What if ... Napoleon had won?

[aaminion00]

If a few key mistakes were eliminated, Napoleon could have very well went on to conquer the vast majority of Europe, or even more than he already had. In that case, I feel that even though it would have been an empire, nationalism and enlightenment ideas would have eventually created many democratic rebellions. The question is how many of those that would have succeeded (because they were bound to, France simply couldn't control that much land by itself without a long list of great monarchs) would have ended up democracies, and how many returned to the old ways. I still think however that a few nations could have ended up as democracies after Napoleon's empire was gone.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Originally posted by aaminion00
If a few key mistakes were eliminated, Napoleon could have very well went on to conquer the vast majority of Europe, or even more than he already had. In that case, I feel that even though it would have been an empire, nationalism and enlightenment ideas would have eventually created many democratic rebellions. The question is how many of those that would have succeeded (because they were bound to, France simply couldn't control that much land by itself without a long list of great monarchs) would have ended up democracies, and how many returned to the old ways. I still think however that a few nations could have ended up as democracies after Napoleon's empire was gone.

Most democrats of that time thought that the division of Europe was mostly the result of kings competing between each other than anything else. You might call it a propaganda - after all two centuries later we couldn't care less - but the Armies of Napoleon were claiming they were fighting against the despots of Europe in the name of Democracy. So the question would be, what if it had truely happened ? What if a united Democratic Europe would have emerged from Napoleon's Conquests ?

Future is known for its uncertainty, and that's why anything could have happened in such a case. Of course, what I'm saying seems unrealistic after 2 centuries of raise of nationalisms in Europe, but sincerly, there's no way to know. We can talk about it, that's true, but we will never prove anything.

 

[Oruc]

Nope!

 

[aaminion00]

Originally posted by emu



well duh, if anyone had the mistakes they made taken away they would take over the whole world

Wow, it's almost like a "What if" thread

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think that Napoleon's plans (having a French grandfather allows me to speak for Napoleon in his absence) were to establish the "natural borders" of France; the Rhine and the Pyrenees and have political hedgemony over weakened Austria, Prussia, German states and Russia. That way he could have significant influence over England. Having relatives on the thrones of Spain and Italy would help.

Had he settled for Europe as it was in 1810 and resisted the temptation to force England to her knees through the continental system, maybe he could have joined the club of ruling monarchs. But we see see things so clearly now.

 

[philippe]

i think if Napoleon won: we would have no royals around here
But we Europeans would all talk French

 

[privatehudson]

Most innovators and brilliant people use their own experience to build on the work of others. They either see the same data differently or use it in new ways, or use it effectively for the first time. In warfare, science, sports, etc. very few brilliant ideas spring "full grown from the head of Zeus". Alexander used his father's army to great effectiveness.

All I'm saying is that without Napoleon coming to power when he did, it's still perfectly possible that the innovations that he brought about would have come sooner or later. He was not the only reason for the change in fighting style during the period by far

Napoleon raised the bar for judging army leaders

Then lowered it again

And certainly he declined (mostly) and his oponents (and their armies and army organization) got better after 1807. If they hadn't improved Europe would be different. Most geniues do their best work early.

That's the thing, along with his lack of thought after that date, he also lacked the will or ability to realise that others had responded to his tactics and that he, and his army needed to also respond. Ney and Soult could (and probably did) tell him that the style of assault that Napoleon ordered at Waterloo would never shift British regulars but he failed to adapt to the fact that other commanders had adapted to him.

Plus some of his opponents were still failing to get used to him in 1815 and the like. The sensible British tactic of sheltering behind ridges to protect the infantry from the typical Napoleonic grand battery attacks never seemed to get adopted by anyone else. Wellington seeing Blucher's dispositions at Lingy knew he would be mauled and told him so, still though Blucher refused. Just as Napoleon and his French armies had yet to adapt to the fact that the British tactic all but negated the effects of their grand barrages.

Or that Waterloo would have been different if Davout had been there. Davout wasn't there and Charles wasn't at Ulm in 1805.

That's the point of what if's

Charles did have four years to learn and prepare for 1809

To be fair, charles was already showing big promise in some of the previous campaigns on the rhine I think when Napoleon was in Italy, his talent was present from the start and didn't totally rely on the 4 years of experience after 1805. I grant you that his tactical innovations before 1809 relied much on their experiences in 1805, but Charles alone being the commander at Ulm would have significantly changed the campaign.

I'm not sure where Gen Mack was in 1809, but I suspect that even he would have performed better in 1809.

Sitting in an Austrian jail IIRC. I know he was tried for his actions in the campaign and sentenced to death, only for the emperor to reduce it later. However, given his timid nature, his tendency to live in a fantasy world (during 1805 he thought the British invaded France!) and his sheer lack of will to listen to his subordinates I doubt he would have been any good in 1809. He's the Napoleonic wars equivalent of McCellan.

Even tho the French army showed great grand tactical skill at Austerlitz, the campaign was won early on at the strategic level.

Only by Mack sitting in Ulm and refusing to contemplate anything else. Any half competent commander at Ulm would have siezed the chances Napoleon still gave mack to retreat to defend the danube crossings and vienna and force a similar situation in 1805 as there was in 1809. Only this time, the French would have lacked numbers to pull it out the bag. I don't for a moment doubt that Napoleon might have still adapted his plans, but the fighting would have been much harder, and the result much less of a certain one

As for the sports example, lost me there, I don't follow american football However, as I said, Napoleon's army often failed to adapt to others countering their tactics. The army of 1815 and Napoleon himself were still in the main using the same theories they had used for 7 years against the British, it had never worked before, it's baffling that they presumed it would work then.

Does this position raise or lower your view of Hannibal, Caesar and Alexander?

Don't know enough about the campaigns of them all to say either way. What it does do though is make me think that Wellington was a much superior general to Napoleon. Unlike Napoleon he won every one of his battles and fought most of them against what was considered the finest army in europe at the time, lead by some of the armies finest marshals (Marmont, Ney, Soult). Napoleon running rings round Mack at Ulm is an achievement, but had he done the same round Charles or Wellington, that would be brilliant. Wellington beating Junot is not as much of an achievement (to me) as beating Marmont for example.

Were their opponents all really bad or did they just look that way in the in the "brilliant light of genius."

Depends on the other factors influencing them. Mack was really bad, put up against anyone capable of some fast marching and good strategy and you could fool him and force him into timidity. Marmont failed in the penninsula against Wellington, but Wellington only suceeded by using every bit of brilliance he had and waiting for the opportune moment to attack (ie when one of marmont's subordinates made a mistake). Therefore Marmont's defeat doesn't lessen his ability as he stood an equal chance of winning and was showing considerable talent in the face of a brilliant enemy.

I would suggest that without Napoleon's genius, warfare in the period would have been lackluster and of little note and few if any generals would have a significant place in history

Only because the others would have no reason to be fighting. Pleanty of other generals surpassed Napoleon in either record or talent, but Napoleon being the dictator and self publicisor that he was always gets the accolades.

Imagine you were Docturov at Austerlitz or Hohenlohe at Jena? Or better yet Brunswick at Auerstadt. I suspect they were in awe of his skill as much as they hated him and feared his armies.

Hence half the problem. Too many continental generals were afraid of what Napoleon could do as opposed to what he was actually doing and after 1807 even capable of doing. Too many armies were more scared of the image of French columns and the effects of grand batteries than anything else. Not some though, the British didn't run from either in the main. Reputation meant a lot, but after 1807 Napoleon and the french frequently failed to live up to it.

As for the whole domination of europe/hegemony over the other countries, the truth is that it was always destined to fail. The continental powers would never accept France being the de facto ruler of Europe, Britain would never accept one country dominating europe's trade. Napoleon, by aiming to bring Europe under one ruler (with his marshals and brothers ruling the territories, so much for democracy...) doomed himself to destruction by failing to understand what motivated the rest of the continent. Most of the continent could have lived with an imperial france that was contained, they couldn't live with an imperial or even royalist france that ruled or dominated europe.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Originally posted by privatehudson


All I'm saying is that without Napoleon coming to power when he did, it's still perfectly possible that the innovations that he brought about would have come sooner or later. He was not the only reason for the change in fighting style during the period by far

Yes and sooner or later someone would have derived Newton's Calculus, so that wasn't a big deal either; or Kepler laws of planetary motion; or Einstein's theory of relativity. For that matter somebody else would have eventually ushered music into the Romantic era without any need for Beethoven. All he did was rearrange the same old notes that Hayden and Mozart had been using. How hard can that be?

The point is, that smart, brilliant, genius people look at the same old stuff everyone else is looking at and see it differently. They see new applications and outcomes. They create a new framework for all future thinking on the topic and the paradigm changes. Only after the fact it looks obvious and eventual.

For all practical purposes Napoleon dominated European battlefields from 1796-1809. Not every battle was an Austerlitz nor should we expect them to be. Even in his decline his genius came out from behind the clouds from time to time to dazzle his opponents. But that is not the point. By 1809 he had made his mark as a military leader and rewritten the book on how to conduct a campaign. To say "If he's is so brilliant why wasn't every battle a Ligny or Marengo? Why did he ever lose?" is to misunderstand genius in general and his genius in particular.

Napoleon fought his battles on both the strategic and grand tactical levels and it is his methods in these two arenasand how he linked them that was so different from past practices.

Originally posted by privatehudson

What it does do though is make me think that Wellington was a much superior general to Napoleon. Unlike Napoleon he won every one of his battles and fought most of them against what was considered the finest army in europe at the time, lead by some of the armies finest marshals (Marmont, Ney, Soult).

Napoleon's genius wasn't such that he should have won every battle (tho' he did for 13 years). But if you want to compare Welliington with Napoleon, I think you need to do so in the context of the campaigns they fought in. I don 't know how many actual battles they each fought in, but "from a distance":

Wellington slowly campaigned back and forth across a few hundred miles of Spain commanding less than 100,000 men. He usually faced a single enemy at a time. He was good enough not to lose and in cases like Salamanca, he showed real mastery and actually won. he saw the opportunity and took advantage of it. Very Napoleonic! And when it really counted, at Waterloo, again he did not lose and when the Prussians showed up he was ready and able to step in and claim the victory prize.

Napoleon campaigned across great swatches of Europe with anywhere from 25,000 men (the early years) to over 500,000 in Russia. He often faced multiple foes of equal or greater force at the same time. All while running an Empire (after 1804).

When Napoleon won, his opponents usually lost because of something the French army did. When Napoleon lost (or did not win outright: Eylau and Borodino) it was usually because he (or his commanders) failed to inflict defeat on his enemy, and not that his enemy's skill forced Napoleon to accept defeat. Aspern Essling and Leipzip are the two example that come to mind when Napoleon was beaten by the leadership actions of his opponents prior to the dogged persisitence of the Prussians at Waterloo not to abandon their British allies. There may be others.

If you want to merely say Wellington never lost a battle and Napoleon lost several and his throne too, therefore Wellington is better, go ahead, but I think you do them both a disservice. An interesting What if would be to imagine if Wellington had the personality and skill to lead an English army in the conquest of Europe.

Originally posted by privatehudson


As for the whole domination of europe/hegemony over the other countries, the truth is that it was always destined to fail. The continental powers would never accept France being the de facto ruler of Europe, Britain would never accept one country dominating europe's trade. Napoleon, by aiming to bring Europe under one ruler (with his marshals and brothers ruling the territories, so much for democracy...) doomed himself to destruction by failing to understand what motivated the rest of the continent. Most of the continent could have lived with an imperial france that was contained, they couldn't live with an imperial or even royalist france that ruled or dominated europe.

I agree.

 

[privatehudson]

Even in his decline his genius came out from behind the clouds from time to time to dazzle his opponents. But that is not the point. By 1809 he had made his mark as a military leader and rewritten the book on how to conduct a campaign.

Of course you don't expect him to be brilliant in every last battle, but you don't expect a genius to simply resort to bludgeoning tactics battle after battle to win through. Had napoleon tried again and again after 1807 to win by the same genius before that date and simply failed, fair enough, but he simply wasn't even like the same general by then. If you want to heap accolades on him for his early career, then fair enough, but I take a balanced view, he must therefore also take the criticism for his latter campaigns also. If you want to say why he lost those latter campaigns, it is also relevant to say the reasons why he won the earlier ones. When people came back at him with equal change and adapted to his tactics, he had no answer other than weight of numbers and the same tactics his army had used for the entire period.

To say "If he's is so brilliant why wasn't every battle a Ligny or Marengo? Why did he ever lose?" is to misunderstand genius in general and his genius in particular.

But it is relevant to look at why and how he won those early engagements so emphatically and similarly, why and how he lost the latter engagements so badly. Part of that was the quality of his opponents improving, another part was his failiure to adapt his style. Both of which can somtimes count against him. Some things such as numbers and strategic situation and so on count for him, but my point was never to say he should have won every battle, but rather that he should at least have shown competence at major battles in his latter career.

Napoleon fought his battles on both the strategic and grand tactical levels and it is his methods in these two arenasand how he linked them that was so different from past practices.

Ooooo I dunno, Malborough was pretty damn good at doing the same Plus had that officer not recanted, the corps system might well have been used anyway

Wellington slowly campaigned back and forth across a few hundred miles of Spain commanding less than 100,000 men. He usually faced a single enemy at a time.

Not quite true, though he usually faced 1 field army under one Marshal, he usually also had to maintain troops to engage smaller french armies and keep them from uniting with the field one, something that if done properly would have crushed him. Also, having such a small army was also a disadvantage. Unlike Napoleon, he could never throw his army away in frontal assaults as he would get no other. He could not destroy it in ill thought out campaigns as it would ruin the whole point of his employment. He also often faced other problems that were often alien to Napoleon such as large numbers of sieges he could not avoid.

Napoleon campaigned across great swatches of Europe with anywhere from 25,000 men (the early years) to over 500,000 in Russia. He often faced multiple foes of equal or greater force at the same time. All while running an Empire

Running the empire brings with it as many advantages as disadvantages. Wellington was constantly harassed by usless commanders forced on him, abbandonned by Spanish "allies" who often refused to support his army. He suffered from not being able to choose his formations or be able to have total control over events in his campaign. Napoleon sufferred none of these as he alone chose such matters.

As for the whole "he lost because he made a mistake, not the opponents choices" that merely reinforces the fact that continental generals were in awe of him and left him the initiative, which he frequently failed to take properly. No-one's saying he should be perfect, but after 1807 he was barely competent in many campaigns. His tactical performances just did not live up to his reputation any more. Some of the biggest "mistakes" he made can also be attributed to enemy strategy also. Kutuzov's planned retreat to draw Napoleon on may have needed Napoleon to forget his own strategic aims, but had Kutuzov stood and fought he would have been destroyed. The obstinate stand at borodino inflicting heavy losses on Napoleon (lets face it, the russians could afford them much more at that stage than the french!) followed by the stopping of the french army from retreating into the Ukraine region were Russian actions that directly led to the destruction of the French army on that scale. It required the obstinate stupidity of Napoleon to actually get to that stage, but I find it hard to define battles as purely down to either Napleon's mistakes or his opponents value. They tend to being a combination of the two.

For every benefit Wellington had over Napoleon, Napoleon had one over him. Both showed periods of genius, but to be frank, Wellington's continued throughout his career unbroken, Napoleon's did not. They certainly moved in different areas to be sure, but Wellington's performances overcame many an ingenious opponent and terrible situation throughout his time in both the penninsula and low countries. You could criticise his performance in 1815 for sure, but one campaign never outdoes the others. Throw in that he also beat Indian and Danish armies in campaigns and you have a general capable of adapting to new situations

 

[Finmaster]

Originally posted by Azale
I'e read several theories about what would have happened if Napoleon had conquered Europe, they all seem to come to the same point. After an extended period of time, Napoleon wouldn't have been able to control the whole region and a a large series of successions would have occured.

True. I would like to add that liberalism - as well as nationalism - would have propably quicker surpassed conservatism, as after napoleon's empire would have collapsed, his liberal laws would have remained. The people liked those laws and Napoleon's liberal domestic policies, that's why the french revolted all the time after the Bourbons came back to power in 1815.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Napoleon vs Wellington

Wellington’s Battles
Rolica 1808 15,000 Br. Vs ??? Fr. Wellington attacked
Vimero 1808 17,000 Br. Vs 14,000 Fr. French attack failed
Talavera 1809 55,000 Br. Vs 46,000 Fr. French attack failed
Busaco 25,000 Br. Vs 40,000 Fr. French attack failed
Fuentes de Oneros 1811 34,000 Br. Vs 50,000 Fr. French attack failed
Salamanca 1812 48,000 Br. vs 50,000 Fr. Wellington attacked
Vitoria 1813 70,000 Br. Vs 50,00 Fr. Wellington attacked
Orthez 1813 25,000 Br. Vs 30,000 Fr.
Surauren 1813 24,000 Br. Vs 60,000 Fr. French attack failed
Toulouse 1814 40,000 Br. Vs 42,000 Fr. Wellington attacked
Waterloo 1815 85,000 Allied and 28,000 Prussians vs 72,000 Fr. French Attack failed

Napoleon’s Battles
Abensburg 1809 113,000 Fr. Vs 160,000 Austrians Charles
Arcola 1796 20,000 French vs 17,000 Austrians
Aspern Essling 1809 70,000 French vs 90,000 Austrians Charles
Austerlitz 1805 73,000 French vs 85,000 allied
Bautzen 1813 200,000 French vs 96,000 Allied
Berezina 1812 60,000 French vs 64,000 Russian
Borodino 1812 133,000 French vs 120,000 Russian
Castiglione 1796 30,000 French vs 25,000 Austrians
Dresden 1813 150,000 French vs 170,000 allied
Eckmuhl 1809 60,000 French vs 35,000 Austrians Charles
Eylau 1807 75,000 French vs 76,000 Russians
Friedland 1807 80,000 French vs 60,000 Russians
Jena 1806 96,000 French vs 60,000 Prussians
La Rothiere 1814 40,000 French vs 110,000 Allied
Ligny 1815 80,000 French vs 84,000 Prussians
Lutzen 1813 110,00 French vs 73,000 Allied
Marengo 1800 28,000 French vs 31,000 Austrians
Rivoli 1796 20,000 French vs 28,000 Austrians
Wagram 1809 170,000 French s 146,000 Austrians Charles
Znaim 1809 Last battle of 1809 campaign Charles lost

Napoleon’s Battle Losses
Leipzig 1814 195,000 French vs 365,000 Allied
Laon 1814 47,000 French vs 85,000 Allied
Arcis-sur Aube 1814 18-28,000 French vs 20-80,000 allied
Waterloo 1815 72,000 French vs 140,000 Allied (includes Prussian IV Corps)

While this list is not comprehensive, I think it covers everything of significance. Feel free to add to it. I have omitted sieges. Wellington fought the French 11 times. He attacked and won 4 (maybe 5) times. The remaining 6 (or 7) times he merely repulsed French attacks. He only commanded corps sized armies until Waterloo.

I have listed 21 victories for Napoleon (there are more). Many were decisive. In some cases the enemy withdrew rather than fight again in others they were driven from the field. Of the four losses two were checks to his offensive plans, one a strategic defeat (Leipzig) and of course Waterloo. Some of these battles did not have the elegance of Austerlitz, but they were victories. In army size and campaign scale Napoleon and Wellington were in completely different leagues and, as I said before, to compare them is to do a disservice to both.

Napoleon Faced Archduke Charles at least 5 times in1809. Charles lost 4 of those battles. His victory at Aspern-Essling was in defense of Napoleon’s crossing of the Danube.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Originally posted by privatehudson
Uhmm, a quick check shows that the same "extremely inept" commander was the one who ordered the crossroads to be held against Wellington's orders. Don't make the mistake of assuming that because he was inexperienced and made tactical errors, that this means he was utterly useless It's true Ney could possibly have taken the crossroads the evening before the engagement and probably should have. However Ney had been in command less than a few days and had been given a totally vague order and idea of what Napoleon's plan of campaign was. He'd also been forced to arrive for the campaign without any real command staff or preperation.

Those tactical mistakes sent infantry against cavalry in line twice, if that isnt inept then i dont know what is....

edit: @ Birdjaguar have you ever heard of Assaye? 100,000 men vs 7,500 and wellington went on the offensive and won..... it is not a dis-service to compare the two at all Wellington knew what to do, choose his ground and fought, he was in for winning not glory charges

 

[Birdjaguar]

I did not include any non European battles. Napoleon won the battle of the Pyramids against the mamelukes, but I left that off the list as well.

You might check your numbers on Assaye, IIRC Wellington had 13,000 British and Sepoys and they fought about 40,000 Scindians.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I am not trying to paint Wellington as a bad general. He is certainly in the top echelon of comanders in the Napoleonic Wars. His record is impressive. He was an excellent tactician and clearly used his limited resources in the most effective manner for the situation at hand.

His "resume" is very limited though when compared to Napoleon's. He didn't fight very many battles. His armies were small, his compaigns limited in geography and strategic initiative. I would rather compare Wellington to the French marshalls where he would stack up very nicely (since he beat many of them). Was he better than Davout?

You may have favorite examples of Wellingtons's battlefield brilliance, but mine is Salamanca in 1812. Here he showed he could seize an opportunity and exploit it to the fullest.

Wellington's presence at Waterloo is what propelled him into history, not the Peninsula campaign. And he deserves credit for handling a successful defense in a touch and go battle. He held out long enough for the Prussian IV Corps to tip the balance in their favor. Without Waterloo I would venture that no one would even think about comparing these two generals.

 

[privatehudson]

Wellington fought the French 11 times. He attacked and won 4 (maybe 5) times. The remaining 6 (or 7) times he merely repulsed French attacks. He only commanded corps sized armies until Waterloo.

As has been pointed out, there is something to be said for the general who forces the enemy to attack him and defeats him. Wellington often went on the defensive because he simply had no choice, his numbers or situation allowed nothing else. It's hardly detriment to his abilities that he recognised this. Also it's hardly suprising that napoleon comes out higher in a simplistic number of wins comparison since he fought european battles for much longer. That however hardly detracts from the quality of Wellington's india victories or napoleon's egyptian ones. In the same aspect, you might also look at campaigns, Egypt may have been filled with victories, but ultimately napoleon was forced to retreat and abbandon his army. He may have won Borodino, but he destroyed his army in doing so. Winning a battle when you've already mostly lost the campaign (ie russia) is almost an irrelevance. He may have won Ligny, but he failed to follow it through and doomed Grouchy to an impossible task. He may have beaten Charles 4 times, but ultimately through heavy losses and harder fighting than in 1805. It's hard to say if he would have won also had many reserve forces under autonomous commands been defeated such as Eugene who arrived from Italy to fight at Wagram.

However, that said, some of napoleon's victories owed more to numbers and simple tactics than wellington's did, so again, any comparison of the two must go further than simple number of battle/victories comparisons. Which is also why I suggested that when assessing a generals career, more than certain battles must be used, other factors must influence the decision. Yes though, I can think of more, but I fail to see the point really. Numbers prove everything and nothing, there's always a bigger picture behind them.

Napoleon Faced Archduke Charles at least 5 times in1809. Charles lost 4 of those battles.

And in most of the victories Napoleon outnumbered Charles to begin with and was required to fall back on bludgeoning tactics.

Those tactical mistakes sent infantry against cavalry in line twice, if that isnt inept then i dont know what is....

He was young and inexperienced that was all, that's what lead to his mistakes. Frankly he should never have been given command of such a force other than politics at play. He was brave though, and was the man who protected Quatres Bras against Wellington's orders, a fact lost in the aftermath of the greater battle at waterloo and his mistakes there. Also, it's a very British thing to play down the affect of their allies in that battle, the Dutch-Belgians have always been heavily criticised in British accounts. No-one seemed to have remembered things that contradict that such as they repulsed the Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard and held Quatres Bras. Not saying Orange was brilliant, or that he didn't screw up at Waterloo, but he did also balance the books a little with other actions.

His "resume" is very limited though when compared to Napoleon's. He didn't fight very many battles

Which is part of the old "getting the job done" rather than winning glory. I tend to think that they can be compared on ability, whether they were in the same league in terms of army size or terrain is to me largely irrelevant.

Wellington's presence at Waterloo is what propelled him into history, not the Peninsula campaign. And he deserves credit for handling a successful defense in a touch and go battle

Suprisingly, I don't actually think he did as well as he could have during that battle. Also, he was recognised by a number of countries by them awarding him the title of field marshal in their army (Spain, Portugal and Netherlands IIRC) and by europe as one of the foremost allied generals. Waterloo may have made his name on the continent secure, but gaining fame was hardly the point. Ability is not about fame, but about sucess and achievement. Wellington didn't win by having his reputation go before him and living on it, he won by talent.

Without Waterloo I would venture that no one would even think about comparing these two generals.

Uhmm that's the point, you don't judge a commander's ability based on what famous campaigns they were in but their quality and record... or at least I don't

 

[Birdjaguar]

What are your criteria for comparing these two generals? I'd like to see a list.

 

[privatehudson]

Hmmm

I base my perception on analysing what each did in their campaigns, what sucesses they had, what problems they faced, the opponents quality (and if this seemed to adversely affect the general or otherwise), their ability to adapt, their ability to put victory before glory, whether they relied on subordinates for their victories or whether it was their own work, their ability to control and manage their armies discipline, how quickly they adapted (and how quickly they counter-adapted to enemies) hell there's two many too mention. Put simply, it's impossible to define exactly what makes me say why I feel Wellington was the better general, it's based on the overall impression of each general's performances and talent as opposed to their difficulties. In any given situation I'd much rather have a man whom I could trust to protect his men and situation and could do everything the other could rather than one who has a tendency to throw away his men's lives and was far too unaware of his own (and more importantly his country/armies) limits. I prefer cautious certainty to overeaching gamble.

And I'm British damnit, and so was Wellington (well at least Ireland was British back then anyway)

 

[Birdjaguar]

Hold that thought, I'm going out to dinner with my wife for an hour or so then I'll be back. It must be getting late where you are.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Originally posted by privatehudson
Hmmm

I base my perception ... hell there's two many too mention. Put simply, it's impossible to define exactly ... I feel Wellington was the better general... based on the overall impression of ... performance and talent ... a man whom I could trust to protect his men ...[not] throw away his men's lives ... I prefer cautious certainty to overeaching gamble.

And I'm British damnit, and so was Wellington (well at least Ireland was British back then anyway)

Too many specifics, impossible to define, feel, impression, trust, protect, cautious. We are back to a very subjective process. Wellington obviously matches your pattern of what a great general should be. Personally, I lean towards the other side of the spectrum where bold plans win great victories or ignoble defeat. I don't think either one of them would think much of our assessment.

Whether or not we agree, history has made a judgement and more books have been written about Napoleon than any other person. And not all of them are flattering. He provokes controversy.

The great military commanders of western history are Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar and Napoleon. There are others of importance, but these are the four that profoundly changed our thinking about how to conduct wars and battles. They transcended their time because their methods were universal and timeless.

Because Napoleon is closer to us in time we know more about his campaigns and his thinking about how to conduct war. While he won many battles and dominated European battlefields for many years, that is not the reason for his position among the pantheon of military commanders. He is there because he introduced a new way of thinking about war and battles. He put other peoples ideas together in a new way. His battles illustrated his concepts and he repeatedly won battles and campaigns from 1796-1809 and again in the spring of 1814. The study of his campaigns (marvelously pulled together by Englishman David Chandler in his magnum opus "Campaigns of Napoleon") clearly shows the whys and hows of Napoleon's new approach to warfare.

Prior to the French Revolution, no general in Europe tried to fight a campaign with 200,000 men. The French did so by necesssity in the early 1790s and Napoleon showed the world how to do it routinely and with success across a continent.

He codified the concepts of an offensive battle to destroy the enemy in one blow. He developed this concept at both the strategic and grand tactical level. Napoleon's Art of War is a large and complex subject and too much for this forum so I'll stop. Read Chandler.

Back to the Iron Duke:
Think of it this way. There were probably very few generals who could have avoided defeat at Waterloo, and if Wellington hadn't been there history would be different.

For all his talents and victories, Wellington's career did nothing to further the "Art of War". He seems to be often remembered for reverse slope deployment and having his troops lie down to avoid being artillery targets, in addition to Waterloo, of course.

 

[privatehudson]

I've read Chandler thank you, but that does not mean I have to agree with either him or your assesment

I can see many things in both that give reasons why napoleon was good in his early campaigns, but I can also see that he was bad in latter ones. You want to define it scientifically, I am simply offering the opinion that once you remove the glory and the pomp of Napoleon, the truth is he simply wasn't that brilliant in comparison to others. Yes he developed many new practices, but he also failed to continue to develop when the enemy adapted to them. Napoleon's art of war, with the exception of fast strikes in campaigns was nothing entirely new or specifically brilliant. The fact that he was the first to "codify" something does not mean he invented or was the first to practice it.

I like my subjective thoughts, I don't like analysing it by figures or statistics, glory or reputation. Wellington may not have wrote books, have codified ideas on war (though he often practiced them anyway), or won more battles, but on a battlefield I know which I would choose to lead my armies It's subjective, so sue me. As I said, a certainty against a gamble, victory against glory, proveable results against reputation. We all have our own things that we like in generals.

Often we talk of Austerlitz and Marengo, less often we talk of how close to disaster Napoleon came. Less often we talk about equally talented generals that fought equally well but get no great books or reputation. It's very well to talk of his theories or ideals, but it's also well to take a balanced look. Balancing things against wellington like his lack of "furthering the art of war" should be placed against his better record and talent.

So in the end IMO it must come down to subjective opinion as for every advantage in Napoleon's favour, one is in Wellingtons. History also, is a poor judge. Look at how many Americans think Patton was the best general of WWII