Linschoten

That's my view of the matter, Wellington was a highly professional and strikingly successful commander. I am struck by the mean-mindedness of many comments about him in this forum ('you know what? Wellington is overrated'). This seems to be motivated by two considerations, either the desire to knock a national hero off his pedestal, or resentment that he should have presumed to defeat Napoleon. It can naturally be assumed that in a history forum like this we are discussing Wellington the military commander, not the national icon who has become eneveloped in myth. (Though it ill becomes people who accord mythical status to Napoleon, and assume a totally uncritical attitude toward him, to cast aspersions on others for assuming a comparable attitude toward Wellington!)

nuclearguy165

Although I'm not the greatest fan of Wellington by any means, Quatre-Bras, tactically, was definitely a draw. Each side was around equal in strength, suffered even casualties, and neither side was forced to withdraw from the field for tactical reasons (i.e. casualties being too severe, and thus forcing a withdraw in order to lick one's wounds). Wellington, as Viperlord has said, only withdrew to avoid being cut off by Napoleon after his victory at Ligny. He withdrew for sound strategical reasons, not as a result of anything that happened at Quatre-Bras. I hope this suffices.

I unintentionally voted for Wellington here, I meant to pick 'not sure', since I believe that the circumstances in which they found themselves in to be too different to be able to really compare.

Linschoten

I's agree on the last point, they commanded forces of an entirely different kind in entirely different circumstances, and one cannot say that either acquitted himself any better or worse than the other.

nuclearguy165

Exactly, although I'm a bit confused by your use of the word "acquitted."

Delenda est Roma

The word makes sense. Proper use of grammar too.

Linschoten

Perhaps rather old-fashioned English (but I like it), to acquit oneself well or badly in the sense of perform one's part well or badly.

Delenda est Roma

Yes older mabye but still good.

nuclearguy165

Well, thank you all for giving me a lesson in the English Language!

Paulinus

I'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate on this and say in what way you think he was deficient?

nuclearguy165

Strategically, I would say that he was just about infallible. However, with the possible exception of Salamanca, I don't honestly find his tactics to be all that impressive. He was very defensive in this sense (although sometimes mixing it, as at Salamanca, for instance, with a good offense). He was certainly a master at using terrain to his advantage, though. I just generally think that there are many generals throughout history who have shown more impressive tactics than he did. I still think that he was, overall, a very highly skilled and competent general, just not quite a great one.