Is Napoleon the greatest tactician that ever lived?

[joak]

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...."

IMHO it's not kosher to try and judge "Napoleon" as "the greatest" and base this conclusion by excluding his defeats. I'd rate Hannibal far, far higher than Napoleon if I stopped right after Cannae and the ultimate failure of his whole strategy (and then Zama) didn't have to count against him. You have to take all the mediocre performances into account if you're doing an overall assessment.

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. )

Heh, I end up disagreeing with people on opposite sides.

I'm not finding losing what you estimate "5% or more" of a force while decisively defeating a superior alliance evidence in favor of "very costly" victories or anything of the sort. And the Italian campaigns were similar--maneuver and dramatic victories. The Grand Army also didn't have a decade before Napoleon took it over--less than half that, and despite it's early success he really made it's reputation.

I really think you underrate the early Napoleon. I think it's completely fair to trash him for the later stuff (and his hubris) but he was anything but a meat grinder in his early career.

 

[BaronNoir]

Losing 20 000 soldiers out of 200 000 without combat is a lot. And it gives you bad habitudes.

(Napoleon, with forced marches and such, managed to lose 100 000 soldiers in 3 months in the 1813 campaign)

I would add here that the devil may care attitude of the French army over logistics (the système D) cost them dearly in later wars.

 

[highsis]

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).

I quiet agree with most of your points. He was realist rather than an inventor and formulated tactics based on his predecessors such as Fredrik the Great. Also, France was forefront in tactical innovations are military discipline, with the second largest population in Europe next to Russia. Napoleon made some wrong calls even at his prime(marengo), and was far from flawless.

The reason for Napoleon's declining in efficiency could be attributed to the studies and lessons taught to the enemy. It's very likely that competent enemy generals benefited from studying Napoleon's early victories.

All those considered, I think he is the best among those we know of

IMHO it's not kosher to try and judge "Napoleon" as "the greatest" and base this conclusion by excluding his defeats. I'd rate Hannibal far, far higher than Napoleon if I stopped right after Cannae and the ultimate failure of his whole strategy (and then Zama) didn't have to count against him. You have to take all the mediocre performances into account if you're doing an overall assessment.

That's a fair point. I even think Hannibal is the second best next to Napoleon among European generals, though I haven't given much thoughts about the second best yet.

I will try to make a argument defending his later blunders and decline in ability:



Napoleon fought unprecedentedly too many battles against the same enemies to be invincible throughout his career; but he was dominant until the end, nonetheless. It's not entirely true that Napoleon lost his early talent and relied solely on firepower and number to win battles in later stage. His later campaigns forced him to operate on wasteland on Poland and Russia, making maneuvering very difficult. He also commanded massive multilateral army, adding a challenge to his move and being strained on resources. When he defended France from coalition after the Russian campaign, Napoleon defeated coalition army with his freshmen while his marshals were getting annihilated all over.

In 6-days campaign, Napolon fought against *4 army size of 120k with 30k new recruits some of who didn't even know to how to fire muskets(Marmont's true story) and won 4 times, inflicting 5 times larger casualties on enemies. In the battle of Dresden, 85k French force were surrounded from 3 sides by coalition force of 195k, but Napoleon arrived and turned the tides of the battle, ending up surrounding the coalition army of 215k(reinforced) with his 135k(reinforced) from three sides; coalition army would have shattered if it weren't for the lack of cavalry and veterans on French side. This battle was not even planned by Napoleon. He just flipped the outcome with his tactical ability alone.

These cases show that his tactical genius, despite over 50 battles in the past, lack of cavalry and experienced troops, emulation and study from the enemies, his hubris(Napoleon told his generals that Wellington is a fool and the victory will be a piece of cake before the battle of Waterloo...), and his wailing health, had no equals even at his bad moments and defeats.

Wellington even regarded Napoleon as the best tactician in the past, present, and the future; if Michel Ney were less reluctant in Quatre Bras, Napoleon could have annihilated Prussian, and envelop Wellington from two sides because Wellington was tricked by Napoleon's movements and reinforced Quatre Bras late, and let's not forget Napoleon whom Wellington faced was at his worst form in Waterloo; though we have to consider the fact that Wellington would likely hold his rival in higher esteem than generals of the past.

That's why, all things considered, I think he is the best.

 

[BaronNoir]

The France Campaign was mostly done with vétérans. The 1813 campaign was made with green troops.

 

[highsis]

The France Campaign was mostly done with vétérans. The 1813 campaign was made with green troops.

You would know I didn't contradict that if you've read carefully, like Napoleon's defensive war you pointed out but which I didn't assert, no offense.

 

[BaronNoir]

I really think that the anecdote about not being able to fire a riffle or more accurately reload it (NB : which is likely, well, an anecdote) is from the 1813 campaign, not the 1814.

 

[knul]

Napleon is certainly one of the greatests tacticians ever. One great general who is generally overlooked is Scipio Africanus. He is one of the very few generals who have never lost a battle. And it's not like he had the easiests: he fought in the 2nd Punic War and one of his battles was against Hannibal (battle of Zama).

 

[Lord Finnish]

Subutai.

 

[DoomBunny]

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

Fighting battles, and even winning them, is not the mark of a great commander.

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

Except that there are instances pre-Aspern in which Napoleon performed poorly.

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),

The best amongst his peers to the point that he lost. Even after his peak, Napoleon had his good campaigns, 1815 was not one of them.

and would have won at Waterloo if it weren't for serious blunders committed by him and his subordinates.

Yeah, this kinda sums up my point there.

2. No technological/tactical advantage against his adversaries.

The forces Napoleon commanded were generally superior to those he faced, particularly in artillery, cavalry and light troops. They also tended to be better led.

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.

And also led the 1812 campaign in Russia, which is one of the great examples of poor operational/strategic thinking.

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?

Tactical skill isn't particularly important, at least not when compared to operational/strategic skill. Napoleon certainly has a lot of tactical skill, but his real greatest achievements are operational. The 1805 campaign is probably the best example, Austerlitz is certainly a great victory, but Ulm is the true masterpiece.

Certainly, Napoleon was a very competent general, aided by some very competent subordinates. His first Italian campaign, the 1805 campaign and the 1806 campaign (which admittedly was somewhat flawed) show just how good he could be.

Greatest general ever though, that's kind of hard to work out. Certainly one of the greats of his age, but things change so much over the course of history. Greatest ever is impossible to judge.

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''. )

The 1805 campaign was massively one-sided in its casualty ratios. There are battles were he resorted to brute force, Eylau, Wagram, Borodino and others are battles were Napoleon was far from his finest performances, yes, but at his peak the man won his victories rather cheaply.

Egypt is a massive blunder, yet another fool falling for the old "if we go through Egypt we can destroy the British".

''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.

The problem in Russia wasn't foraging, it was that Napoleon took a force far too large and then led it far too deep. The system wasn't at fault, the leader was.

"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...."

See, there's the problem. Cutting off at a certain point kinda ruins the assessment. It's like going "If you forget all his failings, Stalin was actually a really nice guy. Bit lacking in any personality whatsoever, in fact his life can be summed up as a birth date and a death date, but not a bad guy."

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. )

18th/Early 19th century campaigning has its costs, particularly where fast movement is concerned. That's not to say you can't have a fast, cheap march, the Blenheim campaign is a great example of that, but losing men on the march is not necessarily a black mark.

 

[Herbert West]

Losing 20 000 soldiers out of 200 000 without combat is a lot. And it gives you bad habitudes.

(Napoleon, with forced marches and such, managed to lose 100 000 soldiers in 3 months in the 1813 campaign)

I would add here that the devil may care attitude of the French army over logistics (the système D) cost them dearly in later wars.

Having an attrition rate of merely 10% is something every military commander before Napoleon would have rubbed his hands in glee over.

Make no mistake, it took until the last two centuries for combat dead to outnumber attrition dead.

 

[Lord Tim]

Alexander(who only fought 3 pitched battles)

A lot more than that. And even more sieges.

Personally I'd love to know more about the tactics used by Sargon the Great and Naram-Sin, but they're not recorded. Just that they won. A lot. But if you want the best tactician ever, Strategos Phormio of Athens in the Peloponnesian War. Persistently outnumbered and persistently victorious.

 

[Iche_Bins]

In short, I would say yes.

Well Napoleon did not think so...

“The battle of Leuthen is a masterpiece of movements, manoeuvres and resolution. Alone it is sufficient to immortalise Frederick and place him in the ranks of the greatest generals. All his manoeuvres at this battle are in conformity with the principles of war.”

"It is the highest praise of Napoleon to say, that he did in one campaign—his last and greatest—what Frederick had continued to do for six"

"The Gauls were not conquered by the Roman legions, but by Caesar. It was not before the Carthaginian soldiers that Rome was made to tremble, but before Hannibal. It was not the Macedonian phalanx which reached India, but Alexander. It was not the French army that reached Weser and the Inn; it was Turenne. Prussia was not defended for seven years against the three most formidable European powers by the Prussian soldiers but by Frederick the Great

Gentlemen, if this man were still alive I would not be here

Also you might want to look at both of these threads:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?266934-The-Top-100-Generals-of-History
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...l-of-all-time-in-western-history&daysprune=-1

 

[Narwhal]

Yah, there is this old political habits of great general to say they are not as great as the guy before them.

Hitler to Napoleon
Napoleon to Frederick
Frederick to Charles XII [though I cannot find the source]

Then there is a gap from Charles XII to Caesar, but I am pretty sure he had his model

This is political as well :
- You put yourselves as someone to compare to those "geniuses"
- You say your soldiers and possible political opponents : "That's not our country / economy / technology / soldiers winning the war, that's ME. Without me, we are losing. Do you want to lose ?"

 

[Kovax]

Napoleon "inherited" a veteran army, much like Alexander did when he "test drove" his father's redesigned pike formation, and both went on to use those armies to carve a name for themselves. While Napoleon may have exhibited better tactical savvy in open field combat, Alexander showed a lot more innovation and insight in siege warfare. It's really hard to compare them, and say that one was better than the other, because they didn't excel at the same things.

Gaius Julius (later "Caesar") gathered a group of Germanic veterans as a bodyguard unit, and relied heavily on them for many of his victories, but much of the remainder of his armies were based on whatever was available at the time (including some very raw recruits). His record ranges from brilliance (or dumb luck) to stupidity (or reckless daring gone wrong), so one has to temper any judgement by the failures as well as the successes. Like Napoleon, he had no marked technical advantages against his main opponents: the other Roman generals.

 

[BaronNoir]

BTW, Napoleon ''campaigning on difficulty terrain'' have to be nuanced

For the Waterloo campaign, Belgium is not exactly Mordor (and yet French troops were starving less than a week after crossing the border).

The Waterloo batteflied itself is not exactly précipices and step mountains.

 

[highsis]

The best amongst his peers to the point that he lost. Even after his peak, Napoleon had his good campaigns, 1815 was not one of them.

In Waterloo campaign Napoleon was on offensive, which is inherently disadvantageous, against the coalition army superior in number. 1815 was Napoleon's worst campaign, but he still out-brained Wellington and through operation art made two chances to wipe out both armies if it weren't for Nei. I already argued on this point in other replies after OP. I recommend you read it because I also argued some other points you mentioned as well.

Greatest general ever though, that's kind of hard to work out. Certainly one of the greats of his age, but things change so much over the course of history. Greatest ever is impossible to judge.

I agree; it's bound to be subjective and as you say, impossible to conclude; we might as well discuss about it, though.

See, there's the problem. Cutting off at a certain point kinda ruins the assessment. It's like going "If you forget all his failings, Stalin was actually a really nice guy. Bit lacking in any personality whatsoever, in fact his life can be summed up as a birth date and a death date, but not a bad guy."

I argued this in other reply; I included his post-prime performance to the evaluation. Furthermore, even in battles Napoleon performed poorly, there were usually some factors against him. For instance, in the battle of Eylau which he really did poorly, blizzard hit the place to screw up his plans of reinforcements. Plus, he was attacking into the defensive position with inferior cannons.

Well Napoleon did not think so...

.......

I know judging general's ability can be controversial, but I'm pretty sure that Frederick the Great does not come close to Napoleon. For one, he didn't even know that he won the battle in his first battle and fled the field, later to learn that his troops won. He developed his talents through experience later.

"I have fought 60 battles, and I have learned nothing that I did not know at the beginning" - Napoleon

On the other hand, Napoleon was genius from the start. It's true that Napoleon formulated his tactics based on predecessors, especially from Frederick the Great, hence his high esteem of him.

Even if Frederick the Great were indeed there, he wouldn't have stopped Napoleon.

Prussia was overconfident because of legacies Frederick the Great left. However Napoleon demolished its army in 2 weeks without wasting half million bullets; it's not that Frederick the Great is bad, but tactics and strategies are always ever advancing by time.

Yah, there is this old political habits of great general to say they are not as great as the guy before them.

Hitler to Napoleon

Hitler was one of the worst military talents in WWII... He is partially responsible for Germany's defeat against S.U, not that I want to digress to this topic.

BTW, Napoleon ''campaigning on difficulty terrain'' have to be nuanced

For the Waterloo campaign, Belgium is not exactly Mordor (and yet French troops were starving less than a week after crossing the border).

The Waterloo batteflied itself is not exactly précipices and step mountains.

Most of his campaigns were offensive and he did have to break into defensive enemy positions often.

Well, if he attacked into precipice and step mountains, he wouldn't exactly be a great general to start with, would he?

 

[BaronNoir]

In addition of the ''detail'' that the supposedly ''outbrained'' Duke of Wellington won at Waterloo (despite half of his command behind green troops), the 1815 itself was almost criminally ill thought for the get go.

Napoleon was facing the same coalition that had defeated him in 1814 (with granted, more veteran troops) that outnumbered him 4 to 1. What else could happen ?

 

[makif130289]

I think Hitler's talent is ignored due to known reasons. Napoleon was counted as one of great military leaders even though he lost against Russia and then Britain-led coalition. Hitler's bold approach and open-mindedness to new strategies brought most of decisive German victories.

+ Hitler acknowledged the importance of mobile warfare before the war. At that time, Churchill was whining about lack of heavy static artillery.
+ Invasion of Norway was extremely daring act and was essentially Hitler's act. If it wasn't Hitler, i doubt anyone in German army would dare to try amphibious landings because of RN fear.
+ Fall Gelb. As Hitler wasn't a general, of course, he didn't personally prepare battle plans. But it was him that determined overall strategy. In Fall Gelb, he approved the daring strategy that envisaged armoured spearheads through Ardennes. German generals expected battle of France to last something like a year or more.
+ Hitler was critizied for stopping mobile forces on May 23. We don't know exact reason, some say it was primarily political move and some say it was Hitler's stupidity. But fear of panzer divisions' rear being exposed was legid.
+ Hitler heavily involved with the preparation of Eben-Emael assult. It is said he ordered gliders to be used.
+ Early tanks like Panzer III tended to have short barrels. Hitler even in 1939 predicted the upcoming of long barrels and encouraged them long before. If i remember correctly, this is mentioned in Speer's memories.
+ During Barbarossa, Hitler's plan to turn south costed near 1M troops to Soviets. Hitler was criticized by generals for not directly going to Moscow. According to them, Soviet southern front wouldn't have threatened the rear of Army Group Center and fall of Moscow would have immeditely ended the war.
+ Hitler's "Stand ground" order during 1941 Winter saved the entire front from collapse. Many generals in that time lost their nerves and continuously pushed for withdrawal requests.
+ 1942 strategy in Russia was sound. Cutting Soviet oil and taking it for Germany seems like correct stategic move. Hitler was not obsessed with Stalingrad, the city was just too important to secure the rear of German forces entering Caucasus. Besides, Wehrmacht captured many cities with house-to-house combat during 1941 and 1942. ( Siege of Sevastopol was a good example on this ). Actually, before Soviet offensive, Stalingrad was nearly captured by Germans.
+ Order to stay at Stalingrad was not very bad in that extremely difficult situation. The plan was to air-supply the city until a panzer group links up with the city again. It didn't work, Hitler may be blamed for not predicting impossibility of airlift, but the plan was not absurd as it was generally portrayed.
+ Hitler was extremely knowledgeable about the overall situation of the army as well. He memorized location of each division, number of important things like tanks, planes etc. This was also explained in Speer's memories. This shows that he was not the guy in Der Untergang who orders divisions that doesn't exist to fight. I think Hitler was the only leader during that era who knew so much technical details about military equipment.
+ IMO, Hitler generally made the best decisions among his generals and other Nazi leaders until July 1943. Kursk was simply his greatest mistake. Kursk salient was a natural target but it was heavily fortified. Hitler knew it and still went on to attack there. After Kursk, he lost his nerves and made countless mistakes. Of course, most of his ridiculous orders were out of desperation but still he lost his capability.


War is full of unknown.. When something bad happens, Hitler is obviously the one to blame. But when his strategy brings spectacular victories, then generals are the ones to congratulate. In September 1941, almost all generals of Wehrmacht were sure that Soviets would have collapsed before winter. But when it didn't happen, it was just only Hitler's stupid optimism. If Napoleon could be one of the greatest military commanders despite his grave mistakes in Russia, Hitler until 1943 could be also taken into same category.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Who fucking cares?

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

Please stop trolling

 

[DoomBunny]

In Waterloo campaign Napoleon was on offensive, which is inherently disadvantageous, against the coalition army superior in number.

Fighting in a disadvantageous situation says nothing about a generals skill.

1815 was Napoleon's worst campaign

1812 was Napoleon's worst campaign.

but he still out-brained Wellington and through operation art made two chances to wipe out both armies if it weren't for Nei. I already argued on this point in other replies after OP. I recommend you read it because I also argued some other points you mentioned as well.

Out-brained Wellington so well that he lost.

I argued this in other reply; I included his post-prime performance to the evaluation. Furthermore, even in battles Napoleon performed poorly, there were usually some factors against him. For instance, in the battle of Eylau which he really did poorly, blizzard hit the place to screw up his plans of reinforcements. Plus, he was attacking into the defensive position with inferior cannons.

In this case, perhaps do not attack.