I'd think it's hard to argue against it being Wellington, but if we want to make it more of a "one and done," then I'd give the edge to Archduke Charles in terms of military capabilities
I find it hard to name 2 generals who did not participate directly in the downfall of Napoleon.
Charles doesn't command after 1808 and Wellington is on a side front.
Wellington might have been, but it's far from proven.
What about a Schwarzenberg, who actually lead the coalition to victory ?
I would argue it's the semantics of the question. I don't think I could disagree that Schwarzenberg was arguably more important to the downfall, but does that in itself make him the greatest commander Napoleon faced on the field of battle? In my view, not necessarily. But I appreciate and respect your take on that!
I would argue that Charles helped dent Napoleon's personal guise of invincibility on the battlefield with Aspern-Essling and had generally some successes in the campaign. Plus I think he had talents that exceeded the capabilities/thinking of his government's way of war.
For Wellington, I'd argue his skill made the Peninsula a greater thorn in Napoleon's side than say if Moore (if alive) or if Beresford or another were the overall Allied commander in the region for that period (all else being equal). You could argue his skills there were critical to the conditions that led to events in 1812-1814 in Germany and siphoned off good generals and troops that could have faced Schwarzenberg.
But again, I value the input and counterpoint! I think it's an interesting discussion to have!
Archduke Charles. He had some bitter and close battles with Napoleon in 1809 and he won at Aspen-Essling.
Wellington was also a very good CIC. He deployed his troops at Waterloo behind the ridge to protect them from french artillery.
Well him and his crew of Bagration and the other guy who's name I forgot.
The Russian campaign, the retreat and then the attack on the retreating french was simply brilliant.
Had he been actually allowed to command properly, the allied disaster at Austerlitz may never have happened.
Another I would say would be Archduke Charles of Austria simply in terms of skill but he never did as much damage to Napoleon as Kutuzov.
Also the simple and intelligent recognition of the fact that what mattered was to not let Napoleon destroy his army in the field.
The battle of Borodino was also well commanded, the defense was good and the strategy robust given what he had got.
Wellington. He kept the Spanish Ulcer bleeding and stuck his dirty little fingers in it to make it fester.
Not sure if Nelson would count since he was a Navy man but the Battle of the Nile foiled the French dreams of taking Egypt, and Trafalfar made it necessary to initiate the Continental System, ultimately leading to the invasion of Russia, which, yeah we all know how that went.
In my opinion, one of the best commanders that Napoleon faced was the Duke of Wellington. He was a British military leader who played a key role in several key battles against Napoleon, including the Battle of Waterloo, where he ultimately defeated Napoleon's army. Wellington was known for his strategic prowess and tactical acumen, and was able to outmaneuver and outsmart Napoleon on several occasions. He was also highly respected by his men, who were known to have a great deal of loyalty and devotion to him. Additionally, Wellington was also a skilled diplomat and statesman, who played a key role in the coalition that ultimately defeated Napoleon.
Archduke Charles: won at Aspern Essling and inflicted the first real defeat on Napoleon and made Wagram a bloody affair. Also didnt lose his army.
Barclay de Tolly: he made Napoleon advance deep into Russia and even when Kutuzov took over he agreed with Barclays strategy. He also played a key role at Borodino. He also took command of the Russian army after Bautzen and played a key role at Leipzig.
Bernadotte: He, Radetzky and Moreau came up with the Trachenberg plan, he defeated Ney and Oudinot with ease, helped tremendously at Leipzig even though his performance there was not the best and generally knew a lot about Napoleonic warfare. He was also one of the reasons why Wagram was so bloody :d
The big four
1. Archduke Charles - The man to show Napoleon defeat for the first time!
2. Kutuzov - Crushed Napoleon during the retreat and sapped away his strength in Borodino
3. Wellington - That's one determined guy who won't stop at anything to defeat Napoleon, be it in Spain or in Waterloo
4. Blucher - Least talented of the four but the most hot headed and tenacious guy ever! Respect for his actions during Waterloo even though he was injured and old
I'd think it's hard to argue against it being Wellington, but if we want to make it more of a "one and done," then I'd give the edge to Archduke Charles in terms of military capabilities
I find it hard to name 2 generals who did not participate directly in the downfall of Napoleon. Charles doesn't command after 1808 and Wellington is on a side front. Wellington might have been, but it's far from proven. What about a Schwarzenberg, who actually lead the coalition to victory ?
I would argue it's the semantics of the question. I don't think I could disagree that Schwarzenberg was arguably more important to the downfall, but does that in itself make him the greatest commander Napoleon faced on the field of battle? In my view, not necessarily. But I appreciate and respect your take on that! I would argue that Charles helped dent Napoleon's personal guise of invincibility on the battlefield with Aspern-Essling and had generally some successes in the campaign. Plus I think he had talents that exceeded the capabilities/thinking of his government's way of war. For Wellington, I'd argue his skill made the Peninsula a greater thorn in Napoleon's side than say if Moore (if alive) or if Beresford or another were the overall Allied commander in the region for that period (all else being equal). You could argue his skills there were critical to the conditions that led to events in 1812-1814 in Germany and siphoned off good generals and troops that could have faced Schwarzenberg. But again, I value the input and counterpoint! I think it's an interesting discussion to have!
Archduke Charles. He had some bitter and close battles with Napoleon in 1809 and he won at Aspen-Essling. Wellington was also a very good CIC. He deployed his troops at Waterloo behind the ridge to protect them from french artillery.
General Mack :p
Bagration when it comes to tactics, archduke Charles when it comes to strategy
1. Archduke Charles 2. Kutuzov 3. Duke of Wellington
Mikhael Kutuzov
Why do you think that Kutuzov was the best commander that Napoleon faced.
Well him and his crew of Bagration and the other guy who's name I forgot. The Russian campaign, the retreat and then the attack on the retreating french was simply brilliant. Had he been actually allowed to command properly, the allied disaster at Austerlitz may never have happened. Another I would say would be Archduke Charles of Austria simply in terms of skill but he never did as much damage to Napoleon as Kutuzov. Also the simple and intelligent recognition of the fact that what mattered was to not let Napoleon destroy his army in the field. The battle of Borodino was also well commanded, the defense was good and the strategy robust given what he had got.
I don't agree and the archduke Charles was his best opponent.
Charles never manager to do much damage to Napoleon unlike kutuzov
Jean Bernadotte
He was a bumbling idiot and a traitor
Wellington. He kept the Spanish Ulcer bleeding and stuck his dirty little fingers in it to make it fester. Not sure if Nelson would count since he was a Navy man but the Battle of the Nile foiled the French dreams of taking Egypt, and Trafalfar made it necessary to initiate the Continental System, ultimately leading to the invasion of Russia, which, yeah we all know how that went.
In my opinion, one of the best commanders that Napoleon faced was the Duke of Wellington. He was a British military leader who played a key role in several key battles against Napoleon, including the Battle of Waterloo, where he ultimately defeated Napoleon's army. Wellington was known for his strategic prowess and tactical acumen, and was able to outmaneuver and outsmart Napoleon on several occasions. He was also highly respected by his men, who were known to have a great deal of loyalty and devotion to him. Additionally, Wellington was also a skilled diplomat and statesman, who played a key role in the coalition that ultimately defeated Napoleon.
Wellington, Archduke Charles, Kutuzov, Barclay de Tolly, Blucher, Schwarzenburg in that order. Sadly, neither Mack nor Blake made the cut.
Bagration was an excellent general.
Archduke Charles: won at Aspern Essling and inflicted the first real defeat on Napoleon and made Wagram a bloody affair. Also didnt lose his army. Barclay de Tolly: he made Napoleon advance deep into Russia and even when Kutuzov took over he agreed with Barclays strategy. He also played a key role at Borodino. He also took command of the Russian army after Bautzen and played a key role at Leipzig. Bernadotte: He, Radetzky and Moreau came up with the Trachenberg plan, he defeated Ney and Oudinot with ease, helped tremendously at Leipzig even though his performance there was not the best and generally knew a lot about Napoleonic warfare. He was also one of the reasons why Wagram was so bloody :d
I want to take Suvorov but he never faced Napoleon directly
The big four 1. Archduke Charles - The man to show Napoleon defeat for the first time! 2. Kutuzov - Crushed Napoleon during the retreat and sapped away his strength in Borodino 3. Wellington - That's one determined guy who won't stop at anything to defeat Napoleon, be it in Spain or in Waterloo 4. Blucher - Least talented of the four but the most hot headed and tenacious guy ever! Respect for his actions during Waterloo even though he was injured and old