The Better General (Wellington or Napoleon)

[Matey]

Im not convinced the Spanish soldiers helped Wellington at all... they were pretty damn useless, but wellington had to play nice because the Spanish guerrillas were exceptionally useful... and you really didnt want to piss them off the way the french did... oh whats that? did Napoleon back stab his Spanish allies... set up his brother as king of Spain... rape and pillage his way through the country and piss the people off so much that they massacred every frenchmen they could? what great leadership.

[Overdriven]

The Spanish soldiers were renowned for being useless. The partisans were arguably the greater threat. They proved that in the peninsular war and countless other wars before and after.

Wellington was a defensive general. He had to command a much smaller force than those of Napoleon, and he had to fight a huge potential French ground force on the peninsular on top of limitations on cash grants from a unfconvinced Government and lack of reinforcement promises. He specialised in choosing his battle ground perfectly, holding a defensive position and relying on the better training of the British forces to prevail. He also knew when to retreat in the face of overwhelming odds in order to better position himself to eventually rebalance the game. Wellington also knew how to properly supply and move an army. It may not have been with speed, but rarely were there cases where his men were without supplies, as happened with Napoleon. He also came up with the remarkable military system that allowed British armies to adequately move heavy equipment throughout the interior of India.

Napoleon on the other hand was far more tactically agressive. His speciality was in commanding armies of great size, or several armies of smaller sizes, at great speed in order to catch his opponent off guard. He'd then exploit this and force columns through the weaker spots in an enemies army in order to split them. His system of promotion upon ability and division of the spoils of war were also remarkably modern in their time. Something the British would be slow to replicate many many years later. However, this also led to his need for living off the land, something that was his downfall in future events. He also bled France dry. By the time Waterloo came about most Vets from pervious campaigns had been killed and the troops were Fresh young faces press ganged into his armies in order to meet his demands.

All in all, you can't say which is better. They both had their strengths and weaknesses. Napoleon's early career demonstrated remarkable Generalship and was probably the better military leader until his status as Emperor and ruler of main land Europe got to his head. He chose to fight on too many fronts. Wellington on the other hand knew he could not tackle his opponant head on. His task was to lock down as many resources as possible in the peninsular, and to prove that Napoleons armies were not as invincible as they were perceived. If by definition, we take Generalship to mean the ability to recognise positions of strength and the ability to get the job done, then they are probably equal in terms.

We also have to consider culture. Napoleon was a true flamboyant, passionate, extreme Frenchman. He had the ability to inspire his soldiers to great feats. Wellington was the typical, solid, take it on the chin style Englishman that would later be so stereotyped (based on Wellington's personality). He also had the ability to inspire those soldiers around him. So if we take Generalship to mean ability to inspire, then again I think they are also relatively equal.

As to the Nelson, Wellington argument. It is unrelated. Yes in the modern era Nelson is probably the more famous, however, in those days both were seen as heroes. Nelson's carriage was unhorsed and carried through the streets following his return after the victory at the Nile. He was a well known name and a considered to be the one true hope against the threat of the French 'tyrant'. However, the Battle of Trafalgar is actually over played. Whilst it was in no doubt a remarkable victory, Napoleon had already given up all plans to invade Britain following a storm that destroyed his invasion fleet, and the French Meditteranean fleet had already been all but destroyed at the Nile. The Atlantic fleet that fought in joint with the Spanish fleet at Trafalgar was all that was left of the French naval force. It was simply the final nail in the coffin.

Wellington at this point was still relatively unknown, don't forget he was infact younger than Nelson. But following his later victories and Waterloo itself, his carriage was also subjected to the same treatment (albeit in true Wellington style he abandoned it long before he got there due to his constant hate of any form of hero worship) and was a seen as a great military hero himself.

In reality Wellington and Nelson were just as important as each other. They were completely opposite personalities, Nelson being the reckless, charming typical hero and Wellington being the calm, cold aloof gentleman. But they both commanded a similar level of respect following their victories.

[Kafein]

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.

[Oberyn]

Eh, thanks Overdriven, I never thought we'd actually get an objective, historically knowledgeable point of view in this thread. Beats the regurgitation of centuries old propaganda.

[Overdriven]

It's my favourite period in history. I grew up watching Sharpe as they were released (my parents bought every one on video and my Dad bought the DVD box set). Thanks to the wonder's of Sharpe I decided to read around the subject. I've read countless books about many of the leaders of the time. It's quite interesting seeing the different points of view and the subtle arguments that underline each one.

At the moment I'm reading an interesting book about the great military mavericks by Robert Harvey, who's also author of the fantastic War of Wars book that covered the Napoleonic era. It details everyone from George Washington and Cochrane to Patton and Rommel, comparing the similarities and differences between them and what made them great leaders and Generals. Albeit his conservative UK politician back ground can shine through on occasion

[firmitas]

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.

[Overdriven]

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.

Wellington never had the opportunity to command larger numbers of forces. British ground forces have never been great in number, but arguably their quality is better. As such Wellington had to work with what he had, where as Napoleon could eventually demand as many men as he wanted from his recruiters. It got to the point where many young Frenchmen fled their villages ect when Napoleon launched new campaigns in order to avoid being enlisted. Napoleon bled France dry in order to generate his huge armies. Napoleon didn't revolutionise warfare, the tactics he used had been demonstrated before. He simply used them to better effect on a grander scale. However, he did bring something new in the artillery front.

Like I said, I don't think either one is better than the other. They were very different Generals in their styles of personality and battles and command. It is very hard to directly compare them and even with them fighting at Waterloo. Napoleon arguably had a lesser role in Warterloo as he had very little command over the events that unfolded, his Generals did most of the work and Wellington had the Prussians.  Furthermore, no one actually really knows what happened at Waterloo, the accounts of it vary so greatly, and so a lot of it is speculation. But from what I've read, by the time of Waterloo, the tactics they used were already considered 'old'. It was a battle that would have been incredible at the beginning of the Napoleonic period, but the tactics used were out dated by the time they got around to it. By this time they were aged and no where near the General's they had once been.

[King Shaka Zulu]

ZULU

[Penitent]

I don't see Wellington conquering most of Europe.

Then again, Napoleon never had a beef named after him.

[Overdriven]

I don't see Wellington conquering most of Europe.

Then again, Napoleon never had a beef named after him.

Of course not. Wellington's personality would never have allowed for conquering most of Europe. He detested Napoleon as a person and everything he stood for (although expressed admirations for his abilities as a general on several occasions). His job was to be a pain in the arse to Napoleon and to eventually defeat him. Both of which he did very successfully in a string of great battles (who cares if they weren't on the scale of Napoleon's, Wellington had less to work with, but in comparison, had a better record of victories than Napoleon).

[ubermeh]

There are, roughly speaking, two types of generals: maneuvering generals and attrition generals.

The difference between the two is how they even the odds. Maneuvering generals use superior mobility, tactics, and aggressiveness to confuse, surprise, isolate, or surround their enemies. Maneuvering generals recognize that an enemy who's resolve is broken and/or is on the run, is ripe for the slaughter.

Attrition generals use terrain, unit effectiveness/firepower, guerrilla/Fabian tactics, alliances, economic/morale warfare and grand strategy to nullify overt advantages like numbers and force battles in contexts that favor them. Attrition generals shine when faced with armies that are either larger or led by famous and therefore intimidating generals.

With this in mind, it's obvious between Napoleon and Wellington which one is which. To further clarify, maneuvering generals are superb field commanders, whereas attrition generals are better strategists. This is why Scipio Africanus beat Hannibal, despite Hannibal's clear superiority in the field.

On topic now, the only way Wellington could lose in Spain is if he:

1) Blundered away his troops
2) Either outran or got his supply lines cut (either through loss of control of the seas (Thanks Nelson!) or loss of home support)
3) Allowed the Spaniards to be beaten and cowed.

With this in mind, his strategy and fighting style became obvious, but credit must be given as the Peninsular campaign was a tour de force of attrition strategy. The Spanish guerrillas (funded and armed in part by Wellington) were much more effective than the Spanish regulars, and successfully defending Portugal (repeatedly!) as his supply base were masterstrokes. And kudos to Sharpe, for both introducing me to Wellington in Spain, and being an all-around badass.   

Napoleon lost Waterloo because he failed to isolate and destroy the weaker force, which was Blucher's. If he had feinted at Wellington (who was busy hunkering down on the reverse slope) and pushed Blucher further away from Wellington, he could have forced Blucher north-east and flanked the escarpment at Waterloo. Wellington, in turn would be forced to retreat to protect Brussels (or else have Napoleon threatening his rear and his lines of communication) and Napoleon may have had an opportunity to hit Wellington in the flank and isolated from Blucher.

But Napoleon had never fought the British (and thus failing to recognize Wellington's skills on the defensive and dealing with flighty allies, ditto the superiority of British musketry). He assumed that between Wellington's hodge-podge army of (to him) debatable quality, and Blucher's Prussians, that Wellington was the weaker of the two, despite being the larger force. In reality, placed on good defensive ground and with allies to support, Wellington was much more dangerous.

Napoleon also lost in Russia because Kutuzov and Barclay de Tolly were also attrition Generals. He over-concentrated his Grande Armee - stressing his supply lines and foragers to their breaking point, then got seduced into a classic attrition battle at Borodino, and was successfully hoodwinked by Alexander I into believing he was ready and willing to make peace. This left him hundreds of miles into enemy territory, with the Russian army and government still intact, and winter coming, compounded by Alexander's stalling, which he played into by staying in Moscow. The space of Russia and the Russian generals' attrition tactics nullified his maneuvering and tactical advantages and he mistakenly identified the Russian center of gravity as Moscow, rather than the Czar himself, safe in St. Petersburg.

Wellington by both experience and inclination would not (and probably could not) have succeeded where Napoleon did, whereas Napoleon had some understanding of attrition tactics (just not how to defeat them). So therefore I give the edge to Napoleon, while recognizing that Wellington was just the man to beat him.

However, I think Caesar puts them both to shame, demonstrating successfully both attrition and maneuvering strategies in his campaigns to great effect. 

[Franke]

Dat necrophilia.

The questions who was the better General is hard to answer as you have to make a difference between the Napoleon of the year 1805 and the one of 1815.

As someone stated above, Napoleon had become greedy over the years and unrestrained due to his sucesses.

There was only one battle where the two were facing each other directly: Waterloo. Wellington succeeded here because he benefitted from several factors like Napoleon comitting several errors prior to and during the battle as well as the Prussians's support (not only them showing up at Waterloo but also their general presence in Belgium).

I do not want to diminish Wellington's merits; he surely was a very good field commander and organisator, but I think he wouldn't have stood a chance against the 1805 Napoleon.

[Teeth]

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

[Uumdi]

Some esoteric circles claimed Napoleon had clairvoyance, where he could visualize how entire battles would go in his mind - much like playing a strategy simulator, except without min/maxing, APM, or zerg rushes.  Honestly I have no idea, I'm not asking anybody to believe that, but its incredible to think about the potential of the focused mind.  You don't learn how to conquer Europe in school these days, that's for sure.

[Casimir]

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.

everyone ignores the what the navy did... lol

who is this everyone that ignores nelson? Is it all the people who go and take photographs of nelsons column in Trafalgar square?  He's one of the most explored characters and personalities in British military history. No serious historian would discuss wellington or napoleon without discussing Nelson.

Overall i'd argue napoleon was the greater general, admittedly his handling of Spain and the campaign in Russia was a total failure, but considering what he achieved in Italy and central Europe its fair to say he was a military genius. 

Wellington responded effectively to Napoleons innovations and the style of warfare that was developed by revolutionary France, but ultimately he had everything in his favor by the the battle of Waterloo, all he had to do was take defensive positions and wait. 

It was a close battle but napoleon was at the disadvantage, no longer able to rely on conscription and with the majority of his experienced soldiers gone.  Wellington's position wasn't much better, with the majority of his forces consisting of Hanoverian troops and less experienced British soldiers, along with their dutch allies of course. 

Had the Prussians not arrived there is a good chance that Wellington's lines could have broken and the British may well have lost.


I honestly feel Napoleon was the better general, although wellington made fewer mistakes he somewhat lacked the bravado and charisma of Napoleon that made him one of the timeless greats.  Its very close call though in my opinion and i feel that in my more xenophobic moments that i should chose wellington on principle.