Comments by "Bullet-Tooth Tony" (@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-) on "Frederick the Great: Prussia’s Fabulous King" video.
-
94
-
@OscarDirlwood
While Napoleon was a great commander, he was often too arrogant to realise the limitations of his own army. This can be seen in the French conquest of Syria (which failed), where he underestimated Ottoman defenses at Acre, thus losing the campaign, and eventually, after he left, Egypt. Such arrogance would’ve caused Napoleon to make mistakes against a well prepared, formidable Frederick the Great, and Frederick the Great would’ve defeated Napoleon.
Frederick understood the limitations of the Prussian Army. He barely expanded Prussia out of Germany, and usually fought defensive wars against aggressors. If Napoleon and Frederick fought, Frederick would have the advantage of the terrains and home-turf, and he would’ve been able to use his tactics against the French like he did against the Russians and Austrians. The Prussian soldiers of Fredericks era were also far more professional and better trained than the Prussians that Napoleon fought who by that point had turned into a conscript army.
74
-
45
-
34
-
2
-
2
-
@ronaldmcdonald2817 Wellington is easily the superior in my mind. Wellington's Peninsula Campaign was key to undermining France's control over Europe, and he performed very well at Waterloo. Wellington's plan worked out EXACTLY as he wished, more or less. He fought a tenacious and effective defence against Napoleon's (or rather, Ney's) ham-fisted tactics. Your statement makes exactly as much sense as saying Robert E. Lee deserves no credit for Chancellorsville because he wouldn't have won without Jackson's flank attack.
The best Charles ever really did was a bloody tactical defeat at Aspern-Essling in which he only won thanks to overwhelming numbers, any real general would have wiped out a substantial portion of Napoleon's vulnerable army following Aspern-Essling, whereas Charles simply sat and waited for Napoleon to try the same thing again.
Wellington won more victories against the French than Blucher and Charles combined. Bluchers only claim to fame is getting embarassed by the French in multiple battles in Germany and arriving late at Waterloo to a victory against a French army that had already been smashed by Wellington for 6 hours. Pfft some record that is .
There's a reason that Wellington's campaigns are still studied in military academies world wide and not Charles and Blucher. Blucher is overrated and Charles was nothing special. The only great generals were Napoleon, Wellington, Suvorov, Davout, Lannes, Soult and Massena.
2
-
@ronaldmcdonald2817 That's not about the same at all. That's a 2 to 1 advantage Charles possessed, including 292 guns against Napoleons 154. Arch Duke Charles was really poor at taken his chances, had a lack of ruthless , killer instinct.. His shifting of the axis attack at the start of 1809 was just wasting time at critical point. At Aspern Essling why smash the bridges before the French cross? Waiting till half the French army was across would have so much better. Acre is arguably worse than Aspern, as acre ended a war/campaign in french defeat, where as aspern ended only a battle in French defeat.
Charles didn't even have to risk a single infantryman in order to obstruct Napoleon. He could have simply bombarded the island of Lobau with artillery, or more daringly, assaulted it, as it was vulnerable following the battle, and thus secure his position. After the battle, Charles actually pulled back, and seemed content to merely watch Napoleon while he waited for Archduke John. For a entire month, he simply did nothing of consequence.
Blucher also had a 5 to 1 advantage in many of his victories, btw the Prussian army's movement and tactics were mostly planned by Von Gneisenau, not Blucher. They are mediocre generals at best, who won thanks to an abundance of manpower. None of them took on Napoleon at a disadvantage.
In contrast Wellington at Bussaco, Torres Vedras and Fuentes De Onoro, he defeats one of Napoleon's best marshalls Massena outnumbered and in the Pyrenees campaign he beats another in Soult outnumbered, and also held out against Napoleon for 6 hours (outnumbered with a 5,000 men disadvantage). In all honesty Wellington could (and probably should) have been well beaten before the arrival of Bulow's IV Corps. Instead Napoleon spent 6 hours hurling columns at an unbreakable line and cavalry at unbreakable squares, as well as tying up thousands of men trying to occupy well defended redoubts. Wellington never fell back at all, the fact his elite Guards men repulsed the Imperial Guard without the Prussians is evidence of that.
Wellington NEVER lost a field battle, and beat EVERY single French general sent against him.... Jourdan, Victor, Massena, Ney, Soult... And Wellington really won everywhere he fought India, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, France and Belgium, showing a diverse range of battles in defence and attack. He is definitely the most successful land commander of the age besides Napoleon and possibly Suvorov. Blucher and Archduke are third rate generals in comparison to what Wellington achieved in his career. That's why no one studies them.
2
-
@ronaldmcdonald2817 Again if i have nearly 100,000 troops and my opponent has 80,000, that's not an even fight whatsoever 🤦♂ that's about the same odds as Montgomery had at El Alamein against Rommel.
Much of Napoleon's army was vulnerable near Lobau. Artillery could certainly have done some serious damage. For over a month after the battle, Charles sat there and watched Napoleon grow stronger, while elements of Napoleon's army defeated Archduke John elsewhere. In fact, he didn't even do a very good job of watching Napoleon; he got so distracted with relatively distant concerns, that he was caught completely off guard by Napoleon's second crossing, leading to Charles' decisive defeat at Wagram. Chandler's classic work on Napoleon notes that Charles' failure to exploit his victory was nearly as astonishing as the way Napoleon handled this stage of the campaign.
Errm yes he did, Blucher had an abundance of troops at his disposal in virtually every battle he fought. And even then he still got beaten at least 8 times which is embarassing, he should be called Marshall Blunder, he was nothing more than a morale booster, he was no real tactician or strategist like Wellington. Wellington NEVER suffered a major defeat. Ask yourself why military academies still study Wellington to this day and not Blucher 😜
Stop lying. By the late afternoon, D'erlons Corps no longer existed, the French heavy cavalry were destroyed, the Corps in and around Hugoumont were done, as well as the one that had taken La Haye Saint. All due to Wellington's efforts. Napoleon basically had his Imperial guard left and we both know what happened to them when they were finally committed to attack Wellington's centre, totally routed. in the words of Wellington "They came on in the same way and we beat them in the same way"
Finally, Quatre Bras was a draw, as it denied both sides what they wanted. Wellington could not join up with Blucher, but also the French could not stop Wellington from setting himself up at Waterloo. Initially it may appear that the French had gained the greater benefit, but in hindsight it ultimately led to the French losing the campaign. Nevertheless a battle where the opposition retreat is not a defeat.
2
-
2
-
@ronaldmcdonald2817 Why is it so hard to acknowledge that Charles outnumbered Napoleon? 😂Just curious, if Archduke Charles was so good, why was he not given command of the Austrian Army after 1809? Aspern-Essling was at best, inconclusive and he was beaten at Wagram, not a particularly impressive record.
Blucher was not a good tactician and strategist at all. Blucher relied upon Von Gneisenau for much of the leg work. Blucher only had the spirit to lead armies but was weak tactically and had no grasp for Napoleonic warfare this was evident in the Six days campaign and Ligny. Wellington was a far superior tactician.
Wellington was able to concentrate his forces, while the much larger French forces were forced to occupy Spain. What Wellington did was looking at Napoleon's approach to fighting a campaign and adopting and improving it. the Austrians, Russians and Prussians were far slower to adapt to this and it cost them dearly on many occasions.
None of the Coalition commanders in central europe studied Wellington's proven system and implemented it, by 1814 they were still doing the same thing as they had done in 1805 again and again trying to bludgeon through Napoleon's army in costly frontal attacks. Wellington on the other hand won his battles at a tolerable loss in terms of casualties. Wellington was also always outnumbered in the theatre of operations, unlike Blucher and Charles which makes him even more impressive.
Wellington 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. You can bring up Southern France, but that doesn't diminish the fact he performed superbly on the tactical level and managed to drive Soult out of strong defensive positions in the Pyrenees, winning several battles across difficult terrain.
Napoleon was effectively beaten before Blucher arrived. He may have won the field if 'Marschall Vorwarts' hadn't arrived to deliver the coup de grace, but the meat grinder of Waterloo meant that his forces were decimated and would have been badly in need of rest and reinforcements; the reality being that they would have been forced to march on and likely fight again shortly afterwards. Napoleon's tactics were to split his opponents and overwhelm them with numbers, winning wasn't enough, he had to win with as few casualties as possible. The situation back in Paris was that even with victories, Napoleon's position was at best precarious and reinforcements were by no means guaranteed.
Wellington's tactics at Waterloo was to hold the French and make sure that they paid for every inch of ground. Would he have stood if Blucher's intervention was doubtful? I have the feeling that he may have, as he knew that his tactics on this battlefield, and the tactics he knew Napoleon was likely to employ, would mean that the French would at best achieve a phyrric victory.
Blucher wasn't an incredible commander, nobody studies him . I've already repeated this.
2
-
@ronaldmcdonald2817 Besides the Rhine Campaign he had Stokach, Ostrach and Zurich in the Swiss Campaign, though he took high casualties despite having a big numerical advantage. In Italy the Austrians were already destroyed by the time he arrived, he couldn't really do much to stop Napoleon and it was a feat that he managed to escape with his army in tact. He lacked aggression to carry out offensives and his heart wasn't in the right place most of the time.
Wellington was the better general and possibly one of the greatest generals of all time in my opinion. Defensively he was a master of positioning and maneuvering, never losing a major battle. He had daring offensives such as Vittoria, Assaye and Salamanca, proving that he was competent offensively and could seize the moment unlike Charles. His campaigns in India, Torres Vedras and through Spain were brilliant and in my opinion some of the greatest military feats in modern history. It's an insult to even include Blucher.
And I disagree about Waterloo.
Wellington takes a deserved part of the credit. He was holding the line as promised and the Prussians arrived as planned.
The French were not winning. They had failed to take 2 out of 3 strong points, and had most of their cavalry expended, most of their infantry had been shattered outside Hougoumont, in D’Erlons crushed attack, storming La Haye Saint (which took them most of the day) and at Papelotte and Plancenoit.
Wellington on the other hand still had effective garrisons in Papelotte and Hougemont. His centre was exhausted, but he’d only had 1 cavalry regiment routed. Contrary to myth he still had lots of brigades who were comparatively fresh.
He had a Full Dutch-Belgian Division still untouched, most of his light cavalry brigades were still effective, his Dutch heavy brigade and the household brigade were still in fighting condition.
His British brigades, 2nd Guards were in good condition, 5th Brigade was desperate, 3rd Brigade has barely been scratched, 4th Brigade was also borderline fresh, 8th Brigade was also fairly unscathed... but they had taken a pounding at Quatre Bras, 9th Brigade were very beaten up but again they’d had it worse at Quatre Bras, 10th had taken losses in the cavalry attacks.
So there was lots of troops (I didn’t go into the Hanovarians and KGL) in Wellingtons army still in relatively good condition. Napoleon couldn’t say the same. His Imperial Guard were mostly tied down. He only had the middle guard left which he threw away...The Wellingtons line was wavering myth is revisionism but not born out by hard study.
When the Middle Guard attacked, only really troops that looked unsteady were British 5th Brigade... a brigade heavily engaged at Quatre Bras and in the thick of it again all day at Waterloo, but their unsteadiness at this point was not the case for the whole army as some like to pretend.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1