General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Bullet-Tooth Tony
Biographics
comments

Comments by "Bullet-Tooth Tony" (@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-) on "Arthur Wellesley: The Iron Duke of Wellington" video.

@Pen His defensive tactics are used by many countries he’s not overrated
13
Go on sharpe you’ve beaten the old guard lad they won’t stand
10
Wellington would have beaten them even worse than Isaac brock
8
Not really, he is the general with 2nd most battle victories in history, and his campaigns are still studied in military academies worldwide.
7
@fredbarker9201 Wellington won 39 battles and lost a lot less than Napoleon.
7
@Pen Wellingtons record is better than them
7
@RRobespierre1794 He defeated 3 invasions of Portugal, expelled the French after Vimeiro, destroyed Massena's army while having a numerical disadvantage in the Torres Vedras campaign, tied up a large chunk of French forces and lead much of the allied effort in the Peninsular. Some battles such as Talavera were less than ideal, indeed it could've ended in disaster if the French reinforcements linked up with Joseph before the battle, but they were still a display of competence. The Battle of Fuentes de Onoro proved how tenacious the British army under his command was, the British successfully rebuilt the defensive line even at the time they were on the brink of being routed under the ferocious assault of the French army.
7
@ben5056 I wouldn't be so sure of that ben. Wellington was very diligent in studying, information-gathering and reconnaissance (though Napoleon was also the same in large extent), added another bonus to his advantage. I personally think that Wellington would have a greater chance to win in the hilly landscape like Austerlitz which could be easily exploited as the ground for setting ambuscade and concealing army deployments. You know, Wellington was famous for his reserve slope and manoeuvre-by-hills. Napoleon surely did not understand how cunning Wellington was in 1805.
6
The 2nd best General of the Napoleonic Wars and one of Britain’s greatest commanders.
6
He's underrated.
4
Yeah i agree, over 130,000 veterans Wellington had. A juggernaut compared to the small forces the British deployed to America.
4
@nebsam7137 Better conqueror and more diverse career overall yes, but in tactics and strategy they were both pretty equal. I'd say Wellington had a better eye for logistics.
3
@ben5056 Napoleon tended to struggle when his army grew too large, as was evident with his campaign into Russia and Spain, Napoleon usually operated better when his army was never more than around 100,000 men, any more than that and it became a logistical nightmare for the French. Wellington's army survived mostly intact. Unlike Napoleons retreat, which became routs.
3
@fredbarker9201 The French lost Mons, which was the whole point of the battle. Villars (albeit injured) wouldn't engage Marlborough again to try and stop the investment of Mons, which also paints a picture of his own position. People only claim that because of the casualties he took at the battle, without actually examining the position he had to overturn, which was heavily defensible. Marlborough would also never make the mistake in engaging in that type of battle again, when Villars offered battle in a similar defensible position. He bypassed it instead. Even the Dutch gave credit to Marlborough for this battle and defended his engagement and they took the brunt of the casualties.
3
@gonvillebromhead2457 So was Scipio
3
@chrisigoeb So are Wellington's, his reverse slope tactics were used by the confederates and the germans.
3
In addition he was good at both aspects of war, tactics and strategy, offense and defence etc
2
@Flo-pl5mg But one could argue his opponents generals were not as good compared to the ones Wellington had to fight against, apart from Charles, Blucher was poor and Bagration relied more on the winter to save his army.
2
@icemanire5467 Napoleon actually won his battles through defeating in detail, basically combining smaller armies to outnumber his enemies. Napoleon also had allies too hundreds of thousands of German, Polish, Italian and Prussian soldiers served in his army.
2
@ben5056 That's because Wellington did not possess the vast resources of the continent.
2
@ben5056 I said he would have peformed better at Austerlitz than his opponents did, Wellington never got lured into dancing to Napoleons tune like his enemies did. Wellington was usually quite good at choosing when and where to fight in order to take maximum advantage. Wellington rarely would leave his forces isolated , out on a limb like Alexander and Emperor Francis did in the 3rd Coalition Campaign. And Wellington certainly would not have took command of such a ridiculously sized army that is just completely overstretched and vulnerable to attacks by cossacks on it's flanks. Wellington knew his limits.
2
@ben5056 39 actually, but that doesn't mean anything because Napoleon still lost in the end. There are generals with far more flawless records than Napoleon, Caeser and Alexander are two of them.
2
@ben5056 Wellington was the Scipio Africanus of the Napoleonic Wars, defeated his generals and then defeated the main man. Wellington was better organised, made a lot less mistakes, and was tactically sharper than Napoleon. And even if Wellington doesn't have a period named after him, his tactics have been implemented by generals like Robert E Lee and the Germans in both world wars, who understood his approach to defence tactics was excellent.
2
@ben5056 Napoleons record of achievement is one of circumstance like all Generals, Napoleon made much bigger errors much more often. Never showed the tactical finesse of Wellington. Never showed the command of logistics. never showed the ability to work well with difficult Allies. Wellington was more objective and a better strategist. Wellington had more troops in reserve to support, if the Prussians hadn't shown, i believe he had about 15,000 men ready to be committed. And Napoleon had failed to drive Wellington from the field even before the Prussians arrival.
2
@ben5056 Napoleons strengths - Operationally great, good at raising morale among his troops, grand vision (though very two edged), but some really really horrible blunders.
2
@zak-de1lq Vitorria and Salamanca were just as bold and daring as anything Napoleon did. Wellington could be daring when the opportunity presented itself.
2
@zak because his army was smaller, it’s easy to take risks when you the biggest population in Europe to call upon but it’s a different story when you have what’s basically an expeditionary army.
2
Divalvaro No, the ideas had been around for 30 years or more. They were developed by people like Guibert and self contained divisions were used by Marshal Broglie during the 7 years war. The principles he used were the same that Napoleon used with his corps system. Napoleon largely inherited his officer corps from the French revolutionary army and did not really build his army either. The Grande Armee was great, disciplined and well led, but it was built on the French revolutionary army that Napoleon also inherited. Napoleon made plenty of improvements in discipline and organisation, but he did not really build the army and certainly did not develop the officer corps. Did Wellington surpass Napoleon in his military genius? Probably not (although he had a far better success rate). But he was for all that a truly brilliant battlefield tactician, a canny strategist, and notable for his good eye for logistics (an area in which Napoleon was sometimes badly lacking). Wellington was an underdog, just like Scipio Africanus was against Hannibal.
2
@fredbarker9201 Most of the 1796-1797 campaign was pedisterian, around Mantua was the brilliance, the rest apart from the 3rd coalition and six days campaign were nothing special. That Wellington would be able to comprehensively defeat an Austrian Army of about the same size as his forces does not seem a large stretch. The Vittoria Campaign was as aggressive, and daring as anything Napoleon ever did. Wellington would not have committed the horrible blunders Napoleon did..Wellington unlike Napoleon knew when to retreat and was able to do so without the wholesale destruction of his army. Napoleon's ego tended to make his defeats disastrous. When it comes down to it. Wellington, tactical, strategical, logistics, discipline, no horrible blunders Napoleon - Operations, morale, Grand vision (though very two edged), some really really horrible blunders,
2
@fredbarker9201 But they did fight Napoleon, they fought him at Dresden they were willing to fight , so how were they scared? The allies were willing to fight Napoleon and did so again at Leipzig and did inflict a meaningful defeat, in part because Napoleon was unwilling to take reasonable measures to withdraw once he was objectively beaten after the first day.
2
@fredbarker9201 Dresden was a good performance by Napoleon but he failed to inflict meaningful damage, totally mismanaged the aftermath and threw away a good chance to inflict something meaningful.
2
@grandadmiralzaarin4962 While I admire Napoleon for his accomplishments he was still never really the type to husband his soldiers, he just threw their lives away on some pursuit of ambition and glory, whats that they said about Patton " our blood, his guts"
2
@grandadmiralzaarin4962 Yes also desertion rates were actually among the highest in the french army that time more than the coalition armies, just shows that even his own men knew he was going a bridge too far. After Austerlitz, he should have just quit while he was he ahead.
2
@fredbarker9201 The reason for this is Marlboroughs career in my opinion is a lot more impressive than Wellingtons, despite having less victories than Wellington. One of the few aggressive military geniuses, who was also gifted in diplomacy and he was undefeated in battle a feat which only a few generals have managed to achieve. When you read about Marlboroughs life, his diplomatic and political schemes are just as impressive as his military victories. Just have a read about his march over the Danube to relieve Vienna whilst being tailed by French armies theres a picture on google of his operations and just how much risk he took. One great example is where Marlborough's army advanced 40 miles in just 18 hours bypassing the French Ne Plus Ultra lines in 1711 and not losing a single soldier. Marlborough was excellent in all aspects whether that's strategy, tactics, operations, politics. Even Napoleon respected him for his prowess. Marlborough came VERY close to seizing all of France, but was unfortunately let down by some lack of support. He controlled the flow of the battlefield. He kept himself in a position where he could scope the entire battlefield. In all of his battles, Marlborough would create a numerical advantage at a point of his own choosing where he could deliver a strike that would crush his enemy. To achieve this whilst he was outnumbered, which he often was, Marlborough sought to fix the attention of the opposing generals on another part of the field by making ferocious but controlled attacks. As the enemy redeployed his forces to meet these attacks, Marlborough would switch the weight of his attack to the chosen point and strike with overwhelming strength. Many generals have tried to adopt such tactics, but few have been able to maintain such complete control over their own soldiers as to be able to mount such forceful attacks whilst restraining their men from launching all out assaults.
2
@fredbarker9201 I have never been a big fan of Frederick the Great , his chief opponent Prince Charles Alexander of Lorraine was a man of little military ability. His replacement Count Leopold Van Daun was able to best Frederick on a number of occasions.
2
@fredbarker9201 I will also give an honourable mention to Henry the fifth who's campaign in France was great, the English army was exhausted, miles from home, deep inside enemy territory outnumbered 3 to 1 against the best cavalry in europe and still won victories.
2
Divalvaro We colonised China and India which have such vast populations and such difficult terrain which were far more difficult to conquer than a nation like Italy.
2
Divalvaro Henry V did
2
Divalvaro No whats funnier is you couldn't even pull a Corunna on us you just recieved Agincourt, Crecy, Potiers hahahaha
2
Divalvaro Austertliz, friedland, dresden all those magnificent battles and still lost the war oof
2
Divalvaro Let's face it had Henry V not died you would have been an English colony xD
2
Divalvaro You might be able to compete with us on the battlefield but you could never dream of fighting us in the ring, the Americans thought they were hard until our best champion Lennox Lewis flew over and knocked every single one of their heavy weight champions clean out, can you speak of such accomplishments? Name me one good French boxer that even compares to Lennox, Joe Calzaghe, Tyson Fury, Anthony Joshua. Go for it.
2
Divalvaro Because it just shows you have nothing else to speak of
2
@RRobespierre1794 That's your opinion, but i could quite easily say Napoleon is just as overrated since he has massive blemishes on his record, which most other great commanders don't actually have ie Julius Caeser, Alexander, Ghengis Khan etc.
2
@RRobespierre1794 Overrated but all of these generals battles and campaigns are still studied in military academies to this day
2
@fredbarker9201 Ghengis Khan actually spearheaded the invasion of China and the Middle East.
2
@fredbarker9201 The difference is Napoleon lost wars, Alexander and Caeser never did, it really doesn't matter how much you win if you ultimately still lose in the end. Napoleon had unlimited resources and the biggest population backing him up both Alexander and Caeser never had more than 40,000 soldiers in most battles. Napoleon usually had well over 200,000 men and did rely on numbers to defeat his opponents.
2
@fredbarker9201 At Bautzen he had 200,000 men. He also outnumbered the Austrians at Ulm by 80,000. and had more than the Russians at Borodino and Smolensk. Then theres Lodi, Brienne, Somosierra, Montereau, Montenotte, Landshut, Czarnowo, Mormant, Champaubert, Saint-Dizier, Shubra Khit. So while Napoleon did win some battles against the odds, he also won some very favourable battles as well. Alexander started off in a small city state, Caeser had the might of the Senate against him, Napoleon was born into a nation that had over 30 million people and the largest army on the continent with hundreds of thousands of troops to conscript. So tell me how Napoleon faced harder odds?
2
@Amelia-vk4jt Underrated not because of Waterloo, but because of his many victories against Napoleon's marshalls.
2
@adventussaxonum448 Well his peninsular force was around 120,000 strong, and if that had been at Waterloo Napoleon would have got crushed.
2
@Flo-pl5mg Yes Napoleon did face coalitions, but even Wellington was also outnumbered at Bussaco, Fuentes De Onoro, Sorauren etc.
1
@zak-de1lq Napoleons best campaigns were the Italian and third coalition in my opinion.
1
@zak-de1lq What do you think of the Duke of Marlborough compared to wellington?
1
@zak-de1lq I'd recommend reading up on Marlboroughs march across the Danube, that's a good start. Marlborough prioritised speed and aggressiveness both on the march and the battlefield. Marlborough always positioned himself in positions where he could both see and effect the outcome of the battle. When he saw the danger, he reacted quickly, or sometimes was proactive (as at the Schellenberg). He always had a tactical reserve, which he fed in and used at the precise moment it needed to be committed to swing the battle. He also had a formidable army, which was extremely tenacious, with commanders he empowered to make tactical decisions themselves rather than checking in, like the French had to do, This army always relentlessly pushed forward, even in the face of extreme danger, making it almost impossible to steal the initiative away from. He was very very tactically aware (like in using terrain at Ramillies to mask his reverse countermarch on the left flank to reinforce the flank for the push), which makes him not only one of the most formidable battlefield tacticians, but amongst the best in military history, imho
1
@zak-de1lq Marlborough by Richard Holmes and Marlborough: His Life and Times by winston churchill. There's also a documentary on here if you look up great british commanders.
1
@fredbarker9201 Despite a couple of good moments, Dresden and Hannu, Napoleon was quite poor in 1813. Napoleon totally failed to exploit the victory (for not the first or last time the French pursuit was late and mis directed) The Allies managed to withdraw down some truly horrible roads. Yet another truly bungled chance. And Napoleon hung out Vandammes corps at Kulm. And then he left the Garrison in place throwing away troops he would badly need later. Alexander and Caeser never made such bad decisions as Napoleon, even Wellington didn't.
1
Divalvaro Yes but their are also people who also want to know more on the backgrounds of the generals that they fought against. We all talk about Alexander, Caeser and Napoleon, but forget there are other generals who were also good on the battlefield like Scipio,Khalid Ibn Al-Walid, Subutai, Wellington, Sulla, Belisarius, Richard the Lion heart, Robert Lee, Pyrrhus, Frederick, Gustavus Adolphus etc
1
@fredbarker9201 He put himself in the position to be encircled when he wasted all of his troops in Spain and Russia. Combined they cost Napoleon over 900,000 men. Had he not done embarked on these conquests, he would most likely remain in control of the continent.
1
@fredbarker9201 I wouldn't compare him to the level of Hitler, Hitler wasn't a military genius, his generals like Manstein and Rommel were, and Napoleon didn't massacre millions of innocent people just because of their race and religion. However, Napoleon's wealth of enemies were partly his own doing. While he wasn't solely responsible for all the Napoleonic Wars, he does deserve at least a good chunk of the blame. As such I think he also deserves some of the blame for France's eventual defeat, and it must count as a blemish on his record as a strategist.
1
@fredbarker9201 Yes i can acknowledge that indeed he has shaped Europe, 5 isn't bad of course, because really there are only 5 captains of war who i can consider at the top tier of military history ie Alexander, Caeser, Hannibal and of course Napoleon among them. The reason for him being slightly lower than the others is because he has some campaigns that really could have been avoided altogether and the losses of manpower were just disastrous. Although despite that I would admit that his victory of Austerlitz is right alongside Cannae, Gaugamela and Pharsalus as one of the tactical master pieces of warfare. in fact he actually studied Gaugamela to apply the same methods, with the weakened flank and smashing the centre with brute force and for that i my raise my hat to him. As for top 10 commanders i would say Alexander the great Caeser, Hannibal, Subutai Napoleon Scipio Africanus Khalid Ibn Walid Alexander Suvorov Belisarius Marlborough Whats yours. You are probably surprised that i didn't include Wellington.
1
@fredbarker9201 Eugene did, but Marlborough never lost a major battle, if your referring to Malplaquet I wouldn't call it so much as a defeat, Marlborough managed to drive the French from the field, and capture Mons after the battle and win that part of the campaign.
1
@fredbarker9201 Oda Nobunaga is interesting, he innovated a lot of weaponry into the samurai, and his task was almost similar to Cromwell's. Having to take the country back and defeat the superior clans or royalists, in Cromwells case.
1
Divalvaro World power my ass i'm sorry but the austrians were such a poor army they were beaten by the french with ease, even the british army were better trained than the austrian conscripts that napoleon crushed. Russia is the exception.
1
Divalvaro If that's true why did it take 12 decades to kick the English out of France? This kind of contradicts your point.
1
Divalvaro The only time France was relevant was the Napoleonic Wars.
1
Divalvaro I know im just saying it wasnt as easy as winning the Italian campaign, the english had the best archers in the world.
1
Divalvaro Man all this constant fighting between the english and french reminds me of that scene from lord of the rings when everyones arguing over who wants to destroy the one ring XD
1
Divalvaro Losing to the English for a hundred years despite having cannons and the best cavalry on the continent must have been a head ache though xD
1
Divalvaro Can you read? I said it took A HUNDRED YEARS, so for a hundred years the French lost 30 battles and won 27. I'd have been more impressed if you had beaten us in 3 weeks.
1
Divalvaro last time i checked our flag was the cross of st george
1
@Flo-pl5mg You can laugh all you want, but the fact is Wellington was not as prone to making mistakes as men like Alexander and Kutuzov. He was just as good at reading a situation and understanding traps.
1
@fredbarker9201 Caeser defeated the Roman Republic and went up against his own best Lieutenants like Pompey the Great and Labienus, and his siege battle at Alesia had been never been done before. I'd recommend watching Caeser's series on kings and generals. Alexander conquered an empire stretching from Greece to India and never lost a single battle in his career. Napoleon's enemies were mostly weak and divided, and when they eventually united, he lost. The invasion of Russia was the biggest military disaster in history, of the 600,000 troops only 20,000 returned. No matter how good you are as a general there's no excuse to send so many men to meet their demise. For that he falls at number 5 not number one.
1