Ian The Poet

I have just read recently that the Duke of Wellington was the only undefeated General in history, which to my mind makes him the best.

Do you agree?

EMPORORK

firstly where did you read that coz that is absolute bubkiss. the duke of wellington is not the only undefeated gen in history. if you look at russian history. they had generalissimo's that title is given to undefeated gens. and as far as i can remember they had 4 or 5. then there are also many others whom i cant really name. i would say ghenghis khan as one of em , scipio and ibn-al-whalid as another. wellington only really fought one hard battle and that was at waterloo against a weakened french force. he in my books doesnt deserve the acclaim he recieves. napoleon was his superior in almost every sense. however waterloo was won due to a weakened french army, rain, an uphill advantage and blutcher.

Nemowork

Wellington was hardly undefeated, but he mostly managed to see a defeat coming and withdraw before he lost too much. Much like playing poker he knew when to throw in his cards and back out and when to play the whole pot which makes him successful but mot exactly undefeated, Quatre Bras for example was a successful example of not losing but i wouldnt call it a victory.

As for never facing a tough battle you might want to look up Assaye, Talavera and Badajoz.

You might also want to ask the little corporal why he decided to fight despite attacking uphill in rain with a weakened army and where he thought Blucher was...then ask Wellington the same question.

Cedar Brown

Napoleon was boldly reacting to a situation where the odds were weighed heavily against him. He didn't have the luxury of being able to retreat. He wasn't fighting an enemy struggling to feed itself in a hostile country while one arm was held back fighting a counter-insurgency. He couldn't just make sure that his army survived and drag the war out longer.

I don't think that Wellington was the best commander in history. He operated under very favorable circumstances.

Nemowork

Yes but it was Wellington who made those conditions, who made alliances, who strengthened and trained allies and cooperated politically and strategeically so those allies knew they could trust and rely on him.

Who else in what other nation would rely on Napoleon the way Wellington and Blucher cooperated? Nobody in europe would turn their back on Napoleon because they knew what happened to his allies, they ended up getting deposed and a Bonaparte took their country over.

It was Wellington who cooperated with the locals, paying for supplies and arming rebels which meant he wasnt fighting with one arm tied behind his back, the guerrilas were all off savaging the French. It was Wellington who insisted on full support of supplies rather than living off the land like the French.

It was Wellignton in fact who chose the ground they fought on.

Theres a reason Napoleon was making desperate gambles and it was usually because of some of his past decisions.

Kevinmeath

.


Correct he is not.

No he didn't he fought many hard battles and a couple could be argued to be 'draws' eg Toulouse but he never lost. Napoleon also had a veteran army while Wellington had a multi-national allied army many of which were of questionable quality and even loyalty (most of whom actually fought well) even some of his redcoats were green battalions. Uphill advantage etc was because Wellington put himself there and Napoleon fought him there.

Would agree.

I would not say Wellington was the best Commander in world history (some boast to say the least!) but he was a very good and smart general who it could be argued never lost a battle (no matter what his mum said!)

Ceasar

Yes, Wellington himself pointed out that he fought only battles he knew he could win. He would not have won if his and Napoleon's positions had been reversed. He was a good defender, but he was about to be overrun at Waterloo by the already heavily depleted French army, despite having an excellent defensive position; "give me Blucher or give me death". He is given more credit than he deserves.

Suvorov was pretty much undefeated, and given the rank of Generalissimo. However, the T'sar did not like him for personal reasons and did not give him the credit he deserved. In Russia, he was hailed by all except the T'sar as a national hero the way Napoleon, Wellington, or Caesar were. His mountain retreat was, to say the least, nothing short of genius. No actions of Wellington that I am aware of were 'great'. He was just always at the right place at the right time.

Nemowork

Very gracious of you, that is a compliment the Duke would probably tip his hat to and thoroughly appreciate.

Kevinmeath

used to play rugby with a friend who scored so many tries always just happened to be in the right time and place-- 'fluke' of course.

Ceasar

He would. I didn't say he hadn't planned and prepared to be in these locations. That was his strong point. What I am saying, is that he didn't have the on-battlefield genius of people like Napoleon, Hannibal, or Suvorov. He would have made an even better general if he was around in WW1 or 2 rather than the Napoleonic wars.