Round 3-Napoleonic Bracket

[Marshal Murat]

Pick the winners for Round 4. Since there are ONLY 4 Generals, the highest scoring one will be the winner of this Bracket, and will go on to face the others next round.

1 Vote per Person
So get out there and VOTE!

[Tran]

Napoleonic Generals...easy guess who's gonna win...

[CountArach]

Yah, easy win for Napoleon.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Napoleon. This very bracket is named after him.

[shlin28]

Come on! Wellington beat Napoleon!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Come on! Wellington beat Napoleon!

Beg to differ:

[shlin28]

Russian campaign?

They beat Napoleon, but... eh.... Wellington was more famous, and he defeated Napoleon for the final time!

[KARTLOS]

wellington - suceeded in a big variety of arenas and was often fighting as the underdog.

[KARTLOS]

Napoleon. This very bracket is named after him.

but i dont understand, he was a pathetic failure?

[Lord Winter]

He failed in the end but it took every single european power to bring him down and he still almost won. He won victorys against odds that Alexander would be worried about. Many bad things can be said about him but being terrible military leader is not one.

[CountArach]

A lot of the reason that WEllington is so worshipped as a God of the Battlefield is because most of te Historians who have written both in that period and after it, were in fact loyal, Nationalistic British. Yes, he was a good general, but could he have organised something as masterful as Napoleon's Italian Campaign? What about the Rhine Campaigns? It wasn't so much that Wellington beat Napoleon, it was more that Napoleon beat Napoleon at Waterloo and in Spain (Though he wasn't there).

[Tran]

Let's not forget that Prussians also helped him at Waterloo...even though it was near the end.

[CountArach]

Also true. There was also a big effort to cover up the Prussian assistance.

[Rodion Romanovich]

IMO, Kutuzov is the most skilled general of the era, with Wellington coming second, and Napoleon coming third. I'm surprised that Kutuzov didn't reach the finals. Although his record isn't full of as many spectacular battle victories as Napeoleon's, he knew his strengths, as well as his limitations when it came to troop quality, and always used his full potential. Above all, he was a sound strategist more than a tactician without strategical skills, as a certain other general of the era.

At Austerlitz, Kutuzov's defeat can be fully blamed on the Russian Tsar and nobility, who explicitly ordered attack instead of letting Kutuzov remain defensive (if he had remained defensive, he could no doubt have forced the French to attack, because the French supply lines were already stretched and they were forced to either win the battle quickly or retreat). Additionally to being forced to attack, Kutuzov's side had the problem of fighting as two separate armies (Russian and Austrian) with communication problems, as well as inferior artillery and troop quality.

In the Russian campaign, Kutuzov showed his true skills, striking a perfect balance between avoiding battle (to keep the army intact), and fighting delaying battles to worsen Napoleon's supply and logistics situation. During most of the campaign, he had significantly inferior numbers to Napoleon's 500,000 men, and additionally, while Napoleon was leading hardened veterans, Kutuzov was almost exclusively commanding untrained militia. The battle of Borodino demonstrates Kutuzov's tactical skills well: with only about 80% of Napoleon's numbers and much worse troop quality, he held the line while inflicting nearly as many losses on the French as he suffered himself. His decision to retreat and give up Moscow instead of continuing to fight, was one of the most clever strategical moves of the entire Napoleonic period. Meanwhile, the French, with logistical difficulties (due to the many wounded from Borodino) and supply problems, continued to Moscow which was emptied of all supply. Kutuzov showed with his performance at Borodino and elsewhere that he knew that in the delaying actions, a battle would be victorious even if he only were to inflict half as many casualties as suffered, as the French logistical problems following upon delayed advance and a great number of wounded troops would multiply when combined with the already problematic supply. After Borodino and the loss of Moscow, Kutuzov simultaneously had the armies guarding the northern flank easily push back the Prussians at Riga (knowing that these were allies of Napoleon only through threat and not through want) and defeat the garrison Napoleon had left to secure his northern flank, thus eliminating Napoleon's supply route completely, allowing Kutuzov to pursue the Grande Armee, now reduced to less than half of its original strength. Still careful, he avoided another open full scale battle with Napoleon, and instead used his forces to (in a series of victorious battles) protect the southern roads so Napoleon was forced to retreat along the already pillaged roads he had used in his prior advance, wearing down the Grande Armee enough to expose it to a new series of battles, culminating in the battle of Berezina, in which Kutuzov was able to reduce the remnants of the Grande Armee to less than 20,000. Total result of the campaign: 400,000 Russian forces, mostly militia, defeat 800,000 hardened veterans led by Napoleon while suffering less than half the number of casualties taken by the French.

Wellington I put second because he showed decent capabilities in all fields, without any particular weakness.

Napoleon I place third, because of his spectacular tactical victories, and his energy and creativity. He made some strategical level moves that would normally be considered impossible, so that he (early in the period) could sometimes make up for his lack of strategical skills. Most notably, this showed itself in his capability to surprise his opponents by quick forced marches that allowed him to engage an opponent in battle before reinforcements from allied armies could arrive. However, his lack of strategical skills (mainly displayed in his constantly relying on near impossible moves to succeed - eventually, when they became known, they didn't succeed any more) and knowing his limitations hint of his serious shortcomings as a general. One disaster in Egypt, another in Russia, and in total he led millions of men on his side to their deaths, something that greatly overshadows his triumphs. Moreover, most of these triumphs are highly overrated: most of the battles were actually against inferior opposition (either due to inferior military technology, or due to being the armies of two or more different nations having difficulties in communication), and he had a much stronger troop recruitment and economical resources than any of his opponents for most of the period.

[Trax]

If I had to choose a Russian general I would perfer Suvorov or Barclay de Tolly over Kutuzov actually.

[Justiciar]

You know, I voted Wellington because on the only occasion he and Napoleon slugged it out man-to-man he came out on top.

If this was a question of better statesmen, leaders, and shapers of world history it would of course be Napoleon. But it isn't. Napoleon was a good general, I don't dispute that, but he wasn't quite on par with some of his rivals, or own subordinates. If you can prove me wrong, please do. I'm not 100% sure of anything in pre-Great War modern history.

[Incongruous]

Napoleon was, for nearly all his intents and purpose, a complete failure.
He lacked International statesmanship utterly.
The fact that so many coalitions were brought against him so many times is ample example of that.
He posessed better commanders that any other leader at the time.
Stupidly invaded Russia, what an idiot, obviuosly his head ad grown too large.
Let Spain draw out many veteran units and good commanders, to either death or defeat.
He is possibly the greatest of Propaganda coups of all time.
He was also a very poor loser.

[CountArach]

He lacked International statesmanship utterly.

Twoards the end of his reign, absolutely. However, many of his earlier settlements and peace treaties were brilliant.

The fact that so many coalitions were brought against him so many times is ample example of that.

A lot of this had to do with his Imperialistic ambitions and a fear of a French Europe. In much the same way as the world allied against the Germans in both World Wars.

He posessed better commanders that any other leader at the time.

Most of his leaders were completely and utterly incompetent, not to mention disloyal.

Stupidly invaded Russia, what an idiot, obviuosly his head ad grown too large

Can't argue with this one. However I think there are better ways to discuss this than "what an idiot".

Let Spain draw out many veteran units and good commanders, to either death or defeat.

Spain could possibly have been won, it was just that he was busy in Germany and as such could not lead his men personally. This is where his ioncompetent commanders come in.

He is possibly the greatest of Propaganda coups of all time.

Brilliant propogandist, that is for sure.

He was also a very poor loser.

Name one Great General who isn't/wasn't.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Spain could possibly have been won, it was just that he was busy in Germany and as such could not lead his men personally. This is where his ioncompetent commanders come in.

The problem was, his backstabbing of Spain was probably the most ruthless abusive backstabbing of that entire century, if not of that Millennium. Spain had been allied and loyal to Napoleon for a long time, suffered losses and defeat side by side with the French at Trafalgar and elsewhere, and been perhaps the most important ally France had had during the entire period, only to be thanked for this help by French conquest, desposing of the leader, putting a Napoleon on the throne, and letting French soldiers move around and rape, pillage and murder ruthlessly in the country. It's not surprising, that such an incredibly strong Spanish guerilla resistance, which cost over 500,000 French soldiers their lives, arose. IMO Spain couldn't have been won militarily with such a poor initial diplomatic move - skilled commanders or not.

[PanzerJaeger]

Name one Great General who isn't/wasn't.

Robert E. Lee, who should be right up there with Nappy and Wellington.

[Derfasciti]

Napoleon... i mean... c'mon... He's NAPOLEON.

[Pannonian]

He failed in the end but it took every single european power to bring him down and he still almost won. He won victorys against odds that Alexander would be worried about. Many bad things can be said about him but being terrible military leader is not one.

Battle of Assaye. Outnumbered at least 5-1, with fewer heavy weapons, and having to cross a river to make contact with the enemy, and exhausted having just arrived on the scene from a forced march, Wellesley's troops nonetheless broke the opposing Maratha army. The crossing was an example of Wellesley's eye for terrain, as, despite his guides' assertion that no crossing was nearby, he correctly guessed there was, simply by noting the locations of 2 villages close to each other by a river.

Wellington, undefeated in his campaigns despite commanding an army that was notoriously less manoeuvrable than its contemporaries, with a limited British core and thus having to train up and integrate allied troops (something often cited as one of Hannibal's main qualities), and crowning his career with a direct confrontation against the general in the thread's title, winning the battle. In victory he was magnanimous, posting British troops to protect the Jena bridge in Paris, which the Prussians wanted to demolish as a reminder of their humiliation. Finally, in the words of their mutual mistress, Wellington was better in bed than Napoleon.

[King Henry V]

Let's not forget that Prussians also helped him at Waterloo...even though it was near the end.

Let's not also forget that Wellington's army was only made up in a small part by his Peninsula veterans, and he had to rely on poorly trained and motivated Dutch, Belgian and German troops (excluding of course the KGL). If Wellington had lead the same army that he had lead in Spain and Portugal, the battle would have been a much less close run thing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Battle of Assaye. Outnumbered at least 5-1, with fewer heavy weapons, and having to cross a river to make contact with the enemy, and exhausted having just arrived on the scene from a forced march, Wellesley's troops nonetheless broke the opposing Maratha army.

So Wellington beat some Indians once. Gah. And he was present at Waterloo where there came a final end to the career of the man who ruled Europe with an iron fist for twenty years. Good for him.

Wellington and Napoleon, it all sounds like that story of the mouse and the Elephant crossing a bridge, the mouse looking up to the elephant and saying: 'gosh, aren't we making a lot of noise together..'

[Pannonian]

So Wellington beat some Indians once. Gah. And he was present at Waterloo where there came a final end to the career of the man who ruled Europe with an iron fist for twenty years. Good for him.

Isn't that part of the point though? Napoleon had complete control over his armies, being the head of his state. Wellington was a general appointed to command in a theatre with troops and supplies allocated to him by civil authorities - one famous perhaps apocryphal story has the Whitehall beancounters asking him to audit his supplies, and he replied that human weakness meant he could only do one of two tasks: either giving the government a full audit of his camp, or beating the enemy in battle and driving the French out of the Peninsula. I'm sure Wellington would have loved to have had Bonaparte's resources at his disposal, instead of competing for money and men with the ever-rapacious Royal Navy. Instead, he had to work wonders with the limited resources he had, and still managed to preserve an unbeaten record in war, unlike the ever-wasteful Bonaparte.

[Tiberius of the Drake]

Have people completely forgotten about Frederick the Great? He's called Frederick THE GREAT for a reason. He was kicking the butts of the French, austrians, and Russians (at least for a time) forty years before Napolean was even an artillery captain. Time and time again he trounced the powers of Europe to establish the Kingdom of Prussia as a great power which in turn led to the ultimate defeat of Napolean (leipzig and waterloo) plus the eventual unification of the German nation under Kaiser Willhelm I and Otto Von Bismarck.

[Pannonian]

Have people completely forgotten about Frederick the Great? He's called Frederick THE GREAT for a reason. He was kicking the butts of the French, austrians, and Russians (at least for a time) forty years before Napolean was even an artillery captain. Time and time again he trounced the powers of Europe to establish the Kingdom of Prussia as a great power which in turn led to the ultimate defeat of Napolean (leipzig and waterloo) plus the eventual unification of the German nation under Kaiser Willhelm I and Otto Von Bismarck.

Fred's system got thrashed by Boney's system at Jena and other battles (which in turn got thrashed by the Russkies and the Brits). Just because someone is tagged "the Great" doesn't mean they are. Should Antiochus the Great be added to the Ancients list? Was the Great McGonagall one of the greatest poets that the English language has produced?

[Meneldil]

Well, Napoleon obviously. It's not called Napoleonic era for nothing, d'oh.
Though one have to admit that his opponents were all in all, quite poor leaders and generals (with some exceptions like Wellington).
He had little contenders during his battle for Europe, and that precisely explains why most of his defeats and ultimately, his fall, were caused not by large scale battles, but by guerilla and exhaustion wars.

He lacked International statesmanship utterly.

Quite untrue, half of Europe joined him in his fight against the other half. How is that a lack of statesmanship ?

The fact that so many coalitions were brought against him so many times is ample example of that.

Or maybe the fact that all these kings, archidukes and tsar were affraid of him ? Most likely because, despite his lust for power and his title of Emperor, Napoleon was a son of the French Revolution. You know, when people started to cut their Kings' heads. He brought with him ideas of democracy, freedom of opinion, republic and what not (though Imperial France wasn't a democratic republic, as I'm sure you would have pointed out).

He posessed better commanders that any other leader at the time.

Arguable, a few were indeed brillants, many were totally overrated. Most of those betrayed him when things turned bad.

Stupidly invaded Russia, what an idiot, obviuosly his head ad grown too large

How is that stupid ? May I remind you that back then, Russia wasn't considered undefeatable ? It's precisely Napoleon's failure (and Hitler's one) that gave birth to this myth.

According to you, Napoleon was just an idiot, with little charisma, that sucked at leading his men to war, but who somehow achieved to rule over Europe and to have all european monarchs bow to him, just, well, cause he had some luck ? How objective that is
It's quite funny seeing how some people (mostly brits) have trouble dealing with Napoleon :D

Yeah, Wellington was a great general, saying otherwise would be stupid. But ranking him higher than a man who ruled most of Europe for more than a decade ? C'mon, if that's not a propaganda coup, what else is ?

[King Henry V]

The Revolutionary and later Napoleonic armies succeeded because they faced a decayed, obsolete military system, that of the professional army (which had not seen much service in 30 years since there had been a period of relative peace) with a new, more powerful concept, that of the citizen army. The army that Napoleon faced at Jena and at Friedland was a far cry from the tough, lean, Prussian fighting machine of the Great Frederick.

The era is called the Napoleonic era because it was molded by the unrelenting, murderous ambition of one man. It was because of his lust for glory that Europe was in a state of war for 15 years.

One half of Europe was fighting the other half for two reasons: either their country was covered with Bonaparte's soldiers or they were historic enemies of Bonaparte's enemies, and not because he was such a brilliant diplomat, and certainly not equal to Talleyrand, to whom he listened only when it suited him.

Bonaparte was a good tactician and a fine leader of men, however if he had been in the same position as Wellington in Spain, he would never have succeeded (he would have alienated the local populations from the start in living off the land.)

[Sarmatian]

He had little contenders during his battle for Europe, and that precisely explains why most of his defeats and ultimately, his fall, were caused not by large scale battles, but by guerilla and exhaustion wars.

Napoleon was strategically beaten by Kutuzov. A good general thinks about logistics before he starts a campaign, not in the middle of it...