Who was the best: Marlborough or Wellington? Wellington helped defeat French forces in the peninsular, with careful deployment and steadfast troops. Before he won crushing victories at Assaye, Arguam and Gawlighur(spelling not good). And finally with Blucher beat napoleon at waterloo. Marlborough on the other hand, "never fought a battle he did not win nor besiege a place that he did not take." Including victories at Blenheim, Ramilies, Oudenarde, Lille and malplaquet.
How does Ulisyss S Grant grab you. He was cool headed under fire, always made sure that his forces had the advantage,and attacked from a position of strength. Only at the Battle of Shiloh did he let his ego get the better of him and history knows the cost of that little episode.
With out doubt Cesaer has to be the favourite, though there are a Hugenumber of competitors.
Wallace is certainly there, Bruce too. Cumberland clever chose very correct tactics. Somerled used brilliant guerilla tactics, while Calgatus inflicted a huge and demoralising defeat on Rome.
In terms of fighting battles, Napoleon by a mile. I once read a book of his campaigns, and the sheer number of battles he fought and won is staggering. He turned France from a disshelved wreck following the Revolution into an awesome miltary power. Like Alexander the Great though, he just didn't know when to stop.
OK but Austerlitz soon turned into the Spanish ulcer, retreat from Moscow, Battle of the Nations, Waterloo......that's totally disasterous isn't it?
You can't say that France was a "disheveled wreck" militarily after the Revolution. At the battle of Valmy if I remember rightly the Prussian commander said someting to the effect "gentlemen, you see the spirit of the men who oppose us", and promptly turned tail
In terms of grand stategy, Napoleon left a lot to be desired (invading Russia - always a bad idea). Also, he couldn't be everywhere at once (and good thing that was, too). One of his biggest weaknesses was that his subordinates had nowhere near the same grasp of his skills as a battlefield commander. Would Wellington had been as successful in the Peninsula had Napoleon decided to face him?
You speak of the 'Battle of Nations' and Waterloo. But it should also be remembered that the entire French army was annhilated in the Russian campaign, and the army that fought at Leipzig was quickly assembled from inferior units. Despite the defeat in battle, it was a near-run thing, much as Waterloo was later. Napoleon was ultimately defeated, but it took the strength of a number of powers to subdue him.
And France was in trouble after the revoltution. The fact that the Prussians were seen off by the French was seen as quite remarkable at the time, given the instability of the country. In any case, few would have predicted that France would go on to be the leading military power on the continent after decades of internal strife.
In my opinion it is not just someone who can command troops in battle that makes a good commander, it is the ability to organize military hospitals and supply lines. This is something Napolean neglected on the way to fight the Russians. When it was evident that the vast majority were not going to survive the march back he just abondoned them (it was too late for him to do anything at this point). This was the beginning of the end. He should have known the limitations and stopped pursuing the Russians.
Napoleon was an adventurer, as was Alexander the Great, Julius Ceaser and a great many other great generals. Not many great commanders had their soldiers welfare at the top of their list of priorities. If we are talking welfare, then surely the great commander is someone who avoids war altogether.
Furthermore, it could also be said of all three named above and a great deal of others that they all had the need to create wars, which hadn't existed before. It all depends what you think a 'great' general to be - great does not have to mean good.
I nominated Napoleon as the greatest general due to the sheer number of successes on the battlefield, and his consistent ability to out-manouver his oppenents, which was more or less all the rest of Europe. Anyone who doubts me, read up on his campaigns.
I don't think much of his grand strategy, or the fact he caused hundreds of thousands of deaths because of his wars of conquest, in the same way I don't think much of Ceasar and his contribution to the stability of the Roman Republic or Romano-Gaul relations.
Napoleon was an adventurer, as was Alexander the Great, Julius Ceaser and a great many other great generals. Not many great commanders had their soldiers welfare at the top of their list of priorities. If we are talking welfare, then surely the great commander is someone who avoids war altogether.
Furthermore, it could also be said of all three named above and a great deal of others that they all had the need to create wars, which hadn't existed before. It all depends what you think a 'great' general to be - great does not have to mean good.
I nominated Napoleon as the greatest general due to the sheer number of successes on the battlefield, and his consistent ability to out-manouver his oppenents, which was more or less all the rest of Europe. Anyone who doubts me, read up on his campaigns.
I don't think much of his grand strategy, or the fact he caused hundreds of thousands of deaths because of his wars of conquest, in the same way I don't think much of Ceasar and his contribution to the stability of the Roman Republic or Romano-Gaul relations.
A good post.
I looked up the definition of Commander and found this ' someone in an official position of authority who can command or control others'
I am not sure my previous post was that relevent as I am not sure who would be responsible for the supply lines, support and health of an army. Maybe this has nothing to do with the commander, and his role is purely tactical on the field of battle (which I now suppose it is).
I don't think the whole welfare aspect is entirely irrelevant to a 'great' commander, but perhaps it is a smaller element. As an example off the top of my head, Monty (a good, though not great commander) was well known as a cautious commander, who considered carefully the welfare of his soldiers. To me, this displays an understanding of the British army at the time - which was not as flexible or manouverable as the Germans. For instance, the Germans under Rommel would often undertake opportunistic attacks and be able to pull them off - the British less so. So Monty spent a lot of time and preperation for El Alamein, and made Rommel fight him on terms more favourable to the British. In addition to the victory, Monty still had his army intact - a not un-important fact given Britain's limited manpower.
On the other hand, though, during the American Civil War, Grant understood that his opponent Lee was a far better battlefield tacticial commander. The Union had the advantage in terms of manpower, and so he fought an attritional war with Lee, which would grind the Southern Army down and win the war as the Confederacy could not replace the losses in battle, whereas the Union could.
Napoleon on the other hand, didn't really give a fig for his men at all.
