NationStates Jolt Archive


Who's the better general?

Nova Calabria
07-01-2005, 14:25
This thread is to disscuss who was the greater general, over all:
Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte or Sir Arthur Wellsley, the Duke of Wellington.
Lubuckstan
07-01-2005, 16:55
Definatly Napolean, Wellington got lucky with waterloo
Niccolo Medici
07-01-2005, 16:56
This thread is to disscuss who was the greater general, over all:
Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte or Sir Arthur Wellsley, the Duke of Wellington.

I'll go on a limb and say Bonaparte; for the following reason.

The good Duke had one living enemy on the battlefield to contend with; Boneparte.

Boneparte had three armies arrayed against him, each considerably larger than his. This was nothing new for him either, he had defeated similar alliances on numerous occasions. But the fact was that he was fighting the entire world and lost, while the Iron Duke had 1 enemy and many allies.

The generalship was hard to predict, because Bonaparte did so much more in his lifetime with his armies, and lost it all due to overstretch. Duke Wellington did very little (in comparison) and kept England secure.

Thus who was the better general? Perhaps Boneparte, but the Duke used his power wisely and concentrated on his one objective, which cannot be said for Boneparte.

Better general perhaps, but without wisdom, such power is of no avail.
Stormforge
07-01-2005, 17:00
While Wellington had a rather successful military career before Waterloo that most people are unaware of, I'm still gonna have to go with Napoleon. Sure, he made some mistakes. But he was very successful for an extended period of time, with, as has already been pointed out, most of Europe actively trying to stop him. You get a true sense of Napoleon's military genious when you read his writings, especially in the earlier stages of his career.
FutureExistence
07-01-2005, 17:04
I agree with "Old Nick" just above.
Napoleon probably had greater battlefield genius, but he overstretched himself in a BIG way. His ongoing war in Spain with the British army and the original guerrillas drained huge amounts of manpower and cash, and invading Russia has been stupid ever since Genghis Khan.
He had tactical and logistical skill, but he wasn't up to the job of ruling Europe; he got cocky and overambitious, and lost everything.
Waterloo is irrelevant, Waterloo was an afterthought. After the lost Russian campaign, Napoleon was doomed.
So I voted for Arthur Wellesley, which is of course utterly unrelated to the fact that I am an Englishman (For he himself has said it / And it's clearly to his credit / That he is an Englishman / He is an E - - - - - - - -nglishman!).
Andaluciae
07-01-2005, 17:09
I think Wellington was the better strategist, as he had a goal and a plan for what he was going to do. It was to destroy Napoleon. He didn't really divert from this goal. He also wasn't the head of state, but a tool of a state, so Wellington couldn't set goals outside of those approved by the state.

Napoleon on the other hand was a brilliant battlefield tactician. He was able to pull of manuevers and decimate other armies, but it really didn't seem like he had a goal with he conquests. It just seemed like he was conquering for conquests sake. And the lack of oversight led him to make all sorts of mistakes, and such.

Bluecher while a good general was not on the same level as Wellington or Bonaparte. But, all the same he did play an important role in helping to defeat Napoleon, by moving his Prussian forces through the muck in the general area of Waterloo.

In the end it all comes down to whether you're counting on strategic capability or tactical capability, as they were each better in their respective domans.

Napoleon also benefitted from the fact that Wellington had to fight as a coalition. As coalition armies are by far the hardest to command as the commander has to juggle national interests.
Niccolo Medici
07-01-2005, 17:09
While Wellington had a rather successful military career before Waterloo that most people are unaware of, I'm still gonna have to go with Napoleon. Sure, he made some mistakes. But he was very successful for an extended period of time, with, as has already been pointed out, most of Europe actively trying to stop him. You get a true sense of Napoleon's military genious when you read his writings, especially in the earlier stages of his career.

Speaking of which, where are his writings? What are they called? Do you happen to have any publisher info on where I might find 'em? I think I saw a big book on him several years ago but I haven't found anything more...cost effective. (I'm poor!)
Stormforge
07-01-2005, 17:15
Speaking of which, where are his writings? What are they called? Do you happen to have any publisher info on where I might find 'em? I think I saw a big book on him several years ago but I haven't found anything more...cost effective. (I'm poor!)
As far as I know, Napoleon didn't actually write any military treastises (is that how you pluralize treastise? Why does that look so wrong?). But there's a really good book called Napoleon on the Art of War which is a collection of his letters and dispatches to his subordinates. Amazon.com's entry for the book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684872714/qid=1105114443/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9753720-1593619?v=glance&s=books
Scipii
07-01-2005, 17:24
Have to say Wellington as, he was undefeated unlike Bonaparte who took several beatings in his time.
Niccolo Medici
07-01-2005, 17:24
As far as I know, Napoleon didn't actually write any military treastises (is that how you pluralize treastise? Why does that look so wrong?). But there's a really good book called Napoleon on the Art of War which is a collection of his letters and dispatches to his subordinates. Amazon.com's entry for the book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684872714/qid=1105114443/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9753720-1593619?v=glance&s=books

Oooh! Thanks. (I'm a military text nut, pardon my glee) It looks like I should seek out this one, and the "pretender" text they refrence. When I'm rich, if I'm rich, I'll seek out a translation of his complete texts. I'm a big believer in context. Without context, its only so many pretty words.
Nova Calabria
07-01-2005, 23:33
A good book for Napoleon fanatics like myself is the Campaigns of Napoleon. About 1400 pages of Napoleon I'll put a link up soon.