Is Napoleon the greatest tactician that ever lived?

[highsis]

In short, I would say yes. I would like to hear other opinions as well. I will list my reasons for believing so:



1. No military leaders before modern period had fought as many battles(60s) as Napoleon.

Napoleon won most of those battles, and he was invincible until Aspern-Essling in 1809 in over 30 battles he fought until that point.

Khālid ibn al-Walīd was undefeated in 50 battles, but many of his battle records are extremely exaggerated and in battles in which we have detailed record, such as battle of Yarmuk, he didn't show his genius.

I don't think neither Hannibal or Alexander(who only fought 3 pitched battles) would have stood the test of time as well as Napoleon did. Napoleon was, even at the battle of Waterloo with his failing health and ability, the best among his peers. He tricked Wellington twice(by pre-emtively marching into Belgium and feeding Wellington wrong direction of attack), and would have won at Waterloo if it weren't for serious blunders committed by him and his subordinates.


2. No technological/tactical advantage against his adversaries.

"One must change one's tactics every 10 years
if one wishes to maintain one's superiority ..." -Napoleon

"You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war." -Napoleon

"A man has his day in war as in other things,
I myself shall be good for it another 6 years
after which even I shall have to stop."
- Napoleon ... in 1806



Napoleon fought on technologically and tactically even ground against his opponents, unlike Caesar, Alexander, and Mongolians.

Against his own word of advice, he also fought against the same enemy so many times, giving away his tactics and strategies. His invincibility was broken at 1809, but regardless he remained dominant until his last defeat.



3. Operation-art(strategy) wise, Napoleon was unparalleled.

Napoleon's maneuver and concentration of forces were simply unmatched by any history figures. I don't think there is anyone who can hold a candle to him in strategical level. He overcame twice the enemy in Italian campaign by striking separated enemy forces in a quick succession. He jumped into the middle of advancing 4* larger enemy force in 6 days campaign and beat Prussian army 4 times by maneuvering.



4. Tactical wise, Napoleon was equal to the likes of Hannibal and Alexander.

In period where France held no technological advantage of where army size difference meant much due to increased battle range, Napoleon still managed to defeat army twice his own in Dresden and inflicted *4 as many casualties.

The allied forces had to adopt Trachtenberg plan in order to avoid Napoleon and confront his marshals. Without Napoleon, in the war following Russia campaign, his marshals were defeated in battles after battles while Napoleon kept winning until Leipzig where he was massive outnumbered and betrayed by Germans.




5. Napoleon mostly fought offensive wars in disadvantageous terrains.

Many of Napoleons victory were achieved in disadvantageous terrains because Napoleon was on offensive side. He managed to win most of those anyway. Alexader the Great also fought on disadvantageous terrain in the battle of Issus in that regard.




This is why, based on his ability at prime before 1809, I think Napoleon is the greatest tactician in history; specifically, I deem him the better of Hannibal Barca, Khālid ibn al-Walīd, Alexander the Great, Belisariusand and Caesar. What do you think? How do you think other tacticians(those mentioned here and more) in history compare to Napoleon?

 

[Eusebio]

Is Napoleon the greatest tactician that ever lived?

Who fucking cares?

This glorification of mass-murderers is obscene. Should we have a 'best genocide' competition too while we're at it?

 

[highsis]

Who fucking cares?

This glorification of mass-murderers is obscene. Should we have a 'best genocide' competition too while we're at it?

Huh? I know Napoleon had massacred slaves in Haiti, civilians in Egypt, and is accountable for numerous war crimes if that's what you want to let be known. I don't even like him as a person.

However, why should we refrain from discussing tactical ability of him for any reason? Do we have to exclude Gangkhiskhan and Napoleon when talking about military genius? If you haven't noticed, many conquerors tend to be mass murderers and people die in wars. Churchill massacred Kurdish with poison guess; why do I see no such complaint when Churchill is discussed?

I am not advocating or glorifying him to defend his actions; I'm only discussing his military genius and your complaint is really irrelevant on this topic and you are acting over the top.

 

[Ming]

Who fucking cares?

This glorification of mass-murderers is obscene. Should we have a 'best genocide' competition too while we're at it?

If you don't want to participate in the discussion you don't have to. =/

 

[Eusebio]

If you don't want to participate in the discussion you don't have to. =/

Fair point.

 

[highsis]

Fair point.

So is my reply. I think you owe me an answer, if not apology, for lashing out like that on a thread I neither supported massacre nor defended the murderer's actions.

 

[soda7777777]

So is my reply. I think you owe me an answer, if not apology, for lashing out like that on a thread I neither supported massacre nor defended the murderer's actions.

He's usually drunk... or so they say...

 

[BaronNoir]

I would point here, directly answering to the OP, that Napoleon victories tended to be extremely costly, each battle ''won'' by Napoleon killing scores of the finest military tool in Europe at the moment : the Grand Army, hardened before Napoleon took control of it by a good decade of war.

(example : the campaign of Egypt, which costed a fleet and 30 000 elite soldiers out of 40 000...for absolutely nothing but ''glory''. )

 

[99KingHigh]

Who fucking cares?

This glorification of mass-murderers is obscene. Should we have a 'best genocide' competition too while we're at it?

Nonsense - much glory in victory.

 

[BaronNoir]

Except when you lose....

(I did not understood correctly the OP passage about offensive, so I gracefully concede him ''the point'')

 

[99KingHigh]

Except when you lose....

Well, victory implies winning.

 

[joak]

I'd disagree with item (2). I'm not an expert, but I thought the French approach to foraging was a pretty big innovation, and the French army with its mass mobilization was being frantically imitated by its rivals. The Prussians used an odd firearm doctrine that involved not aiming and was jettisoned after Jena; the Austrians had a reputation for heavy supplies and glacial marches.

And after his first defeat (Aspern-Essling, itself some bad luck), victories like Wargram and Borodno tended to be "gather a large army and power through" rather than the brilliant maneuvering of early years.

So you've got around a decade of brilliance (from the Italian campaigns through Austerliz, Jena and Auerstadt) followed by a half-decade of mediocrity. I don't think that can count as 'greatest.'

 

[joak]

I would point here, directly answering to the OP, that Napoleon victories tended to be extremely costly, each battle ''won'' by Napoleon killing scores of the finest military tool in Europe at the moment : the Grand Army, hardened before Napoleon took control of it by a good decade of war.

(example : the campaign of Egypt, which costed a fleet and 30 000 elite soldiers out of 40 000...for absolutely nothing but ''glory''. )

Nah, I'm negative but don't agree with this as fair. Some did but especially not the early ones. I mean, the whole Austerlitz campaign--he didn't just smash a superior force at Austerlitz, the campaign started with him annihilating an army at Ulm with like zero casualties.

I do think it's fair to say his strategic 'vision' was full of hubris--Egypt was a horrible mistake and trying to control Spain was an act of self-mutilation that created a wound which bled for seven years.

 

[BaronNoir]

''Foraging'' (or rather pillaging) is a poor subsitute to real logistics, and work only when campaigns occurs over rich areas....

In Spain or Russia, it did not worked so well.

 

[highsis]

Except when you lose....

Also, OP, I'm baffled at the mention that Napoleon fought mostly ''defensive'' war. The only defensive campaign he fought was the Campaign of France in 1814 (which was actually a very brilliant, if extremely agressive campaign). On most battlefields, Napoleon was on the all-out offensive.

The side that did fought defensively (and masterfully) was the British during the peninsular war. They achieved impressive success by both strategic defensive (the lines of Torres Vedra) and tactical defensive (Wellington clever placement of his infantry on the reserve slope of hills to preserrve them from artillery attacks)

I agree. But... I've said that Napoleon mostly fought offensive wars in disadvantageous terrain, not the opposite...

I'd disagree with item (2). I'm not an expert, but I thought the French approach to foraging was a pretty big innovation, and the French army with its mass mobilization was being frantically imitated by its rivals. The Prussians used an odd firearm doctrine that involved not aiming and was jettisoned after Jena; the Austrians had a reputation for heavy supplies and glacial marches.

And after his first defeat (Aspern-Essling, itself some bad luck), victories like Wargram and Borodno tended to be "gather a large army and power through" rather than the brilliant maneuvering of early years.

So you've got around a decade of brilliance (from the Italian campaigns through Austerliz, Jena and Auerstadt) followed by a half-decade of mediocrity. I don't think that can count as 'greatest.'

I agree with your assessment as they are similar to mine. The thing is, as Napoleon said, no military genius can be dominant forever. His decline in brilliance, as with any generals would have been if they fought as many battles as Napoleon did, was inevitable. Napoleon was however dominant for over 30 battles he fought upto 1806, and that's still more battles than most other generals have on their records. My assessment is based on his prime. One cannot be underestimated for the inevitable which he managed to delay for so long. Here is my last sentence from the OP.

"This is why, based on his ability at prime before 1809, I think Napoleon is the greatest tactician in history; specifically, I deem him the better of...."

 

[BaronNoir]

Nah, I'm negative but don't agree with this as fair. Some did but especially not the early ones. I mean, the whole Austerlitz campaign--he didn't just smash a superior force at Austerlitz, the campaign started with him annihilating an army at Ulm with like zero casualties.

I do think it's fair to say his strategic 'vision' was full of hubris--Egypt was a horrible mistake and trying to control Spain was an act of self-mutilation that created a wound which bled for seven years.

Austerlitz itself was a brilliant battle-but how many French soldiers died of hunger, exhaustion or disease during the forced marches ?

(Answer : impossible to know. But Napoleon started with 200 000 soldiers and ended up with 72 000 at Austerlitz. Most of the missing ones were of course garrisons, stragglers and such....but at very least, it's 10 000-20 000. )

 

[highsis]

I would point here, directly answering to the OP, that Napoleon victories tended to be extremely costly, each battle ''won'' by Napoleon killing scores of the finest military tool in Europe at the moment : the Grand Army, hardened before Napoleon took control of it by a good decade of war.

(example : the campaign of Egypt, which costed a fleet and 30 000 elite soldiers out of 40 000...for absolutely nothing but ''glory''. )

Regarding battles casualties...

Napoleonic battles were more costly as it has become nigh impossible to completely surround enemies and crush them from all sides. Cannons allowed fighting in range, but the maneuverability of troops were the same, or even less due to cannons, than ancient war. This meant harder maneuver and costly outcome in the end.

Battle of Friedland proves that, I think. Napoleon arrived to see Russians cornered against a river, but he was unable to envelope Russian army from behind with his reinforcements. If it were an ancient war, Napoleon would have blocked the other side of the river to completely surround the Russian army to annihilate them. Of course, some battles casualty is due to Napoleon's mistakes, but at his prime at least, the number of death tolls on French army was inevitable.



About deaths from disease and poor supply, I believe it was a thing shared common by all other nations, too. Napoleon's diplomatic ability and to see a big picture in international relations has a lot to be desired, but in art of war such as operational art and tactics, I think he was nearly flawless in his early days.

 

[highsis]

I'd disagree with item (2). I'm not an expert, but I thought the French approach to foraging was a pretty big innovation, and the French army with its mass mobilization was being frantically imitated by its rivals. The Prussians used an odd firearm doctrine that involved not aiming and was jettisoned after Jena; the Austrians had a reputation for heavy supplies and glacial marches.

I concur on this point. I should have said relatively less technological/tactical difference.

 

[BaronNoir]

Wellington had no issue whatsoever at keeping his troops well supplied (probably because of a thing called ''boats'' and/or the fact the denizens of the Peninsula were not hating him...) so this was not an universal issue.

Likewise, the Russian army in 1812 was remarkably well supplied (well, at least up to the Bereniza)

 

[profxyz]

Well there is much to commend with regards to Napoleon's genius, but in a sense, Napoleon started off easy. The Austrian generals he faced in the early Savoyard/Italian campaigns were not really up to scratch (although the Austrians came darn close to breaking Napoleon's siege of Mantua), and he had the good fortune of also avoiding Suvorov's counterattack by being in Egypt at the time. Even as late as Jena he was up against utterly confused and chaotic command structures that couldn't react to Napoleon's moves in time. It might be that he was past his tactical prime by 1809, or it could be that more competent generals were finally coming to the fore and once they were around, Napoleon's tactical genius is comparatively dimmed. By comparison, one could argue that Khalid ibn al-Walid was (on paper at least) facing veteran forces and generals; and so was the Duke of Wellington.

The armies he was given also formed an inseparable part of his ability. Napoleon's many demands in terms of marching, discipline and suchlike might have only been achievable through an extraordinarily motivated and resourceful army, as opposed to, say, Caesar who seems to have used a pretty standard Roman force. Also relevant is the fact that once Napoleon began commanding giant, non-French forces (say, at Russia 1812 and Germany 1814), he became much less effective.

Napoleon also wasn't an innovator: what he practiced had been theorized before him by the likes of Guibert, Turenne and suchlike; Napoleon's role was to refine them into a truly dominant formula. Innovations like balloons, naval mines and suchlike were abandoned by him, and one major contribution he made to the Grande Armee - the Imperial Guard - probably hindered his decision-making because he became too reluctant to use it (like at Waterloo).

Also there's the standard defect of Napoleon that he might have been a good tactician, but a poor grand strategist. Anybody who wins 60 battles and still can't get what he wants is probably doing something wrong. But all in all, I agree that Napoleon's still probably the 'best' tactician in history (so far, at least).