Sir Arthur Wellesly vs. George Washington

[Kaiser of Arabia]

gainst the phoney Wellington?
As we know, both were phonies,
Washington Claiming victory at yorktown when we all know Layfette did all the work, and Wellington taking Blutcher's Sucess at waterloo.
But Wellesly was a better commander.
-Capo

[discovery1]

Dind't Wellington make considerable gains in Iberia? If so, I vote for him.

[Axeknight]

Quote[/b] (Caporegime1984 @ May 31 2004,06:44)]Wellington taking Blutcher's Sucess at waterloo.

Wha?

Wellesley fought his way through a couple of Grand Armees to get to Waterloo (and was almost single-handedly responsible for Boney's first exile). He held on for hours against a French army that outnumbered him something like 2:1 or 3:1. He couldn't have won without Blucher's Prussians, but he is in no way a phoney.

[Mount Suribachi]

Yeah, Wellesley was such a phoney, winning battle after battle against the French in Spain

[Crimson Castle]

I don't get it. Both commanders were pretty competent and did rather well in their respective battles.

Maybe they were not "geniuses" like Hannibal or Napoleon but calling them phony is a bit extreme.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Wellington was the man, what's the problem with him?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Hrm. Maybe phoney was too harsh,
They were WAYYY overrated though.
And don't give me that Sir Arthur fought his way single handedly bull. He had other, good generals under his command.
And at Waterloo, he didn't engage in the fighting untill after the prussians had done considerable damage to the French.
He also didn't move to help his ally Blutcher at Lingey (or Lingley.)
Also, he DID only make it up to General because his relative was governor of India. And, he was, more or less, a deserter,
let me explain.
In india, when he was a colonel, i think, his troops once met some Indian troops in a skirmish.
He ran away, back to camp, told his superiors, and fell asleep. His troops were slaughtered.
But he did have some spectacular victories. Like Vitoria.

And Washington was okay. He didn't have any spectacular victories (don't give me yorktown, he only won because of the french. 2 more days the british could have held out and re-inforcments would have came and wiped the floor with the americans.)
Just IMHO.
-Capo

[Somebody Else]

Arthur Wellesley. Lets see.

India? He did do some fighting there don't you know... Seringapatam? Assaye? Argaum?

Peninsular campaign... Rolica, Vimeiro, Talavera, Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajoz, Salamanca, Vitoria, Sorauren...

Then we come to the Waterloo campaign.

Nosey wasn't particularly good in a political role once he got back to England though.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Quote[/b] ]And at Waterloo, he didn't engage in the fighting untill after the prussians had done considerable damage to the French.

Bwa? The Prussians didn't turn up until after the British and French had been fighting for most of the day.

Wellington is the man. I reccomend Richard Holmes' biography of him.

[bighairyman]

And Washington wasn't really much of a general, he lost most of his battles, his real strength is his ability to hold his men tomorrow, raise their spirits, morale, and the men loved him.

[Oaty]

Quote[/b] (bighairyman @ May 31 2004,17:49)]And Washington wasn't really much of a general, he lost most of his battles, his real strength is his ability to hold his men tomorrow, raise their spirits, morale, and the men loved him.

And all the while marching in no-mans land to cheer his troops on. I remember reading that he had done that in 1 of his battles in the middle of fire. If you ask me that takes guts.

The other thing is Washington was'nt commanding professional troops where as Wellington was.


As far as Wellington or the Prussians winning waterloo I do'nt think you can call him a phony under the circumstances. From what I understand the battle was already over when the Prussians arrived. It was Napoleans fear of fighting 2 armies at once that provoked Napolean to be aggressive and make foolish mistakes on the battlefield. Napoleans main objective was to route the English before the Prussians arrived.

But then again Wellington was fighting the French

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Yes, Blucher's impening arrival caused Napoleon to throw his Old guard at the British line. Their breaking demoralised the French, as it was clear that the battle was lost.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Quote[/b] (oaty @ May 31 2004,17:33)]

Quote[/b] (bighairyman @ May 31 2004,17:49)]And Washington wasn't really much of a general, he lost most of his battles, his real strength is his ability to hold his men tomorrow, raise their spirits, morale, and the men loved him.

And all the while marching in no-mans land to cheer his troops on. I remember reading that he had done that in 1 of his battles in the middle of fire. If you ask me that takes guts.

The other thing is Washington was'nt commanding professional troops where as Wellington was.


As far as Wellington or the Prussians winning waterloo I do'nt think you can call him a phony under the circumstances. From what I understand the battle was already over when the Prussians arrived. It was Napoleans fear of fighting 2 armies at once that provoked Napolean to be aggressive and make foolish mistakes on the battlefield. Napoleans main objective was to route the English before the Prussians arrived.

But then again Wellington was fighting the French

What you understand is Wellington's report on the battle.
He took the credit for himself.
Various other reports have it differently.
-Capo

[econ21]

Quote[/b] (Caporegime1984 @ May 31 2004,21:04)]What you understand is Wellington's report on the battle.
He took the credit for himself.
Various other reports have it differently.
-Capo

Yes, Wellington did downplay the role of the Prussians to make the English, and his own, contribution look bigger. But the fact is, Waterloo was a very well fought battle by the Anglo-Dutch army. The French made very few gains during the day and typically Wellington was always present at the key points, overseeing their rebuff. The exception that proves the rule is the loss of La Haye Sainte farm late in the evening. The French never took the ridge line - although it would have been closer, I doubt they would have won even without the Prussians (who took away the smallest French Corps and much of the Guard). It is hard to fault Wellington's handling of his army on the day at Waterloo, although I admit even he was not so proud of the run-up to the battle ("Napoleon's humbugged me" or some such).

But if you want to see Wellington's battle skills unclouded by the contribution of major Allies, you can look at any one of the dozen or more major encounters he fought against the French in his Peninsular campaign. The fact was, he was never beaten despite typically unfavourable odds. This is in striking contrast to other allies, and indeed the British under different generals. Wellington had worked out a counter to French Napoleonic tactics and this, combined with his assured strategic skills, made him a general to rival Napoleon. Napoleon was the more flashy general, but much less consistent - with strategic defeats as notable (Russia, Spain) as his occasional spectacular victories on the battlefield.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Yes. Mt personal favourite Wellington battle is Salamanca.

[Rosacrux]

Wellington is not close of being a military mastermind (in the class of a Napoleon, for instance) but he was a great commander in every account, eventhough I wouldn't particularly like him as my company (he was arrogant and rude, not to mention that he was a snobish sob of the greatest calibre... and last but not least he was a compulsive liar - reading his accounts for Waterloo makes me wanna puke) but if I lived in that age, I wouldn't mind being led by him in battle (if I had to fight, that is ). He was a very good tactician and he knew to make his men give 100% of what they had.

OTOH, Washington was indeed a phoney, as a military commander at least. Most of his so-called "military triumphs" during the American war of independance were either won by the French or lost by the Brits themselves. But he was an extremely smart and able politician and he put his seal on the new nation, by laying very strong foundations for its later strength.

[JAG]

Quote[/b] ]Wellington taking Blutcher's Sucess at waterloo.

AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAH

I mean how can you say such rubbish, how can a man which beat the French - the most advanced, powerful and at the time fearsome - time after time after time phoney? I think you have to back up such an absurd statement before making such polls. As others have said.

And if you really think the Prussians made a blind bit of difference at the battle of Waterloo you really show your naivety. It was Napoleon who lsot the battle, but you cannot diminish Wellingtons role, it was important.

[econ21]

I think you are overstating the case a little, JAG. Didn't Napoleon himself say something before the battle was decided about Blucher's approach swinging the odds significantly against him?

In most wargames, Waterloo appears a "fair fight" without the Prussians: the French have a slight advantage in numbers but the English have position and the luxury of defence. I personally think the English have the edge if follow Wellington's tactics and the French follow their usual Napoleonic tactics - it seems always thus, whenever they met. However, it definitely becomes an uphill struggle for the French when the Prussians are included.

On the day, the Prussians crushed the French right and had driven into the rear of Napoleon's position (Placenoit?) by the time the French made the decisive attack on the Anglo-Dutch army with the Guard. I suspect the repulse of the Guard started a rout not so much because the French thought the Guard could not fail (the usual myth). But instead, the French panicked when they realised there was a second large aggressive enemy army right in their rear. (by analogy MTW captures the morale effects of enemy cav in your rear pretty well).

Without the Prussians, Napoleon could have taken a little more time and exploited the seizure of La Haye Sainte with Lobau's Corps and the Guard. Who knows, maybe Napoleon could even have pulled off a Prryhic victory (despite having had the rest of his army badly mauled earlier in the day)? I suspect it might have been more like another Quatre Bras though - pretty much a draw.

In the bigger pictue of things the 100 Days campaign was pretty hopeless though - the Allies had masses of manpower mustering to crush France. The Allies were collectively determined to see the thing through and also had able commanders who had learnt enough from Napoleon not to be cowed by him. By contrast, France was exhausted and internally rather divided. I doubt there was anything Napoleon could have done, even at the height of his power, to win in the end. He gave it a pretty good shot, but Wellington and Blucher just resolutely beat him down.

[JAG]

No I think you are very much mistaken, Napoleon should have won Waterloo. Napoleon not only had the troops present at the battle but was in a good position, everyone goes on about the classic Wellington position on the hills but it was in fact a good position to attack the kind of army the Allies had. Remember the army was not made up predominately of British it was a truly allied army. And the Dutch and Belgians were, to be frank, not up to much, they were not quality troops yet they held crucial parts of the line. On Wellington's left flank much of it was Dutch troops - and the crucial far right flank -, it was where Napoleon attacked the center - right, where the Guard and pickton's real quality troops were. The land was very ripe for the HUGE and PLENTIFUL French guns, if they had shelled the shit out of the Dutch, then used the normal tactics they would never have held.

What Napoleon did at Waterloo was in direct conflict to his grand strategy and motto if you will - Never reinforce failure. He did it in Spain and lost, and he did it at Waterloo and lost. He attacked the allies strongest position - the farm houses and the Brits - and then when it stalled reinforced it It was a terrible decision and one which cost him the battle. Ignore the farm houses, attack the Dutch and game over man, game over.

Notice how none of this has anything to do with either the Prussians or Wellington. Yes the Prussians came and caused havoc on the French right and at Plancenoit. Yes Wellington did the best tactics he could on the day and yes the Brits which were there would have stopped the French if they attacked them - and showed they could by beating the guard. But it was in the French hands, if Napoleon had attacked it properly he would have won the battle, no question.

Now onto whether he could have won the whole picture, I think he could well have. If he had beaten the Brits and Prussians - and remember the Prussian army was AWEFUL, it was the worst army in Europe, it's structure, it's quality of troops, it's weaponry and it's cav were below par - then yes the Austrians and Russians were coming and mobilizing but you forget that even after Waterloo the French had 2/3 of their army in tact. There were many, many more recruits being trained in Paris a whole new army as well as the political advantage from the defeat of the Brits and Germans. The Austrians have a long history with the French as I am sure you well know, I do not think they could be counted on and if it did infact come to a punch up, I do not see the Austrians holding, even though granted they were better and better while the period progressed. The Russians then were the only realistic option, and a France on its own turf with a rushed Russian army, I do see the Russians taking their time or backing down. Napoleon could quite easily of got his initial wish and be able to stabilize at home for a bit, if he was given that then who knows. France ruling Europe again?

[econ21]

I guess we just disagree, JAG. Wellington's position was pretty well placed against flank attacks. His right had a ton of decent troops in reserve as he anticipated just such a turning movement. His left was thin, but anchored by some defensible hamlets and anyway he knew the Prussians were fast approaching that way, ready to hit a French flanking maneouvre in the rear. Even with a flanking attack, I don't see Napoleon scrapping more than a draw against Wellington at Waterloo given the arrival of the Prussians. Without the Prussians, a French victory against the Anglo-Dutch was possible but even then it would not have been a feat easily attained against a general of the calibre of Wellington.

But I agree Napoleon did a lot to lose the battle. For example, as you say, going for the flanks certainly would have been better than a frontal assault on British infantry deployed on a reverse slope (or, worse, defending a walled Chateau). But Napoleon effectively foresook such grand tactical maneouvres by allowing such a late start to the battle.

On the quality of the Prussians and the Dutch troops, you are probably aware this is disputed. A lot of the received English language received wisdom comes from Wellington and other Brits who were keen to play up their role at the expense of their allies. I think the key revisionist is a historian called Peter Hofschorer or something who has written several books on the subject. Hofschorer stresses the modernisation of the Prussian army, on Napoleonic lines, IIIRC with large semi-autonomous Corps comprised of lots of skirmishers (some with rifles), plenty of cannon, aggressive cavalry and large attack columns of infantry. But how can we judge quality at this distance? All I can say is that the Prussians seemed to have plenty of fight in them on the day.

On the wider picture, I think there was no way the Austrians would have sued for terms. It was the French whose political support for war was wobbly, not the allies. Even if they lost the 100 days campaign, Britain and Prussia would have been able to raise fresh armies - coupled with the Austria-Russia juggernaut, the picture was pretty hopeless for France.

All this talk of Waterloo is making me want to try out that game Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle. It's a variant of Sid Meier Gettysburg game engine which I did not like, but maybe I should give it another shot? Anyone else played it?

[Michiel de Ruyter]

JAG,

I think you are flat out wrong to dismiss the Prussians or the Dutch-Belgian contingent...The Prussian army of 1813 - 1815 was hugely different from the one that got hammered at Jena and Auerstaedt.


AFAIK first of all, after these disasters the Prussians introduced an army reform, especially concerning the officers. Many of the Prussians and especially among the Dutch-Belgian troops had served under Napoleon... up to the point that the loyalty of the Dutch troops was considered suspect; at Quatre-Bras they proved otherwise...
The biggest problem for the Dutch was the inexperience of the William of Orange and his sub-commanders.

As far as the French artillery goes, there part of Wellington's tactics was based on protecting the infanty form the bombardment. Second, apparently Napoleon had the elements conspire against him. A combination of uphill ground, the weather and a soggy soil basically absorbed most of the impact of the French artillery (as conclusively shown on a BBC show, broadcasted on Belgian TV).

As far as the Prussians go, they, IMHO proved to be from a different mold both in 1813 and in 1815. In 1813 They were instrumental in defeating the French in the events culminating at Leipzig. Where they showed their resilience most was because of the fact that when things did go wrong, they avoided total destruction.

And the quality of the French was not that good either. It was hurriedly assembled. Most of the veteran soldiers had died in Russia. A good number again had been lost in 1813 as well.. In many respects the French army of 1815 was not that dissimilar of that of the Germans in 1945. Masses of really young and old recruits (especially young) grouped around a cadre of veterans.

[Spino]

Thread....

spiraling...

off...

topic...

[Crimson Castle]

Why do you keep referring to Washington or Wellington as phony? They both won their respective battles - they never over-reached themselves and got themselves in a pit. Look at Napoleon - no one asked him to invade Russia. It was all his own brilliant idea.

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Caporegime1984 @ May 30 2004,23:44)]gainst the phoney Wellington?
As we know, both were phonies,
Washington Claiming victory at yorktown when we all know Layfette did all the work, and Wellington taking Blutcher's Sucess at waterloo.
But Wellesly was a better commander.
-Capo

You obviously have a lot to learn about both men. Neither was a "phony", in fact each was largely responsible for two of the most decisive victories in the entire history of the world. In case you weren't aware, there were long and hard wars preceeding both Waterloo and Yorktown, so I'm not just talking about those 2 battles.

How did Cornwallis end up at Yorktown in the first place? Whose strategy was it to bottle up Cornwallis, and who gave Lafayette and Mad Anthony Wayne their orders before throwing up a screen for Clinton and rushing south to join the siege? Who, more than any other single man, was responsible for the victory in the Revolution against hopeless odds, and thus the creation of the United States? Lafayette? There wouldn't have even been a war for him to join in '77 had it not been for Washington.

What was Blucher's record prior to Waterloo? And Wellington's? And what allowed Blucher to even dream of joining that battle? Napoleon's decision to delay the attack at Waterloo until mid-day. Regardless, and most importantly here, who was actually responsible for the decision to stumble down the road towards Waterloo? Gneisenau, not Blucher.

I'd vote, but unfortunately there isn't an option for "both choices are wrong".

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I DID correct myself on the phoney part.
I was too pissed off at american pro-washington propaganda,
but both were overrated.

Also, the Prussians did do most of teh fighting in Waterloo.
The British did do some, but their role is greatly exaggerated, while the prussians are portrayed as arriving too late, when they arrived in time for most of the fighting. In fact, if not for the prussians, Wellington could have lost, but with the prussians, the allies were nearly invincible (on terms of strategic position, etc.)
-Capo

[Oaty]

Caporegime1984 You would'nt mind moving to a country where you think the founders not a phony wuld ya

[Templar Knight]

Quote[/b] ]And at Waterloo, he didn't engage in the fighting untill after the prussians had done considerable damage to the French

do you know much about history?

[Sir Moody]

Capo u seem to have waterloo messed up - on the day the Allied army under Wellington did the majority of the fighting the Prussians turned up late and did very little actual fighting and their contribution in the scheme of things was to panic the French - i think u are confusing the day before - the day before waterloo Napoleon Attacked the Prussian Army cutting it off from the Allied forces so they couldnt join Wellington a battle which the French WON and which delayed the Prussian advance (hence their late arrival at the main battle)

there is a lot of debate about who would have won without the Prussians - i believe Wellington could have carried the day but it would have been very very bloody

and Jag you are underplaying the Dutch troops they were very good troops the equal of red coats easily their problem was 2 fold - 1 they had faught for Napoleon and so their loyalty was not asured and 2 they were under a very bad commander - the Prince of Orange - who was very very bad at commanding troops - he gave orders during the battle of Waterloo for 2 infantry companies to advance in line when French cavalry was abroad - this led to one being destroyed by the cavalry while the other managed to form square in time

[Accounting Troll]

Wellington was far better at leading an army in battle.

George Washington's genius lay in his ability to ensure that the rebels maintained an effective field army. If they had chosen to fight a major European style battle and lost, the rebellion would have collapsed. He was one of the few Americans who realised that local militia units could not be expected to routinely defeat British regulars on their own, or even turn out and fight for a loser.

Incidentally, the British led force at Waterloo slightly outnumbered the French, but the French had better artillery and the only troops that Wellington knew he could really count on were the veterans of his penninsular campaign, who suceeded in routing the Imperial Guard.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Quote[/b] (Sir Moody @ June 03 2004,18:18)]and Jag you are underplaying the Dutch troops they were very good troops the equal of red coats easily their problem was 2 fold - 1 they had faught for Napoleon and so their loyalty was not asured and 2 they were under a very bad commander - the Prince of Orange - who was very very bad at commanding troops - he gave orders during the battle of Waterloo for 2 infantry companies to advance in line when French cavalry was abroad - this led to one being destroyed by the cavalry while the other managed to form square in time

Sir Moody,

I think you have made one mistaken assesment. William of Orange mistakes were not so much due to his lack of capabilities, but rather his lack of experience.. supposedly Wellington himself was of the opinion that William of Orange could eventually grow into a fine and capable commander. Later, when fighting the Belgians, Wiliam of Orange ran all over them...