Was Napoleon really a tactical genius or was he just lucky?

[Redbeard]

How about that Wellington and Suvorov count amongst the relatively small number of senior generals of whom it can plausibly be said they never lost a battle? Something that certainly can't be said of Napoleon.

A lot of people have never lost a battle, incl. me, but what really matters is who you have met and defeated in battle. And if anyone had the burden of meeting Napoleon in person ahead of the Grande Armee it was the Austrians. Of the three major battles Napoleon lost (Aspern, Leipzig and Waterloo) two of the times were lead by Austrians. I do not include the 1814 campaign as that campaign was on a much smaller and defensive character for the French. Napoleon did a very fine job, but the scale forbids it as evidence for superb field command. Anyway the Austrians also here played a major role in a succesful allied campaign.

If you really think Napoleon could crush Wellington with the latter having a 2:1 numerical advantage then I'm not sure we can have a productive discussion, TBH.

Why do you reply then? But I'll gladly repeat my claim - Wellington would loose and in a way very similar to how the Prussians lost the twin battles. If two armies were alike in 1806 it would be the British and the Prussian - the Prussians just met Napoleon when he and the French Army was in their prime.

Winning without having huge resources at your command is usually regarded as a mark of a general's ability, but YMMV.

Wellington wasn't short of resources, but had one of the strongest economies of the planet behind him and even had the luxury of having the continental allies doing the tough job.

 

[longsword14]

Wellington wasn't short of resources, but had one of the strongest economies of the planet behind him and even had the luxury of having the continental allies doing the tough job.

Forgetting even all the rest, remember that the scales involved are too different for Britain and other continental states, say France or Austria. Wellington does not command the tool of decision for Britain, but men in the RN do.
Napoleon doomed himself by getting into Spain which became a fly swatting operation impossible to conclude. Even Wellington himself did not believe he would be able to face Napoleon had he decided to come back with the full army .
To those who say that Napoleon had far more resources; there you have an answer : If you cannot compare the troop size and the resources spent behind it, then how can you claim that the person who overall did less was greater, because of what he might have done?
I do respect Wellington's ability to command, which brought him a lot of fame,but his ability to command armies of scale in massive campaigns was never shown.
Remember that even in 1815, quite a heck lot more Austrians and Russians were coming for the next round.

All that Wellington did at a smaller scale, Bonaparte already did in his time when he was just one of the Republic's many generals (remember First and Second Italian Campaign ?).
You could argue if Britain put a major field army and tried to combat France in its heyday, something that they avoided, and in some instances could not succeed when they did(Walcheren,Sicily, Moore in Iberia)

 

[GauchoBadger]

How dependant was Napoleon on artillery? I hear that cannons were the field he was most experienced at, what with being a major french general who calculated cannonball trajectories. How well dod he fare in battles with a scarcity or lack of them?

 

[Mike]

Wellington wasn't short of resources, but had one of the strongest economies of the planet behind him and even had the luxury of having the continental allies doing the tough job.

Exactly. He had a supply line going all the way to the British Navy that allowed him to keep his small-sized army well-fed and supplied every day which kept morale high. The French did not have the same advantage due to the guerillas and the hot, arid climate. Wellington himself admitted that he did not face the same challenges that the French faced in Iberia.

"Wellington once made comment on the supply issue: "It is certainly astonishing that the enemy [French] have been able to remain in this country so long; and it is extraordinary instance of what a French army can do. ... With all our money and having in our favour the good inclinations of the country, I assure you that I could not maintain one division in the district in which they have maintained not less than 60,000 men and 20,000 animals for more than two months."" http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Britain_and_British_forces.htm

British authors that do give some credit, albeit begrudgingly, to the Spanish guerillas and armies in driving out the French from Spain, nevertheless portray the Pennisular conflict as the guerillas supporting the British army and not the other way. That is not true. It is the reverse. Wellington was under orders from his government not to risk his army, that he was to support the guerillas when possible. If his army was threatened, he was to get out of there to the safety of the Torres Vedras and if that fell, retreat from the continent altogether, abandoning his Spanish ally. Wellington did what he was told. He supported the Spanish guerillas while making sure his retreat route was secure and all costs just in case. And he retreated at least 2 times, each time abandoning his Spanish ally.

So, a general that led a small-army, did not have to take risks and had superior resources against the enemy cannot be considered a great general. Wellington was a good, competent general but not a great general and certainly not Napoleon's equal, never mind his superior.

 

[Matteo]

Concerning the war of the fourth coalition and the battles between french and prussian armies, It IS important that Iena, although brilliant, was quite overestimated for the reason that Napoleon personnally commanded the french army in this battle.

The same day as Iena, there also was the battle of Auerstedt which was a real masterpiece of tactical warfare and fighting quality. Marshall Davout, who was Napoleon's alter ego on the field, won the victory with only 27.000 men against 60.000 prussians.

 

[longsword14]

Iberia looks quite odd, when you realise that despite having so many troops in theater (all of Iberia) they never combined them. Occupying different Spanish provinces and maintaining logistics were such an obstacle that useful (against Britian) French troop strength was whittled down to a fraction of the total.
Full marks to Wellington though, for understanding the nature of warfare in Iberia; recognising that fortunes could change only in the long haul, going all out like Moore would only get you ejected.

 

[Spartacus1224]

Really? Was he really that brilliant? Sure, he left us a book showing us his tactics, but Pompey the Great seems to be equal, if not superior to Caesar.

Compare the Pompey's Eastern campaign( in which most of the heavy lifting was already accomplished by other men) and Julius's Gallic Campaigns, and Caesar undoubtably comes out as the far more talented leader in terms of challenges, accomplishments, and even if you want to dismiss all sources because it's convenient, simple results. Look also at the civil war. Explain Pompey's, and the rest of the optimates, losses to Caesar, even in situations where they had far superior forces, resources and positions. Sorry dude, but Pompey the "Great" was not all that impressive even compared to contemporaries. He was competent, but Caesar is just in another league.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

He was mostly referring to the fact that the Hundred Years War books ignore all the French victories.

In Cornwell's defence, the Hundred Years' War was, well, a hundred years long, and since the big English victories were mostly in the first part and the big French victories in the second, it's not likely that a single soldier would have a career long enough to fight in both the big English victories and the big French victories.

A lot of people have never lost a battle, incl. me,

Are you a senior general?

 

[Karolus Rex]

In Cornwell's defence, the Hundred Years' War was, well, a hundred years long, and since the big English victories were mostly in the first part and the big French victories in the second, it's not likely that a single soldier would have a career long enough to fight in both the big English victories and the big French victories.

Don't take me wrong I very like his books, still the fourth on the HYW change main character just to be placed on Angincourt and he never mentions the French victories. I much prefer the Civil War Chronicles by Michael Arnold on that because Stryker's side is has bad has the other.

Are you a senior general?

He's general Melchett.

 

[Redbeard]

Are you a senior general?

Much worse - I'm closing to be senior in a general way - and I'm still not impressed by Wellington or his admirers

 

[The Undead Martyr]

Alexander and Napoleon are both superior to him IMHO.

Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, and maybe Oda Nobunaga as well. Caesar is good (anyone who can routinely Stomp Roman Legions with other Roman Legions on a more or less even playing field is a great commander) but the Genghis era Mongols really stand out as perhaps the best all-around army from Alexander to Napoleon, especially since they (unlike many of the other contenders) didn't collapse immediacy after Genghis himself died.

 

[Matteo]

Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, and maybe Oda Nobunaga as well. Caesar is good (anyone who can routinely Stomp Roman Legions with other Roman Legions on a more or less even playing field is a great commander) but the Genghis era Mongols really stand out as perhaps the best all-around army from Alexander to Napoleon, especially since they (unlike many of the other contenders) didn't collapse immediacy after Genghis himself died.

It is not at all that the Mongols were the best ever. The best ever would not have been defeated by the Mamluks.

The Mongols had a wonderful tactical advantage : their cavalry which was the supreme weapon in warfare until canons and artillery developed enough to become the next supreme weapon.

 

[James XI]

It is not at all that the Mongols were the best ever. The best ever would not have been defeated by the Mamluks.

The Mongols had a wonderful tactical advantage : their cavalry which was the supreme weapon in warfare until canons and artillery developed enough to become the next supreme weapon.

Subodai ranks among the all time greats as a general, and Chingis himself ranks high in the Caesar sense of conqueror, ie combining military/political/charisma/leadership aspects. Another couple Mongol generals are exceptional, too. I would probably choose others,mbut they certainly have a case for most formidable force ever. Losing to the Mamluks, eh...as with Napoleon, the sheer volume of battles means you're bound to lose sometime, but the scarcity of losses against the mountain of victories is almos the stuff of fiction.

 

[Matteo]

Subodai ranks among the all time greats as a general, and Chingis himself ranks high in the Caesar sense of conqueror, ie combining military/political/charisma/leadership aspects. Another couple Mongol generals are exceptional, too. I would probably choose others,mbut they certainly have a case for most formidable force ever. Losing to the Mamluks, eh...as with Napoleon, the sheer volume of battles means you're bound to lose sometime, but the scarcity of losses against the mountain of victories is almos the stuff of fiction.

Sure. I agree with the statement that Subodaï was one if the greatest generals in History.

What I just said is that having enjoyed the mongols's cavalry superiority does not make him the greatest of them all.