ITT: Overrated generals

Napoleon was fucking in charge, how was it not his fault? Luck, the weather, dumb subordinates, it doesn't matter, if Napoleon gets all the credit when things go right then he is responsible when they go wrong.

For half a fucking millennia, as retarded as the ancien régime often was, they *never* allowed an enemy to take Paris itself. It's the ultimate failure for a self-crowned Emperor. Napoleon failed at a greater level than anyone since the middle ages.

Also I think you're forgetting this minor event where Napoleon was leading

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leipzig

I'm as much of a Napoleon dickrider as anyone, but the Austrians being fucking retarded definitely had more than a little to do with his success in Italy

>outnumbered by over a hundred thousand troops and twice as much artillery
>betrayed by your “allies”

Wow, truly this is proof Napoleon was an incompetent, overrated failure.

The Austrians were using standard 18th century strategies and tactics that other nations used as well. It’s to Napoleon’s credit that he innovated military doctrine so much that he completely outclassed his enemies.

This occurred in the 1813 campaign, not the 1814 campaign, which is when the surrender of Paris occurred and is what we were discussing.

The austrians were poorly led and slow to respond even when they had ample opportunity to do so.

...

Do you think edgy university students during the Napoleonic age would've been Napoleonists, in the same way edgy university students would later become Marxists?

It's Napoleon making so many enemies, allowing such a strong alliance to form against France, then allowing them to attack him all at once instead of disrupting and defeating separately, which shows his incompetence and failure.

Leipzig laid the ground for the 1814 campaign, it's the loss that Napoleon never recovered from. It's the reason that France became so weak that foreign armies occupied Paris itself.

haha you smug bastard

>It's Napoleon making so many enemies, allowing such a strong alliance to form against France, then allowing them to attack him all at once instead of disrupting and defeating separately, which shows his incompetence and failure.
This thread is about Napoleon as a general, not Napoleon as a politician. As the latter he was undeniably terrible, but that’s not at all what this thread was about.

I remember when I first got into history. I was just like you. Like a baby.

>Reminder that it was Napoleon who got Paris occupied by foreign armies
Reminder that it was Napoleon who got England occupied by a foreign army in 1941.

Generals that have supreme command like Napoleon should be taking strategy into account. Stuff like making sure you're not isolated, stopping too many nations from allying against you, maneuvering your armies such that you don't get caught out like Napoleon did at Leipzig.

Napoleon was so successful initially because he WAS thinking about these things. He rightly gets the credit for it then, so why can't he be responsible for failing now?

You can try and strip the politics out as much as you want but the Napoleonic Wars finished with France losing. It didn't have to be that way. There was even a period when France could have "lost" but kept the frontiers of Revolutionary France, but Napoleon was too greedy for that.

>Reminder that it was Napoleon who got England occupied by a foreign army in 1941.

Yes there were. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky write about this. Beethoven was a huge boneyfag for a while

As someone that is a hardcore Napoleon fanboy I related way too much with Raskolninov in constantly having delusions of being like Napoleon and trying to larp as him.

Man, that's pretty cool. I think I can get behind that

>Gosh, I'm just sick of the hereditary elite getting prissy whenever their power is threatened. Can't they see that liberte', egalite' and fraternite' is the way of the future and that it's time meritocracy freed the masses?

Beethoven believed exactly this when Napoleon rose to power, and then cracked a tantrum when he crowned himself emperor a few years later.

kek, so just like Marxists getting upset about Stalin

Patton, Macarthur, Model (pretty good but overhyped only ever fought defensive battles

nah he was pretty good

just a bit too arrogant

What did he mean by this?

Patton

Any ww2 american general basically

>It's Napoleon making so many enemies, allowing such a strong alliance to form against France, then allowing them to attack him all at once instead of disrupting and defeating separately, which shows his incompetence and failure.

As a state leader maybe, but not as a general

>mfw literal neckbeard retards trying to undermine the greatest man in modern history's accomplishments
He wasn't the perfect man by any means and even made uncharacteristic mistakes throughout his later campaigns (which he even admits himself). But he's undeniably the greatest man of his time and has not been surpassed as of yet.

That's not strategy friend.
That's operational level of war.

Well, Deadliest Warrior said Washington was better than him, so it mist be true

>Deadliest Warrior
>Trash
Who watches and/or believes anything they say?
I remember they compared late medical knights to 1700's samurai.I died a little desu.

Wrong, this is the correct answer. Bernarotte was far more important in the ultimate downfall of France by devising the strategy used in Germany after the Russian disaster.

>fought only one battle vs Napoleon and was almost raped before Prussians came to save him
inb4 ''h-he planned it like that!''
fuck off Nigel

Maaan what the fuck Napoléon is based !

>loses Waterloo because he has to poo in loo
Pottery

I think you'd better learn to read, son

overrated by Bongs

Ordering picketts charge, losing gettysburg, and ignoring Longstreets advice condemns Lee to the annals of "greatest overrated generals."

...

FPBP

wut?
Napoleon revolutionized land warfare with the use of Mass Artillery

Alex was not overrated, he was cocky as hell true, but he made meticulous study of the battlefield before committing his forces and it is recorded. He was a narcissist true, but narcissists excel.

He cucked him both on the battlefield AND the bedroom. Can't get much more superior then that.

>Using your father's army to defeat forces which are way inferior to you in every way (discipline, armor, weapons, leadership, etc) but numbers.
>Yet being foolish enough to not consolidate your conquests, deciding instead to 'conquer' the world because you are a narcissistic piece of shit.
Genius

>Copy what pyrrhus did and what dad wanted to do
>lauded as one of the greatest generals of all time
History pls.

Finaly Ulysses S. Grant has his thread up !

Just because he was so insanely obsessed with the manlet he got his hands on one of the hundreds of women Napoleon fucked once doesn't mean he "cucked" him

Maybe if he had shagged Josephine (which plenty of guys did) he could claim that, but he didn't manage it

fuck off Rommel

Those pretty eyes though.

Every American general.

>Napoleon
>over rated
In fact he's underrated. He should be up there behind guys like Subutai. Napoleon is a fucking genius that Europe hasn't seen in a very very long time and won't see again for a very long time.

That skandercuck faggot who won a few battles only for his country to get cucked beyond repair and is for some reason worshipped by the contemporary banana tribesmen that force him down everyone's throat

It's Napoleon's fault for not getting rid of Talleyrand when he had a chance. That fool trusted him too much despite his treacherous persona. Also, Talleyrand should have been grateful that he was only removed from his original position but still kept employed by Napoleon rather than hold that grudge.

>Napoleon is a fucking genius that Europe hasn't seen in a very very long time and won't see again for a very long time.

>commits treason

Unironic question.

Has ever been verified why Lee suddenly ordered the whole Virginia to charge the fortified center of the Union ?
Maybe he was thinking that it wasn't that strong or hard to take ?

>fighting on days one and two were on the flanks of the Union army
>Reserves (mostly on day two) had to be sent from the center to both flanks to prevent a Confederate breakthrough
>therefore the center must now be the weakest

>tfw i started combing my historical knowledge for this event

It's not hard not to conquer when you inherit your father's superior army. Besides his Balkan campaign was embarrassing and he was extremely lucky

What the fuck are you on about?

The Bourbons lost Paris to a disorganized mob. That's even worse.

Not really. At least they're French. Plus, when the people revolt there's nothing you can do about it. You can kill them for a while but the will of the people is irresistible.

Talleyrand betrayed Napoleon because Nappy's ambition and thoughtlessness when it came to diplomacy and grand strategy was going to lead to France's downfall (and it did). Talleyrand was a selfish cunt, but he wasn't wrong.

It could have been logic following your explenation, but still very risky

This. Lee had all of Grant's ruthlessness with none of his strategic vision, the worst possible combination. Fitting for the thread, he was a total Bonnieboo who jerked off to his own personal Austerlitz that would bring the union to heel.

>Attacking a numerically superior foe who is entrenched on high ground

Why do people like Lee?

He's the Rommel of the ACW.

no. jeb! is the rommel of the acw

Caesar is so underrated that he any other general getting any acknowledgement at all statistically makes them overrated. if there is a 1 to 10 scale, and caesar is a 10, then by his extreme superiority, no other general could ever make it past 1 in relation to him.

>which are way inferior to you in every way
[citation needed]
>Yet being foolish enough to not consolidate your conquests, deciding instead to 'conquer' the world because you are a narcissistic piece of shit.
No one is claiming he was good administrator, but he was undoubtedly a great general

None of this is true.
The persians were not that much inferior and had all the aces. They had the supply lines, the numbers, they almost always picked the place of the battlefield, they had the fleet.

The quality of the average soldier and the doctrine is where the macedonians excelled. But they were definetly not fighting an enemy that was inferior in every way. In fact, the persians were superior in a lot of ways.

Alexander was also an immensly capable administrator. He managed to toe the line between assimilation, occupation and colonization to such an extent that as long as he was alive his conquests were always kept in line. It only fell apart because his successors were not half the man he was.

You might have had a point of Alex didn't have a brother who inherited that same army and achieved fuck all with it

...

>>Copy what pyrrhus did and what dad wanted to do

Oh I wasn't aware that Pyrrhus crossed the Alps and won several decisive victories over the Romans.

Oh wait that's right. He didn't. He didn't cross the Alps, and he won victories so indecisive in nature that his name is still used to describe victories of a similar nature.

Hannibal's overrated because he lost and his final defeat at Zama was pretty bad, but his ability to give the Romans hell and the lengths he went to to do so were distinctive and no other can be compared to him.

Napoleon was ok but he isn't even in the top 10 generals of all time.

>Comparing napoleon to Subutai

In the metrics of decisive battle fought he was very much pretty much up there
Most generals would get lucky to have one Austrerlitz in their belt

Yeah he wrote music dedicated to napoleon then scribbled over it when napoleon crowned himself
Also on the day of the coronation he made a big deal of having all his curtains drawn as a protest

that's some seriously infantile protesting right there

Is this some sort of Britboo meta joke about how the English Kings are able to claim France?

>flee the field when the Austrian cavalry flanks
>the infantry daddy left you doesn't even notice and wins the battle anyway

Hannibal is over rated because Scipio performed far better than him in the same war.

Wasn't Austrian cavalry of that era considered the finest in the world?

Then, name me 10 generals better than Napoleon

Different user, but here's one to start off: Barclay de Tolly.

An obvious choice considering he outsmarted Napoleon and bears most of the responsibility for the success of the 6th Coalition and indeed the failure of the Napoleon's invasion of Russia

Subutai
Hannibal
Temujin
Caesar
Cao Cao
Khalid ibn al-Walid
Trajan
Belisarius
Hamilcar
Gustavus Adolphus

Subutai
Khalid ibn al-Walid
Alexander the Great
Tran hung Dao
Alexander Suvorov
Moltke the Elder
Cyrus the Great
Fabius Maximus
Baji Rao
Genghis Khan

All of them were vastly superior generals than Napoleon.

Did these guys had to fight off the entire known world at once though?

Pic is really fucking unrelated.

>Khalid ibn al-Walid
Well memed

>Moltke the Elder
Lmao

Btw, can anyone why this Russian of German ancestry bore a French name?

These individuals had to fight superior armies and forces and actually achieved victory.
All ten of them but Napoleons tactics to shame. Also unlike Napoleon 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 9 never lost
>Well memed
He was a the better commander by every metric
>Lmao
Also a better commander who understood planning invasions with logistics in mind unlike a certain someone

>Suvorov
>achieved victory

>Khalid ibn al-Walid
>Moltke the Elder
>had to fight superior armies and forces