Archduke Charles .vs. Wellington

Archduke Charles .vs. Wellington


  • Total voters
    66
Sep 2010
3,538
Somewhere in the former First French Empire
#2
Archduke Charles was better. He faced Napoleon in his prime and with experienced troops. Het managed to defeat Napoleon (at high cost though) at Aspern-Essling. Wellington is mostly praised into heaven by the English, European military historians don't praise him that much. He faced Napoleon at his worst and with fresh recruits, besides Wellington was aided by Blucher, Charles faced the full force of Napoleon without help.

Also Wellington only faced Marshals of low caliber in Spain and was aided severly by Spanish irregulars.
 
Dec 2011
293
California
#3
I know I will anger a lot of British people by saying this...

Wellington was not in any way, shape, or form an amazing commander. His victory at Waterloo was hardly remarkable. He sat on a hill for several days until Napoleon's army was too worn out and got hit by Blucher from behind.
 
Oct 2011
7,654
MARE PACIFICVM
#5
I would have said Charles not very long ago... but I've been doing a lot of reading on Wellington recently and have come to respect him more. He is largely overblown in Britain, I agree, but he is also largely tossed out as rubbish by some continental Europeans and Americans. I think the truth lies somewhere in between. I certainly consider him above average as a General.

Then again if I ever get around to reading a biography of Charles I might change my mind.
 
Aug 2010
6,740
Ireland
#6
I would have said Charles not very long ago... but I've been doing a lot of reading on Wellington recently and have come to respect him more. He is largely overblown in Britain, I agree, but he is also largely tossed out as rubbish by some continental Europeans and Americans. I think the truth lies somewhere in between. I certainly consider him above average as a General.

Then again if I ever get around to reading a biography of Charles I might change my mind.
agree fully.

Wellington is war more overrated by the british then he deserves yet there is no denying he was a good general and i have definitely come to admire him for his cool action during battle and excellent use of terrain.

i don't know much on charles, i think he also faced Napoleon in the 1796 italian campaign?, many historians say he was very competent and made for quite a match against napoleon at times yet i can't give a proper assessment until i read more on him.
 
Mar 2010
9,842
#8
Wellington, his peninsular campaign was brilliant. Always out numbered and under supplies, yet kept his army in the field and won victory after victory. Kept the Spainish on his side by not plundering the land as the French had done.
 
Likes: frogsofwar
May 2012
3,727
Nonbeing which is to say everywhere
#9
Wellington, his peninsular campaign was brilliant. Always out numbered and under supplies, yet kept his army in the field and won victory after victory. Kept the Spainish on his side by not plundering the land as the French had done.
Always outnumbered?!?!?!
Battle of Rolica: British 15,000, French: 5,000
Battle of Vemeiro: British 17-20,000, French: 13-14,000
Battle of Porto: British 20,000. French: 11,000
Talavera: British 55,000. French:46,000 and it was indecisive!
Battle of Albuera: British: 35,000 French 24,000 and indecisive!!
Vittoria: British: 82,000. French: 60,000.

Battle casualties were normally light too because Wellington did not pursue!!
 

Similar History Discussions