Can you elaborate, please?
Among the names mentioned in the OP, do you find the least accomplished to be Murat? Or did you intend, as the "simple reading" of your reply suggests, to say that of all the leaders who became Marshal he was THE worst?
Always interested in your thoughts, thank you.
I have an extremely low opinion of Murat as a general. a complete military idiot. he might have been a reasonable colonel if he had a very good major.
Without a tactical idea at all, the master of unsupported, needless cavalry charges, knowing no thought other than charge teh enemey front on without any hint of combined arms, tactics, or rational thought.
Not only that but with any regard or understanding of the responsibilities of a professional officer, no regard for men or horses, no regard fopr the staff duties, scouting or indeed the responsibility of command, abandoning the amry to chaos without a thought at the end of 1812, could well have gotten him hung in some armies. During the advance in 1812, eeping his men on parade, until he deigned to show up them galloping at top speed, and adbanding his men at some random spot to camp. Without a thought or concern of this men, their horses, or professional officers duties. Sure his was brave and reckless but that alone, does not make a General.
Beirther would be the second worst. A glorified sectrary whose skills were a good memory, a neat hand and a docile nature. A poor chief of staff and a feckless poor general. Without any sound miliatry judgement or backbone. A cheif of staff atculaly has to be cpaable of independent judgement in order to actually take some of the owrkload and needs to when needed speak up to his copmmender. Birtheir had none of the these. Sure Napoleon would not have tolerated someone who had some actual spine, and certainly not someone capable of independent thought but that was one of Napoloen's great flaws. Agood sectary but not by any means a good general or marhsal.
