"Soult as a commander?" Topic

Reading up on Soult and he seems to have had his ups and downs.

He seems to have been a hard fighter in the Peninsula, though he was bested by Wellington (hardly any shame there) while in the Hundred Days, he often gets a lot of blame for falling short even though his duties then were quite different.

What's your call?
Solid military man with some bad dice rolls or a mid-range military man who got lucky?

Too self-absorbed to see the picture or a scapegoat to preserve the shine of Napoleon in 1815?

I am sure you have seen the very long thread here suggesting he was basically a double agent in Les Cent Jours….based on the book Waterloo Betrayed by Stephen Beckett

I think that was before my time :)

That sounds a bit out there, though he was certainly no stranger to polishing his own feathers!

Decent commander, a bit out of his depth in the Hundred Days

As I recall he had light fingers!

Soult was an excellent soldier and and a more-than-competent corps commander. He and Davout commanded the two best corps d'armee in the Grande Armee.

His personality was a little quirky and he liked to 'collect' religious paintings, adding to his collection while in Spain at the expense of the Catholic Church.

Ameil said that his nickname of 'Iron Hand' fitted him exactly.

His performance at Austerlitz was superb, as was his performance at Jena. He also had the character to tell Murat 'no' to his face for some of the more costly ideas that Murat wanted to do at Heilsberg in 1807.

And he is the commander who ran the British out of northern Spain at Corunna.

He was not a good chief of staff in 1815 and certainly did not come close to organizing a staff that was as efficient as Berthier's had been. I don't agree at all that he was a 'double agent' in the 100 Days.

I do believe, however, that he had a hand in bringing Napoleon back in 1815.

I have always said that if Napoleon had employed Soult and Davout as his wing commanders, Ney as the commander of the Guard and Grouchy as the cavalry reserve commander during the 100 days things would have turned out differently!!

he did accumulate quite the collection of paintings from what I have understood.

And he is the commander who ran the British out of northern Spain at Corunna.

Or rather, he is the commander who couldn't catch the British and then got soundly beaten by them.

Good luck if you do follow these two links, especially the second, but there certainly is very detailed appraisal of Soult and his talents!

TMP link
TMP link

Soult got completely owned by Wellington and indeed every British commander he faced: Moore and Beresford as well.

Soult was an excellent strategist and a mediocre tactician. Also mediocre as an independent commander. Although he fought hard in the Peninsula, Wellington and the others over-rated him to make their victories seem more impressive. Duke of Damnation indeed. However, after reading Dempsey's impressive work on Albuera, I feel Beresford just got damn lucky. The fact he never held independent command again suggests Wellington agreed.

Albuera says it all….good administrator, (though remarkably average chief of staff in 1815); good at manoeuvring troops but didn't know what to do with them once in battle, when fighting as an independent commander.

DB

over rated, a string of defeats, very dubious role in 1815 as chief of staff.

Don't know about Beresford owning Soult. Being attacked by a force 2/3 the size of your own and narrowly beating it due to intervention by a subordinate does not seem to be a definition of owning.

As for Soult's collection of Spanish paintings, I've seen it on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It is massive and must have required quite a few wagons. It filled several large rooms. He had a good eye.

@ vstao: I am discounting the Spanish as of little military value, but attacking a superior force with a predictable outcome would appear to be more than a bit stupid to me.

I'd also add to Kevin's comments that his performance in the closing stages of the Peninsula War and the invasion of France was excellent, even if he was ultimately defeated.

There were better choices for Chief of Staff during the Cent Jours but I too don't buy the "Soult was a double agent" theory even if Stephen Beckett's book was a interesting read.

I guess that when Napoleon called him "the best Tactician in Europe" and then repeatedly gave him independent commands, he was mistaken.

Soult was surprised that the Spanish had joined Beresford. That said, he kept Beresford fixed with a feint while he fell upon Blake. As for the Spanish being of little value, Zayas' division turned to their flank, held off twice their number for two hours, shrugged off the destruction of Colborne's brigade by the Vistula lancers, then were fired on by arriving British reinforcements. They only fell back when out of ammunition and were relieved. Had they broken earlier Albuera would be known as an Allied rout.

I've read various accounts of the battle that blame much on the Spanish. They are wrong.

I cannot agree that he did excellent, maybe at Austerlitz – but otherwise a bland performer, not like Davout, Dupont, Bernadotte, Marmont, Massea – certainly not bad, but overrated, a very odd unloyal character as well, see for that Journal de Tascher – how he treated subordinates or even humilitad Guyot and sent him to certain death.

Soult was superior as a commander to Dupont, Bernadotte, and Marmont.

He wouldn't have behaved, or have become trapped as Dupont did, nor would he have behaved dishonorably.

He would not have failed to support another corps commander as Bernadotte did in 1806 nor would he have fought against his former comrades and his own country.

He would not have become a traitor as Marmont did.

His record of service and his character are much, much better than those three.

the duke of damnation indeed.
His role in 1815 – very fishy, first what he is saying to his King about Napoléon, then what he brings forward as excuses why he did say this and then when he was minister of war, post Napoleonic (he made a very good career in contrast to other French marshals under the Bourbons) – a lot of documents – surprise – surprise – disappear from the archives.
I cannot see any such brilliant actions as Pozzolo, Dürnstein – Leoben, Jungingen, Halle, Friedland – Soult over rated indeed.

Soult did a good job in the Pyrenees against Wellington. He inflicted a tactical check on him at Toulouse that was akin to the one Wellington inflicted on Massena at Buçaco. That is, he defended a position he hadn't any intention of holding, purely because it afforded a low-risk opportunity to deal out more casualties than he was likely to receive. Having done so, and achieved this limited but useful goal, he withdrew.

Wellington has a better claim to victory at Buçaco than Soult does for Toulouse, because Wellington inflicted losses at 10x rather than 2x his own rate, because the Buçaco position was of no value to the French whereas Toulouse was worth taking just to remove a threat, and because Massena's strategic "gain" was to end up deeper in hostile territory i.e. worse off, whereas Wellington's gain was to be even further into France. Soult was probably quite legitimately happy with the outcome of Toulouse nonetheless.

@ McLaddie:

I guess that when Napoleon called him "the best Tactician in Europe" and then repeatedly gave him independent commands, he was mistaken.

Napoleon presumably thought so. Before Waterloo he told Soult that because he (Soult) had been beaten by Wellington he (Soult) considered him a good general, whereas Wellington was in fact a bad general, and the "English" a bad army. So Napoleon considered Wellington a bad general and Soult an even worse one.

Of course, Napoleon was playing to the gallery and / or pushing back on all the irritating negative waves coming from his lieutenants that morning. So it's contextual – but so equally might have been his "best Tactician in Europe" remark, I suppose.

Soult was superior as a commander to Dupont, Bernadotte, and Marmont.

In one respect I will disagree. During his time in Spain Marmont went out of his way to support his fellow generals. Something Soult, along with other Peninsula Gernals was notorious for not doing.

Napoleon presumably thought so. Before Waterloo he told Soult that because he (Soult) had been beaten by Wellington he (Soult) considered him a good general, whereas Wellington was in fact a bad general, and the "English" a bad army. considered Wellington a bad general and Soult an even worse one.

So, which French general actually beat Wellington?

General of Brigade Jean-Louis Dubreton, commander of Burgos. <grin>