Most Incompetant Leader of Napoleonic Wars

Snigbert · Post by **Snigbert** » Wed Jan 29, 2003 7:23 am

Sorry, I hadnt realized this was a subject that needed to stay dead ;P

pasternakski · Post by **pasternakski** » Wed Jan 29, 2003 7:48 am

Originally posted by Snigbert
Sorry, I hadnt realized this was a subject that needed to stay dead ;P

Naw, this thread is fine, and could have been interesting. Let 'er rip, Snig. We were just talking about the absurd "Bismarck" thread on AoW that deserves whatever horrible death befalls it.

So let me be conciliatory instead of cheeky. I am an admirer of Napoleon for the reasons that Napoleon deserved to be admired. He was an ascendant comet in a decadent sky. He brought honor to a time of deceit. He burns as a romantic fire that spent itself just before the time of colonialism, industrialism, and all that has ensued.

He is one of my favorite tragic heroes of history. He accomplished much, excited the imagination of the Western world as no one else ever has, is remembered and revered still, yet failed in such a way as to pave the road for all the horrors that have visited Europe since (and, yes, I mean all of them).

To the man who returned from exile and was promised to be delivered to Louis in an iron cage by one of his former stalwarts, yet still re-ascended the throne, I say, "Vive L'Empereur!" To the man who had irrevocably hurled the flower of France into the Russian abyss two years before, I say, "Ecrasez l'infame!"

Most incompetent? Let history be the judge...

Mike Scholl · Post by **Mike Scholl** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 3:34 pm

Totally avoiding the current flavor of this thread, I would like to
ruturn to the original topic and nominate:

THE ENTIRE GENERAL OFFICER CORPS OF THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN

I have nothing but admiration for the common Spanish soldier of
the period. Not because he was particularly good, because he
certainly wasn't. But to have continued fighting the French after
being "led" from one disaster to another by a seemingly endless
supply of bumbling nincompoops of the Whitelock/Elphenstone
school of command (to use their British Equavilents) and remain
in the field is a true mark of courage and determination.

NaKATPase · Post by **NaKATPase** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 2:19 pm

How has everyone missed the most obvious example of gross incompetence in the whole period?!?!?

Gen. Dupont must be given the honor of most incompetent commander of the entire period... all the allied commanders that lost had an excuse... they were facing Bonaparte... but Dupont!!!

he was facing the bloody spaniards in 1808!!! And he surrendered his command!!!

gross incompetence.... no one else comes close...

sandy · Post by **sandy** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:31 am

Dupont is not a good choice.

a)At Baylen he was wounded and ill, he should not have even been in command.
b) He was actually carrying out Napoleons outdated stratagic orders, that is what got him in a trap.
c) Dupont had shown himself to be a capable officer before this, at Durrenstein 1805 his Division forced marched to save the day on his intiative.

Dupont was not a bad officer, just the wrong place at the wrong time. Now officers like Cuesta and Mack........

Actually there should be a thread for over-rated leaders. I nominate Archduke Charles. He should have done much better in 1809, the man was a defeatist.

Roads · Post by **Roads** » Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:41 pm

Look at the campaign of 1796, where he was facing two good-decent generals in Jourdan and Moreau. The campaign was a materpiece. Outmarched, outthought and outfought the French. You can't tell me he was over-rated.

Well I suppose you can, but I won't believe it.

edit: This was in response to the previous post saying that Archduke Charles was hugely overrated.

Chiteng · Post by **Chiteng** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 1:11 am

Originally posted by Road's
Look at the campaign of 1796, where he was facing two good-decent generals in Jourdan and Moreau. The campaign was a materpiece. Outmarched, outthought and outfought the French. You can't tell me he was over-rated.

Well I suppose you can, but I won't believe it.

If you are speaking of Bernadette,
You need look no further than Jena. He kept the First corp
Idle for the entire battle, and let Davout face 2/3 of the
Prussian army alone.

The man was guilty of treason. He should have been SHOT.
If it were not for Desire Clare he WOULD have been shot.

There is NOTHING good about such a man.

Ragnar · Post by **Ragnar** » Sun Mar 09, 2003 12:39 am

Originally posted by Chiteng
If you are speaking of Bernadote,
You need look no further than Jena. He kept the First corp
Idle for the entire battle, and let Davout face 2/3 of the
Prussian army alone.

The man was guilty of treason. He should have been SHOT.
If it were not for Desire Clare he WOULD have been shot.

There is NOTHING good about such a man.

And yet his descendants still sit on the throne of Sweden. Pherhaps there is a lesson to be learned here?

Bernadotte didn't reinforce Davout because he resented the fact that his inferior (As Davout entered the marechalate later then he did) had the overall command in the battle.

Ragnar

sandy · Post by **sandy** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 3:18 am

RE:Archduke Charles

Certainly not the worst General by a long shot. No, I simply wanted to point out that in the Game EIA, he rates as 4.4.6, which is far too high. He was extremely cautious, so much so he missed many oportunities and retreated when he could have continued. His strategic plans for the advance in Bavaria in 1809 were hardly bold, neither was his handling of the battle of Aspren-Essling.

Let us remember that he basically had a good part of the French Army trapped with a major river at its back/no retreat yet he was content to simply have stopped the French. He could not concieve of actually destroying them. Napoleon would never have let such an opportunity slip (like at Friedland in 1807).

Therefore, Charles overrated, and hence should not be rated as pretty much the 2nd best General in the game...........

Roads · Post by **Roads** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:37 am

Well, Wellington is better if memory serves.

And the strategic coneption of the Bavarian invasion in 1809 wasn't bad - I mean the Austrians came close to scoring a major victory. It was the execution that was lacking, and I think a case can be made that Charles' subordinates weren't up to it.

The comparison of Aspern-Essling to Friedland is a pretty good one, and clearly he could have done better. On the other hand the Prussians could have pulled the same trick on Napoleon at Jena, had they attacked the day before they could have caught him with 2 or 3 corps across the river.

In 1796 Charles outwitted Moreau, and decisively beat Jourdan in battle, without any advantage in numbers. In 1799 he easily repulsed Jourdan and beat Massena handily (what are Massena's stats?). In 1805 he basically drew with Massena before retreating. In 1809 he had most of the French marshals on the run before Napoleon arrived (admittedly they were disorganized and caught unaware).

It's clearly true that he was nothing like as aggressive as almost all French generals, or as Suvarov. It's not clear to me that he could have been given the state of the Austrian army.

Other than Wellington I still think he's the best general Napoleon faced. Blucher was a totally different type of general but I think Charles is still the better tactician.

sandy · Post by **sandy** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:31 pm

Wellington 5.5.3

Charles 4.4.6

Yes, Wellingtons ratings are higher, but except in one crucial area, corps command. This makes Charles' far more effective than Wellington, which I find odd to say the least.

Let me get this straight, i don't think Charles was bad, and I obviously should not have started this thread in "the most incompetent leaders". I just wanted to disagree about his brillance.

His performance in Italy in 1805 was also poor to medicore. He had the better part of the Habsburg Army and he outnumbered Massena, yet he basically did nothing of use. He thought far too much of avoiding defeat instead of how to win.

You are quite right about the Prussians in 1806, there are great examples of incompetance there. Not taking anything away from Davout at Auerstadt, but he was fortunate in the Prussian leaders he oppossed. And yes the Prussians missed a big opportunity the day before Jena.

I still stand by my assesment, Charles was undoubtably the best of the Habsburg senior officer corps, but he is basically overated in both history (as the many that many claim first beat Napoleon) and just as importantly, in the game!

jnier · Post by **jnier** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 6:16 pm

I think Charles is too often derided for his caution. Being a cautious leader is not always a bad thing. Think about the opponent that Charles faced. The French had repeatedly trounced the Austrian Army, largely due to advantages in French doctrine, organization, and leadership. These disadvantages made a decisive Austrian victory nearly impossible, at least in the early years of the Napoleonic Wars (maybe less so in 1809). Given these severe disadvantages Charles was right to play it close the vest.

You also have to consider the broader political context in which Charles operated. He was rightly concered that an overly aggressive strategy could have lead to the complete destruction of the Austrian army and the end of the Hapsburg dynasty. This is a far more dire outcome that occurred historically and Charles was right to avoid this scenario, given that his job was to protect the Hapsburgs.

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 9:06 pm

Yes, Wellingtons ratings are higher, but except in one crucial area, corps command. This makes Charles' far more effective than Wellington, which I find odd to say the least.

Being a world class micromanager has it's limits!

sandy · Post by **sandy** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:46 pm

B]given that his job was to protect the Hapsburgs[/B]

Well, as far as I know it his job was to defeat the enemy... after all Austria decalred War in 1809, not the other way around.

Just being picky

It is true Charles did command an incomplete machine in the Austrian Army but he can not be exempt from critisim for his errors.

Come to think of it he also blamed the junior ranks and file for the defeat at Wagram, which I thought was a bit unfair. If he was looking to start somewhere for blame he ought to have began with himself.

The fact remains that he is rated very highly in the EIA game which covers the Napoleonic Wars and during these wars his best work was basically a shallow 'victory' over Napoleon at Aspern Essiling. He is overrated.

Bennigsens performance at Eylau was about as good as Charles' yet he is only a 2.2.2 (??)

Charles is given a very high rating for commanding corps but there is no strong evidence to back this up, after all the corps system in 1809 was a farce.

I have taken this too far out of context, out of all Napoleon's opponents I can't believe I am attacking Charles!

I suppose we ought to try finding a leader who is not open to criticsm, as if they exist

Roads · Post by **Roads** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 12:27 am

His performance in Italy in 1805 was also poor to medicore. He had the better part of the Habsburg Army and he outnumbered Massena, yet he basically did nothing of use. He thought far too much of avoiding defeat instead of how to win.

Well I'd call 1805 a wash. He did beat Massena after all, even if only marginally. It was his approach that forced Napoeon into a very difficult situation. Now, Napoleon managed to engineer Austerlitz out of it, which was sheer brilliance.

And in 1809 Charles' record was mixed too.

But you can't ignore 1796. His armies weren't that much smaller than later on, and were about the same size as the French armies. And he very effectively thrashed two of the better generals thrown up by the revolution in Jourdan and Moreau. Not the cream of the crop, but not too shoddy either. And in 1799 he handily beat Massena at Zurich. 1796 rather than 1809 was his best work.

You're proabably right that he shouldn't get 6 corps. The evidence on that one is mixed, and Wagram suggests that he had troubles with really large armies on the battlefield. But the tactical rating is well deserved, and arguably the strtegic one too.

Bennigsen doesn't have anything like that sort of record, although 2,2,2 is awfully low.

denisonh · Post by **denisonh** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 1:40 am

Bennigsen doesn't have anything like that sort of record, although 2,2,2 is awfully low.

I don't know, look at the debacle at Friedland. The choice of a battlefield was sheer lunacy, and the conduct of the battle poor.

Seems appropriate to me.

sandy · Post by **sandy** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 4:03 am

You're proabably right that he shouldn't get 6 corps. The evidence on that one is mixed, and Wagram suggests that he had troubles with really large armies on the battlefield. But the tactical rating is well deserved, and arguably the strtegic one too.

I am driving at this basically. What I find is that an Austrian Army with 6 full strength corps under Charles is basically the second best Army in the Game in terms of leader, size and morale. I think Charles certainly should be one of the games better Generals, perhaps a 3.3.5 like Barclay, but I am just picking. I never complain like this when I am Austria, cause then I love the Archduke!

Lets also not forget Charles briefly fought Napoleon in Italy before Bonaparte became Emperor. Charles was worsted in that encounter too. I won't take away his credit due to him for his early performance in Germany during the Revolutionary Wars, although Jourdan was only at best average, but by beating Moreau- that was a bit more to blow his trumpet about.

On a different note, I always feel a little pang of inhuman satisfaction knowing Moreau died fighting the against the French. I really dislike the French officers who fought against France during these wars, Bernatdotte in particular comes to mind.

sandy · Post by **sandy** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 4:13 am

Oh just a few comments more on Charles

From Clausewitz on 1799 campaign "Charles lacks the enterprise and the hunger for victory"

Charles to his Uncle Duke Albert after narrow victory over Jourdan in 1799 "I hope that Jourdan will retreat beacause, between us, I do not want a new battle which would leave me without an army"

Oh and Charles fought Napoleon briefly in 1797, I thought at first it was 1800, but oh well.

Lastly, thanks to all for your replies and indulgence, it is good to sound out.

Mike Scholl · Post by **Mike Scholl** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 5:14 am

Charles certainly wasn't up to the level of Napoleon..., but
then again, Napoleon wouldn't have been up to that level if
he'd had to command the Austrian Army either. The fact that
Charles could get them to perform at all says a lot for him. It
was a rather slow and blunt tool compared to the French or
the English.

One of the problems with comparing leadership during this
period was that the Armies themselves were of quite varying
quality. Even within the Armies there was a lot of difference.
Would DuPont have failed at Baylen if he'd commanded the
veterans of the Army of Germany instead of the strange hodge-
podge of units he was given?

Roads · Post by **Roads** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 8:10 pm

He wasn't really bested by Bonaparte in 1797. He just withdrew and kept withdrawing, he didn't want to fight.

By the way, that narrow victory over Jourdan in 1799 is (I believe) Sempach, which put Jourdan's army out of that campaign and allowed Charles to advance on Massena in Switzerland. More evidence of his lack of aggresion, and overestimating his opponents I suppose, but my point is he won.

Was he as aggresive as any French Marshal? Probably not. But the worst defeat he suffered was Wagram, and that wasn't much of a defeat (well compared to Napoleons other great victories). I certainly wouldn't expect him to get much sypathy from Clauswitz, after all, he hardly followed the view of war that Clauswitz advocated.

Heck 4,4,4 might be more appropriate.

Most Incompetant Leader of Napoleonic Wars

A NEW NOMINEE

Another way of looking at it...