5 ms·

The most valuable thing about the article, in my opinion, is its teasing out of the difference between strategy (considering all means and all goals) and tactic

The most valuable thing about the article, in my opinion, is its teasing out of the difference between strategy (considering all means and all goals) and tactics, something that -- for example -- the US military might learn from (which defines the difference by the number of soldiers involved -- I am not making this up). Napoleon was very good at tactics, grand tactics ("strategy" in the US), and even logistics, but he was not good enough at strategy to win. As many have pointed out, the odds were stacked against him because he represented the Devil in terms of the ideas he and the French Empire espoused, and despite his defeat the ideas won. Ideology aside, most importantly, Napoleon represented a dominant power in Europe which Britain -- at the time the world's only real superpower -- implacably opposed for strategic reasons (unified Europe means Britain no longer top nation). The thing that really riles up the British about Napoleon is that his influence and fame are so wide relative to that of Wellington, who was if anything a better tactician. Even in this article the emphasis on the Russian campaign for Napoleon's defeat probably irks those who follow Wellington. Wellington defeated the French in India, securing Britain's economic advantages, and then turned Spain into a bloody quagmire. He won every battle he fought, usually with few casualties on his side. Oh, and he is the one who finally beat Napoleon, despite being outnumbered. Here's a nice comparison of the two: http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/france/well-nap.htm http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/france/well-nap.htm

sethrin 12y ago
Britain was the only real superpower? France had been disputing that claim for about a hundred years at that point. In point of fact between the time of Charlemagne, and Waterloo, there are few periods in which France was not the dominant power. France was generally larger, richer, more populous, and more powerful than the rest of Europe. I am sure that Wellington was a good guy, but that "article" is garbage. Some information is useful despite being obviously biased, but this is just dreck. Wellington was physically fit, and Napoleon wasn't? This must obviously have been a decisive factor; it's good the right man won. I am surprised not to read a discussion of their favorite colors. I am sure that you can pick apart a global conflict spanning (at least) two decades, with many reverses and triumphs by both sides, to show that one side and one hero was destined to win, the other side's defeat inevitable. I am less convinced that this is a good thing to do, and more skeptical that your hero does not have the reputation he deserves.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  > I am sure that you can pick apart a global conflict spanning (at least) two decades, with many reverses and triumphs by both sides, to show that one side and one hero was destined to win, the other side's defeat inevitable. I agree completely. Napoleon's defeat seems much less inevitable than, say, the Confederacy's or Imperial Japan's in their respective wars. The point is, however, that if one wants to claim Napoleon was great, one needs to make the challenges he faced seem larger, not smaller, and so his strategic "genius" must rest on the proposition that his strategic problem was insurmountable. I am willing to concede that it may have been, but even so, I think Wellington was the more effective battlefield commander (that said, Napoleon was running an army and an empire, and doing a lot of delegation; Wellington not so much).
oblio 12y ago
I've seen quite a few accounts of Waterloo where Wellington is accused of being too passive and only being saved from defeat by the resilience of his troops and by the quick response of the Prussians, especially Gneisenau. I remember a quote where the author was speculating based on their personalities that had Napoleon attacked the Prussians first, they would have been crushed before the more cautious Wellington would have interfered. I doubt that a victory at Waterloo would have changes the outcome of the war, though.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  I'm hardly an expert on the matter, but there are plenty of conflicting opinions. The fact remains Wellington was essentially undefeated as a general, in India, Spain, and finally Belgium. He was a defensive specialist, whereas Napoleon was an offensive specialist, and when they came head-to-head, Wellington defeated Napoleon's "immortal" guard unit using the same tactics he had used against everyone else.

sethrin 12y ago

Britain was the only real superpower? France had been disputing that claim for about a hundred years at that point. In point of fact between the time of Charlemagne, and Waterloo, there are few periods in which France was not the dominant power. France was generally larger, richer, more populous, and more powerful than the rest of Europe. I am sure that Wellington was a good guy, but that "article" is garbage. Some information is useful despite being obviously biased, but this is just dreck. Wellington was physically fit, and Napoleon wasn't? This must obviously have been a decisive factor; it's good the right man won. I am surprised not to read a discussion of their favorite colors. I am sure that you can pick apart a global conflict spanning (at least) two decades, with many reverses and triumphs by both sides, to show that one side and one hero was destined to win, the other side's defeat inevitable. I am less convinced that this is a good thing to do, and more skeptical that your hero does not have the reputation he deserves.

Tloewald 12y ago
> I am sure that you can pick apart a global conflict spanning (at least) two decades, with many reverses and triumphs by both sides, to show that one side and one hero was destined to win, the other side's defeat inevitable. I agree completely. Napoleon's defeat seems much less inevitable than, say, the Confederacy's or Imperial Japan's in their respective wars. The point is, however, that if one wants to claim Napoleon was great, one needs to make the challenges he faced seem larger, not smaller, and so his strategic "genius" must rest on the proposition that his strategic problem was insurmountable. I am willing to concede that it may have been, but even so, I think Wellington was the more effective battlefield commander (that said, Napoleon was running an army and an empire, and doing a lot of delegation; Wellington not so much).

oblio 12y ago

I've seen quite a few accounts of Waterloo where Wellington is accused of being too passive and only being saved from defeat by the resilience of his troops and by the quick response of the Prussians, especially Gneisenau. I remember a quote where the author was speculating based on their personalities that had Napoleon attacked the Prussians first, they would have been crushed before the more cautious Wellington would have interfered. I doubt that a victory at Waterloo would have changes the outcome of the war, though.

Tloewald 12y ago
I'm hardly an expert on the matter, but there are plenty of conflicting opinions. The fact remains Wellington was essentially undefeated as a general, in India, Spain, and finally Belgium. He was a defensive specialist, whereas Napoleon was an offensive specialist, and when they came head-to-head, Wellington defeated Napoleon's "immortal" guard unit using the same tactics he had used against everyone else.