Wellington vs Napoleon

Who was the better military commander? How do you compare two individual's military records? Is it even possible?

They were both the same really, just had different strengths. Wellington was great at defense and logistics, Napoleon was a master of attack and an inspirational leader. He also had the better generals to work with.

You can't really compare their records, they both made cock ups and they both won battles they should've lost.

How deep an answer do you want?

Reply 2

Izzyeviel

Bit of a myth that Wellington didn't have much flair. Off the top of my head the Battles of Assaye and Salamanca prove that.

True Napoleon had an off day at Waterloo, but he still should've won. His army was full of veterans whilst most of Wellingtons army from the Peninsular war had been dispersed around the empire. His army was a coalition of British, German, Hanoverian, Dutch and Belgian troops. The later two were once part of the French empire and there are questions about how committed they actually were to the cause.

Reply 3

FrogInABog

I'm going to stand up for Wellington a bit, because people rarely do!

I think there is a general underestimation of the skill that Wellington possessed. His Peninsular campaign was won using some very good military thinking, and his ability to defend was of the highest order. He also had some things that Napoleon lacked: he had a better understanding of the importance of military logistics and strong supply lines (something that was partly responsible for Napoleon's failure to hold Russia); he was a better disciplinarian (again, something that could not always be said of Napoleon's armies); his use of defensive tactics was often superior, such as his construction of the Torres Vedras earthworks (compared to Napoleon, who usually favoured offensive defence).

That is not to say that he was a better general; while his attacking ability is underestimated, and his ability to see and exploit weaknesses often overlooked, he lacked the level of offensive flair possessed by Napoleon. Nonetheless, his record was exemplary, and his ability is frequently passed over by people fawning over Boney! Bonaparte was undoubtedly one of the finest commanders in modern history, but the Iron Duke is up there too. It is difficult to compare the two properly, because their respective situations were very different, and probably impossible to give a proper judgement on who was "better".

N.b. The only time they ever directly faced each other was, I believe, at Waterloo, and we all know who won that one! Of course, this doesn't really mean anything, it's just an interesting point.

Reply 4

Michaelj

They were both very good generals. The thing people often fail to mention is the amount of manpower that Napoleon often had when fighting battles... His French army was massive! Wellesley had an army of about 20-30k because the British army didn't conscript troops in them days. Wellesley was more of a defensive guru while Napoleon was more of an offensive guru but Wellesley won many attacking battles... Why? Because he was gifted in attacks as well! There are many sieges and battles, such as Badajoz, Assaye etc which Wellesley took part of and won. The reason Wellesley needed so many troops from allies was because he was outnumbered. (but don't forget, a part of his allies didn't arrive until late)

Now, let's look at the soldiers. It's fair enough comparing officers but if the soldiers said, "you know what, sir, **** you", then Wellesley and Napoleon may have been meleeing each other instead. The British army had the best infantry in the world because they trained all the time, the British army despite have criminals and such had men with amazing mental power and the will to win. Napoleons army at the time didn't have such a great army, many of them newbies or no will to fight. Most of Napoelons army were conscripts don't forget.

It takes a good general to motivate his army. And let's be honest, Wellesley motivated his army with threats, praises and such. But Napoleon also had motivated his army, "vive l'emperur", he was a national hero. So what happened at Waterloo?

Basically, they're both on par IMO. With Napoleon having slightly more merit and hype than Wellesley.

Reply 5

Izzyeviel

Napoleon's troops during the Waterloo campaign were all veterans - It was Wellington's troops who were the 'greener'

Britain's soldiers at the time were the toughest, but were they the best? That's debatable.

Reply 6

The Marshall

I disagree. Napoleon's army of 1815 consisted mostly of his veteran core that had been disbanded in 1813. In the 1813 campaign of Napoleon's battles, most of his new recruits displayed impressive courage against the might of the coalition armies despite the fact that they were newly recruited or had been called up to join the young guard. I would say that most of his cavalry still surivied. Napoleon was by far the better general at Waterloo, you can see how he had overrun Wellington's army be taking Hugomont, La Haye Sainte and I can't remember the third one. There two reasons for which Napoleon lost the battle:

Napoleon didn't see Ney's charge against the British Squares until he was informed of it. Grouchy did not arrive at the battlefield as was requested, which would have made a turning point in the battle against the Prussians. The other thing was Blucher used the pincer movement in which Napoleon generally regarded himself an expert on it. Napoleon committed his best troops to be sacrificed while having to deal with the British at the same time. Result? The army will disband. Ney and Grouchy are mainly responsible for the loss of the battlefield.

In regards to British infantry, most of the veterans of the Peninsular campaign had gone off to America. Most of them were second rate line troops against Napoleon's infantry which had been fighting for around at least 10 years. To be honest, the morale of the British troops did not have any real significance until the Prussians arrived. What ponders in my mind is why didn't the Imperial Guard form squares against the Prussian cavalry That seems like complete idiocy.

Up to my point, had not the Prussians arrived at the right time, Napoleon would have been able to replenish his losses and use the Imperial Guard to smash the English infantry, for they would have been outnumbered, exhausted and demoralised. But going back to reality, when they arrived, Napoleon was forced to commit splitting his army up which resulted in the army's disintegration. Napoleon was still his best at Waterloo, I don't think he was weak or anything like that. The man's fought over 60 battles. That's a way def record of a experienced general.

Reply 7

The Grenadier

Napoleon did have a flair for the attack but armies are more than this, Napoleon's ignorance of logistics or for a contingency plan are where he falls down in 1812 and to a lesser extent in the Waterloo campaign.

Many brilliant field commanders have failed in the same area, Rommel in the western desert in WW2 being a modern example.

At Waterloo it can be argued that the Duke not Napoleon had the Hashed together army and Wellington's plan for the battle always included mutual support from the Prussians or vice versa if the later were attacked.

In comparison to the Emperor's victories Wellington's may seem modest but it is interesting to note who lost more battles/campaigns and who fought the offensive battle with the biggest numerical disadvantage and won (assaye).

Napoleon was probably one of the greatest commanders ever the legend was forged much by himself in his final years on St Helena.

This apparent Napoleon worship has been taken up by many and has belittled to some extent the Duke's fine achievement's if Wellingtons peninsular army had fought this battle there may well have been an end for the French Army even earlier.

Reply 8

Jjj90

Napoleon easily; he took a tattered, worn down army in Italy and turned them into a machine. He revolutionized warfare, before Napoleon it was all about pitched battles, rows of men walking slowly towards each other, then blowing each other to bits. But he harassed the Austrians constantly; from the left, from the right, in the rain, in the wind, the crusty old Austrians didn't know how to handle it. And he led from the front, like Nelson, he was in the heat of it, covered in dirt, musket balls whizzing over his head, they nicknamed him the 'Little Corporal' and they loved him, he motivated them, he ensured that they were paid, and they were happy. They wanted to fight for him.

Yes he lost it a bit later on. But in his prime he was a total genius. He had balls, he took an army to Egypt! He took an army to Russia! He had ultimate guts.

Nelson and Napoleon, now they are the two titanic figures of the era.

Reply 9

Rational Thinker

Original post by Michaelj

I agree with you on some things but wish to dispute the concept of Britain having the best infantry. The British certainly had the best navy at this time but army I think not. Until Crimea at the earlies,t the British army was completely ruled through privilege and corruption, Napoleon's army had been run thin through the Russian winter and the Peninsula war but the system remained relatively meritocratic. I think the secret to Waterloo was the Prussian involvement. Prussia had been defeated but certainly not decimated by Napoleon and now they were preparing to strike. Prussia went on to have arguably the greatest army in the world later on, perhaps the seeds of its greatness were apparent at Waterloo?

Reply 10

Rational Thinker

Original post by Jjj90

Taking an army to Russia is a sign of naivety rather than genius, speaking of the Russian campaign I wonder how the soldiers he left in Russia must have felt when they realised their dear leader had escaped back to Paris in a fur lined sleigh hardly "mucking in" is it? Furthermore, let us not forget than Napoleon was totally ignorant of naval warfare a decision that cost him dearly.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 11

Jjj90

Original post by Rational Thinker

Taking an army to Russia is a sign of naivety rather than genius. Let us not forget than Napoleon was totally ignorant of naval warfare a decision that cost him dearly.

I was praising his guts in that instance. Yes, he made mistakes, but that doesn't nullify everything.

Reply 12

Rational Thinker

Original post by Jjj90

I was praising his guts in that instance. Yes, he made mistakes, but that doesn't nullify everything.

I have added more detail in my original post to you concerning some of Napoleon's flaws. I am not attempting to "nullify" anything let alone everything, merely providing constructive criticism. He seems to have had feet of clay, let us remember that Napoleon only seized power because of his brother ingenuity. Napoleon was a good commander in a narrow sense, competent with standard land tactics but when these became guerilla or worse naval he became ineffectual. That being said Wellington was a rather narrow individual as well. When I think great commander it is Cromwell, the Duke of Marlborough or General Von Moltke that springs to mind rather than either of these two,

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 13

Jjj90

Original post by Rational Thinker

But he felt he needed to be back in Paris. A year ago I would have been much better placed to discus it really, I read 1812 by Adam Zamoyski (I may have gotten his name wrong), a great book.

Reply 14

Rational Thinker

Original post by Jjj90

But he felt he needed to be back in Paris. A year ago I would have been much better placed to discus it really, I read 1812 by Adam Zamoyski (I may have gotten his name wrong), a great book.

He abandoned them it is reasonably clear cut. Napoleon was great at rallying and his army was relatively meritocratic for the standards of the time, but I am not convinced that he was this awesome leader. Cromwell, Moltke and the Duke of Marlborough all are better nominees perhaps or Zhukov if you're gazing into the 20th century. I will enquire into Zamoyski's 1812.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 15

Fezzick123

Napoleon contributed more to the development of military doctrine and theory than Wellington did: he revolutionised the use of artillery on the battlefield and he broke the rigid tactics of the 18th century . He was certainly a more imaginative and ambitious general than Wellington was.

However, Wellington knew what he was doing. His work in India (Assaye, check it out, he said it was his greatest victory) and in the Peninsula demonstrate that he was not just the rigid defensive commander he is often made out to be. He only chose to use defensive tactics at Waterloo because he knew that he was outnumbered, outgunned and up against the master of offensive warfare. The British infantry were also very good, and Wellington knew that their excellent musket drill would best be put to use in a defensive battle.

As for the issue of Napoleon and his army at Waterloo, the grand armee was not the same polished, disciplined army that had fought at Austerlitz, but it was still a formidable fighting force. However, it is worth noting that the French cavalry had been run into the ground after years of fighting, and the British cavalry possessed superior horses, not that it made much difference as both sides lost the majority of their cavalry in their first charges. Napoleon was certainly not on form at Waterloo, he did not attempt to outmanoeuvre the British in the way that he had the Russians at Austerlitz. Still, it was Ney that led the fruitless cavalry charge up the slope.

Reply 16

bathugeo

I think you under estimate Wellington's innovations, many of which survive to this day. More impressive still, these were generally developed on the hoof and Wellington learned from his errors in a way that the French never seemed to. In India Wellington led the first army that didn't deliberately reward its soldiers with raping the local women, that was self-sufficient and didn't live of the land by stealing. He wasn't always totally successful in this and British officers who tried to stop rape and pillage were often killed by their own men. Generally, however, he enforced this discipline. He thus co-opted the locals in a way that had never been done before and used this tactic to even greater effect in the Peninsula.The second innovation was to develop a counter-measure to the French column by realising that it wasn't really as effective as it looked, that most battles against the French were lost before they started, on the strength of Napoleon's PR as much as anything else, and that if troops could be trained to stand fast and fire rapidly then the line almost always beat the column. He augmented this with hiding his men behind reverse slopes, again a new tactic which effectively answered French artillery.Thirdly, he developed the use of rifles from an oddity (compared to muskets) to a battle winning tool, not just as skirmishers but as the pre-eminent force of the infantry. After Napoleon's first surrender, the veterans Wellington led in the Peninsular War were sent to the war in America, where they walked all over the USA forces until they begged for mercy. The way the Canadian border dips down and into the east coast of the USA is a lasting testament to Wellington's tactics even though he never set foot there.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 17

ageshallnot

Original post by bathugeo

Thirdly, he developed the use of rifles from an oddity (compared to muskets) to a battle winning formation, not just as skirmishers but as the pre-eminent force of the infantry.

Could you clarify this?

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 18

tpizent

Original post by Michaelj

Napoleon was heavily outnumbered in most of his battles. At Waterloo, Napoleon had 71000 soldiers and Wellesley had 68000. And don't forget that Napoleon was destroying Wellesley's army until Blucher came with 50000 soldiers. If we sum it up, Napoleon had 71000 soldiers to 118000 Coalition's. So basically, he was more than heavily outnumbered. Also don't forget that Blucher wouldn't come in time if there was no rain a few days before the battle, so Napoleon couldn't move his cannons. Also, Grouchy didn't come with 33000 men. So obviously, Napoleon was much better general than Wellesley. I could count 15 Napoleon's generals who were all better than Wellesley.