Most Incompetant Leader of Napoleonic Wars

[jnier]

OK, now that we've talked about the best leaders of the era, let's hear about the worst of the era. Who was the worst leader of the Napoleonic Wars?

I nominate Marshal Michel Ney. He squandered more opportunities than any other Marshal (more than Bernodette?). He probably would have been a better division commander than a corps commander.

[pasternakski]

Napoleon Bonaparte.

[Le Tondu]

With all due respect, it is just silly to attack someone who has been dead for nearly 200 years.

Their records speak for themselves. All did the best that they could with what they had and what they knew in their time. All should be honored here.

Must we become divisive with insults? Or can we use our common interest to pull together as a group that is only (by some estimates) shrinking as the years go by. We have to stick together and celebrate the era. Glory was hard earned by both sides during the Napoleonic Era.

OK pasternaski, someone could disagree with you and then retaliate by naming someone that you like. What next? How far will things escalate?

Talk to combat veterans that are still alive today, and I would bet the farm that the vast majority wouldn't insult the opponents that they faced on the battlefield. On the contrary. Veterans of WW II, and even Vietnam reach out to each other for healing. War isn't called Hell for nothing.

My own father who saw the entire Korean War as a US Marine combat veteran doesn't stoop to such silliness. Why should we?

[jnier]

Bad leaders are one of the reason soldiers get killed. So no, I don't think that we should honor their memory by ignoring the fact that their recklessness resulted in lots of people dying. Should we let Hohenlohe off the hook for incompetantly leading thousands of Prussian soldiers to an unwinnable showdown with the Grand Armee? I don't think so.

Should the History channel not show "Historys Greatest Blunders" because some people appear incompetant?

Human errors are, in many respects, the most important aspect of military history. By studying them, we learn what not to do.

[Le Tondu]

Clauswitz himself tells us that we should not use modern knowledge and standards when judging history and he is also right when he says to use the knowledge and standards of the time when judging history.

Critique is another thing altogether and the use of modern knowledge and standards is acceptable for it.

Let's see. Military comanders sure made blunders. They make them today.

Back then military commanders owed their commands to their birth place as opposed to earning a command by merit until the French Revolution came around. Some armies even allowed men of birth to purchase their rank like Wellington did when he started out as a Colonel. In such a state many mistakes continued to me made.

When Napoleon came on to the scene, he had earned his place with victory after victory. Early in Napoleon's career, the lack of success could be the cause of a death sentence for an a commander. Napoleon always made efforts to weed out incompetent or ill commanders. An example of such a weeding involved an old friend of Napoleon's from his Army of Italy days. Andoche Junot, who's mental heath deteriorated to such a state that he could no longer be allowed to command eventually perished by jumped out of a window thinking he could fly.

Outside of France, men commanded because of reasons stated above. Many times it was the like or dislike of a monarch that was the determining factor. Support for the monarch was paramount and if the monarch didn't trust an officer of merit, he didn't go anywhere. (Austria was notorious for this.)

It was how things were done in those places. They didn't have the experience of hundreds of years like we do today and I submit that they did the best that they could in the situation that they individually found themselves in.

We may get all emotional when we see the numbers of dead due to a certain Napoleonic conflict, but we may forget the numbers that died of disease back then. Was Napoleon incompetent for having sewers built in Paris? I've heard that more lives were spared by this simple act each year than the total number of soldiers and sailors that died during the entire Napoleonic Era on all sides!

Were the monarchs who didn't build sewers in their capital incompetent? By today's standards, yes.

By the standards of the times, no they weren't. Everyone (even today) does the best that they can with what they have. Can we blame anyone for not knowing the future technological and military progressions that will be made? No, we can't.

And likewise, we shouldn't blame the leaders of the past for what they did. We can say that they did this or that and we shouldn't do that sort of thing now. That is critique, but to use this thread as a place for a poularity contest to make fun of someone is just plain silly and insults the intellect.

pasternakski is an example of this when he said Napoleon was the most incompetent leader --and that is simply ludicrous in the extreme.

Still, I don't see how naming incompetent leaders from the Naploenic Era in a thread like this can help anyone now. We are not military commanders and the mistakes they made were a product of their societies which generaly don't exist today. We a players of games. Wargames to be exact.

Once again, I will say that our numbers are such that we need to stick together and not play around in anything divisive.

[Chiteng]

I nominate Elphinstone. His was the only british battalion to break
at Waterloo. Of course there was getting himself and his army killed in the retreat from Kabual.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Le Tondu
pasternakski is an example of this when he said Napoleon was the most incompetent leader --and that is simply ludicrous in the extreme.

So since when is it a requirement to participate in these forums that you have your sense of humor amputated before entering?

I have no idea what you are all wound up about. I thought that the thread itself was started in a light-hearted tone and figured that by suggesting everybody's hero in response, it might trigger some wit, some creative analysis, and some fun - even interesting - discussion.

So bugger off with your insults, Le Tondu.

[sol_invictus]

OK, calm down you bunch of Grognards. I am hesitant to criticize someones leadership during a war because I feel this has to be one of the most demanding tasks known to man. It is still part of the draw of the hobby to second-guess leaders who fail so I would nominate that perenial favorite, Mack. Sure he had much going against him and was confronted by the master of the era, but his inaction at Ulm must be criticised. I also agree, Ney's temperment was not suited to lead a corps; however he was unequaled as a rearguard commander during a retreat. I've always detested Bernadotte not so much because he was a lousey commander; which he wasn't; but for his failure in charachter.

[Chiteng]

The man was a traitor, and negligent, especially at Jena.
He should have been shot. ONLY Desire(nappys ex)
saved his ***. The token Gascon.

The Swedes should be ashamed of him as King, yet they are not.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by pasternakski

........ So bugger off with your insults, Le Tondu.

Your use of profanity is duly noted and BTW, your nomination of Napoleon as an incompetent still is ludicrous in the extreme.

[U2]

Originally posted by Chiteng

The Swedes should be ashamed of him as King, yet they are not.

What!? Why exactly should we feel ashamed of him?

Dan

[denisonh]

How about Jourdan? Didn't his troops call him "the Anvil" because got beat so many times?

[Marc von Martial]

Come on LeTondu, calm down. What´s the problem with this thread at all?

I don´t see the problem with discussing "most incompetent" leaders at all. That´s pretty much standard in wargaming forums.

So please gentlemen calm down and don´t bahve like kids, will you? Thanks.


Marc

[Le Tondu]

Napoleon as a leader was very interested in the abilities of the men that were under him. He (and his nation) were after success after all.

I quote from Robert Asprey's "The Rise of Napoleon Bonaprte" regarding the actions in Northern Italy, July -September 1796.

(This comes from Napoleon's Letters at Ronco, 12 September 1796.)

"Sauret was a good soldier but not intelligent enough to be a general. Garnier, Menuier and Casabianca were not suitable for even battalion commands in a war as active and serious as this one. Macquart was a brave man devoid of talent. Gaulthier was good for a desk job but not war. Despinoy was indolent and lacked boldness. He had performed very well in rear-area duty at Milan and 'very badly at the head of his division.' It was he who decided Napoleon henceforth to judge men only by their actions."
-------------

Napoleon judged the men that were under him with ease because he was intimate with the conditions of the time. Alas, that is something that we cannot be.

As for Bernadotte, I was never happy with his actions as a French commander, but I understand that the Swedes truly do love him and that is enough for me. I know that he loved the men that he led, be they French or Swedes and he always tried to protect them.

[denisonh]

Judging subordinates abilities and potential is critical for an army to develop quality leaders.

Napoleons ability in this area manifested itself in the superior leadership of the French Army during this period. This is just as much because he represented military and political power, and the egalitarian methods of promotion brought on by the revolution.

Other armies had the issues of nobility and politics that interefered with screening and selecting leadership.

It is hard to find and Allied army that faced the French that had equal leadership (although the British Peninsular army may be the exception, and that was because of Wellington tremendous efforts to "manage" the duds the the Horse Guards sent him).

So even looking at a poor leader of the period, even a poor French leader was better than the worst Allied leaders (well, except maybe for Joseph:D ).

[Preuss]

Interesting that anyone could get bent out of shape about this topic. I'm certain it was placed to to get us to talk, and share ideas. Not to cause hatred.

There were so many bad performers, that it's hard to pick out the worst.

Hohenlohe, like his army was about 70 years out of date.

Mack, like most other Austrian generals tended to do too little, too late...only for him it came at a very bad time.

Ney...well, he certainly made more than a few errors.

Grouchy, never liked him, will forever be cursed for dillatoriness

Kutuzov, well deserved of his "wily" title did next to nothing at Borodino while artillery shredded his army.

EVen the great Napoleon let 200,000 men starve to death during the 1813 campaign.

During the winter of 1806-07 Bennigsen gave the grande armee a good bleeding, but in the spring, suffered massive defeat.

Marechal Macdonald is rated highly in most games, but was forever unlucky on the field.

Even so, I'm going to put down the entire Marechelate (sp?) as the "worst" general. Away from the emperor they all failed more often then not. Yes, there are some glaring examples where they did well as long as only one marechal was present. But, put two or more together with no emperor nearby...and disaster was in the making.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Preuss


EVen the great Napoleon let 200,000 men starve to death during the 1813 campaign.

Really? Can you please tell us more about this? You know. It would be appreciated if you told us the usual who, what, when, and where of such an event.

Thanks.

[pasternakski]

I offer the following in humble support of my nomination:

Nobody lost more than Napoleon did. He began with brilliant, ascendant success. Then ...

He invaded Russia. His 612,000 man army was thrown away.
He regrouped. He lost at Leipzig.
He regrouped. He lost in the 1814 campaign and was deposed.
He returned. He lost at Waterloo and was exiled to die in isolation some six years later.

Losers is as losers does.

(as some of you know about me, I can't resist sticking my hand into the animal's cage just to see how sharp its teeth are).

[denisonh]

First thing I learned in the US Army was never let anyone know what truly irritates you. It is a button people will push to aggravate you.

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by pasternakski
I offer the following in humble support of my nomination:



.............He invaded Russia. His 612,000 man army was thrown away.
He regrouped. He lost at Leipzig.
He regrouped. He lost in the 1814 campaign and was deposed.
He returned. He lost at Waterloo and was exiled to die in isolation some six years later...........

My Webster's dictionary says that competent is 1.) Properly qualified : CAPABLE. 2.) Adequate for the stipulated purpose : SUFFICIENT. 3.) Law Legally fit or qualified : ADMISSABLE.

My dictionary also sates that incompetent is 1.) Not competent : UNQUALIFIED.

Nothing that you have cited is evidence of incompetence!

Are we forgetting that there was more than just Napoleon fighting the Allies during 1812-1815? Did Napoleon alone cause all the Allied casualties?? No he didn't. The French and their Allies did those things. They were defeated. Not just Napoleon. The defeat of an Army or Nation can have many causes and to confuse all of them as just incompetence is silly.

The only thing that you are giving pasternakski is your personal opinion which is highly subjective --and prejudiced, I might add. Yes, we both have a right to do that here and I honor that right. I also have the right to point it out when you are wrong.

You simply are not stating fact when you say that Napoleon was incompetent.

Added a few moments later:
Don't worry denisohn, this no longer bothers me. I know that I could have just laughed it off and I will in the future. It was just that there has been so much BS and propoganda put out about Napoleon, that I felt someone had to say something.