Archduke Charles .vs. Wellington

Archduke Charles .vs. Wellington


  • Total voters
    66
Mar 2010
2,522
Wow. The vote is actually close. I picked Wellington whom I thought was the obvious choice. Charles had his moments, but the Duke was simply the smarter tactician.

His record is almost impeccable.
 
Mar 2010
2,522
There was certainly a lot of dead bodies infront of that farmhouse. Vive la France! all the way, lol!
Though these events are almost 200 years old, I find your comment disrespectful and more ways ignorant than what a mule can throw.

Those bodies held the hearts and minds of a mother and father, his brothers or sisters, perhaps a wife and his children. His last thoughts certainly were not focused on the outcome of this battle. They were very far away.

I implore you to stay on the side of humanity and realize the ramifications of such ignorant comments can do to your preceived reputation.
 

Mangekyou

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
7,884
UK
Though these events are almost 200 years old, I find your comment disrespectful and more ways ignorant than what a mule can throw.

Those bodies held the hearts and minds of a mother and father, his brothers or sisters, perhaps a wife and his children. His last thoughts certainly were not focused on the outcome of this battle. They were very far away.

I implore you to stay on the side of humanity and realize the ramifications of such ignorant comments can do to your preceived reputation.
Those comments were certainly not disrespectful. Infact it was merely a mention to their collective spirit to France rather than a sardonic comment. Apologies if you saw it that way. Im not a person to mock the dead or the courage of men under fire.
 
Aug 2010
15,477
Welsh Marches
The vote is actually rather a curious one, since I rather doubt that most of the people who voted for Archduke Charles had ever heard of him before this thread was started! And it is clear that most of the people who have been running down Wellington here don't know much about Wellington either. There may be one or two contributors who have sufficient knowledge to make an informed judgement. I am not one of them, I am merely able to judge whether the criticisms that have been made of Wellington have any weight (which they don't).
 
Mar 2010
2,522
Those comments were certainly not disrespectful. Infact it was merely a mention to their collective spirit to France rather than a sardonic comment. Apologies if you saw it that way. Im not a person to mock the dead or the courage of men under fire.
Apology accepted and please excuse me for failing to see that you would ever consider using such a statement in a satire manner. :):lol:

The statement looked valid except for the "lol" on the end. And I think that one acroymn (is that what that thing is called) corrupted the intention of the sentence.

Interesting... :)
 

Mangekyou

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
7,884
UK
Apology accepted and please excuse me for failing to see that you would ever consider using such a statement in a satire manner. :):lol:

The statement looked valid except for the "lol" on the end. And I think that one acroymn (is that what that thing is called) corrupted the intention of the sentence.

Interesting... :)
Yes, reading back I can see how it did. Its just a habit of mine to tag that on the end of the end of sentences. No offense meant.
 
The vote is actually rather a curious one, since I rather doubt that most of the people who voted for Archduke Charles had ever heard of him before this thread was started! And it is clear that most of the people who have been running down Wellington here don't know much about Wellington either. There may be one or two contributors who have sufficient knowledge to make an informed judgement. I am not one of them, I am merely able to judge whether the criticisms that have been made of Wellington have any weight (which they don't).

Which is why I made it. To get both sides to learn more about these fine men. :)
 
Nov 2011
4,657
Ohio, USA
I know this thread has been dead for a while (yeah, I do have a bad habit of "zombie" posting), but I have recently done some reading on the Archduke's exploits, and while I don't think he was QUITE as good as the "Iron Duke," I think he is certainly worthy of comparison and perhaps on the same level as well.

Why do I think this? Simple; 1796 German campaign, which is often unfairly over-shadowed by (but almost as skillfully conducted as) Napoleon's Italian campaign that took place at the exact same time. Here, he was out-numbered, and faced by two different French armies (as Napoleon often was in Italy as well), led by Generals Jourdan and Moreau, respectively, both of whom were definitely abler than any of Napoleon's opponents in Italy. Charles went for Jourdan, defeated him in two separate engagements ( at Amberg and Wurzburg, respectively), both of which were won due to superb battlefield maneuvering. This pushed Jourdan back to the Rhine, and although Moreau was victorious against a separate Austrian army at Friedburg, Jourdan's defeat forced Moreau to retreat as well (due to the compromising gap now created between their armies). Moreau returned after re-organizing soon after, and again, defeated a separate Austrian covering force at Biberach. Hearing of this set-back, Charles quickly marched against Moreau, the latter fell back, and Charles caught up with him, defeated him at Emmendingen, and soon after beat him again at Schliengen. Charles pursued Moreau back to the Rhine, where the latter pressed for an armistice, which Charles favored, but which the Austrian government foolishly rejected. This excellent campaign of the Archduke put a temporary check to Napoleon's onslaught in Italy, preventing him from marching across the Alps and into Austria itself, since he had depended on the cooperation of Moreau in so doing. Bonus points? He was even younger than Napoleon.

He later conducted an able retreat before Napoleon after that general's victory at Rivoli (and the subsequent surrender of Mantua).

He later scored a few nice successes in 1799, in Italy and Switzerland (one of which was against Massena, another excellent commander).

In later years, it can probably be argued that he lacked the energy and skill which he had shown in the past, but he was still quite able, and his re-organization of the Austrian army as well as his victory against Napoleon himself at Aspern-Essling ( even if he certainly can be justifiably criticized for not following it up) do him great credit.

So I think, judging from many of the posts here, that the Archduke is quite underrated, and that he can fairly be ranked at the same level as Wellington.
 

Similar History Discussions