Wellington's Way of Waging War
What was Wellington like as a commander? How did he climb the ladder to seniority so swiftly? Where did he learn his craft, and what was unique about his operation 'art'? Lecturer in Defence Studies, Dr Will Fletcher, joins me to unpick the the secrets to Wellington's success in this latest instalment of Wellington month. Support: https://www.patreon.com/thenapoleonicist Tip: https://ko-fi.com/napoleonicist Bookstore: https://uk.bookshop.org/shop/thenapoleonicist
a new podcast in this ever growing series, may it long continue
Hopefully a contribution about Wellington's operational art of war will follow.
Despite I am the believe that it is impossible to say who was better Nabulieone or Wellington, it is always fascinating to listen to the reasoning.
Zack White is for example convinced that on a good day Napoléon would beat Wellington on a good day. I ask, in what sense, in the operational art of war - or as a tactician on the battle field??
Also at what time, in 1808 - 1812 - 1815?
Surely in 1815 the duo Wellington / Blücher proved to be superior on the operational art of war and Wellington on the battle field as tactician.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned thus far - and I thought it might have been in the "what if Napoleon had reacted after Ligny and destroyed Wellington's army before it escaped from Quatre Bras" part of the debate - is what they thought of each other at the time. Napoleon appears to have been over-confident after his somewhat bloody victory over Blucher and seems to have not rated Wellington or his army very highly, despite the presence of several subordinates who had been beaten by him in Spain. Wellington on the other hand seems to have shown his opponent a lot more respect (and indeed in later years, said he was the best commander "of this age, or any age"). Does anyone feel that this might have contributed to victory/defeat or that it marks one man out as better than the other?