This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Who do you think is the best military commander ever?
- Brighton College, Wellington, Oundle and Roedean Sixth form
- British food hurt/heal game!
- Sixth Form/ IB options
- Newcastle university accommodation
- Wellington College Fourth Form
- 1st year Med Student Acco - Request a recommendation
- would we say wellington or westminster is better?
- Hi from New Zealand!
- What are your Christmas Eve traditions?
- The unpopular K-pop opinions thread
- Wellington college 16+
- Newcastle Uni Accommodation: Wellington St Plaza vs Newgate Court
- How many Sixth Forms should I go for?
- Wellington Lodge Waterloo
- How to travel from Slough Bus Station to Royal Holloway University?
- Wellington Lodge on Waterloo Road
- Swapping Wellington Lodge for Hayloft Point Ensuite
- Wellington School IB
- Wellington College 13+ Waiting List
Wellington: an overrated general?
The Duke of Wellington "The Bugger that Whopped the French", "The Duke", "Old Nosey" – whatever we call him – is undoubtedly worthy of a place in Britain's Martial Pantheon; an exalted place too. But, Old Arthur was no Marlborough in my opinion, and certainly not Napoleon's equal as a general, though no doubt among the best of the age (as he so modestly noted). You see, I personally think the Duke of Wellington was and is overrated by his acolytes. It is a typically British thing to do (well, which other nation would portray a retreat as at Dunkirk, as a victory?). Even if we exclude his deficient character - not the paragon of Victorian gentlemanliness that is so often assumed by those whose perception of him is illuminated only by passing acquaintance with the name - one can find a great many martial faults we might pin to his general’s coat, amid the many honours he was awarded.
1. Waterloo made his name, but in my opinion, that was a battle Napoleon lost, not one that Wellington and the Allies won. His strategy for it was simple; Wellington did not manoeuvre at all, perched in a more or less unassailable position, he merely sat there until Blucher came to his aid
2. Wellington's sieges were always "desperately near run" things, and he failed on more than one occasion to successfully take important positions by siege. Those that were taken, were always taken at immense cost: Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz are important examples.
3. Strategically, Wellington very seldom ever did much damage, and, indeed, in the Iberian war the only time he outmanoeuvred his opponents strategically, was during the 1813-14 campaign, when his French opponents were already severely weakened by the increasing strain of the Napoleon's 1813 campaign. In short, Wellington eventually won this war in a theatre that had more or less been written off. Again, Wellington’s success in Spain and Portugal owes much to the difficulties faced by his opponents, fighting as they were, in a sideshow theatre. On the continent, I very much doubt that Wellington would have stood much of a chance against the marshals he so often trounced in the Peninsular – Soult, Marmont, and certainly not Davout (of course, he never faced the last of these names in the Peninsular, but what a misfortune that history withheld such a confrontation!)
4. Post-battle pursuit was a glaring blemish on Wellington's usually coruscating victories. One wonders why he never successfully followed up his victories by successful pursuit (this was also a failing of Montgomery - victor of El Alamein - 150 years later. Could it have been for the same reason?) I would suggest incompetence on his part, and of course the desire to prevent a possibility of reversal, were significant reasons for this failing. Like Montgomery too, Wellington had little experience commanding large bodies of troops, and this immediately makes it questionable to compare him directly with Napoleon’s finest.
To compare him to Marlborough, Caesar or Napoleon is sacrilege in my opinion. For all these commanders were strategic geniuses, masters of manoeuvre and, unlike Wellington, frequently commanded huge numbers in “mainstream” theatres. Wellington was none of these. In terms of battles won however, Wellington’s record speaks for itself: he never lost a battle. If the good general is he who makes fewest mistakes, and loses the least battles, Wellington is he. But this success was as much due to the weaknesses of his foes, as the need for his French opponents to fight battles on ground of his choosing, not theirs (a consequence of the kind of war they were fighting, not of any superior martial skill on Wellington’s part). In light of this, I would be hard-pressed to crown Wellington with the same wreath that would be owed to Caesar, Napoleon, or Marlborough. So I ask any military history enthusiasts: would you agree that Wellington is overrated as a general?
1. Waterloo made his name, but in my opinion, that was a battle Napoleon lost, not one that Wellington and the Allies won. His strategy for it was simple; Wellington did not manoeuvre at all, perched in a more or less unassailable position, he merely sat there until Blucher came to his aid
2. Wellington's sieges were always "desperately near run" things, and he failed on more than one occasion to successfully take important positions by siege. Those that were taken, were always taken at immense cost: Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz are important examples.
3. Strategically, Wellington very seldom ever did much damage, and, indeed, in the Iberian war the only time he outmanoeuvred his opponents strategically, was during the 1813-14 campaign, when his French opponents were already severely weakened by the increasing strain of the Napoleon's 1813 campaign. In short, Wellington eventually won this war in a theatre that had more or less been written off. Again, Wellington’s success in Spain and Portugal owes much to the difficulties faced by his opponents, fighting as they were, in a sideshow theatre. On the continent, I very much doubt that Wellington would have stood much of a chance against the marshals he so often trounced in the Peninsular – Soult, Marmont, and certainly not Davout (of course, he never faced the last of these names in the Peninsular, but what a misfortune that history withheld such a confrontation!)
4. Post-battle pursuit was a glaring blemish on Wellington's usually coruscating victories. One wonders why he never successfully followed up his victories by successful pursuit (this was also a failing of Montgomery - victor of El Alamein - 150 years later. Could it have been for the same reason?) I would suggest incompetence on his part, and of course the desire to prevent a possibility of reversal, were significant reasons for this failing. Like Montgomery too, Wellington had little experience commanding large bodies of troops, and this immediately makes it questionable to compare him directly with Napoleon’s finest.
To compare him to Marlborough, Caesar or Napoleon is sacrilege in my opinion. For all these commanders were strategic geniuses, masters of manoeuvre and, unlike Wellington, frequently commanded huge numbers in “mainstream” theatres. Wellington was none of these. In terms of battles won however, Wellington’s record speaks for itself: he never lost a battle. If the good general is he who makes fewest mistakes, and loses the least battles, Wellington is he. But this success was as much due to the weaknesses of his foes, as the need for his French opponents to fight battles on ground of his choosing, not theirs (a consequence of the kind of war they were fighting, not of any superior martial skill on Wellington’s part). In light of this, I would be hard-pressed to crown Wellington with the same wreath that would be owed to Caesar, Napoleon, or Marlborough. So I ask any military history enthusiasts: would you agree that Wellington is overrated as a general?
Can Wellington truly be described as Victorian? Hardly. He was born in 1769 and died in 1852 whereas Victoria wasn't born until 50 years later (1819) and didn't ascend until 1837. OK, he lived for 15 years after Victoria took the throne but he retired in 1846 so wasn't really of the Victorian era.
Giliwoo
1. Waterloo made his name, but in my opinion, that was a battle Napoleon lost, not one that Wellington and the Allies won. His strategy for it was simple; Wellington did not manoeuvre at all, perched in a more or less unassailable position, he merely sat there until Blucher came to his aid
1. Waterloo made his name, but in my opinion, that was a battle Napoleon lost, not one that Wellington and the Allies won. His strategy for it was simple; Wellington did not manoeuvre at all, perched in a more or less unassailable position, he merely sat there until Blucher came to his aid
I disagree. Wellington was famed well before then for his exploits in India and Waterloo was merely the fat lady singing at the end of a heroic six year British push which drove the French all the way from Lisbon back up their own arses.
Howard
Can Wellington truly be described as Victorian? Hardly. He was born in 1769 and died in 1852 whereas Victoria wasn't born until 50 years later (1819) and didn't ascend until 1837. OK, he lived for 15 years after Victoria took the throne but Wellington wasn't really of the Victorian era.
I'm not sure I described him as such. I made reference to the inaccurate portrayal of him, as seen through the mythical edifice that was conjured during the Victorian Era. In any case, Wellington was old enough to have been a personal acquaintance of the young Queen. But I am not sure I said he was "Victorian" perforce.
Howard
I disagree. Wellington was famed well before then for his exploits in India and Waterloo was merely the fat lady singing at the end of a heroic six year British push which drove the French all the way from Lisbon back up their own arses.
Most British people know him for Waterloo (itself an "allied" rather than a British, or Wellingtonian victory). So I meant more accurately to say "Waterloo cast his name in Iron" (no pun intended), where once it merely seethed in the frothing smithy of public opinion, Waterloo hammered his name in history. The reason for this is important: Waterloo was perhaps his only campaign to yield any truly European-wide ramifications. As for India, interestingly, this was a part of his career that was not looked upon with any great interest by the general public, until after he became famous. "Indian" commanders were in general regarded with unjust prejudice as “mere” “Sepoy generals” (to use Napoleon’s derisive epithet) and never considered anything much to behold at Horse Guards and in society at large.
Giliwoo
Most British people know him for Waterloo (itself an "allied" rather than a British, or Wellingtonian victory). So I meant more accurately to say "Waterloo cast his name in Iron" (no pun intended), where once it merely seethed in the frothing smithy of public opinion, Waterloo hammered his name in history. The reason for this is important: Waterloo was perhaps his only campaign to yield any truly European-wide ramifications. As for India, interestingly, this was a part of his career that was not looked upon with any great interest by the general public, until after he became famous. "Indian" commanders were in general regarded with unjust prejudice as “mere” “Sepoy generals” (to use Napoleon’s derisive epithet) and never considered anything much to behold at Horse Guards and in society at large.
Have you visited the battlefield at Waterloo? Quite interesting.
Howard
Have you visited the battlefield at Waterloo? Quite interesting.
Something I've always wanted to do (no, really). I have a very sound knowledge of its lie though, and although I can commend Wellington on such a well used position, I can well appreciate why it was so difficult for Napoleon to successfully displace him thence. I am aware that occasionally one still finds the odd shot and shell. Added now to my gap year "to do" list.
It would be extraordinary to visit the sites of some of his or Napoleon's major battles.Giliwoo
Something I've always wanted to do (no, really). I have a very sound knowledge of its lie though, and although I can commend Wellington on such a well used position, I can well appreciate why it was so difficult for Napoleon to successfully displace him thence. I am aware that occasionally one still finds the odd shot and shell. Added now to my gap year "to do" list. It would be extraordinary to visit the sites of some of his or Napoleon's major battles.
It would be extraordinary to visit the sites of some of his or Napoleon's major battles.My dad is a history nut and used to drag me all over the place when I was a lad to look at this or that battle site! It certainly adds something to the whole experience imo - you can read about it in a history book (and enjoy Sharpe movies!) but you get a better appreciation by seeing it first hand and almost smelling the gunpowder!
Fantastic! History rawks, especially military history. By the by, Assaye, Salamanca and San Sebastian are truly spectacular. They were on par with any of history's finest battles I would say. As long as their example stands, I could never completely denigrate Wellington as a soldier, even if I wanted to. Anyway, must dash.
Giliwoo
Fantastic! History rawks, especially military history. By the by, Assaye, Salamanca and San Sebastian are truly spectacular. They were on par with any of history's finest battles I would say. As long as their example stands, I could never completely denigrate Wellington as a soldier, even if I wanted to. Anyway, must dash.
My dad's a WWI buff and I can't tell you how many times I've been on tours of trenches, war cemetaries, or how many times I've seen the Menin Gate!!
Howard i envy you id love to see some of the things you have.
if i correctly rememebr king george was on the throne of england at the time of the napoleonic war not victoria.
The fact that Wellington by your own admission never lost a battle should surely speak volumes in itself.
Also dont forget what Wellington commanded the british red coat army, they were better disciplened than any other, the british square formation which easily converted to line to face cavalry was the bane and terror of many armies including the american army in the early years of thier war with the empire.
By the time of Waterloo after Wellingtons push through Portugal and Spain the glories of Naploleoan ahd faded into dust, Wellington forced the french armies back through three countries.
Wellington may not have believed/used in the subtler stratedgies of war that other generals did, he used the birtish army the way it was meant to be used like a hammer bludgening his way forward, relying on the supurb disciple of the red coats to win the day.
Either way it worked
if i correctly rememebr king george was on the throne of england at the time of the napoleonic war not victoria.
The fact that Wellington by your own admission never lost a battle should surely speak volumes in itself.
Also dont forget what Wellington commanded the british red coat army, they were better disciplened than any other, the british square formation which easily converted to line to face cavalry was the bane and terror of many armies including the american army in the early years of thier war with the empire.
By the time of Waterloo after Wellingtons push through Portugal and Spain the glories of Naploleoan ahd faded into dust, Wellington forced the french armies back through three countries.
Wellington may not have believed/used in the subtler stratedgies of war that other generals did, he used the birtish army the way it was meant to be used like a hammer bludgening his way forward, relying on the supurb disciple of the red coats to win the day.
Either way it worked
Cadre_Of_Storms
Howard i envy you id love to see some of the things you have.
if i correctly rememebr king george was on the throne of england at the time of the napoleonic war not victoria.
The fact that Wellington by your own admission never lost a battle should surely speak volumes in itself.
Also dont forget what Wellington commanded the british red coat army, they were better disciplened than any other, the british square formation which easily converted to line to face cavalry was the bane and terror of many armies including the american army in the early years of thier war with the empire.
By the time of Waterloo after Wellingtons push through Portugal and Spain the glories of Naploleoan ahd faded into dust, Wellington forced the french armies back through three countries.
Wellington may not have believed/used in the subtler stratedgies of war that other generals did, he used the birtish army the way it was meant to be used like a hammer bludgening his way forward, relying on the supurb disciple of the red coats to win the day.
Either way it worked
if i correctly rememebr king george was on the throne of england at the time of the napoleonic war not victoria.
The fact that Wellington by your own admission never lost a battle should surely speak volumes in itself.
Also dont forget what Wellington commanded the british red coat army, they were better disciplened than any other, the british square formation which easily converted to line to face cavalry was the bane and terror of many armies including the american army in the early years of thier war with the empire.
By the time of Waterloo after Wellingtons push through Portugal and Spain the glories of Naploleoan ahd faded into dust, Wellington forced the french armies back through three countries.
Wellington may not have believed/used in the subtler stratedgies of war that other generals did, he used the birtish army the way it was meant to be used like a hammer bludgening his way forward, relying on the supurb disciple of the red coats to win the day.
Either way it worked
Yes, King George was on the throne at the time.....
"Here's forty shillings on the drum
For those who'll volunteer to come
To 'list and fight the foe today
Over the hills and far away.
O'er the hills and o'er the main
Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain
King George commands and we obey
Over the hills and far away"
I wouldn't envy me btw. My best years are behind me and I've wasted most of my talents and pissed half my life against the wall. There's a lot less to me than meets the eye: I'm basically a complete **** up who has massively under-achieved in almost every thing I've ever put my hand to.
But that's enough public self-flagellation for one day.Howard
Yes, King George was on the throne at the time.....
"Here's forty shillings on the drum
For those who'll volunteer to come
To 'list and fight the foe today
Over the hills and far away.
O'er the hills and o'er the main
Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain
King George commands and we obey
Over the hills and far away"
"Here's forty shillings on the drum
For those who'll volunteer to come
To 'list and fight the foe today
Over the hills and far away.
O'er the hills and o'er the main
Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain
King George commands and we obey
Over the hills and far away"
Sharpe is brilliant got every episode on DVD even the new one
Related discussions
- Who do you think is the best military commander ever?
- Brighton College, Wellington, Oundle and Roedean Sixth form
- British food hurt/heal game!
- Sixth Form/ IB options
- Newcastle university accommodation
- Wellington College Fourth Form
- 1st year Med Student Acco - Request a recommendation
- would we say wellington or westminster is better?
- Hi from New Zealand!
- What are your Christmas Eve traditions?
- The unpopular K-pop opinions thread
- Wellington college 16+
- Newcastle Uni Accommodation: Wellington St Plaza vs Newgate Court
- How many Sixth Forms should I go for?
- Wellington Lodge Waterloo
- How to travel from Slough Bus Station to Royal Holloway University?
- Wellington Lodge on Waterloo Road
- Swapping Wellington Lodge for Hayloft Point Ensuite
- Wellington School IB
- Wellington College 13+ Waiting List
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
Mums furious after photo firm offers to delete kids in wheelchairs from school pics
