Favorite General in History

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[TheWindCriesMary]

jeeze just get over it.

 LOL

-Wind

[3rdCondor]

napoleon is a good choice.
He wasn't good with a navy, but he was an amazing tactician. Good choice Wind. The reason why I didn't pick Napoleon is because he fought a very specific and proper way on the battlefield. He wasn't able to use non-discretionary war tactics. That's why he lost so many men in Spain and how he couldn't conquer Russia. He was, however, an extremely brilliant tactician in combat.

[Nevyen]

Napoleon in my mind now is less a brilliant general and more a political opportunist with a good grasp on the grand strategic game, but who failed to understand both the social and political undercurrents of the emerging Europe.

What Ive found is that in Spain as would be repeated in the Vietnam war in a similar sense was that the military war was won in allot of cases. Wellingtons success while brilliant and astounding considering the constraints of being the only field army Britain deployed, had more to do with the failure of Napoleon at the very beginning of the intervention in Spain to identify to political climate and bend that to his will.   

His megalomania which became very evident after the treaty of Tilsit showed a real failing in understanding the political order of Europe at the time that stretched back to the close of the 30 years war the structure put in place there in.

Even then in Spain he failed to organize a central command dividing the army between bickering Marshals and placing an incompetent relative on the throne, that failed to endear the catholic public to his heart. In the end that created the failing in france as the constant guerrilla war that was created as a consequence of it turning into a "holy" war for the average catholic in spain, meant the french could win the battles but there would always be another army to fight.    The spainish field armies where amazing considering they lost so many battles that they would in a matter of months be able to put back into the field in the thousands.

So it was more that napoleon lost the war in Spain than the anglo-spanish alliance winning.

The same goes for Russian, the minute the Tsar declared himself against Napoleon not just on a state based position but on an ideological position or religion and that Napoleon was the devil again turned a war that the french had no equal in the battle field or strategic arena
into a nationalist struggle that would overwhelm any conventional army, much the same way the Russians where defeated in Afghanistan.

French military staff and their administration system which allowed their armies to fight in the field and give their generals the troops to do so, where never equaled in that time, the lower level generals at briagde, division, corp and at times army level where the finest in Europe. Only stand outs such as wellington and some russian generals in the 1806-1807 campaign where of equals, and even wellington was bested at Waterloo in essence and saved by Prussians in the end.

Hence Napoleon is not a brilliant general IMHO but a political aberration who was able to captivate a nation. What he is was is a Truly brilliant leader and administrator who understood how to make a nation operate at another level.     

[Skaevola]

Pyrrhus of Epirus

Some of his battles, though successful, cost him heavy losses, from which the term "Pyrrhic victory" was coined.

I live by his creed.

"Another victory like this and we are finished!"

Classic.

Also the first to use elephants against the Romans.

Rommel or Lee would have to be among my favorites.

[3rdCondor]

Napoleon in my mind now is less a brilliant general and more a political opportunist with a good grasp on the grand strategic game, but who failed to understand both the social and political undercurrents of the emerging Europe.

What Ive found is that in Spain as would be repeated in the Vietnam war in a similar sense was that the military war was won in allot of cases. Wellingtons success while brilliant and astounding considering the constraints of being the only field army Britain deployed, had more to do with the failure of Napoleon at the very beginning of the intervention in Spain to identify to political climate and bend that to his will.   

His megalomania which became very evident after the treaty of Tilsit showed a real failing in understanding the political order of Europe at the time that stretched back to the close of the 30 years war the structure put in place there in.

Even then in Spain he failed to organize a central command dividing the army between bickering Marshals and placing an incompetent relative on the throne, that failed to endear the catholic public to his heart. In the end that created the failing in france as the constant guerrilla war that was created as a consequence of it turning into a "holy" war for the average catholic in spain, meant the french could win the battles but there would always be another army to fight.    The spainish field armies where amazing considering they lost so many battles that they would in a matter of months be able to put back into the field in the thousands.

So it was more that napoleon lost the war in Spain than the anglo-spanish alliance winning.

The same goes for Russian, the minute the Tsar declared himself against Napoleon not just on a state based position but on an ideological position or religion and that Napoleon was the devil again turned a war that the french had no equal in the battle field or strategic arena
into a nationalist struggle that would overwhelm any conventional army, much the same way the Russians where defeated in Afghanistan.

French military staff and their administration system which allowed their armies to fight in the field and give their generals the troops to do so, where never equaled in that time, the lower level generals at briagde, division, corp and at times army level where the finest in Europe. Only stand outs such as wellington and some russian generals in the 1806-1807 campaign where of equals, and even wellington was bested at Waterloo in essence and saved by Prussians in the end.

Hence Napoleon is not a brilliant general IMHO but a political aberration who was able to captivate a nation. What he is was is a Truly brilliant leader and administrator who understood how to make a nation operate at another level.     

Well put and I agree.

[Malevolence]

Napoleon in my mind now is less a brilliant general and more a political opportunist with a good grasp on the grand strategic game, but who failed to understand both the social and political undercurrents of the emerging Europe.

So he was a great political opportunist who had no idea what the opportunities actually were. ... not exactly sound reasoning so far, but I'll keep going.

What Ive found is that in Spain as would be repeated in the Vietnam war in a similar sense was that the military war was won in allot of cases. Wellingtons success while brilliant and astounding considering the constraints of being the only field army Britain deployed, had more to do with the failure of Napoleon at the very beginning of the intervention in Spain to identify to political climate and bend that to his will.

It would be repeated in the Philipines, too. And all other places of Guerilla wars. Nobody's managed to really identify how to beat an insurgent war over the past two hundred years, not Napoleon, not Roosevelt, not MacArthur nor Pershing, not Johnson or even Patraeus who wrote his doctoral thesis at Princeton University on guerilla war! It's practically impossible (as we've learned so many times in the last two centuries, America especially), so judging Napoleon by his inability to defeat an insurgency is a poor indicator at best.

His megalomania which became very evident after the treaty of Tilsit showed a real failing in understanding the political order of Europe at the time that stretched back to the close of the 30 years war the structure put in place there in.

Tilsit was brilliant, are you crazy? Britain had constantly been the preeminent power in Europe since the time period of the 30 years' war precisely because it managed to exploit wide gaps between political feelings between the continental powers and keep them separated. Britain's doctrine has always been that. If Napoleon wanted to defeat Britain he would have had to recognize that situation and strip any potential British allies (Prussia) of their power, which he did, and secure the entire continental Europe otherwise against them (which he did with Russia, the only remaining power in Europe that could challenge his ability to invade the shit out of it). It was the waxing of Napoleon's power precisely because he did it 100% correct.

Even then in Spain he failed to organize a central command dividing the army between bickering Marshals and placing an incompetent relative on the throne, that failed to endear the catholic public to his heart. In the end that created the failing in france as the constant guerrilla war that was created as a consequence of it turning into a "holy" war for the average catholic in spain, meant the french could win the battles but there would always be another army to fight.    The spainish field armies where amazing considering they lost so many battles that they would in a matter of months be able to put back into the field in the thousands.

So he created his own problems, it's not like we've learned from that, either. Vietnam was an entirely America-made problem precisely because Russia just happened to be on the "other side". Then we had to try to fix it, and it was a miserable affair. As far as mistakes go, Napoleon was at least the FIRST one to make that one.

The same goes for Russian, the minute the Tsar declared himself against Napoleon not just on a state based position but on an ideological position or religion and that Napoleon was the devil again turned a war that the french had no equal in the battle field or strategic arena
into a nationalist struggle that would overwhelm any conventional army, much the same way the Russians where defeated in Afghanistan.

The Russians didn't guerilla war Napoleon to death, which appears to be what you're insinuating. That was an entirely different kind of conflict from Spain with exception of it being Napoleon who again defeated himself. The only battles the Russians fought against the French were draws at best - the Russian army managing to escape intact was practically a miracle unto itself.

French military staff and their administration system which allowed their armies to fight in the field and give their generals the troops to do so, where never equaled in that time, the lower level generals at briagde, division, corp and at times army level where the finest in Europe. Only stand outs such as wellington and some russian generals in the 1806-1807 campaign where of equals, and even wellington was bested at Waterloo in essence and saved by Prussians in the end.

Um, so basically Napoleon was a good chief of staff of the army? Also known as a "general"? :p

Hence Napoleon is not a brilliant general IMHO but a political aberration who was able to captivate a nation. What he is was is a Truly brilliant leader and administrator who understood how to make a nation operate at another level.     

Saying Napoleon wasn't a brilliant general is absolutely stupid. You yourself admitted his army was the best in Europe, and that his strategic and tactical skill bested that of almost all other generals of the era, if not all of them. Why, then, are you arguing that he is not a good general? He was a terrible recognizer of political circumstance as you yourself have so clearly dilineated, so what does that leave him? Administrator of the French Army? That's called a general, mate.

[PPLA]

My favorite general has to be Black Jack Pershing becasue he said fuck both the french and the brits where going to fight the war our way and he won WWI

[Nevyen]

With repsect mal, Napoleon relied on the brillaince of his subordinates,  he was never a brilliant general, he made far to many mistakes that where only balanced by the superior french staff system put in place, and brillaint low level leadership.

Take your emotive words such as stupid out as well, if you want a rational discussion drop the hub bub and stop using it.  Anyway this is my opinion Mal, its how i see it, I was once a napoleon fanboi but ive spent the better part of the last 11 years reading about the guy.  Ive formed my own view, and don't appreciate being called stupid for it.  On the several historical forums ive had the same debate, its been cordial and respectful.

Yes he was a politcal opportunist, if you look at his early life in corsica, his appitite for power saw change from a pro corsican stance to a pro french stance, once he realised he could not further himself or his family.

He advanced during the revolution on the coat tails of several figures in the directory, who he then removed and or saw fit to isolate once he was able to capotilse on the power gained.

His inital intentions to gain power in france where purely from a stand point to improve his families position and obtain the favour of several love interest that never came to being.

In italy the numerous treaties that he brokered during the 1798-1801 periods where all diplomatic failures that begun to sow the seeds of his inevitable down fall. SO he failed to see the broader opportinities of a stable and peaceful europe.

His forign minister Tallyerand realised this after Tislit, sighting that napoleon only ever intended to placate the russians while searching to expand his eastern empire. 

If you look closely the cossack operations against the french during 1812 are significant in destabilising the french army, the other was disease and the cold, but the resolve of the russians not to give in and develop a defence in depth due to the fight turning from a state based dispute to a nationalistic struggle from the russian perspective, draws significant parrlells to the motivations of the spanish to continue the war even after thier field armies where defeated.

Spain is another example, it was ripe for regieme change, but only if the change was with another catholic,  instead he places jospeh on the throne and seals the fate of the iberian penisnsular well before its military fate is sealed.

He saw opporuntiy but failed to think things through, he admited as much on elba about spain lamenting the disposing of the spansih goverment and believeing gody about the state of affairs.

Bethier was the chief of staff and after his depature the french army was nothing of its former self.  Napoleon could effect localied impact, but he was not great in the field, the 1809 campaign is the only campaign where he was able to show in my opinion the talent that was so thought of him, and even then the french propoganda that lies across that, fails to show that Davout prevented disaster in bavaria rather than napoleons actions.

The russian campaign shows his failure to weigh up options as well, pushing on to moscow in search of the "final battle" proved he did not grasp the big picture, nor have a good grip on reality.


Napoleon was bold there is no doubt, he re-organised the army based on the theories that had already surfaced before the revolution, and his ability to mobilise a state and it people was bar none.

But on closer inpsection, a general?  After reading countless books for both for and against the man,  i question his capabilites, Margeno stands out as a clear example of where he failed,  he was saved by kellermans cavalry charge which kellerman declared against napoleons orders.  At Lodi, the famous charge didn't happen, He did not lead grenadiers across a bridge, it was fallancy and continues to show a man more interested in image.

AT wagram, Massena executed his left flank manouve only by shear luck and mcdonalds attack in the centre was a desperate throw to stop the austrian advance.

Napoleon failed at acre against a handful of royal navy marines, and showed none of this "speacil ability" he had recieved, no imaginitness nor tactical flexibility.

Austerliz was his only truly great battle, and that with an army had been in camp for months which had the opportunity to train constantly.

If want to chat about this cordually off line happy to do so, but i think we can leave this here.

[AmPM]

I liken his abilities to Hitler, amazing leader, mediocre commander.

[Smokaz]

There's certainly noone more iconic of a general, leader and national hero than napoleon.

[Nevyen]

Imfamous ratbag more like

[Smokaz]

Your just angry he's got your daughter's cellphone number in his pocket

[TheWindCriesMary]

Napoleon in my mind now is less a brilliant general and more a political opportunist with a good grasp on the grand strategic game, but who failed to understand both the social and political undercurrents of the emerging Europe

...

Hence Napoleon is not a brilliant general IMHO but a political aberration who was able to captivate a nation. What he is was is a Truly brilliant leader and administrator who understood how to make a nation operate at another level.      

 I disagree wholeheartedly with the statement that Napoleon was not a brilliant general. It is a conclusion widely contradictory to the thoughts of the greatest generals of both his time, and of the years to follow (Wellington,Carl von Clausewitz, Jomini, Robert E. Lee,Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson). Jackson was even fond of the nickname "The Napoleon of the americas". All of these phenomenal generals (many of whom have been mentioned in this thread) were self-professed students of Napoleon's military theories and strategems, and these were not simple fanboys. They were brilliant generals in their own right who lived battles and strategy in a more real way than you or I will ever get to, and they recognized the true genius of Napoleon's 115 or so "maxims on war".


 Yes you do mention Acre, the close call at Messena,  the Margeno failure, but I don't think it's an accurate depiction to pick out the unspectacular days of a military career that included hundreds of battles (with the vast majority being victorious) and changed the entire dynamic of warfare as it was known and draw a case from that. As Napoleon once said himself (roughly paraphrased), "I have fought and won over a hundred battles, but Waterloo will eclipse them all).

 Napoleon was a tyrant, no question about it. A ruthless, cynical megalomaniac with a seemingly unquenchable ambition, but he was, make no mistake, one of the most phenomenal and groundbreaking generals of any time period. Few other generals have innovated more, or forced their oponents adapt to their rules more effectively and quickly.

 And again, I have to quote Wellington again when he was asked (after Waterloo) who the greatest general of all time was:

 "In this age, in any age, Napoleon." That was said after Waterloo.

 The simple fact is, in historical analysis primary sources account for far more than secondary interpretations. You and I could argue all day about what we think makes a good general, or why/why not napoleon isn't one, but thats just all opinion and emotion.

 We should be impartial and look, without bias, at primary sources. The words of the most brilliant military theoreticians of the last 200 years who were each students of his, or even the words of his enemies who hated him, hated what he had done to Europe, but could not help but admire his military prowess, or the way he took the rule book, threw it away, and wrote his own.

 That is what makes a great general. There is just no way that Wellington,Carl von Clausewitz, Jomini, Robert E. Lee,Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman, Rommel, Patton, and Stonewall Jackson etc. etc. etc. (the list goes on into infinity) could all be wrong, and somehow you or I could know better. Ask any general alive today if they haven't studied Napoleon at length at one point or another in their career, and let me know if you find one who hasn't. You wont. Thats not because he was a mediocre general with "great staff" who got "really lucky". At West Point, for example, sometimes an entire class can be spent on just one of his maxims. Thats not by accident.

 -Wind

[von_Luchs]

If the definition of a good general is one who earned victories and inspired his troops to do amazing feats on the battlefield, then Napoleon has to be one of the all time greats.  

Even if all he did was rely on subordinates (which I dont agree with) he was the one who put them there.  Afterall, many of his marshals were from humble backgrounds and wouldnt have ever made officers in the monarchy's army if it hadnt been for the oportunities afforded by the revolution and Napoleon's eye for talent.  

As far as political shortcomings go, just about every general on this list had those even if we accept they (in the best case) were honorable: Rommel fought for a fascist cause (apologies aside, its what he fought for), R.E. Lee for a slave south (even if he didnt believe in it, like Rommel its what he fought for), W.Scott fought an unprovoked imprealist war and defeated a 5th rate Mexican army, theres a reason he never lost a battle.  

In short, keep the discussion to specific battles and wars, and keep the macro scale strategy and politics out of it, because those points ussualy lie outside of a "general" as such.  So you can say Napoleon was a great general, but a bad emperor, which is probably closer to the truth than judging him as a general based on Spain where his mistake was Jerome rather than any battle.

[TheWindCriesMary]

If the definition of a good general is one who earned victories and inspired his troops to do amazing feats on the battlefield, then Napoleon has to be one of the all time greats.  

Even if all he did was rely on subordinates (which I dont agree with) he was the one who put them there.  Afterall, many of his marshals were from humble backgrounds and wouldnt have ever made officers in the monarchy's army if it hadnt been for the oportunities afforded by the revolution and Napoleon's eye for talent.  

As far as political shortcomings go, just about every general on this list had those even if we accept they (in the best case) were honorable: Rommel fought for a fascist cause (apologies aside, its what he fought for), R.E. Lee for a slave south (even if he didnt believe in it, like Rommel its what he fought for), W.Scott fought an unprovoked imprealist war and defeated a 5th rate Mexican army, theres a reason he never lost a battle.  

In short, keep the discussion to specific battles and wars, and keep the macro scale strategy and politics out of it, because those points ussualy lie outside of a "general" as such.  So you can say Napoleon was a great general, but a bad emperor, which is probably closer to the truth than judging him as a general based on Spain where his mistake was Jerome rather than any battle.

 Dude you said everything I was thinking perfectly. Great post.

 -Wind

[Nevyen]

Meh bought the troops with money, inspired them to loot and rape and pillage.

Ill concede based on that assesment, but I think wellington, fredrick the great, davout,  gustav aldolphous where greater men than napoleon in allot of ways, and unfortunatly i feel history has clouded the true nature of the man and made him rosier than he should be.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Meh bought the troops with money, inspired them to loot and rape and pillage.

Ill concede based on that assesment, but I think wellington, fredrick the great, davout,  gustav aldolphous where greater men than napoleon in allot of ways, and unfortunatly i feel history has clouded the true nature of the man and made him rosier than he should be.

 Well firstly, no one here is saying he was a great man. We said he was a great general. The two are not the same thing. You seem to dislike Napoleon on a personal level, and frankly I agree with you, but I don't think we can let that affect our analysis of his military prowess as a general.

 Also, it's not accurate to say Napoleon's troops were "bought with money". On quite the contrary, they loved him ferociously. This was largely because he knew so well how to manipulate those who followed him, and he went out of his way to instill their zeal.

 He would frequently walk amongst his troops, talk with them, laugh with them, share their stories and even let them share pinches from his snuffbox. They would call him their "little corporal" or "mon empereur!" and valued his life above all others. In one battle, his "Imperial Guard" refused to advance until he moved to a more secure location. The Duke of Wellington was quoted as saying that Napoleon's presence on the battlefield alone was worth "40,000 troops". In Italy, in Egypt, in Austria and in Russia they showed time and time again that they were willing to die for him - the tragedy was they all too often did.
 
 He also had a near photographic memory. When he would walk through the camp in plain clothes he would make a point to seek out the old timers, and he could rattle off the names of every regiment in his army, its location, latest orders, strength, and commanding officers as if reading it off a page in front of him.

 Perhaps one of his greatest assets as a military leader, though, was the way he won his soldiers hearts and minds.

  As Albert Marrin put it in his biography of Napoleon:

"You were with me in Egypt" he'd say to another [soldier] "how many campaigns? How many wounds?" The man would stand before him ramrod straight, chin in, chest out, smiling from eat to ear. His favorite compliment was to grab a man's earlobe and give it a hard pinch. Anyone pinched by the emperor felt himself grow ten feet tall in front of his envious comrades.

 Napoleon listened to soldier's complaints - and saw that they were taken care of promptly. A soldier once stepped from the ranks during a review. His mother was sick and he needed a few weeks' leave. The emperor instantly produced a fistful of gold coins and told him to get going. Then there was a time where he found an exhausted sentry asleep at his post. Another general would have had him shot; he stood guard in his place.

This continues for a while, so I skipped to the conclusion of this particular train of thought

 Napoleon, however, cared little for his soldiers' lives. If he was kind to them, it was for the same reason that a farmer cares for his oxen: to make them serve him better. But he didn't love them. Like anyone else in his empire, soldiers were merely tools to be used - and used up - in achieving his aims. "Troops" he explained, "are made to let themselves be killed". He used to refer to draftees as "income" of which he "spent" a certain number each month".
 - Taken from page 140-142


 Make no mistake about it, Napoleon despised even his own soldiers, but he knew how to play them and he played them well. It is the reason he the "100 days" happened, and the reason he spent the rest of his life heavily guarded on St. helena with his guards having orders to shoot him at the first sign of a rescue attempt or an invasion. Today we know the real Napoleon was motivated only by power and ambition, but back then he meant far more to his men and his country than simply a ruler. He was purpose, pride, and protector.

 As for history making him "rosier than he should be", I would have to beg to differ here aswell. The overwhelming majority of historical interpretations of Napoleon that i've encountered don't try to make Napoleon seem "rosy" because to do so would completely contradict everything that is known about him from primary sources and accounts. The important difference here is that saying he was a great general is not the same as fondly recalling him, nor is it ignoring his many tremendous faults. He was, unequivocally, unquestionably, among the greatest military minds that ever lived, and yet just isn't the same as celebrating him as a wonderful person. Hitler was one of the most effective orators the world has ever seen, after all, but saying that isn't the same as celebrating him.

 -Wind

[Malevolence]

I liken his abilities to Hitler, amazing leader, mediocre commander.

...


I-


...

Hitler-


....


....


Can I have some of that?

[AmPM]

It's true Mal, in many ways they are quite similar in capability.

[Nevyen]

I think wind that in all honesty if i could take the time to quote line and verse we could engage in a very interesting conversation about the pro's and cons of napoleons virtue, and what troops really cared about, and what they loved him for.

Give me some time to reaquant myself with the evidence and i think we can engage in that debate.