Top 100 Generals

Originally posted by Jonathan4290 On the other hand he also never had a Liepzig, Kolin or Zama.   I agree that Wellington was a very conservative and defensive general but I wonder what kind of general he would've been placed in a situation where offense was more vital and any failed offensive wouldn't have shocked British parliament.

when Bonaparte took over the French rev Army in Northern Italy, he was much worser off than Wellington in his worst nightmare. and in case of failure the rev.gov. would have just executed him for treason.

i don't get why people always insist on clean records. that just shows some generals were lucky. even the best general can't win in every situation.

I find it strange you appear to feel Wellington somehow �cheated�. Is it a sign of poor generalship to make the best use of the weapons you have at your disposal? Should Wellington have ignored the information he was given because it gave him an �unfair� advantage? Given some thought I suspect we could find 9 factors for each general on this list that gave him particular advantages over his enemies.

No, it is not a sign of poor generalship but neither is it a sign of good generalship. Any general would have done the same thing that Wellington did: take advantage of  intelligence and act on it. Having superior intelligence gives a tremendous advantage to a general.

 As I have said before and will repeat only for one more time, the criterion of a good general should be he that could defeat an opponent in similar conditions. If the French generals that Wellington faced had the same intelligence on Wellington and his army, intelligence on the terrain, & freedom to communicate effectively between them while Wellington still beat them, then you can say that Wellington was a good general. But he was not. He enjoyed at least 9 crippling advantages over the French. If any one of the 9 conditions was no more, I don't think he would have beaten Soult, Ney or Massena.

I�d like to ask a counter question, how would the Spanish have fared without Wellington �s Army?

Before I answer that, I have my own question to you: how would Wellington and his army have fared if they didn't have the support of the guerillas. This was one of the 9 conditions I mentioned before.

As to your question, the guerrillas alone would have eventually defeated the French by attrition, which, by the way, they actually did. See quote below taken from the aforementioned website.

"... the Spanish 'nation in arms' ... may have lacked the polished professionalism of the British Light Division but, in the long run, they probably inflicted considerably more damage on the French forces than all of Wellington's pitched battles combined. The sieges of Gerona alone cost the Imperial armies over 20,000 casualties and, exclusively from sickness and guerilla raids, the French forces in the Peninsula lost approx. 100 men per day for over 4 years, a total of some 164,000 casualties. It is, therefore, easy to see how the war in Spain bled the French army white ..." (- Gates)

Spanish guerrillas were not as effective or decisive as Spanish romantic propaganda likes to make them out to be.

Please. Spanish romanticism/propaganda is far closer to the truth than British romanticism/propaganda. Spanish guerrillas did a lot more to the French than Wellington ever did. See reasons above. Do not also forget the Spanish army who defeated the French spectacularly in Baylen. Wellington never demonstrated that he could achieve victory at a grand scale like Baylen.

Originally posted by antonioM Spanish guerrillas did a lot more to the French than Wellington ever did.

When and where ?

Originally posted by antonioM  As I have said before and will repeat only for one more time, the criterion of a good general should be he that could defeat an opponent in similar conditions.

Name one that did.

It would be more correct to call Wellington a conservative general as it doesn't imply defensive or offensive.

AntonioM: Doesn't that also reveal a disadvantage in that French troops were much more disciplined and hardened than the British?

I suspect I�ll be beaten to the punch again, but here goes anyway.

Terrain is neutral. It�s up to each commander to make the best possible use of any advantage terrain may give to fight and win a battle. Wellington did this consistently and well throughout his career, against some of the best commanders Napoleon had available to send against him.

The idea that Spanish guerrillas alone could have won the war by attrition is laughable. No guerrilla war has ever been won in this way alone, and even contemporary Spanish observers agreed that was the case. [I quote Spanish sources here as you clearly refuse to believe any contemporary British accounts.]

The first quote is taken from Medios de Salvar el Reino, a Spanish pamphlet published in Cadiz 1810 [I translate this as, �Ways of Saving the Kingdom�, but will happily stand corrected if anyone knows better.]

�As a method of waging war, popular insurrection is almost always far more costly than the use of regular forces. When protected by a regular army, at the right moment the former can reinforce the latter, but otherwise the only result is momentary success avenged later with greater sacrifice. Is it still doubted that the Kingdom is lost if we do not raise large armies? Let us suppose that Spain becomes the tomb of twenty thousand French soldiers every year; Napoleon has necessarily to subjugate Spain or lose his reputation and now that the North is quiet, it is not difficult for him to send 100,000.

It is held that our arms cannot match those of the enemy when both sides are fighting in large forces. From here stems the foolish idea that instead of increasing our armies, we should rely solely on the use of Partidas and the defence of towns when the war we are waging on the contrary demands large armies that are capable of imposing themselves on the enemy. It is true that Madrid was defended heroically by its own people, that La Mancha has devoured many Frenchmen without the aid of many troops, and that the enemy was expelled from Galicia by the peasantry alone. Nevertheless, Madrid is occupied by the enemy and La Mancha in reality controlled by them, whilst Galicia would also fall into their hands if there was not a large army to protect it. Little by little the French extend their dominions whilst we celebrate a riot in some village or an attack by some guerrilla band�

Also Jose Serrano Valdenebro wrote in 1811, [cited in the Diario de Algeciras]

�Although war is being waged in these mountains in the style of Viriato, flattering results cannot be expected. A band of Patriots situated in mountains that are almost inaccessible will hold off the bravest soldiers. However, should the latter fall back to more accessible terrain, the picture changes. The peasant wages a petty war; how can this man fight in a terrain where infantry can press upon him or cavalry ride him down? Furthermore, the peasants are little more than unmanageable; there is neither union nor regularity in their movements. This is not surprising amongst troops who have not been fashioned by the strictest discipline, they cannot be achieved. Valiant in skirmishing, they do not understand that shock action is the chief weapon on the battlefield; whilst troops do not realise that battles are won by the sword and bayonet, all is lost. Fire is only a chimera; advancing on the enemy with union and bravery is what brings victory.�

On balance the guerrillas caused more harm to the Spanish cause than good as not only did they prey on their own people, but siphoned off vital manpower that could have been used to rebuild Spain�s regular armies.

What your argument also fails to point out is that Wellington actively encouraged guerrilla activity when it suited his purpose and both he and Moore paid well for information. Had the French done the same, they would have found without any doubt, Spaniards willing to spy/reconnoitre for them. Instead the French pillaged and murdered in reprisal, and so caused their own misery.

Wellington built his intelligence gathering apparatus from scratch, and took great pains to stay well in with the Spanish forces and authorities he had to work with. If that gave him a huge advantage, that just goes to prove his abilities as a General beyond any doubt. That�s how you fight a war.

Originally posted by Challenger2 Originally posted by DSMyers1 ..Compare the use of the various advantages to the maxims that Sun Tzu wrote.  The great general wins the war with few battles, or fights them at the greatest advantage possible. That would be Marlborough then.

Edited by DSMyers1 - 25-Apr-2008 at 18:14

 As I have said before and will repeat only for one more time, the criterion of a good general should be he that could defeat an opponent in similar conditions.

Name one that did.


your hero, Marlborough.

He proved, albeit with very few battles and with the help of Eugene of Savoy, that he could defeat an opponent in similar conditions. He should take Wellington's #17 spot. Eugene should take Marlborough's current #11 ranking. He, after all, took the risky and daring campaigns, fought far more battles, and, yes, proved he could defeat an opponent in similar conditions BY HIMSELF. Eugene should rank higher than Marlborough.

Wellington should not be on the list at all.

AntonioM: doesn't Wellington's use of all the advantages at hand show a great breadth of skill?  Compare the use of the various advantages to the maxims that Sun Tzu wrote.  The great general wins the war with few battles, or fights them at the greatest advantage possible.

Yes, I agree that a general is good if he could create advantages for himself and/or create disadvantages for the opponent.

But Wellington never had to do this. The 10 crippling advantages that he enjoyed in Spain were basically handed to him. All he had to do was act on them. Big deal.

Do you really think Wellington would still have beaten Soult, Ney or Massena if he didn't possess these advantages?

Terrain is neutral. It�s up to each commander to make the best possible use of any advantage terrain may give to fight and win a battle. Wellington did this consistently and well throughout his career, against some of the best commanders Napoleon had available to send against him.

No, terrain is not neutral. For Wellington, as a defensive specialist, the mountains of Spain was invaluable because it enabled him to defend or to use his "celebrated" reverse slope which, by the way, every defensive specialist since time immemorial has been using.

Also, it provided his outclassed army with cover. Without the mountains and in the open filed, his army would have been no match for the French.

Even more important, Wellington had intelligence on the terrain and was able to use it to best advantage. The French did not have that advantage.

For the guerrillas, for the same reason as the army, the mountains provided cover, enabling them to avoid confronting the French conventionally. 

For the French, the mountains were definitely a disadvantage to what they had to do and in the conditions they had to face. Namely, in enemy territory, the mountains hindered their movements and their communications because the guerrillas were lurking to pick them off.

The idea that Spanish guerrillas alone could have won the war by attrition is laughable. No guerrilla war has ever been won in this way alone, and even contemporary Spanish observers agreed that was the case. [I quote Spanish sources here as you clearly refuse to believe any contemporary British accounts.]

It is interesting that you denigrate Spanish romanticism/nationalism and at the same time use the Spanish sources up front.

Anyway, contemporary sources are an incomplete portrait of the war. You need additional sources, especially after the war ended in order to fully gage the situation. I am sure that those two Spanish sources you cited would have changed their opinions if they could see after the war ended how the guerrillas were successful in  bleeding the French. The two sources would also have seen the numerous examples of successful effect of guerrilla warfare in the years that followed the Peninsular War, such as those in the Spanish colonies, the British and Soviet invasions of Afghanistan, and perhaps, the current American invasion of Iraq.

Another thing. It is interesting to note that these two sources did not mention Wellington or the British. As if they had no importance in the Pennisular War. Something to ponder, don't you think?

Had the French done the same, they would have found without any doubt, Spaniards willing to spy/reconnoitre for them.

The French had little, if any, support from the Spanish population. That is without a doubt. Show me sources that state that state that the Spanish population was sympathetic to the French and did not execute any Spaniard that dared to help the French. I have always provided sources to support my case.

Instead the French pillaged and murdered in reprisal, and so caused their own misery.

A serious accusation. What proof do you have that the French regularly committed murder?

As for plunder, what do you expect the French to do, starve to death? They were up against the population, so they could only rely on themselves.

Wellington built his intelligence gathering apparatus from scratch, and took great pains to stay well in with the Spanish forces and authorities he had to work with. If that gave him a huge advantage, that just goes to prove his abilities as a General beyond any doubt. That�s how you fight a war.

Another British myth. Unlike what you and others claim, Wellington did not have a good relationship with the Spanish authorities and population. Especially when Wellington employed that time-honored British strategy of scorched-earth policy which means he had everything burnt down every time he decided to do a retreat, which was quite often. They also complained of Wellington's tardiness in providing assistance and in his tardiness in confronting the French. But they were stuck with him because as the expression goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".