Archduke Charles .vs. Wellington

Archduke Charles .vs. Wellington


  • Total voters
    66

Lord Oda Nobunaga

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
5,649
Ontario, Canada
I actually agree with that. Fighting with a large army doesn't make one a bad commander. To even field a large army one already needs to be skilled enough in supplying and controlling such an army. Having a larger army isn't the end all be all solution to winning a campaign either. There are many other factors which could mitigate the size of an army. There are cases in which having a large army are detrimental as well, mostly supply problems and slow maneuvers.
 
May 2018
935
Michigan
In regards to Wellington's siegecraft, it is worth noting that when it came time to storm Seringapatem, George Harris assigned Sir David Baird, a giant, jovial, hard-fighting Scot, to lead the assault. Wellesley commanded the reserve.

Although, when it came time to appoint a military governor, Harris superceded Baird and gave the position to Wellesley. Within a week, the ravaged city's markets were open.

Where Wellelsey beats nearly all generals of history is in his understanding of war: the goal in any war, as it is in peace, is more perfect peace. Wellesley successfully led very unreliable allies of dubious loyalty and got them to perform. After the war(s), he secured the peace by his even-handedness fairness, benefiting both Britain and the vanquished. After Waterloo, and the subsequent peace in which Wellelsey had a hand in crafting, over 509 years of intercene warfare between Britain and France ended (hopefully for all time).

In addition to his excellent diplomacy, he was also a brilliant general who never lost a field battle.