Telegraph: George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe

[zoony]

It's not important that I'm right (again). It's much more important that you realize you are wrong .

:ols:

Someone get this in meme form

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the empire was built on ships.

What the British were incredibly good at was keeping other European powers from getting to their colonies, and they did that via their Navy.

The freaking Dutch had a massive overseas empire. I'm not even sure that the Dutch had access to bullets. Forming a European empire was not that difficult. Keeping other Europeans out was the trick.

In fariness, the one thing the British generally did exceptionally well (at least in comparison to everyone else including eventually the US) was manage their territories. The Empire was built on ships and bureaucrats.

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 06:22 PM ----------

Someone get this in meme form

That was kind of awesome.

Has JMS ever been funny before? I feel Robin Williams in Awakenings.

[JMS]

Churchill was no longer Prime Minister but he was obsessed with the "new" Polish border as early as '43' date=' I believe. All four countries were in favor of de-Germanization of Poland and Czechoslovakia. Stalin did do it in a particularly Stalin-esque manner, but it was in agreement with the three other powers.

.[/quote']

All kidding aside, Are you suggesting Stalin cared at all what Churchill or Roosevelt thought in 1945?

It's true that Roosevelt tinkered with de-industrializing Germany. But I think that was pretty short lived. I wasn't aware that Churchill had any anti German feelings. It had long been Britain's policy to align itself against the strongest power on the continent.. Be it Spain, France, or in 1939 Germany. I thought Churchill was already focused on the soviet union in 1945; not living in the passed by advocating persecuting Germany. As I remember it Churchill was one of the voices of reason against Roosevelt's plan to turn Germany's industry into farmland.

I don't have any specifics about this but that's my impression, I would be interested in hearing your counter argument.

Churchill and the Brits essentially got into WWII to defend Poland's boarders. Their hard pill to swallow in 1945 was leaving Poland to the tender mercies of Stalin when the fighting was over something the Brits were really upset about and lobbied hard to change. Roosevelt was having none of Churchill's protesting though and struck a deal with Stalin for the Soviets to administer a polish transition from occupation to electorally determining their own fate.. Something which Stalin never did, and arguable never intended to do.

Churchill was way ahead of Roosevelt in recognizing Stalin as a bad actor. Roosevelt was still thinking he could charm Stalin. Stalin who would become the largest mass murder in the 20th century, eclipsing Hitler.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Anyway, I generally agree with Predicto here so it is super fun to attack him relentlessly.

I reject the idea that the British were somehow braver than, like, the Portuguese. (I will accept that the British were braver than the Italians because Italians soldiers have sucked for 1800 years).

I completely accept the idea that the British were more bored than everyone else. Every second son of the Earl of Poofingham was figthing the Zulu and the Paki. They were just as brave as every army but remarkably more literate. Illiterate Frenchmen were not writing 6 volume epics on the glories they achieved on the Ivory Coast. Lord Quidditchmatch was.

[Predicto]

You guys are substituting "American common knowledge" for reality. Not all the battles were fought in the Sudan. Most were in Asia, and in reality, a lot of the armies and uprisings the Brits defeated were armed with the latest weaponry, and advised by Prussian and French officers.

Read up on the Battle of Assaye, for example, where the Brits were outnumbered and outgunned, and basically won by fixing bayonets and being more vicious. Or the Battle of Inkerman in the Crimea, where the Brits and some French allies defeated a Russian army five times bigger. Or the Battle of Khandahar in Afganistan. These were not just brown people armed with sticks.

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 04:43 PM ----------

All kidding aside, Are you suggesting Stalin cared at all what Churchill or Roosevelt thought in 1945?

It's true that Roosevelt tinkered with de-industrializing Germany. But I think that was pretty short lived. I wasn't aware that Churchill had any anti German feelings. It had long been Britain's policy to align itself against the strongest power on the continent.. Be it Spain, France, or in 1939 Germany. I thought Churchill was already focused on the soviet union in 1945; not living in the passed by advocating persecuting Germany. As I remember it Churchill was one of the voices of reason against Roosevelt's plan to turn Germany's industry into farmland.

I don't have any specifics about this but that's my impression, I would be interested in hearing your counter argument.

It wasn't Roosevelt's plan. It was Henry Morgenthau's plan, and Roosevelt made sure that it never went anywhere (until he died).

And Roosevelt did not think he could charm Stalin, as much as he realized that the American people would never countenance attacking the Soviets after fighting with them for years and jointly defeating Hitler, and the troops wanted to come home. Churchill wanted Roosevelt to do something politically impossible.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

All kidding aside, Are you suggesting Stalin cared at all what Churchill or Roosevelt thought in 1945?

Since one was dead and one was out of office, no. He did care what they thought in '43 in Tehran. Both agreed that Poland's western border would be moved to the Curzon Line. They also agreed that to (in part) make up for this loss of territory, they would move the Western border to the Oder.

This brought a ****load of Germans into new Polish territory. The Poles did not want them there. None of the Big Three wanted them there.

The main impetus behind this from the British and American position was to get Prussia the hell out of Germany. Prussia was still seen as the military engine of Germany and they wanted Germany to be de-militarized.

By mid 1945, something like six million Germans were being pushed out of Poland into East Germany. Moving Germans all over the map was the Western Allies favorite game in the Summer and Fall of '45. East Germany was practically empty because so many fled the Red Army. (The best people to be governed by were the Brits. The worst was the Russians. The French were actually almost as awful as the Russians). But several million were sent back to East Germany by the Americans and Brits.

There was some idea to deindustrialize Germany, but the main goal was to de-militarize Germany, hence removing Germans from Prussia and putting Poles in their place.

Churchill certainly recognized what Stalin was doing in Poland early; the Warsaw Uprising was a pretty big clue. But he wouldn't have been in a positiont to stop him even if he remained Prime Minister. Stalin accepted Churchill's map and then made it a vassal state.

[zoony]

Judging by the time needed to respond, methinks predicto googled "British army land victories"

:ols:

Jk

[JMS]

Here would be a fun question: Who is the best British general in history? It's kind of shocking of how such a military can be so successful for literally centuries and rarely have a true visionary as a leader. A lot of people are going to say Montgomery' date=' but I think he was a better press agent than general in a lot of respects.

(Also, as a complete aside, I think the one true genius among Confederate generals was Forrest. It's not fun to praise him, but it's the truth. Lee was a brilliant organizer and inspiring leader and he was solid tactically. Forrest was possessed of mad genius).[/quote']

I would say Englands greatest military leader was by far Horatio Nelson...

If we need to narrow it down to army, I would go with the obvious Duke of Wellington, and perhaps Field Marshal William Slim who turned around Burma for the Brits in WWII.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

PS

Churchill was a product of the British Empire and sometimes got far too theoretical in drawing borders, I think. He had a vision of a more "western" Poland, with a border easier to defend from German attack. He was willing to give Stalin territory to make that vision a reality. He had the same vision with Czechoslovakia that - in grand British tradition - was a country created out of wholecloth. I'm not entirely sure why he thought he would be able to stop Soviet domination of these new countries when they formed. He was a visionary for seeing the problem so fast, but he had a large hand in creating it in the first place.

[Predicto]

Judging by the time needed to respond, methinks predicto googled "British army land victories"

:ols:

Jk

19th and early 20th century war and politics is a huge interest of mine, and I have read quite a few books on the subject, but I have to admit that I get the battles confused and need to refresh my memory. Google is my friend.

Unlike some people, however, I am "refreshing" my knowledge rather than "creating" it.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Judging by the time needed to respond, methinks predicto googled "British army land victories"

:ols:

Jk

We all have our soft spots.

[Predicto]

I would say Englands greatest military leader was by far Horatio Nelson...

If we need to narrow it down to army, I would go with the obvious Duke of Wellington, and perhaps Field Marshal William Slim who turned around Burma for the Brits in WWII.

Look up Duke of Marborough. He had a hell of a lot of success.

[zoony]

19th and early 20th century war and politics is a huge interest of mine, and I have read quite a few books on the subject, but I have to admit that I get the battles confused and need to refresh my memory. Google is my friend.

Unlike some people, however, I am "refreshing" my knowledge rather than "creating" it.

All I know is, they had a sailing culture and built the greatest ships in the world manned by the best sailors

And they were all crammed on an island that had no natural resources and lousy weather. The plot kind of writes itself

[Predicto]

PS

Churchill was a product of the British Empire and sometimes got far too theoretical in drawing borders' date=' I think. He had a vision of a more "western" Poland, with a border easier to defend from German attack. He was willing to give Stalin territory to make that vision a reality. He had the same vision with Czechoslovakia that - in grand British tradition - was a country created out of wholecloth. I'm not entirely sure why he thought he would be able to stop Soviet domination of these new countries when they formed. He was a visionary for seeing the problem so fast, but he had a large hand in creating it in the first place.[/quote']

He also had a knack for seeing problems that no one could solve. Fact was, once there were a couple of million Russian soldiers with T-34 tanks sitting in Poland, there was no realistic way to get them out absent dropping nukes on them. They had every advantage in numbers and supply lines and the American people did not want our soldiers to start dying to free Poland from our erstwhile ally. We didn't owe Poland anything - we were there to defeat Hitler and then go home.

Roosevelt (and Truman) realized this, Churchill (and Patton) did not.

[JMS]

Since one was dead and one was out of office' date=' no. [/quote']

Roosevelt was dead February 3, 1945 when he met with Stalin and Churchill at Malta? No wonder he found Stalin so persuasive.

He did care what they thought in '43 in Tehran. Both agreed that Poland's western border would be moved to the Curzon Line. They also agreed that to (in part) make up for this loss of territory' date=' they would move the Western border to the Oder.

[/quote']

Good Point. I think Roosevelt had a strong enough hand as Stalin desparately needed us to open up a major front against Germany. D-Day was still 6 months away.

He did care what they thought in '43 in Tehran. Both agreed that Poland's western border would be moved to the Curzon Line. They also agreed that to (in part) make up for this loss of territory' date=' they would move the Western border to the Oder.

This brought a ****load of Germans into new Polish territory. The Poles did not want them there. None of the Big Three wanted them there.

The main impetus behind this from the British and American position was to get Prussia the hell out of Germany. Prussia was still seen as the military engine of Germany and they wanted Germany to be de-militarized.

By mid 1945, something like six million Germans were being pushed out of Poland into East Germany. Moving Germans all over the map was the Western Allies favorite game in the Summer and Fall of '45. East Germany was practically empty because so many fled the Red Army. (The best people to be governed by were the Brits. The worst was the Russians. The French were actually almost as awful as the Russians). But several million were sent back to East Germany by the Americans and Brits.

There was some idea to deindustrialize Germany, but the main goal was to de-militarize Germany, hence removing Germans from Prussia and putting Poles in their place.

Churchill certainly recognized what Stalin was doing in Poland early; the Warsaw Uprising was a pretty big clue. But he wouldn't have been in a positiont to stop him even if he remained Prime Minister. Stalin accepted Churchill's map and then made it a vassal state.

[/quote']

Those are all excellent points.

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 08:10 PM ----------

Look up Duke of Marborough. He had a hell of a lot of success.

Yeah he's definitely top 5..

The Duke of Wellington, General Slim, Oliver Cromwell, The Duke of Marlborough, and Douglas Haig

I give Wellington street cred because he defeated Napoleon who I think is one of the greatest generals of all time. It's really a toss up though. Britain has had many great generals.

---------- Post added April-19th-2012 at 08:12 PM ----------

the American people did not want our soldiers to start dying to free Poland from our erstwhile ally.......

Roosevelt (and Truman) realized this, Churchill (and Patton) did not.

That is so true...

[HailGreen28]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUDCg9bHzVg

[MartinC]

Roosevelt was dead February 3, 1945 when he met with Stalin and Churchill at Malta? No wonder he found Stalin so persuasive.

Yalta, which is in the Crimea.

Yeah he's definitely top 5..

The Duke of Wellington, General Slim, Oliver Cromwell, The Duke of Marlborough, and Douglas Haig

I give Wellington street cred because he defeated Napoleon who I think is one of the greatest generals of all time. It's really a toss up though.

Its an interesting debate. I would put Wellington at the top of the list - he is underrated in my opinion while Napoleon is overrated.

Napoleon's genius was in recognizing the importance of massing artillery and in the invention (or at least the adoption) of both the Divisional and Corp systems of organisation which gave him a tremendous advantage in terms of ability to maneuver and flexibility. He also benefited from fighting against some pretty mediocre opposition in terms of tactics and leadership through most of his campaigns. The only major battle Napoleon commanded in which he was up against a major British force was Waterloo.

Wellington was essentially a defensive general but one who understood strategy better than just about any of his contempories including Napoleon and also had an instinctive understanding and ability of how to use terrain and reverse slope positions. He also had the knack of guessing what was over the other side of the hill and when it was time to attack.

Douglas Haig is an interesting name. He is controversial over here in the UK and his reputation has suffered from generations of study of WW1. The Somme is still a battle which hangs over us in the UK - we took over 50,000 casualties on the first day of that offensive and over 400,000 by the end of the battle. To put that in context that's more military casualties than we took in the whole of WWII. He probably did about the best he could with the command and control systems available, the strategic imperative to attack and the dominance of defensive fire power over attack but I would still struggle to put him on a top 5 list or even top 10.

Cromwell and Marlborough deserve that ranking and I would possibly add Montgomery to the list. He was overrated by the British but underrated by the Americans in WWII - his personality did not lend itself to coalition command and he was better in defense than attack but his achievements in Africa against Rommel are impressive, if largely a triumph of logistics and strategical planning over operational and tactical genius.

Britain has had many great generals.

We certainly have and some bad ones as well.

---------- Post added April-20th-2012 at 05:48 AM ----------

Correct me if I am wrong, but the empire was built on ships.

What did their army ever do besides conquer primitive brown people? We kicked them out of this country as soon as we were able. They never made any headway in Europe or against anyone who could fight back.

Color me unimpressed. Their navy? Yah, badass. Their army? Not feeling you there

You are correct that the British Empire and the power of Britain was largely a result of our Naval power an area were we were still the dominant world power until the 1930's and we were still the dominant European Naval power until, well, we probably still are. The British Empire was also built on trade and to protect commercial interest so not much really changes in that respect in world power struggles .....

The Army until WW1 was always pretty small - never much more than 100,000 men. It was very professional though for its time and was instrumental in defeating France in the Napoleonic Wars even though it was part of a coalition. We did not introduce conscription until WW1 so in contrast to most of the armies it was fighting it was a professional force versus largely amateur opposition outside the Officer corps. Throughout our history British soldiers, units and armies have been excellent in defensive battles and very reliable and steady under pressure and fire. Due to our traditional command structures and the effects of the class structure British soldiers and units have lacked initiative and the ability to improvise in the way say the Germans excelled in WWII and have been less impressive in offensive operations.

[MartinC]

Bonaparte had kicked the butts of the British, the Prussians, the Austrians, the Russians and several smaller states all at the same time, with his armies often at a massive numerical disadvantage in battle after battle.

Napoleon only fought directly against the British once personally. Battle of Waterloo. The other occasion during the Napoleonic war in which a major British army fought against French formations (though not led by Napoleon) was the in the Peninsular campaign (Portugal and Spain) - the French were defeated in this as well despite outnumbering Wellingtons forces - although significant French forces were tied down fighting guerrilla fighters (in a reversal of the situation faced by the British in the American War of Independence).

He is probably the greatest general the Western World ever produced. But the march on Moscow did him in.

That's the conventional wisdom and he certainly was responsible for significant advances in military thinking in the areas of operational and tactical command but ultimately he was a failure both militarily (he abandoned 3 armies in the field in Egypt, Russia and at Waterloo) and above all politically.

I guess the answer depends on the criteria you choose to use. Washington was a greater statesman and his personal integrity led to something much more lasting than Napoleon's empire. But to me, Napoleon was a greater "foe" of the British in a military/existential sense, which is what the survey was about.

I agree with you here - America was a colonial side show compared to the threat from the French within Europe and the British forces deployed in America were decidely second rate compared with the forces committed against Napoleon. Hitler would also come way above Washington IMO.

---------- Post added April-20th-2012 at 08:48 AM ----------

If you're purely talking about a military commander then the best one the British ever faced was Erwin Rommel.

Not even close. Of the German generals of WWII Manstein was the most able strategic commander and Guderian and Hoth were superior to Rommel as operational and tactical commanders. Rommel had ability as an operational and tactical commander but his 'genius' and reputation were to a large extent a product of him being one of Hitlers favorite commanders outside the SS - Rommel commanded Hitlers Werhmacht bodyguard battalion pre war - and Goebbels PR machine allied to Rommel's admitted ability did the rest.

[JMS]

I would possibly add Montgomery to the list. He was overrated by the British but underrated by the Americans in WWII - his personality did not lend itself to coalition command and he was better in defense than attack but his achievements in Africa against Rommel are impressive, if largely a triumph of logistics and strategical planning over operational and tactical genius. .

From an American perspective Montgomery wasn't one of Britain's best. From our perspective the man refused battle unless he had every advantage. During our own civil war we had 7 such commanders before we finally found USS Grant.

• George McClellan (twice)
  
• John Pope
  
• Ambrose Burnside
  
• Irvin McDowell
  
• Joseph Hooker
  
• George Meade
  

They likely prolonged the American Civil war by years. Thus overly cautious generals is the one fatal flaw in a General Americans are most unforgiving of.

I think you are exactly correct in attributing Montgomery's victory in north Africa over "Rommel" to overwhelming logistical advantage. Nothing wrong with that, in the 21st century the US would embrace the Powell doctrine which advocates a parallel strategy to deny battle unless you can bring overwhelming advantages into battle with you. Only Montgomery regularly had overwhelming advantages, and still delayed and delayed and delayed.

Take the Second Battle of El Alamein, the one which made Montgomery's name. It was obscene the advantages which Montgomery demanded and ultimately commanded. Panzer Army Africa had only one-third of its initial strength remaining, with only 35 tanks left operational, virtually no fuel or ammunition and with the British in complete command of the air. Montgomery had a two to one advantage in tanks (German + Italian), artillery, armored cars, and men. Complete command of the air... Rommel wasn't even in command in the beginning of the battle due to his health, Georg Stumme was in command of the Afrika Corps and he died of a heart attack midway through the battle freezing the German forces...

Every advantage possible, and Rommel still was able to slip away. As the war progressed Montgomery became more cautious and frankly his tendency to hesitate unless he had such advantages were not generally practical to indulge and infuriating. That coupled with Montgomery's abrasive, evasive, and insulting personality is what sealed America's opinion of the man.

---------- Post added April-20th-2012 at 10:36 AM ----------

I agree with you here - America was a colonial side show compared to the threat from the French within Europe and the British forces deployed in America were decidely second rate compared with the forces committed against Napoleon. Hitler would also come way above Washington IMO..

As you have said, and as the original article stated, Napoleon didn't fight many major battles against the British, and the battles they did fight the British tended to fair pretty well. Napoleon made his reputation fighting other nations. That is why Napoleon who was one of the greatest generals in history; doesn't fair all that high in this poll.

Hitler was not ranked simple because he never commanded men in the field. He was a dictator and this was a poll of generals. Hitler was thus outside the scope of this call.

I would lastly argue that Washington started the French and Indian War and was a household name in Britain before the revolutionary war. Washington also was an exceptional tactician, strategist, and an inspired leader of men. The fact that his statesmanship probable eclipsed all of the above should not discount his generalship. That his personal cult of admirers and how he marshaled them is likely the only reason the United States survived it's early years should not count against him.

No less a figure than King George after all said that if Washington did not make himself King he would be the greatest man to have ever lived..

“If he does that, he (George Washington) will be the Greatest Man in the World! "

Quote by King George III, of the United Kingdom - the Hated War Enemy whom Washington defeated, upon hearing of Washington's plan to retire as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army (1783), surrender power to Congress and go home to Mt. Vernon.

http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/World-Leader-Quotes-On-George-Washington.html

“[George Washington is] The 'Cincinnatus' of the West."

Quote by the Great British Statesman "Lord Byron ";

"You have in American history one of the great captains of all times. It might be said of him, as it was of William the Silent, ... he never lost a campaign."

Quote by the Great German Von Moltke, Berlin;

I think Washington as Britains greatest enemy ( in the field) is entirely appropriote. Clearly Washington was not an existencial threat to Britain, but that is really as much an inditement of his proximity than his ability. To claim that he didn't go against Britian's best also seems rather indefensable. The British he did go against afterall won most of the engagements. Washington's primary genius in the Revolution was to escape, again and again in order to fight again. His gift in strategy was to realize that his major goal was not to defeat the british in the field but to survive winning symbolic victories until he could coax the French into the battle.

Likewise to claim Cornwallis was not a front line officer in the british army also seems diengenous... After all the British tried six major commanders in the revolutionary war and Washington handled them all.

1. Sir William Howe
   
2. Thomas Gage
   
3. Sir Henry Clinton
   
4. Lord Cornwallis (POW)
   
5. John Burgoyne (POW)
   

[MartinC]

Every advantage possible, and Rommel still was able to slip away. As the war progressed Montgomery became more cautious and frankly his tendency to hesitate unless he had such advantages were not generally practical to indulge and infuriating. That coupled with Montgomery's abrasive, evasive, and insulting personality is what sealed America's opinion of the man.

I tend to agree with your opinion of Montgomery as an overly cautious General. However what he did was stop the rot and turn an army that had become used to being beaten into an effective and efficient force expecting to win. He recognized that his strength, and Rommels weakness, was logistics and ability to reapply and reinforce. He exploited that and was the first Allied General to inflict defeat on the Germans on land in WWII. He provided the blueprint for the overall defeat of the Germans in WWII - tie them down in positional battles and use overwhelming logistical and material superiority to grind them down.

,To claim that he didn't go against Britian's best also seems rather indefensable.

The best units in the British Army of the time were the Guards infantry regiments and the Heavy Cavalry regiments. None of these were committed in the American war. I doubt they would have made much difference in the end since the campaign was essentially won (or lost from our perspective) by logistics, the ability to reinforce and by Washingtons ability to maintain his army in the field longer than the British.

The British units that did take part though were inexperienced, badly led at tactical level and lacked effective operational command. Even simple things like ensuring the correct calibre cannon shells were available was lacking.

Likewise to claim Cornwallis was not a front line officer in the british army also seems diengenous...

I certainly would not claim Cornwallis was not a front line officer, he certainly was, but I would claim he was not an effective operational or field commander. He was a staff officer and an administrator not a fighting soldier.

[JMS]

I tend to agree with your opinion of Montgomery as an overly cautious General. However what he did was stop the rot and turn an army that had become used to being beaten into an effective and efficient force expecting to win. He recognized that his strength, and Rommels weakness, was logistics and ability to reapply and reinforce. He exploited that and was the first Allied General to inflict defeat on the Germans on land in WWII. He provided the blueprint for the overall defeat of the Germans in WWII - tie them down in positional battles and use overwhelming logistical and material superiority to grind them down.

I agree, and surprisingly those are features and tactics which America grew to love in Grant. Grant did not rebuild the Union Army of the Potomac, George Meade is credited with that. As you credit Montgomery though, Grant realized that the gentleman's war he inherited was to his disadvantage. He stopped prisoner exchanges, and pursued Lee taking horrific casualties; knowing that he could sustain and replenish his men and supplies while Lee could not. That's kind of an interesting comparison.

The best units in the British Army of the time were the Guards infantry regiments and the Heavy Cavalry regiments. None of these were committed in the American war. I doubt they would have made much difference in the end since the campaign was essentially won (or lost from our perspective) by logistics, the ability to reinforce and by Washington's ability to maintain his army in the field longer than the British.

The British units that did take part though were inexperienced, badly led at tactical level and lacked effective operational command. Even simple things like ensuring the correct calibre cannon shells were available was lacking.

I certainly would not claim Cornwallis was not a front line officer, he certainly was, but I would claim he was not an effective operational or field commander. He was a staff officer and an administrator not a fighting soldier.

Interesting critique.

[Predicto]

Its an interesting debate. I would put Wellington at the top of the list - he is underrated in my opinion while Napoleon is overrated.

Napoleon's genius was in recognizing the importance of massing artillery and in the invention (or at least the adoption) of both the Divisional and Corp systems of organisation which gave him a tremendous advantage in terms of ability to maneuver and flexibility. He also benefited from fighting against some pretty mediocre opposition in terms of tactics and leadership through most of his campaigns. The only major battle Napoleon commanded in which he was up against a major British force was Waterloo.

I agree with most of what you say, but I have a little trouble with this. The army that Napoleon fielded at Waterloo was not the "Grand Armee." That force, which was unbeatable at the time, died in the Russian snow in 1812-13, along with 400,000 of Napoleon's best soldiers and officers, most of his artillery, etc.

When Napoleon returned from exile in Elba, he had only about 100 days to gather an army. At Waterloo, the allies had half again as many troops. Napoleon knew that he had to attack and defeat the Brits before the Prussians arrived, which limited his tactical options. Yes, Wellington stood firm, Blucher arrived and the Allies won the day, but Napoleon gave them a hell of a run with an inferior army.

I also disagree that the Prussians and Austrians were "mediocre opposition," but I guess it doesn't matter much.

[MartinC]

I agree with most of what you say, but I have a little trouble with this. The army that Napoleon fielded at Waterloo was not the "Grand Armee." That force, which was unbeatable at the time, died in the Russian snow in 1812-13, along with 400,000 of Napoleon's best soldiers and officers, most of his artillery, etc.

Your right that the Grand Armee was destroyed in Russia, but not by the Russian snow. Napoleon entered Russia with over 400,000 of which only 100,000 were left by the time he took Moscow. Most had died from disease or were casualties in the significant engagements with the Russian Army on the road to Moscow. Napoleons army was destroyed before the long retreat from Moscow in the teeth of the winter. Only about 10,000 made it out of Russia.

Napoleon lack of strategic appreciation destroyed his army just as it had in Eygpt before.

When Napoleon returned from exile in Elba, he had only about 100 days to gather an army. At Waterloo, the allies had half again as many troops. Napoleon knew that he had to attack and defeat the Brits before the Prussians arrived, which limited his tactical options. Yes, Wellington stood firm, Blucher arrived and the Allies won the day, but Napoleon gave them a hell of a run with an inferior army.

Napoleon had no realistic prospect of success in his last campaign because of the coalition ranged against him and his need to split his forces to guard each of his borders. He was leading the Armee of the North which was his largest force but there were significant French forces tied down he could not commit.

At Waterloo itself Napoleons forces facing Wellington were about equal to the forces Wellingtom deployed but Napoleon had more artillery and more Cavalry. About 1/3 of Napoleons force was detached to pursue the Prussians who had been beaten by Napoleon at Ligny before Waterloo. Your right Napoleon had to defeat Wellington before he could finish off the Prussians but he had assumed that the Prussians would retreat along their lines of communication not towards Wellington - he did not expect them to be a factor at Waterloo. Napoleon also miscalculated that his detached forces could join him at Waterloo before the Prussians in the event they did turn towards Wellington.

In any case the burden of attack was on Napoleon. Wellington knew this and also counted on support from his left from Blucher but did not know when they would arrive. Napoleon was over confident and rather than attempt to out flank Wellingtons position or use maneuver he settled for an unimaginative series of frontal attacks which were poorly cordinated by Ney who had tactical command of the French forces. Neys use of the French Cavalry with no infantry support and insufficient artillery support was decisive and that Napoleon allowed it was a failure of command.

The capacity of the British infantry to absorb losses and maintain formations in the face of heavy artillery fire and massed cavalry attacks won the day. That and Napoleon and Neys inability to adapt to the situation when their initial attacks and tactics failed.

Napoleon needed a quick and cheap victory against Wellimgton to have any hope of being able to finish off the Prussians and then take on the Austrians and Russians who were also massing against him. Even if he had won at Waterloo he did not have the strength to defeat all the forces ranged against him given his inability to mass his own forces and the losses from 1812.

[Predicto]

All that is true, but it does not reflect incompetence on the part of Napoleon. He needed a fast and decisive victory against Wellington, so that he could turn on Blucher. If he didn't win fast, the whole thing was over, and he knew it. Wellington knew it too. So Napoleon rolled the dice, used the only tactic available to him - direct frontal assault. Ney did a poor job of it, and Wellington held out. Napoleon's usual tactics of flanking and maneuver mostly were not available because Wellington chose the ground for the battle - but Napoleon did not have the option of waiting for a better opportunity.

I say all this not to criticize Wellington, but to counter the idea that Napoleon lost because of "overconfidence." He was going to lose anyway, unless he pulled off a miracle.

[MartinC]

All that is true, but it does not reflect incompetence on the part of Napoleon. He needed a fast and decisive victory against Wellington, so that he could turn on Blucher. If he didn't win fast, the whole thing was over, and he knew it. Wellington knew it too. So Napoleon rolled the dice, used the only tactic available to him - direct frontal assault. Ney did a poor job of it, and Wellington held out. Napoleon's usual tactics of flanking and maneuver mostly were not available because Wellington chose the ground for the battle - but Napoleon did not have the option of waiting for a better opportunity.

I say all this not to criticize Wellington, but to counter the idea that Napoleon lost because of "overconfidence." He was going to lose anyway, unless he pulled off a miracle.

I agree completely that Napoleon had virtually no chance of winning the overall campaign given his strategic situation and the forces available to him. To have not appreciated this though showed both a lack of strategic appreciation and Napoleons inherent megalomania.

At Waterloo itself Napoleon had never fought against the British or Wellington before and he underestimated both. He was telling his staff on the morning that beating Wellington would be a simple affair and he showed little urgency or energy on the day itself. He was certainly overconfident but that itself need not have been fatal.

What was fatal was first a failure in staff work to have not understood how far Grouchy was away from Waterloo with the detached French force and to have understood it was impossible for him to have got to Waterloo on the day early enough to have made a contribution. Then a failure on the day itself to supervise Ney and make sure that attacks were better coordinated and that when the cavalry were committed they were supported by the infantry reserve available to him which was largely the Middle and Old Guard. He was over cautious in committing his reserves and when he did finally commit his reserve it was far too late and he had no Calvary left to support that attack.

My view of Napoleon is he was certainly a great General who made significant operational and tactical advances and who in his younger days was a very very good field commander. He was however a poor strategic leader and is somewhat overrated. This is a guy who lost and abandoned 3 Army's on the field in Eygpt, Russia and at Waterloo, ultimately he was a failure.