5 ms·
Napoleon was indeed a very good general, rightfully considered as one of the greatest of all time. This very well written and insightful article takes his legen
by hooande 12y ago
Napoleon was indeed a very good general, rightfully considered as one of the greatest of all time. This very well written and insightful article takes his legend down a peg or two, which is certainly justified. The invasion of Russia was one of history's greatest follies, The Little Corporal was cavalier with the lives of his men and his strategic brilliance was inconsistent at best. But his strengths often made up for his short comings and he was better than almost all of the comparable generals of his day.
His victory at Austerlitz stands as one of the great military achievements and best executed battles in history. Literally a textbook example of movement, timing and coordination. The common perception is that after Napoleon returned from Elba he lost much of his strategic and tactical flair, throwing his men into meat grinders. This is mostly true, but most of the opposing generals also had very high casualty rates. Napoleonic warfare was dominated by the Fog of War, they had no satellites or drones to help them plan and maneuver. Napoleon had a sixth sense for visualizing a battle that unfortunately came and went. On his good days he was better than many who have ever lived. On most days, he was simply average. That's as much as most of us could ask for, and it was enough to dominate a continent at the time.
History is filled with intelligent and technically capable generals, but only a few who had a style that set them apart. Hannibal and Robert E. Lee come easily to mind, along with others. Napoleon's genius of movement and logistics were groundbreaking, and the lessons apply to more than warfare. He was the original "Move fast and break things". He taught military history that being faster and better organized was enough to build a seemingly unstoppable snow ball effect of victories. His downfall instructs that even the best preparation cannot defeat a dangerous and unpredictable shifting landscape.
- meric 12y agoI suggest you read about Yi Sun-Sin also, considered the greatest naval commander of all time (Not a general). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin
- spacecowboy_lon 12y agoNapoleon is normaly considered one of the "great captains" the gereral consensus is that the great captains are Ceaser, Hannibal Alexander, Churcill (John not Winston) Wellington and Napoleon.
- msh 12y agothat consensus seem to miss any candidates from outside europe except for hannibal.
- spacecowboy_lon 12y agoYep I dont have my reference works at work as one of the early musilm gererals probaly should be in the list but he got written out of history some what. BTW Carthage was a Colony so not realy non european in that sense.
- restalis 12y agoCartage was a colony of Phoenicians (before it become a thing of its own), so not European in any case.
- lazyant 12y agoI'm no historian or geographer but I never thought of considering the north African cultures of the time as not European, since Mediterranean at a time seemed a uniting force and not a dividing one like now. Perhaps my European-centric vision talking.
- dragop 12y agoKhalid ibn al-Walid Some others, often overlooked from a Western viewpoint, would be Subutai, Timur the Lame (Tamerlane), Belisarius, Zhukov, and Suleiman I. There are more. Arguably Marius and Sulla were the equal, if not better than, Caesar. And Pompey was no slouch either. And another great Roman general was Scipio. Some more modern generals not mentioned are Fredrick the Great and Gustavus Adolphus, plus Rommel.
- spacecowboy_lon 12y agoThat was the guy however to be a great captain you need to be a bit more than a brilliant general in a one or two campaigns which rules peopel liek rommel, monty and patton out