51L3NC3R]

depends on our bias/prejudice view of them....

[FRANK_THE_TANK]

Wellington was the better general, by far.

[FRANK_THE_TANK]

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.

Rule one; don't march on Moscow. Rule two; Do not go fighting with your land armies in China - Monty

[Prinz_Karl]

Wellington was the better general, by far.

Good joke.

[ForGO_of_Acre]

I think napoleon when he was younger and actually a general not ruler of land, was a equal if not slightly better than wellington.

[Leesin]

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.

Probably, but he didn't, making him the lesser General.

[Casimir]

They both made mistakes in their careers, Napoleons problem was that his decisions were driven by politics rather than military sensibility.

[darmaster]

They all would've gotten their asses kicked if Alexander was still alive 

uhm, nope :l


EDIT: :O maybe i just got it

[Sharpe]

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)

Yes, I am the reason Wellington never lost a battle; I mean come on I saved the mans life in Assaye for crying out loud.