Top 100 Generals

I�m wary of starting a sub thread about the Hundred Days here, as its not relevant to the thread. So I�ll let Napoleon himself answer you, via Marshal Soult. This is a translation of document XIV of Ney�s �Documents in�dits du Duc d�Echlingen� [page 41 of the 1833 publication, if you have a copy and want to check the translation against the original French].

�In front of Fleurus 3:15pm June 16^th 1815

Marshal,

I wrote to you an hour ago to inform you that at 2:30pm the Emperor would attack the position taken up by the enemy between the villages of St. Amand and Brye. At this moment the action is in full swing.

His Majesty desires me to tell you that you are to manoeuvre immediately in such a manner as to envelop the enemy�s right and fall upon his rear, the fate of France is in your hands.

Thus do not hesitate even for a moment to carry out the manoeuvre ordered by the Emperor and direct your advance on the heights of Brye and St. Amand so as to cooperate in a victory that may well turn out to be decisive.

The enemy has been caught in the very act of carrying out his concentration with the English.�

This clearly states Napoleon�s intentions. Ney was to seize the crossroads at Quatre Bras and then use the lateral road to flank Blucher at Ligny. Had Napoleon achieved the victory he desired at Ligny, their combined armies would have attacked Wellington�s flank on Mont St. Jean, with disastrous consequences for the allied army.

Wellington had never intended to fight Napoleon at Quatre Bras, having been surprised by Napoleon�s initial manoeuvres, but by thwarting Ney, he guaranteed Blucher�s survival and enabled him to intervene decisively at Waterloo.  Therefore, as I said before, Quatre Bras was a victory of sorts, although even by using a narrow tactical definition, it was closer to a draw. Either way, Wellington did not lose this battle.

Thanks for that. At least it�s not just me!

To get national biases out of the way as objectively as possible then, as far as British commanders are concerned, I would wholeheartedly agree with John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough as probably the best  general we�ve ever had. On the international level, I believe he should easily be in the top 10, if not the top 5. He had to lead a fragile coalition against the most feared and powerful army of the age. He was hindered at almost every turn by frightened rulers and politicians, yet managed to pull off a massive coup in almost complete secrecy by conducting a strategic redeployment from Holland to the Danube and destroyed the Franco-Bavarian armies led in part by a general considered the best military mind of his age, the Elector of Bavaria. He won all his battles [this seems to be an important consideration] and saved Europe from French hegemony for almost a century. He was much admired by Napoleon and his enemies even wrote a popular song about him!

After him I�d place Wellington, who is much underrated and usually  dismissed as fighting in a secondary theatre against mediocre opposition. In fact he managed to direct and maintain a fragile coalition, despite deep hostility between the Spanish and British and opposition at home. He forged the army created my Sir John Moore into arguably the best army of the Napoleonic wars. He also won all his battles against the best commanders Napoleon could send against him. Strategically, he never let a transient opportunity get in the way of his strategic goals and his attention to detail, and pioneering tactics led to the ultimate victory in 1814, and again created the circumstances that defeated Napoleon himself in 1815. The Spanish ulcer tied up huge numbers of experienced French troops that could have been better employed elsewhere, and forced Napoleon to fight a war on two fronts. Spanish guerrillas on their own could not have achieved this. On the international stage, given his impact in India and Spain and his massive lasting influence on the British army up to the Victorian age, I�d rate him in the top 10.

As far as British generals go I would not rate Cromwell very highly. His only real claim to lasting military fame was the creation of the New Model Army, the first truly full time professional army in Britain since the Romans. His victories were against second rate opposition in a local conflict; the Civil War which although it had deep significance in the British Isles, did not have any significant effect on the outside world at the time. I can point to no sparks of strategic brilliance in order to  justify his inclusion on this list. If he remains, for whatever reason, I feel he should be somewhere in the bottom 50 at best.

What is Henry V doing on this list at all? He wandered around France, was outmanoeuvred and cornered and managed to pull off one major victory in his life! It is possible had he lived longer

He might have shown some potential, but  from what we have to go on I don�t think he merits inclusion on this list. Above him I�d place Edward I or Edward III as military commanders, Edward I for creating the first �united Kingdom� in the British isles, and Edward III for his exploits in the Hundred Years War. Of the two, Edward III possibly merits inclusion somewhere on this list in place of Henry V.

I�ll have to look up Bill Slim, but I can�t think of any other British commander that had an impact on the world stage and of sufficient ability to merit inclusion on this list.