-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Obviously Napoleans stats should be top notch - 6,6,6,4 but he was such a admired/feared general his presence should boost his troops morale and/or minus his opponents morale. Though - historically his leadership abilities appeared to decline later in life (with the very notable exception of his campaigns within France in 1814 where he was back to his best) I don't know how that could be refelected. In Empires in Arms after some specific date his abilities droped a little unless he was fighting inside France when they returned to normal.
Other leaders;
Wellington 5,5,2,2 (his shock skill should be low).
Davout 4,4,5,1
Ney 3,4,4
Prince Charles 4,4,4
Nelson 6,5,5
Other leaders;
Wellington 5,5,2,2 (his shock skill should be low).
Davout 4,4,5,1
Ney 3,4,4
Prince Charles 4,4,4
Nelson 6,5,5
I wonder what stats Blucher will have. Btw is it true that Blucher was erolled in the swedish army during the seven years war?
For some reason I forgot Blucher (I wrote the mail in haste) and for the life of me I can't remember the name of the equally ancient and famous premier Russian general. Most of the high ranked Prussian generals were pretty ancient during the Napoleonic wars. My guess for Blucher; 3,4,3
IMHO Massena was the best of that bunch - mind you I can't see all of these leaders making it into EU II.
Suvarov (earlier) was even better.
Don't agree with the exeptional stats for Napoleon. Napolean was good but not that exeptional. Anyone read "Blundering to Glory" by Connely? What Napoleon was very good at was minimising the role of his subordinates and in maximising (even falsifying) his own role.
Wellington was better IMHO.
I must disagree - Napoleons earlier campaigns (pre 1805) were exceptional. Revisionists are bound and meant to question pre existing assumptions. But they would be hard pressed to look at Napoleons Italian campaign and be anything other then impressed - it would be far easier to pick his 1809 Danube campaign and question his true ability (still good but not as exceptional). As I said in my previous mail Napoleons ability as a leader did appear to drop post 1805 (with the exception of his 1814 campaign in France). Napoleon seemed genuinely touched by genius when he was younger - while Wellington was an excellent general but never a genius. I'm English and even I wouldn't claim Wellington ever came close to Napoleons ability as a general when he was young man.
BTW Napoleon was a vain egotist who did like to sing his own praises (and not always accurately) as well as blame others for some of his misdeads. But that's also true of many other notable generals i.e. Julius Ceaser (the worst culprit by far), Oliver Cromwell (not in their league as a general but just as arrogant), U.S Grant (always blamed others and would claim success when he had none) etc etc.
BTW Napoleon was a vain egotist who did like to sing his own praises (and not always accurately) as well as blame others for some of his misdeads. But that's also true of many other notable generals i.e. Julius Ceaser (the worst culprit by far), Oliver Cromwell (not in their league as a general but just as arrogant), U.S Grant (always blamed others and would claim success when he had none) etc etc.
Perhaps a bit generous for Little Napo...I would decrease his fire and increase Wellington's fire above his.
Lannes, Soult and Masséna were second only to Davout.
Ney was beloved by his men, but overall an average imperial commander: let say 4,1,3 ...
Kutuzov was great, and Bagration second best.
About abilities evolution, I would give a general drop of leader abilities as result of war exhaustion to reflect the deterioration of the quality of the chain of command....but it might not apply to smaller armies ie to corps (France 1814, but also the victories of Rapp and Suchet in 1815)
I'm French so I'm biased but.....
I think I've read some parts of "Blundering to Glory"...boy...the guy is a fool!
Yes, Napoleon did that, of course he did, but not because he was madly egotist, simply because he HAD to do it: it was nothing less and nothing more than propaganda. The best example IM-notH-O is Jena-Aurstaedt: Napoleon went to see Davout, he congratulated him for his outstanding victory (partly due to the Prussians) but then explained him that for political reasons, the reports of the campaign would reverse the importance of both battles. Davout understood perfectly and saw there no reason for resentment (and he was faithful to him until the very end).
About Wellington, he was perhaps a better tactician than Napoleon..perhaps...when you look at the Waterloo campaign, I would say that "Blundering to Glory" fits him better (Dutch-Belgian and Prussian contribution) .but anyway I think that England had a much better general with Marlborough who can certainly compare with Napoleon
Napoleon also had the advantage of working with the first "modern" army against a less than stellar cast of foes- superannuated Prussians and some less than inspired Austrians- all too often. He also inherited the tactical innovations of the pre-revolutionary French army that helped him greatly.
Owen Connelly points out how much Napoloen was not as methodical as his press indicates. He tened to leap and then think- his great gift was thinking faster than his foes once he figured out where he lept to.
He was brilliant but, like Frederick, his legend is perhaps better than his reality. For my money, Frederick's Houdini act in the 7 years war is much, mcuh better than anything Napoleon accomplished.
Now I've considered it more - I do appear to have been very over generous to Ney, though he was one of those commanders who visibly declined from his auspicious beginnings.
As for who is the better commander Frederick the Great or Napoleon - that's the kind of argument that keeps history military enthusiaists up until the wee hours of the morning arguing about.
BTW - what ever happened to the Marquis of Montrose for the English Royalists - IMHO he was the finest general of the civil war period (yet more controversy). Also why did the IGC lower Ruperts stats below Cromwells - Cromwell was a great organizer but not the worlds greatest tactician.
It is true that the French Army at that time was exceptional, but then it took an exceptional commander to make use of it. Just because he had a good army does not mean that he was not an exceptional commander. It is also true that he, to a certain extent, was jealous and did play down the role of his subordinates. However, towards the end of his reign, his subordinates were not of such a high caliber, yet even then he won great victories on French soil. In fact with every success that Napoleon had, more and more of his exceptional subordinates, like Bernadotte went against him. Also following the debacle at Russia, the allies had also reformed their armies to a certain extent, yet Napoleon came damn close to beating them, especially on French soil.
Originally posted by Achille
Koutousov ?
I'd like to see Bernadotte
Yeah, I always wondered how good our King was.
Wellington was not only a great tactician (he never lost a battle), he was a good strategist as well, as his peninsular campaign proves.
Napoleon won a lot of battles because of his excellent subordinates (Soult, Berthier, Lannes, Davout, Masséna, Murat, Ney, Desaix,...). Wellington won his battles despite his mediocre or bad subordinates (a few were good). There is a good book comparing the personalities and military qualities of Wellington and Napoleon: "The Duke and the Emperor" by John Strawson.
I must admit it's possible I'm biased, because all of the books I have read on the subject were by Anglo-saxon writers.
I knew this would spark of a discussion. Napoleonic wargamers tend to be divided in Wellington-fans and Napoleon-fans. There was this military history-quiz in Flanders a few years ago, organised by a wargamersclub. One of the questions was: "What battle was the first defeat of Napoleon ?" When the organisers announced the right answer was "Eylau", one of the contestants got up and declared that Eylau was a draw and that this was an insult to the Emperor, after which he left the hall.
Napoleon won a lot of battles because of his excellent subordinates (Soult, Berthier, Lannes, Davout, Masséna, Murat, Ney, Desaix,...). Wellington won his battles despite his mediocre or bad subordinates (a few were good). There is a good book comparing the personalities and military qualities of Wellington and Napoleon: "The Duke and the Emperor" by John Strawson.
I must admit it's possible I'm biased, because all of the books I have read on the subject were by Anglo-saxon writers.
I knew this would spark of a discussion. Napoleonic wargamers tend to be divided in Wellington-fans and Napoleon-fans. There was this military history-quiz in Flanders a few years ago, organised by a wargamersclub. One of the questions was: "What battle was the first defeat of Napoleon ?" When the organisers announced the right answer was "Eylau", one of the contestants got up and declared that Eylau was a draw and that this was an insult to the Emperor, after which he left the hall.
Absolutely true - and it was his subordinates who made him give up the fight. The odds against Napoleon by this point were ludicrous (making Frederick the Greats chances during the Seven yars war look resonable). Unlike Frederick Napoleons subordinates weren't loyal (the advantage of been the legitimate monarch), Russia was committed to the extinction of French power and no one was funding him vast amounts of cash to persist.
I think rating leaders is a tough thing to do for Paradox as there are always going to be discussions, for instance as good as Gustaphos Adolphos (6,6,6) was - was he really that much better then Wallenstein (4,4,4)?
Is it just about Napoleon?
A general observation: the list of French generals seems to be rising with each post, and I believe there are at least a dozen more who could belong to this honourable company.
Another plus for Napoleon, therefore, was that he was able to attract an array of talent that has not been matched before or since. I guess the French in the late 18th century GC or scenario will have more generals than armies to command.
A general observation: the list of French generals seems to be rising with each post, and I believe there are at least a dozen more who could belong to this honourable company.
Another plus for Napoleon, therefore, was that he was able to attract an array of talent that has not been matched before or since. I guess the French in the late 18th century GC or scenario will have more generals than armies to command.