RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message

Sardonic -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/19/2006 8:25:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

In my opinion, which marshall of France was where is academic. The condition of the ground at Waterloo dictated what Nappy was able to do.
Warfare of the time demanded the ability to maneuver. When your 12 pound napoleon cannon are up to their hubs in mud, it is hard to get them where you need them quickly!
A typical method used to dislodge infantry was to threaten with calvery. This would force the infantry into square formations making them easy targets for cannon and cut their effective firepower to 1/4th of its normal capacity which made them also vulnerable to your infantry.
But, if you can't move your cannon, it is hard to make this work.
So, due to feild conditions, all Nappy could do was a frontal assault. The typical way French infantry of the time would attack is to from into assault columns. These were typically about eight to ten men wide at the front and 100 ranks deep (one reg.). This formation would then move toward the enemy. It was an easy formation for new recruits to form up in but, did not have a lot of firepower it could deliver. (Only 8 to 10 men in the front).
By the time of Waterloo, the British knew how to stop these columns. Form their typical three rank firing line, use platoon fire and blast the columns apart. Plus the British infantry had the nasty habbit of not breaking like other armies of the time did.
The battle was won by determined soldiers on the ground! not the senior officers



Well yes and no. One minor point. The Brits never used a three rank line. Just so you know.



malcolm_mccallum -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/19/2006 8:41:25 AM)

I disagree completely. French soldiers were perfectly capable of defeating British and Dutch/Belgian soldiers. D'Erlon's Corps beat their opposing infantry. Had it not been for the British cavalry hitting while the French had no cavalry close support, the British left may have collapsed on schedule. The real problem was the hedges and and ridge line that prevented the French from expecting British cavalry then and there.

The Guns and Mud was a non-issue. They did exactly what they were supposed to do (pin and unsettle the British center while the French right advanced). I'll go back to Jena and bring up the anecdote of Napoleon up in the middle of the night helping artillery up the steep slopes and into position. If the commander really wanted that battle starting early he'd have made it start early. No, he was hoping that the British wouldn't be there in the morning and made no effort to win the battle.

D'Erlon's formation on the morning of Waterloo was unique. It was absolutely abnormal to attack like that and it was, in fact, starting to deploy into line when the cavalry hit it. It came very close to succeeding and no doubt the sudden collapse that it suffered was due to the set up. Had they deployed traditionally and settled in for a long fight, they might have won the ridgeline over the course of the day but they gambled on this narrow frontage wish some unknown intent.

Personally, having studied and refought the battle numerous times, I think he was hoping to overwhelm the seemingly lightly held Allied left to get an early and lopside win of little tactical or strategic significance but of great morale significance. Napoleon wanted an early first goal and extended himself to get it. He really didn't want to fight that battle and thought that if he made that sudden success on the flank the British would do what Wellington always did when his position was turned...fall back to another position.
Napoleon, because he was not in the mood to fight and knew his destiny had turned, had absolutely no plan beyond that initial attack. After that his only order was effectively "..whatever..." with a dismissive hand gesture.





Paper Tiger -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/19/2006 5:03:08 PM)

The British were only part of Wellingtons army, a lot of it was made up of "Allied" troops who were not of the same standard. Wellington did well in picking his ground and using it. Had the french broken through at the end of the day the Allies would still have had a good chance of being able to retreat in good order and Napoleon would still have been looking over his shoulder for the Prussians.
To me Wellington was the better general, he didn't mess about, he just won battles, won campaigns and won wars.
(Not much cop as a politician though)



ktotwf -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/19/2006 7:38:06 PM)

Wellington as the better general? Please.

He's the most overhyped General of the Napoleonic Wars. He was better than average, but not much more than that. And, what most people seem to forget was, he was only a little while away from losing Waterloo if not for the Prussian army arriving.



morvwilson -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/19/2006 7:52:38 PM)

As to Sardonic, The Brits did use a three rank firing line and they packed their men in tighter than anyone else giving them more firepower. They were also the only army that did live fire exercises. And they did these things as early as the French Indian war in the 1750's.
As to Malcom, you are right the french soldier was capable of defeating the GB's. Wellington himself said "Give me night or give me Blucher" A man who is winning a fight would not say this! The GB's had the classic GB problem, excellent troops but too few of them. The french were grinding them down at Waterloo and the timely arrival of Blucher is what saved the GB's.

Personally, I think that British generals have been overrated over the years. Just look at Monty!



ASHBERY76 -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/19/2006 8:04:10 PM)

I always laugh when passions for ones heroes overcloud the reality of the facts.

Wellington>French army.
Wellington>Napoleon.

Case closed.



ktotwf -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/19/2006 8:25:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

I always laugh when passions for ones heroes overcloud the reality of the facts.

Wellington>French army.
Wellington>Napoleon.

Case closed.


What? Absolutely not.

I have no passion for anything other than clear history. Seeing that you are from England, I can only assume your ignorant statements are your own form of hero worship.

Wellington was simply an above average General with a well disciplined army, who won some battles in a minor theater of war.

The French army was a massive force that conquered most of Europe, and Napoleon was the general that led them there.

To compare Napoleon or the French Army unfavorably to Wellington, especially since ever since Waterloo there has been a veritable British conspiracy to overstate Wellington and the British Army's importance to the Napoleonic Wars is absurd, and quite honestly simplistic thinking that I wouldn't expect on a site like this.

Wellington would have lost Waterloo without the Prussians. Considering he was up against equal numbers with great defensive terrain, I say that means nothing but mediocrity. And I say THAT is case closed.



Feralkoala -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/19/2006 8:56:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

I always laugh when passions for ones heroes overcloud the reality of the facts.

Wellington>French army.
Wellington>Napoleon.

Case closed.


What? Absolutely not.

I have no passion for anything other than clear history. Seeing that you are from England, I can only assume your ignorant statements are your own form of hero worship.

Wellington was simply an above average General with a well disciplined army, who won some battles in a minor theater of war.

The French army was a massive force that conquered most of Europe, and Napoleon was the general that led them there.

To compare Napoleon or the French Army unfavorably to Wellington, especially since ever since Waterloo there has been a veritable British conspiracy to overstate Wellington and the British Army's importance to the Napoleonic Wars is absurd, and quite honestly simplistic thinking that I wouldn't expect on a site like this.

Wellington would have lost Waterloo without the Prussians. Considering he was up against equal numbers with great defensive terrain, I say that means nothing but mediocrity. And I say THAT is case closed.


Napoleon did almost win Waterloo--but the reasons he lost were direct consequences of his decisions. In particular, his strategy of the central position lends itself to brilliant operational maneuvering but (as it did in 1813 and 1814) does not lend itself to decisive battles that end the campaign in his favor. Dresden in 1813 for example, was a French victory....but not a decisive one. In fact, given how badly botched the pursuit was (ending with the surrender of Vandamme's corps at Kulm), one could certainly argue that it was at best a draw. In 1814, the continual pressure of the Allied armies meant that Napoleon could not follow-up his battlefield victories. They were glorious fights and reminiscent of Napoleon at his best...but he lost operationally and strategically.

When you say you prefer clear history....but having previously described Borodino as a French strategic victory, one does have to wonder at your bias. Occupying Moscow was an empty triumph--precisely because it did not bring the Russians to the negotiating table. When the French began their retreat, Napoleon even refused battle with Kutosov so instead had to lead his army across the same barren land his army had picked clean in the summer. If Napoleon was not ultimately responsible for the tragedy of his Russian invasion, who was? The same can be said of the campaigns of 1813, 1814, and 1815. He was clearly still respected for his battlefield prowess but, by then, that was simply not enough.




ktotwf -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/19/2006 9:12:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feralkoala
Napoleon did almost win Waterloo--but the reasons he lost were direct consequences of his decisions. In particular, his strategy of the central position lends itself to brilliant operational maneuvering but (as it did in 1813 and 1814) does not lend itself to decisive battles that end the campaign in his favor. Dresden in 1813 for example, was a French victory....but not a decisive one. In fact, given how badly botched the pursuit was (ending with the surrender of Vandamme's corps at Kulm), one could certainly argue that it was at best a draw. In 1814, the continual pressure of the Allied armies meant that Napoleon could not follow-up his battlefield victories. They were glorious fights and reminiscent of Napoleon at his best...but he lost operationally and strategically.


I'd have to bow out about Waterloo - I am not intimately familiar with the tactical proceedings - so I really can't comment.

Other than that you basically agreed with everything I said almost to the letter.

quote:

When you say you prefer clear history....but having previously described Borodino as a French strategic victory, one does have to wonder at your bias. Occupying Moscow was an empty triumph--precisely because it did not bring the Russians to the negotiating table. When the French began their retreat, Napoleon even refused battle with Kutosov so instead had to lead his army across the same barren land his army had picked clean in the summer. If Napoleon was not ultimately responsible for the tragedy of his Russian invasion, who was? The same can be said of the campaigns of 1813, 1814, and 1815. He was clearly still respected for his battlefield prowess but, by then, that was simply not enough.


You obviously really didn't bother to read what I wrote.

I wrote that Borodino was a bloody, unimaginative assault for the express purpose of pinning and destroying the Russian army. At the end of the day, the Russians retreated, and abandoned Moscow to Napoleon. So, yes, it was a "strategic victory." Ultimately, only hindsight shows that the failure to bring Russia to peace made Borodino and the resultant occupation of Moscow useless - at the time Napoleon reasonably thought (and there was pressure for the Tsar to make peace) that he had secured a victory. The only reason things went poorly after that was a renegade Russian criminal who burnt down the city (not on the orders of the Government) which made Winter Quarters there untenable.

I never said Napoleon wasn't responsible for the failures - in fact I said the exact opposite.

I agreed with almost everything you said word for word... So if you could please stop putting strange characterizations on my arguments, I would be appreciative of it.



morvwilson -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/19/2006 9:19:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

I always laugh when passions for ones heroes overcloud the reality of the facts.

Wellington>French army.
Wellington>Napoleon.

Case closed.

I am with ktotwf here. What makes Nappy significant to me is that he was the most recent French leader to actually win some wars! The next previous time I can think of when France won anything was during the time of Henry VII. And that was because the King of England was insane!
After Nappy I have a hard time coming up with a war they won with out major assistance from the USA. Their most famous unit, The French Foriegn Legion, lost to machete weilding Mexican peasants!
The British army in my opinion have never understood how to wage a war on a continental scale. Their performance in the world wars still reflected their strategy in the Napoleonic wars. Nibble around the edges and leave the major work to their allies.



ktotwf -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/19/2006 9:24:41 PM)

Well, the British are always willing to fight to the last Austrian/Russian/Prussian/Frenchman.



Joisey -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/19/2006 9:59:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson


quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

I always laugh when passions for ones heroes overcloud the reality of the facts.

Wellington>French army.
Wellington>Napoleon.

Case closed.

I am with ktotwf here. What makes Nappy significant to me is that he was the most recent French leader to actually win some wars! The next previous time I can think of when France won anything was during the time of Henry VII. And that was because the King of England was insane!
After Nappy I have a hard time coming up with a war they won with out major assistance from the USA. Their most famous unit, The French Foriegn Legion, lost to machete weilding Mexican peasants!
The British army in my opinion have never understood how to wage a war on a continental scale. Their performance in the world wars still reflected their strategy in the Napoleonic wars. Nibble around the edges and leave the major work to their allies.



I have to agree with this. While the French won WWI, it was not due to French generalship but to the bravery, courage, and honor of the French rank and file soldiers (The Battle of the Somme comes to mind). Such were the losses incurred by the French during WWI, it appears that such traits were literally bled out of the French gene pool since.



morvwilson -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/19/2006 10:32:34 PM)

No doubt! look at how much use the French have been recently!



Murat -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/20/2006 1:12:15 AM)

The French have not won a war since Nappy. I mean little MEXICO kicked out the French, c'mon.



morvwilson -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/20/2006 1:44:12 AM)

It is interesting to me that when you read about other armies and their famous units, they are stories about victory.

With the French Foriegn Legion, the stories are all defeats!



sol_invictus -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/20/2006 2:38:38 AM)

My opinion is that the health of Napoleon prevented him form controlling the battle as he had in the past and would have at Waterloo if able. Of course we can go round and round over the many factors that led to Napoleon's defeat, but in the end, Napoleon must be responsible for his own defeat, for whatever reason. I think it is interesting to compare the degree of personl leadership between a healthy and active Wellington and a Napoleon who was ill and unengaged for a good portion of the battle.



Murat -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/20/2006 5:26:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

Well, the British are always willing to fight to the last Austrian/Russian/Prussian/Frenchman.


ROFL



Ursa MAior -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/20/2006 6:43:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

I always laugh when passions for ones heroes overcloud the reality of the facts.

Wellington>French army.
Wellington>Napoleon.

Case closed.


This is one of the typical posts that need not to be commented.



malcolm_mccallum -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/20/2006 7:43:51 PM)

My best argument for why Wellington is a bad general?

Its not becasue he only ever fought defensive battles on good terrain and always fell back if the situation was not winnable by a static defense. No, that's just a prudent, unimaginitive methodology and it can be very successful. He shouldn't be raised up on a pedestle for this anymore than he should be denegrated for it.

The case against Wellington is that in the Peninsula, he fought for five years where he outnumbered the available French forces, won most of the battles, had vastly superior supply lines, and had his best troops available whereas the French were constantly losing their best troops to more important theaters.

Five years.

An aggressive, courageous Allied commander could have been in the Pyrenees by 1810...at the latest. When the French were starved before the fortress of Torres Vedras, the Allied army significantly outnumbered them. That Wellington failed to get a decisive result from that situation marks him as a poor General in my estimation.



morvwilson -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/20/2006 8:22:54 PM)

Thanks Malcom, you seem to support my point.

GB leadership on land tends to be only adequate. Most British generals seem to have been more concerned about not loosing instead of winning. Which at a time when in most armies the blood in your veins more than your ability determined your rank. In this atmosphere Wellington was good enough to not loose but not always win a decisive victory.

GB power was built upon being able to control traffic in and out of the Med, Baltic and North seas not on the power of thier army. 



MPHopcroft1 -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/21/2006 3:38:11 AM)

I feel compelled to note that the two men played fundamentally different roles in their nation's war efforts. Napoleon was the supreme power of the French Empire, with the power and responsibility the entire conduct of the war and of the regime. Wellington, by contrast, carried out the strategic directives he recieved from London, and was basically given speciifc tasks to accomplish ("Retake Spain" or "Kick Napoleon out of Paris again"). Athough Wellington did becme a poltician, it was well after the war and his serivce as {rime Minister was merely a footnote in English history.

In EiA, the player is in the role of those men in Whitehall. Hopefully he will be somewhat more intelligent.



Paper Tiger -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/23/2006 5:34:47 AM)

So the fact that Wellington was outnumbered and fighting a delaying action at Waterloo waiting for the Prussians in some way makes Wellington a bad general?
How? Wellington had fewer troops, many were of questionable qualityand yet Wellington still held the ground, and he did it for long enough that the Prussians arrived, and had they been an hour or two later the allies would most likely have still held until night time and then withdrawn after a bloody draw, and Wellington only had to draw, he had time to wait for reinforcements, the French had to win.
Wellington realised that often enough that survival is the first part of the job, phyric victories are no good, Wellington was almost always fighting with a small army with limited replacements. His first job was not to lose the army or throw it away. He did that and then he went on and he won with it afterwards.
Remember Talavera



yammahoper -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/23/2006 5:38:25 PM)

Little Afghanistan kicked out the USSR.

Little Vietnam kicked out the USA.

Winning wars that are thousands of miles away against determined (and well supplied) partisans is never easy.  I also do not think these sorts of conflicts are fair assesments of a nations/leaders military prowess.

I do, however, find this discussion very interesting.  Wellington has always facinated me, the little man who beat the proverbial giant.  It seems impossible not to aknowledge the genius of Nappy, but Wellington seemed to have the more dificult job; fight and win a war with a small core army filled in with hired mercenaries and alliances. 

Certainly GB had plenty of experience using mercenaries, but the problems of shared command with allies is universal.  Wellington must have been quite the politician.  Then, at the big battle, moving so many men in formation, in time and space together...I have often wonderd if Nappys apparent casual approach Waterloo was because he did not believe Wellington could coordinate and pulll off the mnvs.  Nappy was a proud figure, who showed his ability to out guess himself quite clearly in Russia.  It often seems Nappys plan to push the british aside was the eqivalent of a casual wave of his hand, that beating them would not require reat effort, the flank would fall and they would fall back and IF the Prussian showed up, he would find the French holding field and ready to smash them.

All pure speculation on mybehalf of course.

yamma



Murat -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/23/2006 7:48:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com

Little Afghanistan kicked out the USSR.

Little Vietnam kicked out the USA.



In both cases your 'kicked out' nation left voluntarily, unwilling to wage total war (nuke Hanoi, begin genocide, Vietnam capitulates, USSR may retaliate OR offer China a protectorate over Vietnam that we help them achieve, same result). Mexico did not have a well supplied partisan group, nor did they even have localized superiority in numbers (there were more French troops in Mexico than partisans). The French got their butts kicked - more casualties, more losses (same in Vietnam by the way). US and USSR in your examples actually had numerical inferiority in their respective endeavors and caused extremely higher casualties than they received.



morvwilson -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/23/2006 8:31:28 PM)

I might also point out that during the Vietnam war the press was giving aid and comfort to the enemy just as they are doing today.



Ursa MAior -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/24/2006 8:55:30 AM)

Please stay on topic.

As of guerillas Nappy had his share of them (btw the term also came to existence after the 2nd of may spanish uprising against the 'infidel' french).

IIRC no regular army (incl Grand Armée) was able to win (check IDF vs Hizbollah lately) against a partisan opponent (save for Alexander the Great, well he has married the daughter of one of them who can do it today? or SAS in in the 50"s in South Eastern Asia - they are hardly regular army in the average meaning of the word).



morvwilson -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/24/2006 11:18:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

Please stay on topic.

As of guerillas Nappy had his share of them (btw the term also came to existence after the 2nd of may spanish uprising against the 'infidel' french).

IIRC no regular army (incl Grand Armée) was able to win (check IDF vs Hizbollah lately) against a partisan opponent (save for Alexander the Great, well he has married the daughter of one of them who can do it today? or SAS in in the 50"s in South Eastern Asia - they are hardly regular army in the average meaning of the word).


Some of this depends on how you define "guerillas". Because the ones that fail tend to be called failed rebelions.

During the American Civil War for example, there were some guerilla type fighters on the southern side (Quantrel's raiders). This did not stop the south from eventually loosing the war. Guerilla type warfare only works if there is outside assistance from a friendly government. The French, for instance, assisting the US colonies to throw out the British or more recently, the Mujahadeen (sp?) convincing the USSR that it was not worth staying in Afganistan. The Mujahadeen was backed by the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and several other countries.

As far as Hezbollah goes it is only political correctness, dictated by the press, and incompetant leadership at the highest levels that holds back the modern armies from wiping them out.



iamspamus -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/25/2006 7:37:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

How was Wagram a mistake? It was a massive, but bloody victory.

And Borodino was an unimaginative bloody assault for a specific purpose - to destroy the Russian army since it had been brought to battle. Basically, its like picking an escalated assault in EIA in order to cause massive factor losses, because you need to win quickly to avoid attrition.

Not only did Napoleon win, he captured the most important city in Russia.

So, while most people would agree that Russia was a massive mistake, which it obviously was, Napoleon's tactical, strategic, and administrational skills were intact.

After Russia, he rushed back to France, formed a huge army out of nothing, rushed back out, and defeated Russia and Prussia in two battles running. Then, he defeated the Au/Pr/Rus at Dresden while hugely outnumbered. The way the Allies unraveled his army was by not attacking armies where Napoleon was leading.


Wagram is considered the last real "victory" of Napoleon. It does not compare at all to Austerlitz, Jena, or Marengo.

And Napoleon failed at Borodino. The Russian army, though mauled, retreated to fight again. In fact, this army (even if reinforced) blocked Napoleon's thrust south (Maryonoslats sp?) and forced Napoleon to retreat along the way that it marched, thus dooming it.

RE: Moscow, you can see how well that worked out for Nap. I would call Borodino a small tactical victory for Nap and a big strategic failure, even with taking Moscow, which didn't have the result that he anticpated. Finally, on this point, by this time Moscow was the spiritual center of Russia, but St. Pet had the governmental HQ, Tsar, and court. It was as important to take as Moscow and there was no attempt to do so.

I disagree that his skills were the same as well. Rather than outflanking (with the Polish corps, I believe) he did a straight ahead attack. He had lost the finesse of earlier years. Administratively, he HAD to make it a quick campaign, because his system of government needed him to be a the center and he couldn't afford to be away from Paris for too long.

I concur he was awesome even at the point of 1813-1814. The allies did decide to fight where Napoleon "wasn't". But this only makes sense. Defeat his marshalls. Why hit your head against a wall?

Jason




iamspamus -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/25/2006 7:44:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Camile Desmoulins

Some investigators think that It would be better Suchet in the place of Berthier, Soult against british (he know them very good) and Davout against prussians. The problem is the distrust. Ney wasn't confiable for Napoleon, remember that 40 days before was a royal army general.

I don´t like the 5-5-3 of Wellington, because he can withdraw with a 100% of posibilities too many times. He can withdraw a whole campaign and you can´t fight against the british army. I've wrote about this proble two years ago. I proposed that he can´t withdraw three consecutive times, another tactical selection for the next fight.

Nappy must drop in the last years. His tactical performance it's not so brillant than before. Many battles as wagram, Borodino or Leipzig, no more lighting victories as Austerlitz or Jena. And strategically are good, but with lathency periods alternate with euphory periods. Was an irregular leader in the last stages of the war.

Camille



I agree. I think that we had Wellington as a 453 rather than a 553.

As stated before, I think that Napoleon's ability did and thus ratings should go down in 1813+.
Jason



iamspamus -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (12/25/2006 7:54:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

How could that be true, when towards the end of his career he was defeating Allied armies which outnumbered him 6-to-1? Manuevering a tiny, personally lead army, and fighting clever battle after clever battle in 1814 doesn't really fit with him using "brute strength" to win.

The idea that he somehow mentally declined can't be supported by the evidence - it was just that the same personality characteristics that caused him to be such a gigantic success also caused him to make his titanic errors.

If anything, he got better as a General - his Marengo campaign was mediocre, and a success almost by accident, and his Egypt campaign was a spectacular strategic failure.

So...no decline if the facts are looked at objectively.



He wasn't defeating allied armies at 6-to-1. The OVERALL stength may have been that, but he was beating localized forces. Even Leipzig with it's 500,000 was only 190,000 Fr vs. 330,000 allies. So, closer to 2-to-1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leipzig

The idea of the "brute strength" is accurate. Early on with well trained troops, he could do various actions: outflank, holding actions waiting for other troops or whatever. Later, with all of the losses, he was forced to solely rely on the assault column or whatever you'd like to term it. This was a formation that poorly trained levy recruits could do. (Often used by the later Russians.) Mass them up and go. Nothing fancy. If you bust through the enemy, then you win. easy. Two problems were the British with their amazing firepower (which could actually stop a column) and the fact that everyone had seen the column for a while and could work to mitigate their effectiveness.

So, the "brute strength" argument is an objective look.

Jason



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.640625