Episode 138 - Top 15 Generals of the Napoleonic Era, Part I, with a panel of experts

🎖️ Who Were the Top 15 Generals of the Napoleonic Era?

Step into the greatest military minds of the Napoleonic Wars. In this episode of Generals and Napoleon, we count down the Top 15 generals of the Napoleonic Era—the brilliant, bold, and often controversial commanders who shaped European history between 1796 and 1815.

Join our brilliant panel of guests - Rachael Stark, Graeme Callister, Nick Kramer, Michael Hamel, and Jonas de Neef - who discuss everything from Marshal Davout’s iron discipline to Wellington’s defensive genius. We break down the tactics, triumphs, and legacies of iconic leaders from France, Britain, Russia, Austria, Prussia, and beyond.

🔍 Whether you're a history buff, military strategist, or Napoleon enthusiast, this episode is packed with insights, surprises, and debates on what made these men legendary.

👉 We Include:

• Forgotten geniuses and battlefield legends

• Key campaigns that defined each general

• How Napoleon influenced—and was influenced by—his marshals and enemies

  
  

💬 Tell us in the comments: Who would make YOUR Top 15 list?

🎧 Subscribe for more on the Napoleonic Wars, epic battles, leadership lessons, and the fascinating lives of history’s greatest generals.

*Note: "The opinions expressed herein are those of the individuals and do reflect the official policy or position of the US Army, the United States Military Academy, the Department of Defense, or the US Government.”

X/Twitter: @bookish_rachael, @nkramer5812, @graemecallister, @andnapoleon

#Napoleon #NapoleonicWars #MilitaryHistory #Wellington #Davout #NapoleonicGenerals #HistoryPodcast #GeneralsAndNapoleon

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Welcome back to Generals and Napoleon.
We have a big extravaganza for you today.
We have a panel discussion of the top 15 commanders of the
Napoleonic era. And I'm so thrilled to be doing
this episode with and sharing itwith all my listeners.
We have the who's who and Napoleonic experts joining us

(00:20):
today. Hello everyone, how are you?
Good. How are you?
Good. Thank you.
Yes, thanks for having me. Yeah, yeah.
So we have 5 terrific guests on the line with us today.
We have the great Rachel Stark. Hello, Rachel, How are you?
I'm good. Thank you.
Thanks for having me back. Yep, Bookish Rachel on Twitter.
She's my Marshall's expert. We have the great Jonas Denise.

(00:41):
Hello, Jonas. I'm very good.
We have the brilliant Graham Callister.
How are you, Graham? I'm very well.
Thanks, John. Great to be here.
Thanks for having me on. My pleasure.
We have Major Mike Hamill joining us from West Point.
Hello, Mike. Hey, pleasure to be on.
Yeah. And finally, last but not least,
the great Nick Cramer from the University of North Texas.

(01:04):
Hello John, thanks for having meon.
Good to see you again. Yeah.
My pleasure, My pleasure. So what we're going to do today
is we're going to each present our list of the top 15 generals
commanders of the Napoleonic era.
Well, of course, have some debate after each person gives
their list. That's kind of the structure of
it. So we're going to kind of go in
order, ladies first, of course, with Rachel going first.

(01:25):
But before I get into that, I dohave a little disclaimer I have
to do. The opinions expressed herein
are those of the individual and do not reflect the official
policy or position of the US Army U.S. military Academy or
the Department of Defense or theUS government.
OK, glad I got that in there. Appreciate that.
OK. Before we get into that, I want

(01:47):
to make sure I give a shout out to anything you guys have coming
out or you're promoting or anything going on.
Rachel, do you have anything newor exciting coming out?
I know we have your Marshall's blog still on WordPress.
Yeah, sorry, I'm the sort of least qualified one here.
I'm just here by virtue of beinga Marshall's nerd, so nothing to
promote. My actual day job is business
lecturing, so nothing very glamorous.

(02:08):
No, sounds glamorous to me, Jonas, I know you have a great
blog, right? Well, trying my best but trying
to get eyewitness accounts from officers and soldiers, translate
from French to English and making them accessible look as
some of them are quite rare or came out of print or or just you

(02:28):
know, worth mentioning more often.
So I try to collect them there and please have a have a look
over there. And you just rebranded your
blog, right? You got a new logo there.
I got a new logo going. I think also maybe look wise
might have a change soon. So, but mostly it's it's mostly
content that's going to keep on expanding.

(02:49):
So keep an eye on it. OK, yeah, look at for it.
Napoleon Chronicles is the blog and I recommend that.
Graham, what do you have going on?
Well, at some point there will be a book on conscription coming
out, still being written at the moment, but if you want to to
catch up on my work, you can seebits and pieces online.

(03:09):
I had a book out last year on Waterloo that has actually been
called the best thing ever written on Waterloo.
Called that by me. But nonetheless, it's a it's a
book on on 1st course attack at Waterloo.
So if you're interested in this very specific bit, you can can
get that. But yeah, it's the conscription
book that's underway at the moment.
Very good. Nick, do you have anything

(03:30):
cooking? Other than cooking away at my
dissertation on Prince Schwartzenberg, not really.
It's quite AI. Just got back from Vienna doing
research for the second year in a row.
So still got 30,000 photos and documents to sift through.
So that's a labor of love and passion, but it's been very fun.

(03:51):
OK. And Major Mike Hamill, do you
have anything that we should know about coming up?
I just had an article come out and the War Studies journal
volume to which I'm pretty proudof, but other than that, that's
the most recent thing. OK, very good.
So yeah, to my listeners, pleasesupport and follow all these
fine guests wherever they are ontheir websites and books.

(04:12):
I would very much appreciate it.OK, now we're off.
So how this is going to work is each of us has a list of 15
commanders, generals that we're going to list without
interruption from the other panelists.
After they're done with their list, we of course will add
commentary. Full mocking insults will be
accepted. Belittling is fine, Whatever you

(04:35):
feel comfortable with. Or, you know, accommodation.
Like maybe one of our lists willmatch up perfectly with someone
else's. I think it'll be very
interesting to see what happens here.
But yeah, we're going to start off with the ladies first, so
we're gonna start with Rachel Stark, and then once Rachel is
done, we're all gonna kind of chime in and then move on to
Jonas after that. So, Rachel, the floor is yours.

(04:55):
OK, thank you very much, I said.We were chatting just before we
started. I did sort of say that my
probably does have a fairly hefty Marshall's bias, but I've
tried not to be completely blatant.
I've kept my top five the same, but I feel like I've changed
everything else about a dozen times this week.
But I'll take you through the current list as it was because

(05:16):
we were again saying before we started, great, such a
subjective term. And depending on the lens
through which we view them and view most of these men, we could
rank them. God only knows how many ways we
could be here for days. So I've kind of gone for
battlefield competence, commandability, consistency,
leadership, and strategic impact.
So my number one was probably not very surprisingly, Napoleon.

(05:38):
It kind of has to be, doesn't it?
He's either defining not just for the various remarkable
victories that he has, although there's plenty of them, but
because he in so many ways kind of reinvents the art of warfare,
you know, use of master utility,core level manoeuvre and rapid
concentration of force and so on.

(05:59):
The first Italian campaigns, kind of like the high bar, isn't
it? I mean, it just stands in a
league of its own. Obviously I'm not speaking to
the ethics of him. Um, but you know, his multi
theatre dominance of Europe for so long that the ability he had
to maintain that control is pretty extraordinary.

(06:20):
And even after he was defeated, his fingerprints are kind of all
over. So much of what came after, you
know, and even in defeat, thingslike the, the retreat from
Moscow, catastrophic though it was what he did manage to
control and what he did manage to still achieve even that was
pretty remarkable. So I think whether you love them

(06:41):
or loathe them, and people invariably are going to do both,
nobody commanded with so much strategic vision or sheer
audacity as he did. And I think that's exactly why
people are still drawn to him. You know, 200 odd years on, he
just is the era defining guy, mynumber 2 and I, I think he's

(07:02):
fairly worthy. Second, I have to say is
Wellington, Napoleon's ultimate adversary, even though they
never really directly meet untilright at the end, or at least
never directly fought each other.
And while Napoleons like this ever effervescent, like flash of
brilliant Wellingtons. Not that he's not a glamorous,

(07:24):
charismatic personality at all, he's a fairly cold fish.
But what he is, I think is Mr. Steady and consistent.
He is the ultimate like professional soldier.
He is reliable. He's determined.
And before him, he comes back mewith a pitchfork.
I know he wasn't just a defensive general, but I think
he's a defensive master, absolutely the master of of

(07:47):
defensive command. He excels choosing his ground,
choosing impenetrable positions.He forces the enemy to break
themselves against him. He, you know, fights intelligent
warfare. And really importantly for me,
what I think he can never be accused of, is holding life
cheaply. And probably that's something we

(08:07):
could charge Napoleon with. He achieves great victories, but
I don't think he always necessarily reflects on the
human cost of those victories. Wellington doesn't waste
people's lives cheaply. And he's sometimes called
cautious for this. But I think if you're one of the
people who is involved in those battlefields, you're probably
quite glad your life's not goingto be, you know, spent without
good reason. He's obviously his excellence

(08:29):
shines in the Peninsula War. His career was established
before that. He wears down the front to
calculated campaigning, logistics, sheer
professionalism. And obviously outside our sort
of little country of nerds, he'sbest known for Waterloo and
being a very bad Prime Minister.But he has some really
spectacular victories and amongst all that as well, you

(08:51):
know, things like I say earlier on in his career, things like
obviously Salaman has a triumph.So not necessarily the most
glamorous a man, but probably the ultimate professional
soldier. And very much in a similar vein
for #3 I've got my guy Davu. He was going to be in my top
three undoubtedly. Um, I couldn't really justify

(09:12):
putting the money higher, even though he's obviously my number
one. Um, I am steadfastly cheap Chief
Davuti and celebrator of antisocial baldy gets.
But of all the Marshalls and we've got some really big
characters and amongst the 26, and obviously myself and Graham
and John have been involved in aMarshall debate over in the

(09:34):
Napoleonic pod. He for me is the greatest of the
26 and probably not very dissimilar to Wellington.
Not glamorous, not particularly friendly, but superbly
competent, ultimately professional.
Always where he needs to be, exactly when he needs to be
there. He's one of Napoleon's most

(09:56):
reliable subordinates, Aaron clad integrity.
No looting, no thievery, no unnecessary inflammation of the
population. Never decisively defeated,
detail orientated and the sheer fact that it's when it's Davoos
men finally break in Russia, that's when people say that's
it. His his men are the indicator of

(10:18):
all that is good in the the Grand Army.
And that's down to his discipline, his logistics, his
detail orientation and the sort of high, high expectations he
has for his man high taskmaster.But that reflects well on on his
core. He's got triumphs to his name,
obviously ersh that but also Ekmu.
He plays key roles roles at Austerlitz, Vagram, ILO and he's

(10:43):
trusted with independent command, as are quite a few of
the marshals. But he excels and it's only
really down to his nigh miraculous efforts as Minister
of War in 1815 that there reallyeven is the French force that
there is at Waterloo. So yeah, for me, a man of Aaron
clad principles as well as iron determination and very high

(11:06):
quality professionalism, and then my number 4 is a man who's
basically Davoo's antithesis in every way apart from the fact
that they're really both flipping talented and that's
LAN. He is brash, he's mercurial,
he's temperamental, he's charismatic, he's brave and he's

(11:28):
one of the most tactically gifted of the marshals.
If Davoo's the iron spine of thegrand are May lungs, it's heart,
and it's really interesting. Well, certainly for my ranking,
he's the top one who doesn't have a military education.
You know, Wellington, Napoleon, Davu, they are trained for the
art of command. They are trained to be military
man. LAN is somebody who we would in

(11:50):
modern parlance, say he's working class.
He comes up from nothing. He's one of the poorest,
educated to the marshals. You know, some people derisively
say he's barely literate, and yet he becomes this phenomenal
commander on sheer innate talent.
He's incredibly, you know, personally brave.

(12:10):
He sort of personifies everything about the revolution,
somebody who's come from nothing, who has got themselves
there on merit. He's obviously very beloved by
Napoleon. He's a friend, umm, but he leads
by example, he inspires, he's charismatic, he gets people on
side. He's the kind of man you would
want to follow. You know, he's obviously got

(12:31):
great victories to his name. He's present at things like
Austerlitz, Friedland, umm, his.What he does at Aspirin Essling
is decisive, even though it ultimately ends up being his,
his last battle. He's never a yes man.
He's very happy to tell Napoleonto bugger off when he feels it's
justified. And that was necessary.
He needed somebody to speak truth to power and he always got

(12:54):
away with it. It's a mark of how much esteemed
Napoleon held him in. You know, he wants flying stuff
on unofficial leave because he felt he hadn't got enough credit
and he got to do it. And, you know, he came back when
he felt he'd had his leave and his loss devastated Napoleon.
And it's really one of the big amazing what ifs to consider.

(13:16):
Had he not been lost when he was, you know, what might LAN
have gone on to do? Would we, you know, have seen
more triumph? 40?
You've turned it's it's a really, really interesting, you
know, consideration. My number 5 might be
controversial. I've gone for Mistena, who I
know has a career of, you know, very much peaks and troughs,

(13:39):
certainly towards the end. But I think at his peak in
Italy, he's a general who we might have conceivably called
Napoleon's equal. He is a brilliant general at his
best. Again, like land, no military
education, no privilege. He pulls himself up through

(14:00):
talent, gets himself ahead also by stealing quite a lot of
stuff. He's an invectorate looter.
There's that amazing passage in Udinho's memoirs where their
wives are talking in the retreat.
And Madame Messina says to Udinho's wife, you know, how
much money have you got, you know, kept aside, like, how much

(14:23):
have you got in the boot of the carriage?
And she rattles off this amount that basically makes Madame
Udinho's jaw drop because they are so wealthy, because he's
stolen basically everything thatisn't nailed down.
So that does kind of go against him, but I think, you know, his
innate brilliance kind of can't be doubted.
You think of things like Rivali Zurich, his heroic resistance at

(14:44):
Genoa and how that helps pin theanime down, You know, where
they're not elsewhere. Napoleon calls him the darling
child of victory. And I don't actually think
that's too hyperbolic. He really was at his best, uh,
bold, aggressive at that time, indispensable general obviously
let down through his performancein the Peninsula War, but

(15:06):
crucially, I think we could say in his defence, he didn't want
the command. He felt like he'd he'd done his
duty. He was getting old.
He wanted to just be at home andenjoy his enormous fortune.
He was strong armed into doing it.
And you know, that brilliant career begins to decline.
But I do think it is best for me.
He's a worthy #5 6:00 I've got sushi.

(15:31):
I umed an ad quite a lot about where it puts sushi.
This is like not this highest he's been.
I also had him down at 13 at onepoint.
He comes to the fore, obviously slightly later than the others
as a Marshall, obviously as a general, his career goes right
back. He actually worked very closely
with Messina and Italy. And I am acutely aware he gets a
very different billet in Spain than the other Marshalls.

(15:54):
It's it's we're never comparing apples and apples here, but I'm
ranking him high for sheer effectiveness and political
savviness. The Marshalls weren't
necessarily all a very politically savvy, but Sushi
kind of has the insightful notion that maybe if we're going
to pose as all liberators are overlords or however we're going

(16:17):
to spin it, maybe if we come in and oppress and we behave
brutally, people aren't going tolike it very much.
And he actually, you know, he uses his heart and minds
campaign and and it works. I mean, most of Marshall
struggled in the politically hostile environment of Spain,
but Sushi adapted. He was a very adaptable general.
He doesn't just govern, He obviously he does win battles,

(16:38):
but he held his territory, he pacified regions, he administers
with skill and with integrity. Again, one of the marshals, he
could look and say, well, his conduct actually holds up.
His campaigns in Aragorn and Catalonia are examples that he
effectively integrated not just military governance, but
battlefield competence as well. So pretty good.

(16:59):
And then I'm one more Marshall and then there is a break and
it's suit and he's the Marshall that I sometimes think doesn't
get the credit he deserves. I sometimes think the Peninsula
War turns into a bit of a stick to be soaked with, almost
unjustifiably. It gets overdone.
His contribution, I think sometimes is undersold.

(17:21):
He's one of the big organising generals, not necessarily one of
the flashier personalities, verymethodical, detail orientated,
capable of handling pretty big logistical burdens, a good
tactician. And there is that quote from
Wellington about, oh, he turned up in a battlefield and then he
never knew what to do with his man when he got there.
But I think sometimes that's tooharsh and I know it's semantics.

(17:46):
I don't think it's so much that he lost in Spain is that he
failed to win in the environmenthe was operating.
And I think none of the Marshalls dummer who we put
there, I know people got a Hoffy, Chuck Davu and it would
have been different. I don't think any of the
Marshalls could ultimately have won Spain.
His campaigns in Portugal and the Ponies do show his ability
to operate independently and under pressure.

(18:10):
Obviously famously made chief ofstaff at Waterloo, he probably
would have been better suited toa battlefield command, but he is
one of the generals with the most tangible legacy post
conflict. He obviously serves as Prime
Minister of France several timesand enacts some significant
military reforms that we can still see in place today.
And then I'll pause with French.Sorry for my blatant pro French

(18:33):
bias, but then I've got ArchdukeCharles.
If Wellington's the ultimate adversary, maybe we give him
credit for being certainly one of the earlier figures who
manages to hold their own against Napoleon to some degree.
He reforms, obviously, the the Habsburg army into a much more

(18:54):
modern fighting force, not alone, but he's a significant
player in it. And he leads them to some of
their best performance in the conflicts.
And really notably, obviously, his aspirin Isling, he kind of
gives Napoleon his first check. And I think psychologically
that's quite important as well because, you know, people,
including Napoleon, we're starting to believe his legend.

(19:15):
He is Fortune's favorite child. He's undefeatable.
There's nobody who's going to win against this guy, So
actually being able to perform that check, hold on, this guy
isn't going to win decisively every time.
I think that's got psychologicalimpact as well as the physical.
Again, not necessarily very glamorous, sometimes framed as a
bit cautious, but I think he's got a deep understanding of

(19:37):
operational warfare and plays animportant role.
My #9 is Barclay Tolley, not a very popular man in his
lifetime, God bless him, viewed as overly cautious and, you
know, foreign, goodness forbid. But I think he does deserve a
space on the list because his decision making, loathed as it

(19:59):
was at the time, plays an ultimately significant role in
the defeat in 1812. His, you know, strategic
approach was pivotal. It was his idea to kind of trade
space for time, pull Napoleon deeper into Russia, deny him
that decisive battle that might have completely.
You know, turned things around and did the campaign in

(20:20):
Napoleon's favour. And that decision helps
obviously, as we all know, critical the Grand Army and he
returns to command obviously later in the wars.
He's highly competent. He's a very good coalition
commander, which not all of the very good generals necessarily
were. Some of them are really poor
collaborators. So he's, he's very quiet, he's

(20:40):
very considered analytical and his decision making obviously
ultimately was vindicated #10 I've put Kutasov, another
Russian, I've Suvarovs very noticeably missing on my list.
And that's because I've kind of stuck to the Napoleonic conflict
rather than bring Napoleonic revolutionary France.

(21:01):
So it's not that I've not valuedthe man accordingly, it's just
I've stuck to that kind of time frame.
So I've gone for Kutasov of somemuch bigger personality than
Barclay to Tolley overseas, the the unravelling of the Russian
campaign, his choice to withdrawafter Borodino, to abandon
Moscow again. See, a lot of these decisions
are controversial. And I think it takes a very

(21:23):
different kind of bravery, you know, from battlefield bravery
to be able to make decisions that are ultimately so unpopular
because you believe it's the right thing to do.
I'm not a tactical genius, certainly compared to some of
the guys on this list. But he understands context very
well. He knew when to fight, when not
to fight, want to be patient. And that level of patience
ultimately pays off in the end. And of course, as a symbol, he's

(21:49):
got he's got value. He becomes almost like the
embodiment of of the Russian resistance or #11 I've got blue
fur. Again, using the proviso I
understand this man is not a strategic genius by Anna stretch
of the imagination wreck aggressive almost the point of
recklessness on occasion and that aggression pays off what he

(22:14):
brings the tables this sort of raw, almost manic energy
fighting spirit, this unrelenting drive to defeat
Napoleon. He was not going to have
Napoleon triumph and so long as he had breath and his body left,
helps reform the Prussian army alongside Shirenhurst.
And I always mangle his name, I'm sorry.

(22:38):
And obviously famously plays thecritical role at Waterloo.
Had he not arrived when he was supposed to, or when he was most
needed, potentially the battle itself, if not the campaign,
might have ended differently. And I'm back to France for
number 12. I've got Marshall Sonseer, who

(22:59):
is a really interesting character.
If any of the Marshalls could bepsychologically analysed, I
would love to see what somebody would make of him.
He's cerebral, he's cold, he's awkward, he's an absolutely
terrible collaborator. Not particularly nice
subordinate either, but deeply analytical, general.

(23:22):
And that didn't always necessarily endear him to
Napoleon. Again, somebody who was not a
yes man. He was adamant for a good chunk
of his career that Napoleon heldhim back because he didn't agree
with Napoleon enough. But on campaign, in terms of his
battlefield competence is is very, very strong.
You know, his maneuvering in Germany, in Italy again shows

(23:42):
that level of sort of subtlety and patience and understands in
a context that not all of the marshals had very, very good at
defence. A meticulous planner and it
would have been interesting to see what might have become of
him if he'd gotten his Marshall it earlier.
Obviously one of the one of the later batons.
If he'd had independent commander earlier, would we

(24:05):
potentially have ranked him withDavu and LAN?
Who knows. Then I've got an A and he had to
be on the list. He has to.
He, again a bit like LAN, typifies everything about the
Grand Army. Yes, his decision making could
be erratic. Yes, his performance could be
the same. He could perform brilliantly, he

(24:27):
could clock up brilliantly, and he usually redeemed himself
pretty quickly. But for charisma, for
inspiration, for the sheer legend that he becomes, he has
to be on the list. He's one of the people you know,
if, if you know nothing about the Napoleonic Wars, you've
probably heard of, obviously you've heard of Napoleon.

(24:48):
You may have heard of Wellington.
Even then, people still tend to know about Nate, the Marshall of
France who gets shot at the end of the conflict for turning
against the king. The guy is a living legend.
And I think for for that level of impact, emotional impact, for
the ability to inspire people, his rearguard effectiveness,
yes, we can talk about his decision making in Russia for

(25:10):
sure. Could anybody else have held out
in the way that he did, you know, have have got his man out
in the way that he did? I'm not sure they could have.
So yes, he's not as high as someof the others, but my God, what
an absolute giant of a personality.
And then 14 very different sort of personality.

(25:31):
I've gone for rolling tell he I am very, very fond of.
And you know, Wellington wanted if if something happened to him,
command should go to hell. And I think that's everything.
Wellington's not a man who's particularly effusive in his in
his praise. And Hill is again, one of these
people who is not a big dominating personality.
There's certainly more flamboyant British generals

(25:53):
under Wellington, but he's calm,he's steady, 100% reliable.
Again, one of these people you could trust to know to be where
you're supposed to be, to do what you're supposed to do when
he was supposed to do it. Often operated in detached
missions in the Peninsula War, sometimes commanded, you know,
huge amounts of the British Army, always performed well.
Not particularly innovative general, maybe not a strategic

(26:16):
innovator, but he was the kind of leader that any good
commander wants on his flank. And I also think, and again,
this is a very biased statement,but when I look at this list
that I've pulled together and maybe some of the other
personalities we'll talk about, we've got a lot of great men.
I don't think great and good arenecessarily all were synonymous.

(26:38):
Messina is a great general and he stole everything.
You know, Sult was a massive leader.
We could go on about quite a lotof them.
Hill was a great man and he was also a very good one.
And I think that's an important distinction to make as well.
And then lastly, I've got Eugen,Prince Eugen, Napoleon's
stepson. I think if Napoleon had quite a

(26:59):
few more Eugen's and a few less Jeromes and Joseph's, he'd have
been admirably better served. He grows into his role in Italy
and in in academia we talk aboutexit velocity.
You know, when a student comes out at the end, we we look at
the improvement in their grades.And for me, Yujiang can advise
exit velocity. You see how he grows into his

(27:21):
competency as a commander throughout the conflict and he
shows steadiness. He shows maturity in his
decision making. Obviously very personally loyal
to Napoleon, much more so than his own blood relations, and he
was very steady in the face of very difficult odds during the
1812 retreat. He performed admirably.
He kept cohesion after Murak cleared off to look after his

(27:45):
own interests. He's not a military genus in the
way that his stepfather was, butI think he's a very steady,
thoughtful commander who maturedunder fire.
And I do think if he did a few more of you, Jen, and a few last
one apart, Napoleon would have done a bit better.
And so when does the list? Oh.
Well, applause. That was amazing.

(28:06):
Great job, Rachel gents. I'm kind of blown away I didn't.
I've totally forgot Eugene on mylist.
Now I'm like rewriting my list as we talk.
What do you guys think? Well, there's certainly going to
be some debate. I'll say that.
My list is different, but that'sa good thing.
What do you think, Jonathan? Yeah, actually, my this is quite

(28:26):
similar, only maybe two or threedifferent names in there.
And now that I think about it, maybe I'm kind of regretting it
or maybe I'm going to put them together because I just feel
they're so interchangeable. The arguments that Rachel made,
you know, it can work both for and against in certain cases.
So Asian is a is a is also quitea good pick, actually quite

(28:49):
underrated. Someone who really came into his
own, starting from eighteen O 9,very capable in Russia.
And then 1813, you know him, himtechnically being like the last
defense, you know, holding off the allied thrust.
So yeah, it's quite me. And then these years in Italy,

(29:12):
keeping everything afloat. Yeah, Graham, what do you think?
I think that's a really good list, but again, there's going
to be huge crossover, I think, with a lot of them.
I thought I'd be the only one tohave you here on my list, to be
honest. So there goes my Thunder.
But no, I think, I mean, I can'treally dispute any of them.

(29:32):
There's some that, you know, like Barclay Dutali, I'm not a
massive fan of. I think he kind of rewrote
Running Away into a really thought out strategic retreat.
But equally he then stuck to it and with Scorched Earth it did
actually work. So, you know, we'll give him
credit. I don't think I've got him on my
list, but, you know, I understand why, why he would be
there. But I think I've been a bit less

(29:54):
French heavy maybe. But I also understand why it
would be French heavy because this is a period of, you know, a
series of colossi in the French army.
Now these, these generals, thesemarshals, the men that Napoleon
builds the army around are superb, you know, independently
and collectively. So I absolutely understand that
that heavy French bias upfront. Again, there's a couple I don't

(30:17):
have on my my list, but you know, I've got a list of 15 that
couldn't make the list of 15 whoyou, you know, you think she'll
be there. So no, I really like that that
list and I really like the the explanations for each person as
well. Yeah, really detailed.
Major Hamill, what do you think of Rachel Starks list?
Now, I was hoping to have some sort of debate here, but I think
12 of the 15 are on my list as well.

(30:39):
I didn't put Hill on my list. I mean, I really like him as a
general. I love him as an officer.
He is. He's a great case study of of
how you should lead men and how to be a good officer but also a
competent 1. I just don't think there's
really any good independent victories to his name.
He was always kind of playing against the B team, so if I was
going to take umbrage with anything, it's that.

(31:01):
But at the same time, I'm not mad at him being on the list.
Very good. Very good.
Yeah. So that was good stuff.
Yeah. Like Rachel, you blew us away.
Really good stuff. Really good details on each one.
There's only one omission that not necessarily any of us but a
lot of people would take umbragewith is why a final birthier?
Not a great, not a great battlefield commander.

(31:23):
But I mean, a lot of people would argue that without him,
the Army doesn't function at all.
Full disclosure, I have him pretty low compared to a lot of
other people, but just wanna hear your thoughts on why he
just straight up excluded him. So the only reason I've put
Bertie not on my list is largelysemantic.
But I think we were gonna argue most indispensable commander

(31:45):
he'd be #1 because he's indispensable to every French
victory. He's the organizer, the
architect thereof. But I feel sometimes with
Bertie, his genius is that he translates that he is a conduit
for Napoleon's. I think if you sum up Bertie, if
you think of that sort of quote in the Sherlock Holmes story,

(32:06):
Bruce Partington plans. Everybody else is a specialist.
His speciality is omniscience. That's that's Bertie for me.
But his genius is so tied up in Napoleon's.
They're like this symbiotic double act.
Napoleon's the strategic visionary.
Bertie is the man. He actually makes it happen.
He sits to me almost like a little aside.
He's the most indispensable officer of the entire Grand

(32:28):
Army. But if we're ranking generals on
and as I say, things like battlefield competence and
consistency in Under Fire, things like that, the only
reason he's not on my list for indispensability, he's number
one. He's, you know, peerless among
staff officers. He he's the staff officer, the
man who kind of sets the bar. But I feel like his his great

(32:50):
role is as this sort of working partnership with Napoleon as an
independent general, which is how I've ranked all the others.
I don't think, again, we're comparing apples and apples.
He's a very different stamp of officer and that's the only
reason he's not on my list, because he's an absolute
powerhouse. Good call out.

(33:10):
OK, so now we're going to go to Jonas.
But just to switch up Jonas, could you do yours in reverse
order? Could you do 15 to 1?
Yeah, for sure, for sure. So for me, it was my list is
infinitely long. If I could have, if I could have
done it mostly. There's also a bit of a fringe
bias here, but I did my best to to give the allied commanders

(33:35):
their credit where it is due. I kind of worked in in bubbles
because I just in between these three bubbles that I have of
five each. I feel it can be quite
interchangeable given context. Personality wise are things to
be for and against about. So I'll I'll start with the the

(33:57):
lower the lower 5 Barclay de Tolle basically for him to kind
of mastermind this this plan forthe withdrawal for the Russian
army in 1812 specifically, you know, can be argued that it was
the right thing to do. It wasn't liked during the

(34:18):
period, especially also, you know, by his fellow Russian born
commanders. It was still it was still the
the good tactic to come up with and that in in collaboration
with sorry Alexander, which is kind of sidelined.
It's actually quite fascinating.Then I would go for blue fur.

(34:41):
Also kind of like Rachel pointedout, he's just that that fire
firebrands. So personification of, you know,
that Prussian resistance almost kind of like a Prussian name in
a way, maybe the foolhardy, not maybe the cleanest of, of track
record, but you know, eventuallywhen the drive was necessary to
get France within its borders. You know, in the later years.

(35:03):
I mean given also the fact that you know the the beating that he
caught initially in the early 1814 campaign and then still
managing to get his men follow him and be consistent is is
quite commendable. Then I have Archduke Charles,
very methodical commander when also went against a lot of

(35:25):
voices at Austrian courts, stillmaking his own.
Reforming the Austrian army mid war is also actually quite,
quite astonishing given how muchstrain that the Empire lost
dealing with a multinational army.
It's also maybe affected that weshould focus on and you know,
the the Austrian, the Austrian army in that regard is a bit

(35:48):
underrated in my opinion. Then I would go for an A
basically deep personification of the ground armay when it
comes to especially to bravery. So that's my pick.
And then on the top of that lower bubble that I have, I did
put Bertier because I do kind offeel like the administration

(36:11):
part of the French army might not be as as interesting, but
how to how to translate Napoleon's mind onto paper and
distributing it. And basically also like the
whole, you know, the study of the Tamar, sure, the transit
Tamar sure is actually very interesting.
Shows how how that army functiondoesn't get a lot of credit.

(36:35):
So I would put them on the top of that lower bubble.
So that second bubble that I have lower end is I have could
to solve mostly in in the way how he kind of represents, you
know, the Russian Russian army in a way, as in, you know,
rallying it together when this you know, this huge invasion for

(36:59):
especially for 1812, how he can personify that resistance is
actually quite formidable. Also very much a mind of his own
and go against his fellow commands base.
He sticks through to the end is very commendable.
You know, unfortunately dying in1813 would have been a great
what if for how the 1813 campaign would have continued

(37:22):
and and so forth. Then I have long, although he is
competing with two other names that I feel could could be
interchangeable because I have sushi and salt.
I can make a bit more of a case for sushi where where I feel
he's people know him, but I still feel when it comes to his

(37:45):
governance of Catalonia Aragon, there's actually a great study
done on him by Yuan Kim, which Ican highly recommend to read
where he shows where, although, you know, there's maybe a little
bit of misconception where he led, but he he could lead with

(38:06):
it with an iron fist, just like the case to make for Tarragona,
where the Garrison was was really put to the sword.
But he he would use those instances to really make his
name and then come back to the negotiating table with Spanish
locals and and the administration to, you know,

(38:27):
make that Napoleonic rule there work and and make it more or
less acceptable. And this is something that I
feel most of the other marshals and generals in the Peninsula
War didn't really get a real catch on, even though some of
them were faying, you know, you have assault wanting to be king
of Portugal at one point. We are keeping an eye on that on

(38:50):
the throne of Spain, at least for such a there's a lot to
commend for that. He actually knew how to be a
good administrator and a political leader.
Then on top of those three that I mentioned, I would put Miss
Sena, especially if like, you know, for his track record,
especially in the early years, the revolutionary period, what

(39:14):
he did, what he did in Italy, very good stuff.
Kind of like also what Rachel mentioned before, once, you
know, the H catches up on him. You know, he's especially when
he's thrusted into the third invasion of Portugal.
Yeah, you can. You can kind of tell that he
doesn't really want to be there anymore.
And while he has to work with some of the, you know, some of

(39:36):
the commanders that aren't necessarily very willing to
follow him, he still couldn't make it work.
And he he gave Willington a hardtime up till Toys With Us and
Fuentes. Donoro could have turned out
differently if the coordination would have been more optimized,
especially with this. Yeah.

(39:56):
For instance, then I go for the top five again, spot, you know,
spot #3 I could, I can basicallyput like 3 different names.
Very hard to just decide. But when I, if I go for the
French side, it would be undoubtedly Devoux, given, you
know, he's also like really likea personification of proper

(40:19):
conduct. Like his core can almost be put
on the same level as the Imperial Guard when it comes to
administration, how it's run. The commanders that he picks a
lot of the names on basically onthe general list that I made are
from Devus core, you know, throughout his career.
So, you know, it just shows likehow he had an eye for, you know,

(40:40):
picking men that are also very willing to follow him, but are
also willing to follow his type of administration, his type of
rule, this type of style of command.
So then that, that makes him quite a household name.
Then I go for two Allied commanders, Suvorov and Nelson.

(41:01):
I must say I'm not very well versed into into the Navy side
of things. But when it comes to him putting
his name on a lot of French defeats, you know, against
against the French Navy, you know, he knew the name well.
Basically what he did on on sea is just as commendable as, you

(41:24):
know, having several Army Corps going about doing their things.
So it is quite, quite phenomenalwhat he did.
And you know, with the highlight, especially Trafalgar
is definitely worth mentioning. For Suvorov.
It is kind of a big what if for me, if he, you know, if he would
have, if there would have been adirect clash with Napoleon, how

(41:49):
that would have how that would have figured it out.
But especially I think Massena in particular, he got a good
sense what the Suvorov could do.And thinking about the, you
know, all the battles, you know,prior and building up towards
Zurich, I think they're very commendable men of the of the

(42:11):
cold steel, which is also quite,quite astonishing to see in this
type of warfare. And also like his earlier career
too, is also quite fascinating to see how we went up against
the Ottomans in, you know, in going against odds that are
quite, quite astonishing and still making it out of there is
it's quite interesting. Then the top 2, although with a

(42:34):
bias, like I said, for France, Napoleon is, is an easy spot to,
to allocate him to just personification of, of this
period that is named. Whether you like him or or
loathe him, people will still read his biographies 1st and
delve into other details of, of,of the Napoleonic period and,

(42:58):
and the revolutionary period as well.
So that personification is very,very praiseworthy.
And now we revolutionized the state, you know, as as a leader.
Very, very interesting things to, to look about then.
Whereas, you know, Wellington, you know, as as mentioned
before, he's kind of like the antithesis, quite aloof.

(43:20):
But you know, a man of logisticsgets its, its grapes here and
there in, in the, in the peninsula when it comes to siege
warfare. But I mean, the siege warfare in
in general is isn't the easiest thing to to do, but you know,
basically like a better personification for the British
Army. Pretty much everyone will go to

(43:40):
that name Wellington. So that's that's my take on
things. Very good applause for Jonas
there. Nice work, my friend.
Yeah, great list. Really good stuff.
Good sidebars on each one. What did you think, Rachel?
Nothing to nothing to argue about chucking and a naval
commander is pretty inspired I think.
Yeah, I hadn't really consideredputting Nelson in, but yeah, I

(44:01):
100% agree with everything you said about him.
And I think our lists were so similar there's nothing I could
argue with anyway. What do you think next?
I mean, yeah, just to echo what Rachel said, great list.
Good job putting Nelson in thereas well.
I don't have him, but more of the military side.
I'm, I'm still interested. The first, you know, Rachel and

(44:23):
Jonas, you both had Barclay Ditali.
My research focuses on him as well, but he's a subordinate to
Schwarzenberg in 1813 and 14 andhe's a not the most popular guy,
not also the most obedient, kindof likes to March to the beat of
his own drum and kind of counterintuitive to what the

(44:43):
allies best interest is. So I have a little bit lower
view of him, but he still shoulddeserve, like you guys said,
deserves a lot of credit for 1812, even though he's not very
popular amongst the Russians. And also the fact that he's able
to sideline Alexander in 1812, which is good for the Russians.

(45:03):
And I bet if French Schwartzenberg could do the same
thing in 13 and 14, he would have loved to have sidelined the
Tsar as well. It's good to point that out.
I. Think if I can make a point
with. I find it quite surprising that
you feel that when it comes to abiding to Schwartzenberg's
command, I find it quite interesting because you know,

(45:28):
both of them basically when it comes to working out the
Trachtenberg plan, I would assume that totally would have
been quite a, quite a supporter of this kind of plan where, you
know, you basically, you know, try to draw in the marshals, but
not necessarily Napoleon. What would what would be your

(45:49):
comment on that? Well, I mean, it's the best way
to work is because in 18 FO, youknow, you whenever you avoid
Napoleon, it seems like good things happen.
But I think also you got to consider, you know, a lot of
people are in favor of a more aggressive campaign, especially
the Russians is because you justfought a whole year long

(46:10):
campaign in Russia which devastates the countryside and
then you fight in the spring of 1813.
So, yeah, you kind of want the war to be over as quick as
possible. And by pitching a plan of, oh,
we're just going to avoid battleand we're going to, like, starve
them out. And that's not very popular

(46:32):
because that takes time. And you've just fought for a
year and a half and thousands are dead.
So you can see why you'd want toend it quickly.
It makes sense because up to that point puts us off wasn't
actually also not really keen tocross the border because they
felt that, you know, as as much as a as a victory as as it was

(46:53):
for the Russians. A lot of lives on the Russian
side were lost. So how to, you know, get all
those forces back and then drivein the heartland of of Europe?
That would have been quite a challenge.
Did they make it work? But Kutuzov wasn't really wasn't
really a fan of it. And he felt, he actually kind of
felt that, you know, if if if a push forward could actually, you

(47:16):
know, trigger the allies, maybe turning on them at at a later
point because they might be tapping on the table a little
bit too much on, on the negotiating, negotiating table
and so forth, and on the side ofthe diplomatic side.
So yeah, that actually makes sense.
I think it's also worth, it's also worth mentioning, you know,
like 1813 is fought in Germany. You know, this isn't Russia.

(47:39):
So what do you really have to gain?
I mean, yeah, you obviously havestuff the game, but also, is it
worth sacrificing thousands morelives for Germany, especially in
camp? Like southern Germany's very
loyal to Napoleon because a lot of those Princess in like
Vertenberg, Boden, Bavaria, the king of Saxony, they gained a

(48:00):
lot of power, a lot of influencefrom being a Napoleon's rule.
Are they German? Yeah, But, you know, under the
Holy Roman Empire, you didn't really benefit a lot from that
rule. So the fact that Napoleon, yeah,
he's French, which may not make a lot of sense today.
It's like, oh, well, why are youtaking orders from a Frenchman?

(48:20):
They gained a lot from it. So are the southern German
Prince is going to be on board with it.
Like, and especially in 1813 and14, there's a lot of what ifs
and a lot of a lot of things to consider that the allies don't
get a lot of credit for considering.
But like Kudosov, Ditali, Metternich, all them, they

(48:41):
deserve a lot more credit for dealing with all that those
insurance and outs as well. I.
Agree. OK, Graham, we have you back.
So that's good. I lost Graham there temporarily,
so hopefully that's resolved andwe're going to plow ahead now.
We're going to allow my major, Mike Hamill.
He's going to give us his list and we'll see what we learn on
this one. All right, so a lot of my list

(49:05):
is the same as y'all's, but there are some different ones
starting with 15, maybe somewhatcontroversial.
I have Ojiro, and I say this because no, he's not some
amazing independent commander, but I think at the division
level, as a subordinate commander, he's really supreme
at that really in depth tacticallevel.

(49:28):
Not a lot of people know about his exploits in Spain in 1794.
He takes his division of about 4000 men, slips over the
Pyrenees, over goat trails for 10 hours, and then he pounces
and destroys the single cannon foundry that had been keeping
the Spanish army supplied, captures all sorts of stuff.

(49:51):
And then he stays there. Not really sure why he stays
other than, you know, he said he's going to do it anyway.
And he makes de Gomie, the French commander, a little bit
salty because de Gomie is like, hey, don't be all there exposed.
But then when the Spanish attackhim with a force that was more
than twice his size, he defeats them in detail.
And so, I mean, hats, hats off to Ojiro.

(50:14):
You know, he is the proud bandit.
He did like looting things, but I think he could say that about
half of his marshals. I just, I just, I love the bold
offensive style. And he's not somebody who
usually makes this list #14 I think this might be a new one.
Aggression. I don't think he gets gets a lot
of credit. He isn't.

(50:34):
He's one of the masters of the rearguard.
He shows that in 18 O five. He shows that again in 1812
where he does lose about half ofhis men, but he protects the
main Russian army. And I think if he doesn't die in
1812, I think he shows a lot of success in in the following
campaign. And he just has a lot of

(50:56):
tenacity and operational daring.So maybe that's a little bit
different. 13 I'll go with him alittle bit as Marah.
Now, one of the main reasons he makes this list is for his hair
and uniforms. I love going to the Louvre.
I've been a few times and I justI go down the Napoleon section
and you can immediately pick himout based off his hair and his

(51:17):
uniform. But more than that, he has he
has legendary courage and he is just master of the horse and
he's probably one of the best calf commanders of all time.
Plays a huge role at Austerlitz,his pursuit at Yena is
legendary. And of course at Ilao he he
saves the army, he leads a charge of over 10,000 horsemen

(51:41):
and he is actually of effective reformer as a king of Naples.
And he's largely popular. Now, he does have a lack of
strategic acumen, probably politically disloyal, somewhat
impulsive, but I just, I love the aura, as the kids would say,
moving up to 12 Barclay to Tolly.

(52:02):
And I'm actually relatively a fan of the Tolly.
And I don't want to repeat anything that's been said.
I think we've we've said a lot of things.
But I will say he's one of thoseguys who has a lot of success in
the Finnish war of 18 O 8 to 18 O 9, which I will put as part of
the Napoleonic Wars. And he leads his army across 100

(52:25):
kilometers of the frozen gulf toattack Sweden directly in the
winter. Very audacious, could have gone
wrong, but he pulls it off. I think he performs well as
commander in the 6th Coalition. And I personally think a lot of
the hate that he gets is he wasn't very popular in the
court. He has Scottish and German
ancestry. And I still think, I mean,

(52:46):
there's a lot of work to be doneon him as, as the as more
sources are opened up. And it's certainly somebody, if
you know, if you ever talked to the doctor, Mick Burizza, he has
some really good insights on him#11 Seoul.
I think he is a master tactician.
I think he's just a perp organizer and administrator.

(53:07):
And he does have a lot of early military prowess.
Everyone else has already talkedabout a lot of what he does.
As was said, he gets he gets a lot of hate for his performance
in Spain. But I very much agree with
Rachel that I don't think it matter what Marshall you put
there. I don't think they went because

(53:28):
by the time Wellington is pushing in Spain's a secondary
theater, they don't have the best troops.
And this is a side tangent, but I think Spain is relatively
easily conquered if Russia doesn't kick off large parts of
Spain's was pretty passive, it had been pacified.
And it's not really until the French pull out of Spain for

(53:51):
Russia that everything really kicks off.
But I'm a fan of soul #10 Suchetfor all the reasons we've been
said. In addition to he is a master of
siege warfare. There's a number of sieges in
eastern Spain between 1810 and 1811, and he's really a master
of pulling those off. Also, he's really exceptional

(54:15):
logistically. And I would just, I would just
say somebody worth to be studying if you are going, if
you're trying to study some counterinsurgency.
Now, he does have some notable military defeats.
So once again, he's, he's kind of in the middle there.
Moving up to #9 excuse me #9 isn't a yes, he isn't the

(54:37):
smartest, but I love him. And he is master of the
rearguard action. And looking at this from the
perspective as as an army officer of the rearguard action,
at no matter what level you pullit off, it is the hardest
maneuver to carry out. And he does it time and time
again. He's excellent in the 18061807
campaign. He is a little bit insubordinate

(54:59):
in the Peninsula War, but I think his his rearguard action
in Russia is exceptional. And I know he gets a lot of
Flack first performance in the 1813 campaign, and it's
deserved. But in his defense, I don't
think he's the same officer and same general, the same Marshall
that he is after Russia. I think he has a lot of baggage.
After that retreat. He's no longer the same

(55:20):
commander. But you know, the bravest of the
brave. He has to be on my list #8 maybe
somewhat controversial to some people.
I have Miss Sena. He's, he's just brilliant
tactically as, as, as Rachel wassaying, like Second Battle of
Zurich in 1799, essentially knocks Russia out of the
coalition. And he is unlike a lot of the

(55:43):
other marshals. He is a master of independent
command and has already been said with the Penance War.
He didn't want to be there. He tells the emperor he doesn't
want to be there. He tells us officers, This isn't
verbatim, but he pretty much says, hey guys, I don't want to
be here. I'm old, I'm tired.
But the Emperor says I have to be here, so I'm here.

(56:04):
And even if you're going to criticize him for his invasion
of Portugal, he does pretty well.
And then we'll see just hides behind the walls.
And, you know, it's a scene out of Monty Python.
And it's like, come down from the walls and fight.
And then, well, see, says no. So I don't, I don't know what
he's supposed to do. There's there's nothing else he
could have done better #7 LON superb tactical acumen, Battle

(56:28):
of Montebello, He has 8000 guys.He attacks and routes the
Austrian army of 18,000 Freeland, his fifth core Hells
off pretty much the entire Russian army for hours.
And like some of the other people my list highly effective
and in the pendant command. And yeah, he is.
He does have a volcanic temperament to be said, but I

(56:51):
think that chills out a little bit over time.
Some financial impropriety with spending a lot of money on
uniforms, but I would say a lot of the Marshals have some issues
with that and corruption. So number six.
So maybe this is where there's going to be some debate because
I have Blucher, yes, he's very aggressive, but I think that's

(57:14):
what was needed at the time. And I think his single greatest
asset was just his refusal to bebroken by defeat.
And that's what the coalition needed.
And often reckless. His aggressive spirit was just
vital and coalition command. Because time and time again, the
coalition's had been defeated byjust being either indecisive or

(57:35):
just being too passive. And she just doesn't let that
happen #5 Kudosov, right? Master of defensive warfare
strategy, arguably the savior Russia, pragmatic and cunning.
I think a lot of where people would rank him lower based off
the catastrophe at Austrolitz. And I know he was kind of the du

(57:59):
jour commander of the combined Russo Austrian army, but he
advises against attacking the French.
And I think had, you know, anybody listen to him, maybe
Australian doesn't have it. And he's often accused of being
passive and indecisive. But aside from being late in his
career, I think a lot of those accusations aren't really

(58:20):
valuable because by the time youhit 18101812, how many armies
has Napoleon defeated? How many Coalition wars have
been lost? And so when you're going up
against Napoleon, I think it's good to be a little bit
conservative #4 So this one might raise some eyebrows.
I have Archduke Charlie. OK, just hear me out.
All right? First one to defeat Napoleon, a

(58:42):
major battle. Aspirin nestling.
And yes, Napoleon didn't make a lot of mistakes by crossing 1
bridge, but he did win. And I think you have to look
back further as to why I ranked him higher.
If you look at his Ryan campaignof 1796, it is a masterpiece.
He's using central position and he's maneuvering, defeating 2
superior French armies separately.

(59:04):
And I think he is also a groundbreaking military
reformer. A lot of their forms obviously
aren't completed by the time they're really needed in 1806,
but he does push them forward. And he was working against the
institutional inertia of the Austrian army and the Austrian
court. And once again, yes, he's
conservative, but I I don't blame him.

(59:28):
I'm not saying he's the best commander.
I think he needs more credit than he usually gets.
And then the top three, there's not a lot to be said #3 the Iron
Marshall Devu, legendary corps commander, I'll just say it,
Austrolitz, he covers 70 miles in 48 hours, which is absolutely

(59:48):
insane to me as somebody who's done a lot of rock marches.
And I, you know, I think Austrolitz is the greatest
military victory of all time. And that does not happen if Devu
doesn't pull it off. There's so many other
accomplishments to his name. #2 as much as it pains me, Arthur
Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, I don't like him as

(01:00:08):
a commander. I don't like him as a person.
But massive strategic impact in Spain by forcing France into
that protracted secondary theater.
He wins time and time again. He knows when to withdraw by the
time he actually faces Napoleon.Napoleon is not at his best or
using his best troops, but ultimately Wellington is

(01:00:30):
Wellington for reasons. And of course #1 Napoleon
creates the operational level ofwar.
He studied to this day. I'm, I'm teaching a class on him
next semester. I'm not teaching a class on
anybody else. So he he has to get my #1.
Very good, very good. OK, Graham, are you more

(01:00:51):
appalled with Archduke Charles at 4:00 or Blucher at six?
Well, I don't want to give any spoilers away, but I'm not
particularly appalled by either.And I I really like this list.
There's some people on it that aren't on mine.
But again, you know, we, we can't get everyone in.
I think Sushi sometimes gets a lot of credit for, well, he

(01:01:12):
obviously gets a lot of credit for Spain.
He deserves that. But I'm not as convinced by
Sushi as a battlefield commander, as you mentioned, in
sieges counterinsurgency, he's actually quite politically
savvy. But as a battlefield commander,
not so convinced. Yeah, I'm not going to give any
spoilers of what's on my list ofwho else isn't there, but some

(01:01:32):
really interesting ones on that one.
I think Bluca being that high isa really interesting choice.
But as you say, you know, he's the right man at the right time.
He does what is necessary. I think some of his his
campaigns are are inspired, you know, the the move from to to
Waterloo on the 18th of June is often just put off.

(01:01:54):
As as you know, he marches to support Wellington.
He is marching across the axis of advance of someone that's
just beaten him two days before with his army strung out in the
March to go to the assistance ofsomeone who promised to help him
two days before and didn't show up.
Now this is a a colossal risk he's taking, but he he pulls it

(01:02:15):
off. His aggression is there his
willingness to to work with someone else there.
So I think, you know, Bluker give him a lot of credit and
maybe wouldn't have him as high as 6, but but fantastic.
So, you know, it's another list I really like.
I really like the reasoning. You know I can't fault any of it
particularly even if mine will be slightly different.
Really good point on Waterloo and Bluker's efforts there.

(01:02:37):
Jonas and Rachel, you've alreadygone.
I'm going to go to Nick last because he hasn't given his list
yet, but what did you think about Mike's list?
Yeah, I love this list. Not to spoil my list either, but
I have Charles High as well for a lot of the reasons you have as
well. I think it's also going to be
worth mentioning that he's not the guy who's defeated in 1805

(01:02:57):
spoiler. But yeah, I have Charles high as
well, so I'm glad that somebody else does.
Blucher, having him pretty high.I also have him in my top ten
because he just, he kind of typifies like the later Prusso
German tradition, you know, justvery aggressive and that's what
was needed, especially in 1813 and 1814.

(01:03:20):
But everybody remembers him as aggressive.
But he's also very he sticks to the plan and he has sometimes he
charges blindly forward, but there are other opportunities
where he could just charge riot Napoleon and they're like, no,
and he doesn't. He retreats, calls the
Reichenbach plan. So he's very tactically and
strategically in lockstep with the plan.
But he also just like the inertia of the Coalition is with

(01:03:44):
him, class of its would call like the center of gravity
that's with his army and Napoleon chase after him the
most because Blucher's got kind of the emotional capacity and
the the fire of the Coalition iswith his army.
So I think he deserves a lot of credit and he deserves to be
high up on the list, although a lot of people might not think

(01:04:05):
so. I agree with Michael.
He deserves to be up there. OK, yeah, just, I'll just
respond to that now, Nick. Nick and myself are probably a
little bit biased because our advisor, our master Doctor
Michael Ajeri did write, you know, Blue Curse Gorge Napoleon.
But I think a lot of how people think about Bluker, it's based
off previous misconception. I think Bluker guess he's

(01:04:27):
aggressive, but it's calculated risk and I think he has a much
better grasp of military strategy and the operational art
then then he's he's been given credit for him.
He was nicknamed Marshall Ford. But right, if you read the book
to plug that, he actually retreated more often than he
attacked. And so when he is going forward,
it is a calculated risk. And so I'll defend his position.

(01:04:50):
All right, Jonas, what do you think of that?
Listen. Pretty good, pretty agreeable on
a lot of things maybe, although maybe I can't really go into a
lot of the details, but maybe something doesn't really stick
well with Mirab being so high up.
Especially maybe when it comes to.
I think that there's like a bit of an after taste with 1812

(01:05:12):
where I've been reading a lot ofthe eyewitness accounts and
where you feel like a lot, especially is cavalry forces are
just being thrown into a lot of situations where maybe caution
would have been the better option.
But I mean, yeah, benefit of insight here.
Yes, superb cavalry commander, but I can I can actually kind of

(01:05:34):
feel, but there could be some generals of division out there
that I actually put on my list that are are a good match for
him when it comes especially forthe Kudoi.
I mean, if you have people like LaSalle or Montclair Killerman,

(01:05:56):
I have I even have a discourse the Sankwa, which I feel is very
underrated, like life cut short.But I think he could have, could
have been some, some good Marshall material.
I think they can, I think they can tug on murals coat, if you
know what I mean. I mean swagger, audacity, quite
interesting. Especially I feel in the later

(01:06:17):
years, I feel he kind of loses oversight of of grant strategy.
I feel especially in 1812. There's, like I said, I feel
there's quite some, some eyewitness accounts out there,
some some material that yeah, I kind of made the argument that,
you know, he he would lose the oversight and that it would
cause a lot of death and destruction for little good

(01:06:37):
reason. OK, I know Clarity Marshall Mura
is on my list, but we haven't gotten to my list yet.
Rachel, what did you think of Mike's list?
Yeah, I thought it was so well argued.
Love seeing Ojiro on the list. He's such a great personality.
Again, only when I disagree withhis Mura, but then I'm certainly
overtly have said in various other podcasts.

(01:06:58):
I think he's but you know, I again, that's the whole point of
doing these things. That's the fun of it is looking
at how many different ways we can look at it and who admires
what and how we can, you know, pull out the various
characteristics these these men.So it's, yeah, it's great to
listen to. Very good.
Yeah, I'll just, I'll just jump in real quick.
It's almost hard with the list when I was making this.

(01:07:19):
I don't know if he found this, but they're almost different
people depending on what war you're talking in.
And so I'm not going to argue that Mara isn't the best later
on because he's just he's not. But like when he's great, he's
the best, but then he's just not.
But just like Napoleon himself, Napoleon at the end is, is not
the same. And you have some glimpses of
his his old self and really eight in 1814.

(01:07:43):
But when it's too late. But I think with a lot of these
people, it's just, it's like, why weren't you how you used to
be? So I'm I'm not going to get
pushback on the raw. Roger that.
All right, well, we got two moreto go, actually, three more to
go if you count myself. And I think we'll pause here for
Part 1. We will have Part 2 of the Top
15 Generals of the Napoleonic Cage next week.

(01:08:05):
If you like this episode, pleasebe sure to rate and review us
wherever podcasts are heard, andwe'll see you soon.
Thanks so much for listening.