The Better General (Wellington or Napoleon)

[Germanicus]

darth vader

[Bittersteel]

Napoleon, obviously. He was about to win at Waterloo if it wasn't for Blucher. Perhaps even win against Blucher (doubtful) if it wasn't for his brother. What pisses me off the most is the people saying 'Wellington, superior general winning against Napoleon himself. You forget the Netherlands, Hanover AND Prussia? It was a few other countries but can't remember the names. But i guess that's just the englishmen saying that  (Sarcasm) Even tough Wellington was a good general, Napoleon was better (Wellington even says it himself).

So my conclusiong. Frederick the Great was the better general, just look at my profile pic, one awesome sexy general 

[Overdriven]

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.

[Siiem]

[Kalam]

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.

From what I can tell, Wellington just knew how to use inferior troops. He used the tools he was stuck with. Napoleon knew how to turn regular troops into an (in the relative sense) elite force. If I'm correct, the Grand Army had a fitness regimen superior to other armies of the time, and made use of that fact with more mobile formations, not to mention esprit de corps.

[Overdriven]

I'm not sure about that. The French army relied heavily on conscription, not volunteers and I think that possibly told when they eventually began running out of veterans and what not from Napoleons earlier campaigns. Sure the British had a lot of prisoners and people who were given small option to join, but the majority of it was a volunteer army.

The British also trained with live ammunition, which no one else did and also supposedly had better quality gunpowder. The British armies main weakness, as it always has been, is it's relative size which has always largely been down to the cost to maintain such a force rather than the size of the potential population. Whereas France largely focused on size. When you look at the potential man power of the French army in the peninsular compared to that of the British/Portuguese/Spanish, the numbers are rather frightening.

From what I've gathered about Napoleon his victories had more to do with speed and tactics than with troop quality. Not to mention promotion by merit.

Finally, we had the god damn Scottish and Irish.

[Chosen1]

They won with the help of two other countries, which is a trend in wars 'fought' by brits

[Overdriven]

Alas we only even field a small army 

Better winning with the help of others than losing whilst trying to take everybody on at once 

[Christo]

Using them as meat-shields you mean?