Tango01 | 22 Jun 2015 11:40 a.m. PST |
…not exceptional. "On June 18 1815, British and French armies clashed for a final time in a muddy field in Belgium. The defeat of Napoleon, by the Duke of Wellington at the battle of Waterloo, would bring to an end over a decade of conflict between the warring countries and make the victor a legendary military hero. However, with the vantage point of 200 years, Dr Keith McLay, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, and an early modern military historian, believes that Wellington's victory, if considered within the context of the Hundred Days campaign, shows him to be merely a competent general, and not exceptional as history has characterised him. Dr McLay explained: "The popular consensus – largely based upon the success at Waterloo and the final defeat of Napoleon – lauds Wellington's generalship as determined, strategic and tactically astute and, most importantly, the saviour of 'Europe' from the scourge of Napoleon (given that he had escaped from exile and conducted prior to Waterloo a broadly successful 'Hundred Days' campaign). However, this is a blunt assessment of the battle and the broader military history context. To really understand and asses the strategy and tactics used by Wellington, we must reinterpret Waterloo within the context of the Hundred Days campaign…" Full text here link Amicalement Armand |
138SquadronRAF | 22 Jun 2015 12:10 p.m. PST |
In the context of the 100 Days Campaign, that is fair. If we consider the Peninsular War Wellington comes of much better. |
wminsing | 22 Jun 2015 12:36 p.m. PST |
In this case merely competent was good enough. ;) -Will |
boy wundyr x | 22 Jun 2015 1:12 p.m. PST |
One better than Napoleon? |
Prince Rupert of the Rhine | 22 Jun 2015 1:13 p.m. PST |
Meh the French threw their best and brightest at him for the best part of 6 years and Wellington was still standing at the end…more than competent I'd say. |
Navy Fower Wun Seven | 22 Jun 2015 1:23 p.m. PST |
Typical academic perspective from an armchair general. Wellington's genius was to consistently be at the right place at the right time. A vital skill, and the one that made the difference at Waterloo. Not something that can be divined from dusty archives by someone whose most stressful moment was the day they spilt their sherry on the Vice Chancellors new carpet… They say history is written by the victors. Not so with the English, there still remains that unhappy, twisted strain of whiggism that is desperate to pull down all the great old heroes in the mean spirit of egalitarianism…. |
bjporter | 22 Jun 2015 1:26 p.m. PST |
The French did not come close to throwing their best and brightest against Wellington until Waterloo. By which time, most of their best and brightest were missing or dead. Wellington was extremely competent as a military commander. He excelled at reading terrain and using the resources available to him. |
Navy Fower Wun Seven | 22 Jun 2015 1:31 p.m. PST |
The French did not come close to throwing their best and brightest against Wellington until Waterloo. Hmm, lets run a quick list of French Marshals beaten by Wellington prior to Waterloo: Massena, Soult, Victor, Jourdan, Marmont. I'd say either they did come close, or Napoleon was a crap judge of command ability? You choose… If anyone is interested in an informed discussion, ponder this: what would have happened if Davout had been running the battle for Napoleon instead of Ney? That would have had the Iron Duke sweating! But I think we know what would have happened: Davout: Sire, attacking an English army on a reverse slope when we can't be sure our flanks are clear is madness. We must manoeuvre on Wellington's right flank, cut him off from his lines of communication, then strike once we are reunited with Grouchy… Napoleon: Ah Davout…you are always for the grand manouever – remember Borodino! You were wrong then, and you are wrong now! Well? (Stamps foot) WELL? |
vtsaogames | 22 Jun 2015 1:55 p.m. PST |
Better than competent and he made less mistakes than Napoleon. That's what counted. And give credit to Blucher for returning to the fray after a beating – as he'd done before. |
MaggieC70 | 22 Jun 2015 3:51 p.m. PST |
I agree that Wellington was competent, even more than competent, from the Peninsula forward. I also think that while he did not have the flashes of real brilliance that Napoleon showed more often than not, Wellington succeeded because over the long haul--and this is how one has to look at it, I think--steadiness and consistency is both less exciting and awe-inspiring, but it certainly is less exhausting. I wouldn't agree, however, that beating Massena [past his prime after Wagram], Victor [really??], Jourdan [not even competent}, and Marmont [and his contributions were…?] sets the bar very high at all. We could beat those guys without breaking a sweat. Soult was the most competent of the bunch, so I give Wellington full marks here. There is Blucher, of course, but I still say Wellie was the right guy for the job at Waterloo. |
138SquadronRAF | 22 Jun 2015 5:46 p.m. PST |
Massena was given an impossible task. Let's assume Napoleon conducts the 3rd Invasion of Portugal and brings the weight of the Imperial Guard will him. His army starves faster and he'll still have as much luck with the Lines of Torres Vedras. Victor and Jourdan; proving that the marshalate was political body as much as a military one. Marmont, well he'll not get any love from the usual suspects here. Couple of points, the relief of Ciudad Rodrigo was masterful. His handing of the Salamanca campaign up to the battle was good. He made a mistake at the Battle itself that Wellington exploited and being wounded very early on didn't help. He was about the only Peninsular marshal who was willing to co-operate with the other commanders in Spain and got he no thanks for it. (Fully expecting a hatchet job because of 1814, it's interesting that Mortier and Moncey escape the odium associated with his surrender.) |
Whatisitgood4atwork | 22 Jun 2015 8:19 p.m. PST |
Wellington was a consummate professional. He never missed an opportunity to stack the deck in his own and his army's favour: from methodical planning, to keeping his troops as well fed, paid, shod and trained as was possible at the time, to choosing the ground he wanted to defend and which the enemy would be obliged to attack. He took risks, but rarely an unnecessary one. He minimised the butcher's bill. He knew what to do after winning. And he won a lot. His professionalism and methodical approach can sometimes make his victories seem less than spectacular. I think this is an illusion. 'Competent' is faint praise for a man of his skills and accomplishments. |
Navy Fower Wun Seven | 22 Jun 2015 11:49 p.m. PST |
We could beat those guys without breaking a sweat. Really? I want to nominate this post for the 'Armchair General of the Year 2015' award please! I also think that while he did not have the flashes of real brilliance that Napoleon showed more often than not I think Wellington's lighting strike across the Douro river in 1809 right under the nose of Soult counts as one of the great coup de main of all time! |
arthur1815 | 23 Jun 2015 3:08 a.m. PST |
Well, if 'flashes of real brilliance' results in one dying a defeated, lonely exile on a miserable rat-infested house on an island in the South Atlantic, I'd rather be 'merely competent'! Everyone – Boney and Nosey included – makes mistakes; what matters is how one recovers from them. I'm reminded of an occasion when the sevens rugby team of a prep school won a tournament by gaing the ball in the scrum, then passing it back to one of the forwards, a big, powerful boy in my class who could lumber over the line, handing off attempts to tackle him. When the announcement was made, the other teams were congratluated for 'playing attractive rugby' – pure sour grapes! I detect a similar attitude in some of the critical comments on Welington. |
von Winterfeldt | 23 Jun 2015 3:27 a.m. PST |
the team work of Wellington and Blücher was exceptional in my view, and both proofed to be competent to beat Napoleon |
ochoin | 23 Jun 2015 3:50 a.m. PST |
"merely competent" is a perfect example of weasel words. Agenda-driven tripe IMO. |
Gazzola | 23 Jun 2015 4:00 a.m. PST |
arthur1815 Napoleon may well have died on an isolated island, but, unlike Wellington and his other opponents, Napoleon had a whole historical period named after him, that's how great he was. And sadly, Wellington would be probably forgotten without Napoleon being remembered all the time, in countless films, documentaries, books etc. I also imagine poor old Welly would have liked a period named after him, rather than relying on being remembered only when his greatest enemy was talked about, or every 100 year celebrations. But Wellington was a better general than many make out, his victories basically prove that. |
Reactionary | 23 Jun 2015 4:07 a.m. PST |
I think Wellington would have thought having a period named after him somewhat parvenu… |
Brechtel198 | 23 Jun 2015 4:11 a.m. PST |
Wellington was a great captain and what is often overlooked is that he was also a master of logistics. He was the best British general since Marlborough (though I'll give Marlborough the nod as 'best' but that's only opinion). And it was Wellington who remarked that Napoleon was the best general of the age. It is also a fact that without Blucher, Wellington would have lost. The 'crisis' of the action came late in the day after the failure of the French cavalry attacks and while Lobau and part of the Guard was engaged against the Prussians on the French right flank. The French were fighting Wellington outnumbered for at least 20,000 of Napoleon's troops were committed against the Prussians. And it was Gneisenau, not Wellington, who made the key strategic decision of the campaign-to move to Wavre instead of Liege and to support Wellington. The bottom line for Waterloo is that it was an allied victory, not a British one and not Wellington's alone. |
Reactionary | 23 Jun 2015 4:15 a.m. PST |
|
Gazzola | 23 Jun 2015 7:31 a.m. PST |
And we must also remember that, as far as I'm aware, not only did Wellington never have an empire to run while commanding in the field, in battle, unlike Napoleon, he never faced more than one army at a time. I wonder how he would have fared had he had to fight the Austrians, Prussians and the Russians at the same time? |
Tango01 | 23 Jun 2015 10:57 a.m. PST |
See the list of Napoleon battles he won… Not match with Wellington in this matter (smile) Even that, the Duke deserves all respect. And yes, without Blücher forces he would lost. Amicalement Armand |
MaggieC70 | 23 Jun 2015 11:27 a.m. PST |
"I think Wellington's lighting strike across the Douro river in 1809 right under the nose of Soult counts as one of the great coup de main of all time!" Certainly is, 417, but it's only one brilliant flash. If you can think of others on that level, please do so. And I still do not think Victor, Marmont, and Jourdan in particular--as in Vittoria in 1813--offer much of a challenge to anyone. |
arthur1815 | 23 Jun 2015 12:19 p.m. PST |
Wellington was a professional soldier; Napoleon a soldier who had made himself emperor and so was also a head of state. On the other hand, he did not have to answer to any one but himself, whereas Wellington had to keep British politicians sweet or off his back. The fact Wellington was not head of state is surely irrelevant in deciding whether he was a 'merely competent' general. As for the argument that the various French marshals and generals defeated by Wellington in Spain were not 'much of a challenge' – one could say the same of many of Napoleon's opponents in his earlier campaigns! |
Gazzola | 23 Jun 2015 12:29 p.m. PST |
Wellington was more than a competent general, that is for certain. But that is generally all he had to be – a general. He did not have all the empire running aspects (burdens) that Napoleon had to deal with, as well as being the commander in the field. Plus, as pointed out previously, he only had to contend with one army at a time, while Napoleon often fought two or three armies at a time, such as the two he had to fight against during the 100 days campaign and at Waterloo. |
arthur1815 | 23 Jun 2015 12:42 p.m. PST |
But if we are judging solely military expertise, the fact that one is not also head of state is irrelevant. One might as well say that about James Wolfe and George II, who was the last British king to command an army in action at Dettingen. Napoleon hardly had all the burdens of running an empire during the Waterloo campaign. If he was distracted by concerns about the political situation in France from applying himself one hundred per cent to defeating the Anglo-Allied and Prussian armies, he could be accused of failing to prioritise, perhaps? |
DeRuyter | 23 Jun 2015 12:58 p.m. PST |
Well after last weeks events I can say that they both give good TV interviews! I did read somewhere that while Wellington won the battle, Napoleon won the PR war afterwards. I understand that Wellington was not a very popular PM either. |
duncanh | 23 Jun 2015 1:02 p.m. PST |
I'm going to wait until Peter Hofschroer gives his opinion. |
138SquadronRAF | 23 Jun 2015 1:47 p.m. PST |
I'm going to wait until Peter Hofschroer gives his opinion. Might take a while old boy since he is currently a guest of Her Majesty…… |
Brechtel198 | 23 Jun 2015 2:17 p.m. PST |
Wellington was a professional soldier… As was Napoleon, who, as one authority of the period once wrote, was most probably in his heart of hearts an artillery company commander and who believed his home was the army. |
Who asked this joker | 23 Jun 2015 3:03 p.m. PST |
I didn't bother reading. Wellington was probably the second best general of the time behind Napoleon. If Prussia does not show up, Wellington is done. If Wellington faced an 1805 version of Napoleon, we would not even be having this debate. As it was, Napoleon was ill and had to rely heavily on Ney to conduct a large part of the battle. Even Wellington himself doubted his position. "Give me Night or Give me Blucher." |
Gazzola | 23 Jun 2015 3:04 p.m. PST |
arthur1815 It is not irrelevant since one would be constantly distracted by affairs of state and the other not. But yes, I imagine it would have been less so for Napoleon during the Waterloo Campaign. But look how well he did, considering he was up against two armies right from the start. Lets agree that they were both great soldiers? |
dibble | 23 Jun 2015 5:22 p.m. PST |
Ironic that Hoffie is screaming innocence over 'alleged trumped up charges. He should have seen it coming with his track record of historic personality and personal character assassination. His venting on this site alone beggars belief. Adkin's Waterloo Companion is my recommendation. He was advertising a updated and revised edition last year, but it seems to have been cancelled. Paul :) |
Navy Fower Wun Seven | 23 Jun 2015 11:36 p.m. PST |
I think Wellington's lighting strike across the Douro river in 1809 right under the nose of Soult counts as one of the great coup de main of all time!"Certainly is, 417, but it's only one brilliant flash. If you can think of others on that level, please do so. Assaye, Salamanca, Second Souraren – will these do? All won by spotting a fleeting opportunity and exploiting it to the max… |
arthur1815 | 24 Jun 2015 2:11 a.m. PST |
Gazzola, Indeed, we are agreed they were both great soldiers! All this debate about whether Wellington would have (a) beaten Napoleon without the Prussians or (b) could have beaten Bonaparte at the height of his powers c.1805 whilst entertaining is impossible to resolve, as Waterloo was the only occasion when they faced each other. But then, there is the quality of the armies they commanded: the consensus seems to be that Napoleon's army was more homogenous, highly motivated and – until the very closing of the battle – reliable, whereas much of Wellington's polyglot Anglo-Allied army was of doubtful loyalty, morale, experience &c. So, might we then say that Wellington displayed the greater skill because he fought Napoleon to a standstill, to allow the Prussians to come up, with an inferior army? Or one could argue that Wellington really defeated Ney, the defacto battlefield commander, rather than Napoleon himself? In which case, though, Napoleon's wisdom in relinquishing command to Ney calls his judgement into question… Since we can't make Nosey and Boney face each other in a series of equal points, tournament style wargames on mirror terrain &c., we can never really know. But, the one, unarguable fact is that the Anglo-Allied and Prussian armies were the victors at Waterloo/Belle Alliance, won the campaign and ended Napoleon's career once and for all. Not bad for two 'merely competent' generals! So what if the battles did not feature any brilliant manoeuvres like Austerlitz – they did the job and achieved the strategic objective, whereas Napoleon failed. Res ipsa loquitur. |
Gazzola | 24 Jun 2015 4:19 a.m. PST |
Arthur1815 We can't really say Wellington defeated anyone, because the fact is, he did not defeat anyone on his own. He was saved by the arrival of the Prussians, forcing Napoleon to fight two armies on two fronts. So that was two 'merely competent' generals against one brilliant general. LOL |
arthur1815 | 24 Jun 2015 5:23 a.m. PST |
Gazzola, Did I ever say Wellington defeated Napoleon 'on his own'? To say he was 'saved by the arrival of the the Prussians' rather downplays the fact that this was a coordinated plan agreed beforehand by Wellington and Blucher, and suggests that it was merely the fortuitous arrival of Blucher's forces that reversed what would otherwise been an Anglo-Allied defeat, when Wellington would not have fought at Mont Saint Jean without the assurance of Blucher's suppport on 18th June. Devising and successfully executing a plan that enabled two 'merely competent' generals to defeat 'one brilliant general' seems pretty good to me! |
138SquadronRAF | 24 Jun 2015 8:31 a.m. PST |
Napoleon once said that he would sooner fight than two good generals than one bad one. At Waterloo he was defeated by one general (Wellington) whom he considered overrated and one general (Blucher) whom he considered a bad general. Oh Irony, thy sting is bitter. |
Supercilius Maximus | 24 Jun 2015 9:19 a.m. PST |
Wellington was more than a competent general, that is for certain. But that is generally all he had to be – a general. He did not have all the empire running aspects (burdens) that Napoleon had to deal with, as well as being the commander in the field. Well, that's what you get when you want to be Monsieur Smarty-Pants and be in charge of everything. On a serious point, is this not a two-edged argument? The Duke had to contend with a home government that was run by civilians who were often politically hostile; he also had only limited say (at best) on which subordinates he was given to work with. I don't recall Napoleon ever complaining that a general sent to him by the French equivalent of the War Office was insane – or having to use generals who were all but senile because their seniority required them to be employed before any other candidate. Plus, as pointed out previously, he only had to contend with one army at a time, while Napoleon often fought two or three armies at a time, such as the two he had to fight against during the 100 days campaign and at Waterloo. Not true. How many Marshals were in Spain at any one time? Each one had an army, and the Duke was constantly having to plain his strategy around the likelihood of being caught between them, or having two or more gang up on him. He rarely had superior numbers of British troops and even with the Portuguese was often outnumbered. And at the same time, he had to co-operate with the Spanish (a task that would exasperate any man) and re-organise the Portuguese (at which he was extremely successful). He also got upset when large numbers of his men were killed and injured. |
Gazzola | 24 Jun 2015 3:57 p.m. PST |
Supercilius Maximus Wellington only had to think of the army and what to do with it at the time. In the Peninsular he only fought one army at a time. He did not have to fight against two, three or even four armies in any one battle. |
Gazzola | 24 Jun 2015 4:11 p.m. PST |
Arthur1815 Wellington fought at Mont St.Jean, hoping the Prussians would arrive, rather than knowing for sure that they would actually do so – hence, give me night or give me Blucher. For a real coordinated plan you would expect more of a 'why are they late?' or 'where are they, don't they know what time it is?' It was a plan that just about worked, thanks mainly to some of Napoleon's officers failing to prevent their dodgy plan from working – eg, Grouchy failing to block the Prussians. But of course, when the result is a victory, a dodgy one can get away with being considered as 'coordinated' or even 'well executed'. |
arthur1815 | 25 Jun 2015 2:18 a.m. PST |
Gazzola, 'No plan survives contact with the enemy' – of course Wellington couldn't predict exactly when the Prussians would arrive, and was trusting Blucher to keep his word, rather than 'knowing for sure', but isn't that the nature of warfare? I don't deny it was a plan with risks, but does that make it 'dodgy' – whatever that means? And it did succeed, so the Duke seems to have assessed the risk of failure correctly. "But of course, when the result is a victory, a dodgy one can get away with being considered as 'coordinated' or even 'well executed'." Very true – not unlike Marengo? |
Supercilius Maximus | 25 Jun 2015 3:44 a.m. PST |
Wellington only had to think of the army and what to do with it at the time. No, he had to think about political opponents at home, and among his Spanish "allies", making that superficially simple task much more difficult than you describe. This was something Napoleon seldom had to worry about, since everyone was required to obey his orders and meet his demands. In the Peninsular he only fought one army at a time. He did not have to fight against two, three or even four armies in any one battle. You mean in the same way that Napoleon only fought one army at a time (whilst avoiding all the others) in 1814? Sorry, I don't understand your point (if any). The key factors are numbers and disposition, not how many different languages and commanders; and in such cases, the potential for infighting and "office politics" amongst several high commands rather than one unified one, negated (if only partially) those advantages. In one such battle (in fact, the only one before 1813 where he fought more than one army on the same day), the two enemy armies were actually using a different calendar, for heavens sake. Like it or not, Wellington operated in a theatre in which there were at least two, often three, and occasionally four enemy armies able (if not always willing) to move against him. Their NUMBERS and DISPOSITIONS limited his freedom of operation; the fact that their leaders (all men chosen by Napoleon) were too self-absorbed and petty to co-ordinate their actions, is not Wellington's fault – and certainly not an indication of lesser ability |
Brechtel198 | 25 Jun 2015 8:15 a.m. PST |
And it must be noted that without the Spanish guerillas, Wellington would have been concentrated against and driven into the sea as Moore was. Conversely, without Wellington's army the Spanish guerillas would have been hunted down and destroyed. And it should also be noted that Suchet remained undefeated in eastern Spain. Lastly, without the Portuguese contribution to Wellington's army, his available forces would have been small, and the Portuguese artillery was vital to his success. |
Gazzola | 25 Jun 2015 6:15 p.m. PST |
Supercilius Maximus Wellington 'thinking' about political opponents may have only resulted in him losing his command, not an empire or control of his country. Hardly the same as what Napoleon had to contend with, is it? In 1805 he had to fight both the combined armies of Austria and Russia and both of them in one battle. In 1813 he had to fight the combined armies of Austria, Russia, Prussia and Sweden. He had to fight three of them who massively outnumbered him at Dresden and four of them who massively outnumbered him at Leipzig. In 1814 he was more like Wellington and fought one army at a time, while again, like Wellington, thinking about the other armies. In 1815, had he not taken the offensive, he would have had to face four armies, the Austrians, the Russians, the Prussians and the Anglo-Dutch-Belgians, who would have massively outnumbered him. As it turned out, he still had to fight two armies, the Prussian and the Anglo-Dutch-Belgian armies, which massively outnumbered him. |
arthur1815 | 26 Jun 2015 7:23 a.m. PST |
Maybe we should turn this discussion on its head, and propose that 'Waterloo showed Napoleon to be incompetent'? Not in general, but on that particular occasion. |
Gazzola | 26 Jun 2015 8:39 a.m. PST |
Now come on arthur1815, you know Napoleon wasn't incompetent. But some of his commanders certainly seemed to be on the day. However, that is war, I guess, and sometimes people are able to do what is asked and sometimes, for whatever reason, they are not. I think that goes for all sides and commanders. |
138SquadronRAF | 26 Jun 2015 10:35 a.m. PST |
But some of his commanders certainly seemed to be on the day. However, that is war, I guess, and sometimes people are able to do what is asked and sometimes, for whatever reason, they are not. I think that goes for all sides and commanders. There is a strong case to be made a number of the commanders, Ney for example, were, by 1813, suffering from PTSD. Or would you prefer to term this "lack of moral fibre"? |
Gazzola | 26 Jun 2015 3:36 p.m. PST |
138SquadronRAF I think all the French commanders, including Napoleon, had been fighting for far too long, not that they had much choice. But I imagine that the affairs of 1812, 1813 and 1814, would have had some sort effect on all of them, one way or another. |
sjpatejak | 26 Jun 2015 7:51 p.m. PST |
Even before the battle begins, Wellington has made a brilliant decision. He's picked the battlefield, one perfectly suited to his style of fighting. |