Favorite Leader of Napoleonic Wars? (Full Version)

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



Message

jnier -> Favorite Leader of Napoleonic Wars? (11/26/2002 8:36:15 AM)

I thought we could all use a pleasant diversion from the nitty-gritty of the Computer EIA. So here we go:

Who is your favorite military figure, besides Napoleon, of the Napoleonic Wars?

I'll pick an obvious choice - Davout. Perhaps that most gifted tactical mind ever. Was NEVER defeated on the battlefield.



mogami -> Nice topic (11/26/2002 8:47:21 AM)

Greetings, Marshall Baron Mikhail Bogdanovitch Barclay de Tolly
He reorganized the Russian Army and had very modern ideas on command and combat tactics. (unlike other Russian leaders of the day he prefered musketry to the bayonet.) I have always liked the Russians in Napoleonic minatures. The Russians fought many large battles during the period and scored at least a few draws with Napoleon in command on the field for the French.
I would like to see what would have happened had he retained command of the Army at Borodino.



msvknight -> (11/26/2002 4:42:07 PM)

Count Peter zu Sayn Wittgenstein commander of the !st Corps in Russia. Did a fine job of holding off the Northern Wing of Napoleon's army and protecting St. Petersburg.

Was so well thought of after the 1812 campaign that he was made Commander of the Allied armies in 1813. Regretfully, he proved incapable of coping with Napoleon and was forced to give way to Barclay de Tolly, but continued to be a good Corps Commander.



Reknoy -> Lannes (11/26/2002 10:45:56 PM)

Jean Lannes -- the embodiment of that which made Napoleon's armies so formidable. His bravado and fearlessness spilled over into his troops.

We was also wounded about 60 times, the last of which took his leg and life.

Not so spectacular as the previous two, but still my personal favorite.

Reknoy



sol_invictus -> (11/26/2002 11:30:34 PM)

You beat me to it jnier; Davout was the first leader who came to my mind. I have always enjoyed imagining how the Hundred Days would have played out if Napoleon had not thought it necessary to leave Davout in Paris. There are just so many excellent leaders in this era that it boggles the mind. Lannes has always been a favorite as well. Then there's Wellington and Moore; and Massena and on and on.



Reknoy -> (11/26/2002 11:49:09 PM)

I agree 100% about Davout. Can't say enough about him.

As for Lannes, I also wonder what would have happened if he had not lost his life in the Aspern/Essling (sp) campaign. He could have risen further and would have had an impact on every battle thereafter.

What made him great ultimately spelled his doom.



Le Tondu -> Davout it is! (11/27/2002 12:32:33 AM)

Yes, another vote for Davout.

One thing that I liked about him was that he was known as "d'Avout" before the French Revolution and he eventually changed his name to Davout. Not just because of the terror, but because he really believed in Republicanism. When he could change it back, he didn't.



sandy -> (12/2/2002 3:01:47 AM)

I am going to be annoying a choose one for each nation!

France- Davout, shame he was wasted though. Might have been intresting to see him in Spain vs Wellington!

GB- General 'Daddy' Hill, not so famous, but a gentleman at all times and completley trusted by Wellington.

Austria- Schwarzenberg- I believe he hard a very hard time as Allied Commander- just as hard as old Eisenhower did in WW2. Could you imagine the bother he had at Dresden with all three allied soveriegns on his back- impossible situation!

Russia- Bagration- Pesky Georgian fought well at Austerlitz and died gallantly at Borodino.

Prussia- Has to be Blucher, the man was incredible (and a bit mad)



jnier -> (12/2/2002 8:13:41 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sandy
[B]I am going to be annoying a choose one for each nation!

Austria- Schwarzenberg- I believe he hard a very hard time as Allied Commander- just as hard as old Eisenhower did in WW2. Could you imagine the bother he had at Dresden with all three allied soveriegns on his back- impossible situation!
[/B][/QUOTE]

When it comes to austrian leadership, I have to go with Charles over Schwarzenberg. His reforms after Austerlitz probably saved the austrians from annihilation in 1809, and he was an able tactician as well. While he was cautious, this was reasonable given Nappy's track record of trouncing just about everybody in his path.

I second the vote fo Blucher - an interesting fellow.



mogami -> Blucher (12/3/2002 2:00:38 AM)

Hi, I love this old nut. I think he won the 1815 campaign.
I like crazy generals. This guy was a Napoleonic version of Grant when it came to fighting. Win or lose he was going to fight again as soon as possible.



sandy -> (12/4/2002 10:33:24 PM)

quote**When it comes to austrian leadership, I have to go with Charles over Schwarzenberg. His reforms after Austerlitz probably saved the austrians from annihilation in 1809, and he was an able tactician as well. While he was cautious, this was reasonable given Nappy's track record of trouncing just about everybody in his path. **un/quote

Yes, Charles probably had more talent, but I felt he was such a pessimist, I mean after the defeat at Landshut/Eckmhul and Ratisbon he virtually gave up any hope of winnning and his pessimissim was evident to junior officers- hardly inspirational! Charles's letter to Napoleon mid way through the campaign was almost treason. I think I liked Schwarzenburg becasue he just put up with an intolerable situation and made the best of it.



denisonh -> (12/10/2002 9:49:46 AM)

I would have to say Lannes, whose mastery the art of gaining and maintaining contact with the enemy made him the best lead Corps Commander Napoleon ever had.

I would also have to mention "Black" Bob Craufurd, whose masterful handling of the British Light Division in the Peninisula was nothing short of exemplary.



Preuss -> Blucher! (12/15/2002 4:56:34 AM)

It's not fair to say Blucher without adding Gniesenau. Together they were a giant.

Alt Vorwarts was the fire needed to bring the Prussians (already very ready to stick it to the frogs) to a fever pitch in battle, to re-motivate them after defeat, to make tired legs march faster. He was the perfect motivator.

And Gniesenau was the silent guide for all this fire and wrath.

A perfect combination.



pasternakski -> (12/15/2002 5:27:20 AM)

I pick Andrew Jackson.



jnier -> (12/16/2002 12:34:27 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]I pick Andrew Jackson. [/B][/QUOTE]

I assume this is supposed to be a gag. But Andrew Jackson did indeed fight during Napoleonic Wars - just not in Europe. So he would count.



pasternakski -> (12/16/2002 3:07:21 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jnier
[B]I assume this is supposed to be a gag. But Andrew Jackson did indeed fight during Napoleonic Wars - just not in Europe. So he would count. [/B][/QUOTE]

No gag. His campaigns against the British and final victory after the war was really over at New Orleans are well worth study. It's the old "I've got almost nothing, but I'm going to glory with it anyway" story. His obstreperous presence was one of the major factors in the British agreeing to peace in 1815 on the terms they did. Without commanders like Jackson, the British could well have re-focused major attention on North America after finally disposing of Napoleon in 1815, and all that had been gained in the War of Independence could well have been lost.

Besides, he was a crusty devil of a very charismatic type. One of my favorite historical figures (the story of his disastrous presidency is worth a look, too).



Capitaine -> Lannes! (1/17/2003 12:16:22 AM)

Reknoy and I think alike. Jean Lannes was the epitome of the French Napoleonic Marshal and was adored by the troops under his command (unlike Davout, although that is not necessarily a criterion for being "the Best", and we're talking favorites not most effective).

Lannes died of a mortal wound suffered whilst fighting alongside his men at Aspern-Essling. It is said that Napoleon openly wept when he heard of the loss of his friend and Marshal.

I would hope that as a Marshal of the Empire, a Lannes leader would be added to Matrix's EIA as an option, since the board game did not see fit to include him. I cannot fathom a pre-1809 Napoleonic campaign without this beloved and famous leader present! :eek:



Reknoy -> (1/24/2003 9:31:05 PM)

Yes! :)

At least he's in EUII, and he rocks.



Caranorn -> (1/25/2003 8:48:28 PM)

I'd also vote for Davout (d'Avout, d'Avost) first. He was by far the best general of the era (leave Nappy at Paris and have Davout ride out for the 100 days, I bet it'd make a diffrence).

Wellington for the Brits, though he had a bad habbit of taking personal command at all times, thereby limiting his field commander's development.

Blucher for sheer spirit and ferocity. I wish he'd got the chance to come face to face with Napoleon. (Forget about Gneisenau, he was great aide de camp but a would have been little use as an actual commander).

For the Austrians, I have a little tender spot for Mack, but mostly as the least udnerstood general of the time. Great abilities but totally wasted. Probably Charles (Karl) as second.

On the Russians I have no set opinion (though I also like Wittgenstein's capabilities). If we go befor the 1804 date, Suvarov obviously comes to mind.

Marc aka Caran... noticing that mentionning Harry Rowland and ADG's copy right several times in the past here might have had an effect after all.



Yorlum -> favorite leaders (1/27/2003 11:17:35 PM)

How about the poor admirals? Nelson wasn’t the only genius, you know!

For your collective consideration, I offer:

Richard Howe and Samuel Hood for the British

And just to show that not only the British could lead ships to sea,

Louis Villaret de Joyeuse

From the rank of Lieutenant in 1789, he rose to lead perhaps the most crucial French naval sortie of the 1790’s, the action that brought a desperately-needed grain cargo past a superior British fleet and saved the revolution.

I find it amusing that the British celebrated their tactical victory on the “Glorious First of June” when they utterly muffed a chance to end it all there and then by stopping the convoy



Snigbert -> (1/28/2003 12:07:46 PM)

My favorite is Grouchy, just because I like his name.

Ok, he was strictly a cavalry commander and didnt do a whole lot. But I still like him.



denisonh -> (1/28/2003 12:15:00 PM)

No, Grouchy was a Marshal of France did command a corps(+) at one point, not just Cavalry.

And I am sure he was the Duke of Wellington's favorite Marshal too:D



Caranorn -> (1/28/2003 7:31:20 PM)

IIRC, Grouchy's Marshalat was never recognised (had to be ratified by parliament or other), so technically he was no marshal. But otherwise correct, he had some experience of combined arms, but would have been better used to command a unified cavalry reserve in the hundred days.

Marc aka Caran...



Bouncer -> (2/3/2003 3:42:46 AM)

General Amable Humbert.

The only Frenchman to have ever defeated the British on their own soil since William the Conqueror.



pasternakski -> (2/3/2003 5:04:51 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert
[B]My favorite is Grouchy, just because I like his name.

Ok, he was strictly a cavalry commander and didnt do a whole lot. But I still like him. [/B][/QUOTE]

I hope you don't like him from a facial English-speaking pronunciation of the name. To the French, he is "GROO-shee."



Chiteng -> (2/21/2003 2:55:50 PM)

I suppose Davout.



Chiteng -> (2/21/2003 2:59:49 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Arinvald
[B]You beat me to it jnier; Davout was the first leader who came to my mind. I have always enjoyed imagining how the Hundred Days would have played out if Napoleon had not thought it necessary to leave Davout in Paris. There are just so many excellent leaders in this era that it boggles the mind. Lannes has always been a favorite as well. Then there's Wellington and Moore; and Massena and on and on. [/B][/QUOTE]

Napoleon was hardly a fool. He left Davout in Paris because he could not trust anyone else to get the job done.

It would do little good to take Davout with him, and win at Waterloo, and find Paris in revolt behind him, or the supply
and organisation systems in chaos.

However, Could he have left Ney behind? Then taken Davout?



denisonh -> (2/21/2003 10:24:44 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng
[B]Napoleon was hardly a fool. He left Davout in Paris because he could not trust anyone else to get the job done.

It would do little good to take Davout with him, and win at Waterloo, and find Paris in revolt behind him, or the supply
and organisation systems in chaos.

However, Could he have left Ney behind? Then taken Davout? [/B][/QUOTE]

Napoleon didn't fully trust Ney. The whole "bring him back in a cage" thing probably was bothering Napoleon. I think that his his distrust of Ney (and missing Berthier) undermined Ney's effectiveness.

The whole point was that he trusted Davout.



Ragnar -> (3/6/2003 8:38:29 PM)

Speaking of Trust, I have a soft spot for Bernadotte. Not brilliant on the battlefield pherhaps, but he sure got more out of the Napoleonic Wars than anyone else (His dynasty still sits on the throne of Sweden). And there's no arguing with success! ;-)

Ragnar



sandy -> (3/13/2003 6:29:46 AM)

He had a inscription on his backside supposedly saying death to all kings. Ironic.

Bernadotte was an intresting character, really no scruples at all, but as Marbot said unquestionably brave and was kind to men how he did not need to be jealous of, by which I mean subordinates.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.015625