Episode 139 - Part II of the Top 15 Generals of the Napoleonic Age, with a panel of experts - Generals and Napoleon

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Welcome back to Generals of Napoleon, Part 2 of our Top 15
Commanders of the Napoleonic Age.
This is sort of our ultimate listing of the top 15
commanders. If you haven't listened to Part
1, please give that a go, but we're going to jump back into it
here in a minute with special guest Rachel Stark, Jonas

(00:24):
Denise, Nick Cramer, Graham Callister and Major Mike Hamill.
Before we begin, I'd like to remind all of our listeners that
if they like to support our podcast, please go to
patreon.com. Generals and Napoleon.
We truly appreciate any and all support we get.
If you'd like to support our podcasts and other ways, please

(00:44):
go to our YouTube page and hit subscribe or rate and review our
podcasts wherever podcasts are heard.
Now on with the show. Give the floor to Nick now let
him run through his fifteen. Yeah, Nick, you can go 15 on
back to one if you want. Yeah, I kind of like going 15 to
1. You kind of just like build the
suspense of like, even though we're probably assuming that

(01:05):
Napoleon be #1 but this was a fun exercise when I was like
perfecting the list, you know, over the past couple days, like
I had eleven, no doubters that would be in the top 15.
And then about 15 or 20 others that were competing for those
final four spots. So this was it was fun.

(01:28):
Those 11 weren't in like any particular order, but those were
the ones where there's somewherein there.
So at 15, I'm going to do a namethat nobody has said yet.
I'm going to go with Charnhorst now.
He dies in 1813, so you don't get to see him in the latter
half in the fall campaign or in 1814.
But I think it's worth mentioning him, you know,

(01:51):
because he's a chief of staff in1806 to the Duke of Brunswick
and then after he's the most instrumental figure, him and
Stein in reforming the Prussian state and the Prussian army, the
Prussian army that you see in 13and 14 is really only there
because of what Charnhorse does.The land there as well.

(02:13):
You know, it doesn't come to like full conscription later on,
but that's his brainchild. Without him, the Prussian army
is nothing in 1813 and 1814 probably doesn't even exist.
He read he was the head of the Prussian Military Academy.
His most famous student is a guyby the name of Klausovitz.
Don't know if we've ever heard of him before.
So I think he deserves an ode onthis list at EMAT 15 is because

(02:36):
he's so instrumental in reforming the Prussian army that
was absolutely decimated at Yanaand Auerstadt in 1806 to make it
a fighting force again in 1813 to compete against Napoleon.
So I think he deserves a lot of credit for that. 14 I'm going to
have Gun Eisenow again. We have nobody's mentioned him

(02:58):
yet, but he was the chief of staff for Blucher in
181318141815. And while Blucher gets a lot of
the credit for his movement, it's Gun Eisenow who is in
lockstep with him and helps Blucher see the grand strategic,
the tactical, just the finer things that are going on in

(03:19):
warfare. So I think he deserves a lot of
credit to for dictating Prussianstrategy and 3rd in 18131814IN
Blucher's ear, telling him what to do, kind of encouraging him a
lot of times be like, hey, no, like you need to do this and not
abide by this or whatever they're telling you.

(03:41):
So he's kind of like lesser known birthday egg, but he's
really in charge of Prussian strategy.
So I think he deserves #1413. This is going to be the
unpopular 1, maybe a little biased.
I have French Schwartzenberg. Umm, was he a great tactician?
Uh, no. Let's just be frank.

(04:04):
No, he wasn't, especially at Leipzig.
Not very good. A lot of the criticism that he
gets is that he's very conservative, very laid back.
But I forget who was. I said Wellington was the same
way and you'd appreciate that. But whatever you talk about
Schwartzenberg, it's he's lacking initiative.
It's not taking the battle to the enemy, but kind of in the

(04:25):
same vein. I think he also deserves this
credit or a spot on this list isbecause he had the toughest job
of any commander in the Napoleonic era.
He was the supreme commander in 1813 and 1814.
That was a new title. Nobody had held that yet.
Why the previous five coalition's fail?

(04:46):
Because the allies couldn't get their ducks in a row.
They couldn't orchestrate strategy.
So in 1813 pick they are like, hey, we need to have a supreme
commander that though the cohesive strategy and that's
Schwartzenberg. Now again, not the like he's
brave as like a Calvary commander at all, but he's his

(05:07):
main background is politics. He was ministered in Paris in
1809. He was there in Russia as well.
So he has a great grasp of both the political and the military
realm of warfare. And that's important.
Just a little bit of insight into what he dealt with in 1813
and 14. He had all three allied monarchs

(05:30):
tailing him at all times, Frederickle in the third Francis
and most notably our Alex Xanderwho is tough to deal with in
1813 and 14 to put it mildly. So not only does Schwartzberg
have to oversee his own army, which is huge, the Army of

(05:51):
Bohemia has over 200,000 people in it, but he also has to kind
of coordinate the actions of Bernadotte when he can and keep
in contact with Blucher and run the Silesian army as well.
And then he has three monarchs breathing down his neck.
Imagine, like, let's put this way.
Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower hadFDR and Churchill in his office

(06:14):
at all time. Like FDR, World War 2, pretty
hands off. Let's, like do whatever he
wants. Churchill's a little bit more
hands on. But imagine if FDR and Churchill
were breathing down Ike's neck everyday.
That's what Schwartzberg dealt with, especially with Alexander.
Like, I special. Like, I'm doing research in

(06:36):
1814, Schwartzenberg is very ill.
He's in bed. Alexander, in the middle of the
night, gets on a horse and bursts into Schwartzenberg's
bedroom, flashing a piece of paper.
Adam is like, what are you goingto do about this?
And he's like sitting on his bed.
I couldn't even imagine, maybe alittle biased, but I think
Schwartzenberg just for being kind of the the glue that holds

(06:59):
the coalition together in 1813 and 14 deserves the 13 spot 12.
I have sushi. You guys have them higher than
me. I think it's just, I have them
lower because he, I mean, he earns his Marshall's baton
later. He's the only one who gets a
baton because of what he does inSpain.
Not as widely remembered, but I think he does kind of get a

(07:22):
little bit overrated at times. I mean, Napoleon on Saint Helena
said he was his best general andoh, if I had two souches, I
would have conquered Spain. Not saying he's wrong, but I
think they're also just other guys I liked more because like I
tended to give a little bit moreweight to leading from the

(07:45):
front, charismatic leaders, organizers, because I like that
in a leader. So 11.
I mean, I have nay, I couldn't put him any lower.
A lot of me wanted to put him higher.
But as Michael said, our Doctor Orvater is Doctor Lazieri, and

(08:06):
if he heard this he'd probably be screaming like Oh my God, how
could you even have Nay on the list?
I get it. Nay is kind of a tactical bozo
at times. Like Waterloo is a disaster.
He gets absolutely decimated at Denevits in 1813.
It's not his stick. He's not really good at the
tactical level, but he's the heart and soul of the Grande

(08:30):
Arme. Everybody flocks to his side.
He's incredibly brave and that'sworth something, especially in
this era of warfare where you have to get in a line and charge
at the enemy with bayonet point.You need somebody that you'd
flock to and that's nay, especially, you know, crossing
the Neeper in 1812 during the retreat, you know, like when he

(08:54):
comes back, everybody thought hewas dead.
Everybody like basically is likecrying tears of joy that he's
returned. That says a lot about him.
But you know, I can't have any higher because he's just so
tactically bad. But one other note about Nay is
he also did have a keen eye for talent, especially in his staff.
His most famous staff officer was Jomani, and he gave him a

(09:17):
platform to write and to publish.
So I think he deserves a lot of credit for for that as well.
But he's this high because of his bravery, and I think that
deserves a lot. You need somebody who could
follow in the battle. Like at Waterloo, we had what,
five horses shot out from under him.
That's that's brave. And I think he deserves that,

(09:38):
deserves a spot. 10. I know he's not the most popular
figure. I have Mira.
I have Mira at 10. He was the, you know, Bo Seber.
Yeah. He's a womanizer and is he
duplicitous? Sure, especially at the end.
But when he was on, he was by far the best Calvary commander
of the time and it's not even close, especially in 1805.

(10:02):
His reconnaissance against the Austrians, they bluff an
Austrian general into surrendering a bridge.
His charge at I Lau is legendary.
We're after Ojiro marches the wrong way and is you know, in
this blinding snowstorm and it his core gets decimated.
Napoleon famously just turns to Mira is like what are you going

(10:24):
to do about it? So he leads, you know, 10,000
horse, you know, and they save the army.
So incredibly brave, has drip and swag for days.
Cossacks in 1813 wanted to capture him alive and they
actually respected him because of his his dress which made him

(10:44):
stand out on the battlefield. I also think his ability to
fight a rear guard action in 1813 isn't looked at enough
because everybody likes to blameSchwartzenberg and the Bohemian
army for being lethargic and slow.
But him and Marshall, Victor andSansir, they pulled off the
massive allied of Army of Bohemia for the better part of

(11:07):
two weeks, only allow them to March 70 miles because of their
delaying action. This enables Napoleon to
concentrate his entire force at Leipzig.
So that's overlooked, but Mira the best Calvary commander of
the time. I think he deserves a top ten
spot #9 I have Blucher. Marshall forwards doesn't really

(11:31):
get a significant shot at independent command until 1813
when he's given the Army of Silesia.
But his defense at Lubeck in 18 O 6 is the only bright spot for
Prussia in that whole entire war.
In 1813 he was brilliant. You know, wins the battle.
The cat spot against McDonald's crosses the L to set up the

(11:54):
Battle of Leipzig. He vehemently adhered to the
Reichenbach plant plan. Like Michael alluded to earlier,
he and Gun Eisenhower are instrumental in advocating for a
continuation of the war in the France in 1814.
It's often forgotten, but it seems obvious now that it's
like, yeah, we need to pursue Napoleon into France in the last

(12:15):
half of 1813 and into 1814. No, there were only three people
that wanted to continue the war,Luke Urgan Eisen, Alan
Alexander, and they are very vocal in it.
And was that was the right forceof action you had to defeat
Napoleon on French soil. But I alluded to it earlier.
His army is the soul of the Coalition.

(12:35):
In 13 and 14, they have this TJ,the motivational, the emotional
gravity with them. And Napoleon, whenever, if he
had a choice to go after the Bohemian army or Blucher, even
though Blucher's force is half the size, he always went after
him because he recognized that that's where the heart of the
Coalition was and it was needed that he needed somebody

(12:57):
aggressive who was willing to take the fight to the French,
not just wait for Napoleon to like hang himself.
You had to take it to him eight.I have Berthier.
Some of you guys have excluded him.
I have him high. He's here only because of his
staff work. He the whole French staff system

(13:21):
is his it's his child now disclaimer.
Is it easy for his staff to operate when the guy who runs
everything is Napoleon? Sure, yes, but it's if you want
to like just just if you want tosee how important birthday was,
is look at Napoleon's orders andthen look at what gets sent out

(13:44):
side by side. Napoleon a tendency to ramble
and not make a lot of sense. It just kind of, let's go on
like long diatribes about the strategic picture.
Birthday would take all that information and condense it down
to where everybody could understand it.
And I think that is important because without birth the A, the

(14:05):
army doesn't work. You don't get orders out.
And one of the biggest what ifs of the Napoleonic air is what if
birth the A doesn't fall out that window and die before
Waterloo? What if he's the chief of staff
in 1815 instead of suit? Honestly, a lot of me wanted to
have him hire but why do I have him here?

(14:29):
You know when he is an independent commander in 1809,
it goes terribly. Davu almost gets encircled
because of him and he had no real input and strategy either.
But like I said, it's hard to imagine French success without
Birthday A, so that's why I think he is so high for me. 7

(14:52):
I'm going to have Messena, the spoiled child of Victory.
Loads of experience dating back to 1775 in the first Italian
campaign. He is magnificent.
In another world, he probably should have been given command
of the Army of Italy instead of this General Bonaparte guy.
Whoever he is, he should have ina lot of ways deserve that

(15:15):
command. He was brilliant in the first
Italian campaign. He beats Suvarov in eight in
1799 at Zurich that had like being Suvarov would basically
just be like beating the chiefs in the NFL like it hardly ever
happened. He was great especially in 18 O
9 at aspirin essling even when he was brought up semi

(15:38):
retirement and he was also greatat vogram as well.
He would be higher if not for what happened in the Peninsula.
But as you guys have alluded to,I don't really think anybody
does well in the Peninsula. And one of his staff officers
said like, oh, he's barely 50, but he looks, you know, in his

(15:59):
mid the late 60s, he looked terrible.
He walked with a hunt. She wanted to sleep more often
than not. So he was past his prime.
So I don't think you should holdthat too much against him. 6 I
have sued old Iron Arm. He proved himself at Zurich in
1799, led the main attack at Austerlitz.

(16:20):
Great planner, great at the tactical level.
Again, not the best commander inSpain, but he didn't drown.
He actually kind of held the ship together at a lot of times.
He's brought back to fought fight in Germany and eight in
the spring of 1813. And then he gets sent back to
Spain and, you know, late 1813 and he makes Wellington earn it.

(16:46):
He makes Wellington earn every inch of Spain in 1813 and in
France in 1814. Sewell deserves a lot of credit.
He's great, very inspired leader, very hard on his men.
You know, they call them Iron Arm.
A lot of other French marshals were questioning how hard he was

(17:06):
drilling his men. But you know he his core were
the best because of their training.
That leads me to 5 and I have Archduke Charles at 5th.
Why do I have him so high? Well, like Michael alluded to
earlier, especially in the firstcoalition war, he was fantastic.

(17:28):
He was fantastic against Moreau,who will he'll lose to later.
He was great against Moreau and Jordan, he wrote.
He won battles at Bursberg, Umberg and others.
He also won the first Battle of Zurich.
He wins in Mannheim in 1799. He's great.
Now, the Austrians screw themselves in 1805 when they

(17:50):
think the main theater of war isgoing to be Italy, so they send
Charles there. Well, Napoleon is in Germany,
and he gets to go up against Mac, who is not on the level of
Charles. And then, you know, Charles
doesn't perform well, but the war's already over and he's
trying to, like, save as many lives as possible by retreating.

(18:11):
So he's not responsible for Om. And, you know, we can do
counterfactuals or what ifs, Butif he's in command instead of
Mac, probably doesn't happen. And then after the disaster of
1805 and 1806, he reforms the army.
He is the head of reforming the Austrian army.
And that army in 1809 that he leads against Napoleon and

(18:33):
Aspirin Estling and Bagram is night and day better than what
it was in 1805. And he had to jump through a lot
of hoops to get that army to what it was in 1809.
A lot of conservatism in court. You know, his brother is the,
you know, Kaiser Francis, you also dealing with a multi ethnic

(18:56):
polity, which is the Habsburg empire.
You know, you have like dozens of ethnicities, dozens of
languages. So the fact that he reformed
that army is spectacular and he makes it a very formidable force
in 1809. And then he falls out of favor
again. He ruffles a lot of feathers.

(19:17):
But I also give Charles a lot ofpraise because he told it how it
was. He doesn't want to go to war in
1805. He thinks the army isn't ready.
They basically tell him to go, you know, pound rocks.
We're doing it anyways. He says the army isn't ready in
1809, but they're like, we're doing it anyways.
Figure it out. He's like, OK, I'm just telling
you. And that's why he, you know,

(19:38):
falls out of favor. But Charles is Napoleon's
greatest adversary, as Gunther Rothenberg alluded to in his
book. I think he's worthy of that
title. That brings us to the top four.
I have one at 4:00. If he didn't die at aspirin,
Esling probably could have been higher.
Led the way as a general in Italy in 1800.

(20:00):
He was great in 1805 against theAustrians.
His finest hour is probably Friedland, where he fights a
delaying action that holds the Russians off for a significant
period of time. Well, they're trying to cross
the bridge. That allows Napoleon time to get
the army there to win the decisive battle.
With Friedland and eventually obliterate the Russians.

(20:22):
Charismatic leader. His men love them.
He loved leading from the front,which I can commend.
Unlike Sewell to like to hang inthe back at times.
Everybody love LON. Yeah he kind of had a tiff with
Bessier but all Marshalls had tiffs.
But LON deserves. And when he's killed, you know,
his Napoleon weeps at his side and his death like sends

(20:46):
shockwaves throughout France. And rightfully so.
LON was, he was always at the front and he was all, if you had
to pick one guy to lead an assault other than Davu, you
would pick 1/3. This is going to be
controversial. I have Wellington.
I have Wellington at 3:00. Is he my favorite guy?
No. He's trash and arrogant and high

(21:09):
handed. But Wellington has a great grasp
of the political arm. Now, is he helped by the fact
that his brother is in the government?
Yes. But he's keenly aware of the
larger picture in Spain and he can't risk his army.
And that's a lot of generals, you know, are often criticized

(21:30):
for not being bold, like Schwarzenberg is heavily
criticized for not being bold. Here's the thing.
You need armies to fight wars. And Wellington knew that if his
army suffered a huge defeat, it's over.
There's no funding going to the Peninsula anymore.
So he does a good job of pickinghis spots and striking the

(21:50):
French at the most opportune time.
He's often regarded as, you know, the masters of defense,
which he is kind of a misnomer. He's actually great at sharp
attacking movements. Not just this guy who sits on
his his hands and waits for the defense wins at Waterloo.
That's his finest hour, obviously.
But here's the thing. Why do I have him behind Davu?

(22:12):
Well, Wellington, he faced Sult,but he never faced the best of
the French army, especially in Spain in 1815 at Waterloo.
That the French army of 1815 is no, not even close, not even the
same Galaxy as it was in 1805. He never had the face like the
best of the French army. You know, he's facing like a

(22:35):
disenchanted Messina. And the biggest thing is he
didn't face the guy who's number2 on my list, Marshall debut,
without a doubt. I'm part of the Messina society,
so probably shouldn't say this out loud.
Without a doubt, Marshall Davu is Napoleon's best Marshall.
Our start, just just that battlealone gets him a top five spot,

(22:57):
you know, fights a battle that nobody on earth should win.
He was great as an administratorin Hamburg.
Was he ruthless? Yeah.
But when it came to the Continental System, that was the
only time it worked, was when Davu was in charge of Hamburg.
That was the only time he was tough, you know, on his men.

(23:21):
But he was respected because while he demanded a lot out of
his men, he demanded more out ofhimself and his men respected
him for that. He's kind of like, if you've
ever seen Band of Brothers, he'skind of like Captain Sobel,
except qualified to be in the position.
He worked hard. He was always like just drove
the men to extraordinary lengths.

(23:41):
Michael mentioned earlier, you know, Auschwitz doesn't happen
without Debu marching 70 miles and 48 hours with, you know, 50
to 60 lbs in your back. That's just a feat of strength
that is men got that. I don't know if anybody else
could could get from their men. He's great in 18 O 9 and Eggmul
especially. That was a pretty disastrous

(24:01):
situation. He extras cates himself from and
then after that you don't reallyhear a lot from him.
You know, in 1812 he kind of hasa little bit of a falling, but
it's worth noting, you know, at Borodino he wants to advocate
for the flanking maneuver. It is told basically no.
I think he for the first time inhis, you know, a lot of

(24:22):
Marshalls want to see him be knocked down a peg.
So I don't really think he gets a lot of support in 1812.
But the other thing is why is Napoleon lose in 18/13/14 and
15? Well, there's a lot of reasons,
but guess who they never really had to fight.
They never had to fight Davu. He was sent to Hamburg, where he
does a great job. He it has to form a brand new

(24:46):
core, the 13th core from scratch.
They have no men. They're in the Armistice of
plausivits. He scratches together some
French, some Danish soldiers andit becomes a very formidable
force in 1813. But the fact that he's not used,
in my opinion, Napoleon's biggest blunder, like he has
Udino commanding the army of, you know, going against in, you

(25:08):
know, the army of Germany. That's insane, you know, like
the fact that Dabu was sidelinedin 13 and then he stuck, you
know, holding on Hamburg. He only surrenders Hamburg in
May of 1814, weeks after Napoleon advocates and then 1815
I think it was Rachel mentioned earlier, the army only is
organized because of Dabu as Minister of war.

(25:30):
But then again, you're taking away your best battlefield
commander. No coincidence that whenever
Dabu isn't there, the army seemsto do a little bit worse, if not
a lot worse. Number one, you know, like,
let's not beat around the Bush. We obviously know who it is.
I mean, this is called the Napoleonic era, not the Daboo
era. So Napoleon Bonaparte, number

(25:51):
one. I mean, the syllabus for my
first class with Doctor Legieri said that the number one most
written on person is Jesus Christ and #2 is Napoleon
Bonaparte. The man has aura.
He just has mystique. There's a whole era named after
him. Revolutionaries, warfare from

(26:13):
the core level, great strategist, Best ruler?
Probably not, but in my opinion,he's probably the best general
of the modern era. That's debatable, but my
opinion, he's just, he's just awesome, you know?
So Napoleon Bonaparte #1. Really good stuff.
Love it. Love it, love it.

(26:34):
OK, a couple things. I didn't think we get a captain,
so we'll mention in this podcast.
So thank you for that, Nick, that was awesome.
But I think you made a new best friend to Rachel Stark by having
Devoux so high, so thank you forthat as well.
Yeah, let's take it around the horn real quick, and then I'll
let Graham go. Rachel, what do you think?
Obviously you having devoux #2 no again, really well argued.

(26:58):
It was nice to different names. Actually most of the names
you've mentioned that I've not or in my honourable mentioned,
yeah, nothing to grate about, OK.
Jonas. Yeah, I can agree with, can
agree with the list. I think maybe the only thing
that made me put the flu a bit lower is, is basically like,
like overall, I kind of feel as you know, as 1813 progresses as

(27:23):
much as Hamburg and you know, as, as Nick argues how important
that flank is when it comes to. I mean, maybe maybe it sounds
like a nitpick, but it is worth mentioning.
Like we, there's a little bit ofmisconception what happens at
Hamburg in terms of the toil on the, on the local population

(27:44):
there. It shows where you know, when,
when he is really stern at goingabout doing his things, locals
can suffer. I think numbers kind of go
widely on these things, but a couple of 10,000 people get sent
out the place and basically it gets raised to the ground just

(28:05):
in that ditch effort to to to keep that flank going.
Then also 1812 that you know where maybe that the the
glimpses of of invincibility kind of gets like dented in with
how he does in in 1812. But then again, as Glimmick as
that campaign is, you know who who would have fared as well as

(28:25):
he did. Yeah.
But overall, like, very good list.
Props for putting R2R2 Charles abit higher.
It is quite underrated. It's like I alluded to as well,
like I feel like especially how how complex the Austrian army
was to basically put it together.
And, and I feel like kind of like a miss misunderstood thing

(28:48):
about the whole multinational aspect of of that army and
making it function the way it did is it was quite interesting.
OK, Mike, how'd we do? Juan, Captain Sobel did nothing
wrong. He was, he's a good officer.
That's Easy Company wasn't that good.

(29:08):
And if you look at a lot of the interviews after the fact, a lot
of the the soldiers attributed their success to the hard
trading under Captain Sobel. Agree that Devue not being used
in 1813 as a travesty, especially when you have
McDonald's commanding an army and losing a Kotzbach
Schwarzenberg. No, they're the whole, the whole
point of the Tracenberg plan was, was to not engage Napoleon.

(29:30):
And that's created what, July 1813?
What does he immediately do in August?
You have the Battle of Dresden where he outnumbers Napoleon
2:00 to 1:00 and just runs rightinto his face.
Also planning for Leipzig. Yes they win, but his
operational plan was to let his subordinate commanders do
whatever they want to and employee was able to get away.

(29:50):
Yeah he is. He is dealing with a whole bunch
of heads of state. But I I don't I disagree with
Schwarzenberg being in the top 15.
Other than that, I think it's a good list.
I'll just offer a rebuttal to Dresden.
That is it's not he gets there. But then Alexander and

(30:10):
especially Frederick William thethird want to fight because
they're like, hey, he's here andlike we need Dresden.
And Frederick William the Third famously said, when is an army
twice the size ever back down because like the French child
Viva emperor And like, what if we ever run away from somebody
just yelling a name? And they he also, Schwartzberg

(30:31):
does send like a cancellation order the attack, but it's
somehow not carried out by the time 4:00 PM rolls around and
then the signal goes off. But yeah, I knew Schwartzberg
would be a controversial one. But I think just dealing with
all that and just running his own army and having to deal with

(30:51):
all these heads of state, that'sthat's basically the only reason
I have them there. He's on my list too, so we're
getting to that. Graham, what'd you think about
Nick's list? Yeah, another really good list.
I definitely wouldn't have had Mura or Salt as high as they
are, or indeed in the top 15 at all.
But frankly, I think both have significant problems as
commanders on the on the on a good day, they can be good.

(31:14):
On a bad day, both are pretty awful.
You know, a Porto for Salt is just humiliating.
Mura is probably the most chastised of all Napoleon's
marshals. Repeated messages saying can you
stop being stupid in the vanguard?
You know, you're there for scouting, not for exhausting the
cavalry. So no, I, I have problems with

(31:35):
both. But actually I don't see a
problem with having them in the top 15 because they, they both
also have records. If you look at the good days,
they are really good. I'm not entirely sure we can,
you know, say the French marshals are free of blame in
Spain and that no one could havewon it because that means that
for Wellington it was unloosable, which that means
that Wellington probably needs to be bumped down to to the

(31:56):
bottom of this list. But you know, I, I see why
people have absolute and you're on there.
I just wouldn't have them as high personally.
But you know, that's the beauty of this.
We have great minds that just disagree on on subjectivities.
But now, overall, I really like that list.
I especially like the forensic defence of of Schwartzenberg
because I think he deserves it. You know, I really did like the

(32:17):
the pitch for him, which may or may not be a spoiler for what's
about to come up. Very good.
All right, well, we're going to let Graham roll here, and we
will all listen in intently. OK, so here's where I completely
get myself open to slaughter. I've put this list together with
a few things in mind. And 1 is that some of these

(32:38):
officers represent kind of a wider category within the
Napoleonic Wars. Thinking officers, doing
officers, etcetera. Some are, are intellectuals,
some are staff officers, some are leaving from the front.
And so while a few of them probably aren't in the top 15 of
actual commanders, they kind of represent a group, if you know

(32:58):
what I mean. And they're the, they're the
best one in that group. And so at #15 I'm going for
someone that's been mentioned but not actually in the list
yet, and that is Antoine EnriqueJeanie.
Jeanie is is Swiss born, but of course he spends most of his
time in the French army where he's chief of staff, mostly to
Marshall Nay. He can take some credit for some
of Nay's successes, but why I'vemostly included him is that he

(33:21):
represents the the branch of themore intellectual generals of
the Napoleonic wars, the thinkers who wrote treatises
that would influence not just the next war, but the one after
that, and indeed into the 20th century.
The most famous of them is Klausfitz, but he's he's more
junior and his work is quite frankly more turgid.

(33:41):
But also he is less influential through the 19th century.
So I've included Germany on my list really, as he represents so
that intellectual strand of generals.
But 14 have gone for Eugene, Eugene de Bonnet and Napoleon's
stepson. He's often overlooked Viceroy of
Italy, then becomes the leader of the Italian army.
Because of that, he is a decent commander in his own right.

(34:04):
He comes to a command a very young age, but he maybe hasn't
had the same formative experience of someone like
Napoleon, who obviously also came to command at a young age.
For me, Eugene really epitomizesthe the Napoleonic ideal of a
leader of a client state. He's militarily and
diplomatically astute. He is fiercely loyal to
Napoleon. He does win notable victories,

(34:25):
but also his victories always aim towards the wider strategic
picture. Rarely is Napoleon saying that
he's he's gone off and done something outrageous. 1809 I'd
say is a really Goodyear for Eugene.
He really shows his metal there.I know he does lose a battle or
two, but you know, he essentially wins in the Italian

(34:47):
theatre and then his his actionsat Viagra and also afterwards
are pretty good. He does well 1812 to 14 as well.
So there are definitely better generals out there, but there
are a few who have this kind of personal and familial
constraints that Eugene does. And so he's on my list, you
know, as a man who does achieve big things in spite of a lot of

(35:08):
that #13 is von Schawnhorst. We've already heard about him,
so I won't go into too much detail.
He's kind of errand by birth. He transfers to the Prussian
army at the age of about 40, I think.
So he's, he's already quite experienced when he gets there.
He's probably not a top field commander and he wouldn't be
most people's go to for that. But he is one of the few
Prussian commanders to come out of eighteen O 6 with any credit,

(35:30):
even though he's he's mostly a chief of staff.
But it is really his reforms of the Prussian army that get him
on my list. He drags it from being, you
know, Frederick the Great's military machine into something
much more modern, much more appropriate to what was going on
through the revolutionary, but also, especially in Napoleonic
wars. And it is him that really lays
the groundwork for those victories of 1813 onwards, even

(35:53):
though he he dies early in 1813.So, you know, he's on my list.
I think no Nick gave a a good defense from earlier #12 is
begracion, the Russian general of Georgian descent.
He's been mentioned before. For me, he's he's a hard
fighting general, Astute, bit ofa kind of almost no nonsense
kind of general. He plays a prominent role in

(36:13):
1805. Then he fights against the
Swedes, the Ottomans, and he leads an army in 1812 as well.
I think had he not been killed at Borodino, he'd have played a
big role in defeating Napoleon in 1813.
He was much more aggressive and less cautious than Berkley.
He was much more tactically adept than someone like
Bennington. Now Bogrettion was was a very

(36:35):
good general for the Russian army.
He never quite got to the the very top, but he was probably on
a trajectory to get there and, and a dare say would have done
good things had he and he actually got there #11
represents the staff officers onthis.
And that is Beltier. For some, it might be
controversial that he's on here because he's not a general in

(36:56):
the traditional sense, as a few other people have said.
But what's great about Beltier is that as Napoleons chief of
staff, he really carves his own niche.
You know, he's not just going into a role that someone else
has has already determined. He redesigns the French staff
around the needs of Napoleon. And he really is the linchpin of
that system. And I think, you know, the
debacle of 1815 and the staff work of 1815 really just shows

(37:20):
how how valuable Beltier was as an individual.
He's quite low on my list, though, because as a field
commander, he's appalling. You know, in 1809, he makes a
total pig's ear of it. He does hang devout to dry and
you know, pulls rank over him aswell to do this.
So you know, as a field commander, he's not ideal, but
his abilities as as a staff officer and as the senior of the

(37:41):
marshals is, is absolutely second to none.
There are maybe gaps in the staff work.
You know, early eighteen O 7 isn't great, but his talents are
pretty unique. So for me, he's deserving of a
place on the list #10 Katusov. Some people might put Katusov
high because of 1812. Some might not include him at

(38:01):
all, but I thought he just aboutdeserves a place in the top ten.
He's not the most gifted commander.
He's good in the retreat in 1805and 1812, he's good at
motivating troops. He has some significant
successes against the Ottomans, but he doesn't come off too well
at Austerlitz or Borodino. We can say that Austerlitz
wasn't his fault, but equally hewasn't commander the army, and

(38:24):
Schwartzenberg did later. He could have tried to, to put
his own stamp on it a bit more. I'm inclined to give him some
credit for hiring Napoleon in 1812.
I think that is overrated sometimes what he did.
But clearly, you know, his personality as much as anything
helped to keep the Russian army together in adversity, and he's
very much a deserving commander.Moving on to #9 I've gone for

(38:45):
Blucher. He's in the top 10 because of
what he represents as much as because of him, and he
represents the fighting spirit of many Europeans, especially
Germans and especially Prussians.
Going into 18/13/15, he was a good tactician.
He was aggressive but measured. He was pretty straightforward
and wasn't maybe the best strategist.

(39:08):
His interest in mundane details like food and ammunition was
sometimes a bit limited, which is why he needed a good chief of
staff. We've already had a a nice
mention to Nice now, but Bluca definitely has his moments.
You know, pushing on Paris in 1814 took courage.
The March to support Wellington at Waterloo.
I've already mentioned, you know, one of the most fantastic
movements of the period. If if considered in isolation,

(39:31):
all of this is is really in his favour.
So Bluca just about makes the top 10 and now here is where I
can hear knives being sharpened for #8 I'm going for Prince
Fartzenburg now. I struggled a bit to place this
man because he is a bit of a ponderous commander.
He does make mistakes, but he isultimately successful and he

(39:54):
does manage to balance the military and the diplomatic
exceptionally well and and with growing confidence through 1813
and 14. He doesn't command an
independent army before 1813. And one of his more notable
efforts, you know, early on is to to kind of, you know, sign up
to the Trachtenberg plan and then immediately abandon it.

(40:14):
The plan itself running away when Napoleon host interview is,
you know, OK, it might work, butmaybe not the best.
Then immediately abandoning it and getting thrashed at Dresden.
Not ideal, but he grows into hisrole.
You know, he wins at cool. He wins at Leipzig despite
errors. He is is pretty important in so

(40:34):
essentially the steamroller thatruns over the French defenses in
1814. And I think the key thing and
you know, this has already been outlined, but the key thing he
does is keeping a firm military command despite the presence of
the Tsar, the Emperor of Austriaand the King of Prussia at his
headquarters. Katusov didn't manage to do that
in 1805. He basically let himself get
overruled by by Monarch's meddling.

(40:57):
Schwartzenberg did ultimately manage to keep military control.
So I understand why some people wouldn't have him here.
I understand why some people might think he shouldn't be
anywhere near the top 10. But overall, I thought he
deserved to place, you know, lower down in the top ten,
number seven. I've gone for John Len.
I really like LAN and I do struggle to judge him slightly

(41:19):
because I do really like him as a tactician.
He's brilliant. He's aggressive but measured.
He's great in attack and defence.
He wins a series of semi independent battlefield
victories, one of which itself felt in 1806 is is currently
taught as a literal textbook example of a double envelopment.
You know, Friedland is, is really underrated what he does

(41:41):
to to draw the Russian army across the river and allowed
them to be pinned for that battle.
Some people have dismissed him as a vanguard general, but I
think that really misunderstandsthe importance of vanguard work,
which requires circumspection, excellent strategic
understanding and operational understanding as well as simply
tactical. And you know, it's notable that

(42:02):
Land gets chastised a lot less than Mura in that regard when
the two of them are at the head of the army.
Mura and Land really don't get on.
Land despises Mura, which you know isn't ideal, but they still
function together on the battlefield, Oscillates being a
good example. Land does have semi independent
commands in Spain for example, where he does very well.
He could be petulant. He does leave the army for a

(42:24):
year after Oscillates, which isn't ideal.
But overall I think that Land isone of the very best marshals
had he lived. It's another one of the great
what ifs, isn't it? So I do like him.
I've put him at #7 just because I think the six people more
deserving 6. I've got Andre Messina.
What more can we say? The darling child of victory.
On his day, he is probably the best commander after Napoleon,

(42:46):
with a caveat that have got another Frenchman after this
Mercena is is bold, he's audacious, he's dogged in
defense, he can motivate men. He knows how to maneuver.
He's he's got it all. His most impressive feat
arguably comes as Urich in the Revolutionary Wars.
But even 1809 is a fantastic campaign.
Aspen, Esling and Vagram. He does very well, but also the
pursuit afterwards and he is is really good in 1809.

(43:09):
He goes off the boiler 1810 to 11, but we've already discussed
why he is quite literally caughtwith his pants down a couple of
times, which is something to go against him.
And this is not just an 1810 Basaco, but also all the way
back in 1796 at Dago. You know, there are rumors that
he's, he's busy in a dalliance while his army is being

(43:29):
attacked. So, you know, he has his, his
blind spots and he's an inveterate looter.
But he is, for me, one of the top military minds of the era #5
I've gone for Archduke Charles. You know, he's in the top five
here. Some people might be surprised,
but he is probably 1 of Austria's most capable ever
field commanders. He's a couple of years younger
than Napoleon. He's the younger brother of
Emperor Francis, so he's put into command at a very early

(43:52):
age, not having necessarily earned it, but by family
connection. But he turns out to be an
excellent field commander and army administrator.
He's a shrewd strategist, a goodtactician and personally very
courageous under fire as well asa planner.
He's actually one of the best ofthe era, even if those plans
don't always come off. Probably best known for

(44:12):
defeating Napoleon Aspenestling in 1809.
But as we've talked about, you know, a much longer career back
into the 1790s, which is is really impressive.
And also I think he deserves credit because if we think of
the wider context, you know, Napoleon gives himself and his
marshals, the military and the political context to succeed.
But the Austrian court often does more to hamstring than to

(44:34):
help their military commanders. And Despite that, Charles really
achieves quite a lot. You know, he makes some headway
with reforming the army. He really does well in 1809.
He probably lacks confidence in himself who doesn't?
But, you know, I think he's a very good commander nonetheless.
So the top 4 again, knives I canhear being sharpened because at
#4 I've got the Duke of Wellington.

(44:54):
Surprisingly, this is my only British entry.
But I think he's, he's deservingto be near the top of any list.
You know, he's a very shrewd strategist, naval tactician,
exceptional planner. He really does focus on the
mundane details of logistics that make his campaigns work.

(45:14):
I think he also needs credit forbeing a very adept diplomat.
He spends his entire career working with coalition and
allied forces. He never commands just his own
army, and he has remarkable success in doing that.
He also does have have weaknesses though, and I think
the weaknesses around sieges arewell known.
But also he's not very good at Napoleonic style pursuits and

(45:35):
he's not very good in retreat. So, you know, he's, he's an
exceptional commander, but I think there are blind spots
there. That said, he wins repeatedly,
battle after battle, campaign after campaign, he is
victorious. And so he's very rightly held up
as a colossus of his age #3 I'vegone for Suvorov.
It's a bit of a cheeky one because he dies in 1800s, so

(45:55):
he's not really Napoleonic. But Suvorov deserves to be
command, considered as one of the the great commanders of the
era, widely understood. He's again a superb leader,
excellent operational strategist, very good tactician.
He serves against Prussia, against the Ottomans, against
Poland, and of course, against French revolutionary armies.
And he gives several of the big names of drubbing, including

(46:17):
Moreau, including McDonald. He gets himself out of a trap in
Switzerland in 1799 with with brilliance that Messina could
only marvel at. And quite literally, you know,
Messina says this is one of the most brilliant maneuvers he's
ever seen. So Suvorov really is another
giant of a A general. He doesn't face Napoleon, and
arguably he doesn't face any topnotch French commanders at their

(46:40):
peak with their best armies. But his victories are also
possibly the most Napoleonic, ifwe can say that of any enemy
commander. You know, in the scale of
casualties inflicted, the destruction he wreaks on the the
enemy army at Trebia, for example, he virtually
annihilates McDonald's force, doesn't just beat it.
So for me, Suvorov deserves his place in the at the top of this

(47:02):
list. And the top 2 did say before
Masena, maybe the the most adeptFrench commander after Napoleon.
But actually #2 I've gone for devout for two reasons.
Devout, I think, is a superb commander.
We've already talked about him. I'm not going to enumerate
everything again. But the second reason is that he
is balding, short sighted and middle-aged.

(47:24):
And if a grumpy, balding, short sighted, middle-aged man can't
get to the top of this list, well, I wouldn't be doing my job
right. So, you know, as an icon of
style for those of us who are follically challenged and short
sighted, Davu is getting up there.
In all honesty, again, I struggled to place him.
He could have been a bit lower on my list, but I do really like
him as a commander. I really rate our Shtett.

(47:46):
I think in 1812, Napoleon would have been better served
listening to Devoux a bit more. I do think that the speed with
which he he kind of advanced andthen retreated wasn't suited to
Napoleon. But equally, Napoleon might have
have tried to to fit things moretowards what First call was
doing rather than just insist onon his own plans.
So Devoux is there and at #1 it will shock everyone to hear I've

(48:10):
gone from Napoleon. Napoleon has been probably more
criticised than many commanders of this era, bizarrely.
Also more lauded, of course. But the criticisms I think are
often exaggerated because fundamentally he is a superb
strategist. He is excellent as a tactician.
He's a very mediocre diplomat. I think he couldn't quite marry

(48:31):
the military means to the political ends.
But without doubt Napoleon is the towering general of his age.
So that is my 15. Fantastic flaws all around for
that. That was great.
Especially shout out to Debu's physical uniqueness with
baldness in the glasses. That was great.
Rachel, I'll let you go first. I'm sure you like that part.

(48:53):
Yeah, hurry first, Becky. Antisocial people.
But yeah, knocked out of the park.
I can't argue any of that. Good stuff, Jonas.
Yeah, I fully agree. But the reasons that Grammy
brings in, especially for super are very convincing because
actually, when you think about it, when he when it comes into
the theater of war 17981799, he basically rolls up basically

(49:18):
what Napoleon achieved in earlier on.
It was a huge threaten, which isin in, you know, in a lot of
literature gets oversighted. So that's why I feel like the
way how we can, how we basicallysteamroll that in the span of of
of one or two years. It's actually just quite
astounding. Yeah, yeah.

(49:38):
I'd like to shout out Germany at15 as well.
Mike Hamill, what do you think? Yeah.
That's what I was about to say. Love the Germany shout out
because I mean even if you look until today, if you look at the
US Army's principles of war, they are pretty much exactly the
same as Germany's. He's 9 out of his eleven.
I would say Germany stalls are very much the big impact on on

(50:00):
modern military operations in theory.
OK. Hey Kramer, your thoughts?
Yeah, basically Echo, everybody says this fantastic list.
I feel vindicated that I also had Sharon Horse and
Schwartzenberg as well. But yeah, and I think the Suvara
of inclusion is great, especially since you read about

(50:20):
all the Russian generals, especially after he dies.
It's, oh, this guy studied underSuvarov or he was on his staff.
So there's just there's this mysticism around Suvarov and
this lore that he has that is quite fascinating.
The study surprise Wellington, Solo, not unhappy but very well

(50:41):
argued and having Charles Heiswell also warms.
My heart, very good, very good. OK, so last but not least, as
your host and I'm going to fly through my list.
So while I'm going through my list, I'm going to ask my
guests. After I'm done, we're going to
do our honorable mentions, but if you could limit those to no
more than five, I'll do my list and then we'll go to honorable

(51:02):
mentions of each guest. OK #15 For me, Marshall Bertier.
Without Marshall Bertier's genius, I don't think there
isn't Napoleon. Maybe there's a Napoleon for two
or three years, but certainly not for 20.
So huge. Marshall Bertier.
Fan #14 I had to get a naval commander in here, so it has to
be Admiral Nelson. Shout out to my friends at the

(51:23):
US Naval War College, Evan Wilson.
Josh Meeks. John Kuhn I didn't want to get
yelled at by them for not havinga naval commander in here, but
if you look at Nelson's body of work, I mean, just incredible.
Keep Saint Vincent, you know, obviously the Battle of the
Nile, Trafalgar, really a uniqueand innovative naval commander.

(51:43):
And it's too bad he died when hedid #13 Bagrat Tione, God of the
army, kind of the inspirational leader, like Marshall name was
like Blucher was really effective commander.
And even Napoleon said that Russia has no good generals
except for Begrat Dion. So he was well recognized on
both sides for his his ability #12 Nick, General Schwarzenberg.

(52:07):
I like Schwarzenberg just because I mean, he captured
Paris, he won Leipzig. And yeah, he lost Dresden.
But there are other factors there that were pushing him into
that battle. And I think more emotionally is
when he visited Leipzig, you know, seven years later after
the battle and had a heart attack and died on the field
because of all the men he lost there.

(52:28):
I think that just shows that he wasn't this automaton.
Like the guy really cared about his troops.
So shout out to Schwartzenberg there. 11 I had Marshall
Blucher, shout out to my Prussian fans.
Just I think it was underrated as a tactician.
And I mean, yeah, he lost a lot of battles of Napoleon, but he
always kept his army together. He always came back to fight

(52:49):
again another day. Big Marshall Blucher fan #10 I
have to have Marshall name on mylist.
He is my favorite Marshall, justinspirational to all of the
French army and I. I know he had some tactical
hiccups, but I I just admire theguy's work and courage
throughout his career #9 Marshall Suchet.

(53:10):
I know he was the closest Marshall to the border of
France, but there are other generals and Marshalls in his
territory that didn't do very well until Marshall Suchet
showed up. So big Marshall Suchet fan #8
Marshall St. Cyr, defensive genius, really
smart guy. Yeah, I know he was crabby and
hard to work with. And I think Napoleon finally
realized that. I think he said, you know, this

(53:32):
guy is someone I need to use. And.
And thus he was a Marshall #7 Marshall Mira.
Yes, I know, I know. I'm a big Mira fan.
But the guy basically saved Ilaofor Napoleon.
I performed very well at drugs and and the Egyptian campaign.
He also performed well capturingan enemy commander at one point.

(53:55):
I don't think Napoleon would have gotten as far in.
Even with the Napoleon's kill in1799, he needed Murat's help.
So I don't think Napoleon's career would have gotten to the
apex it did without Mira. Number six, Messena, I think
he's most naturally talented. If any general will talk here
other than Napoleon, I mean, no real formal education, did a lot
with very little. And yeah, huge Messena fan #5 is

(54:19):
subrav for me, really talented. You look at the body of his work
against the Ottoman Empire. I know we're talking the
Napoleonic era, but the guy never lost.
Yeah, you could say Zurich, but that was his vanguard really.
That was doing stupid things before Super Off showed up and
Massena made them pay and he wasable to extricate that for
somehow. And really talented general
Super Off #4 Marshall Devue. Rachel Love.

(54:43):
Marshall Devue. I would like to rank him higher.
I know we had some problems on the retreat from Moscow, but who
didn't? And I wish Napoleon would have
utilized it more in 1813 and 1814 #3 is the Duke of
Wellington. Yeah.
He didn't lose a battle. Yes, he was against sort of the
B team in Spain, but his focus on logistics, I think is way

(55:07):
underrated, A great example for all other generals after him
that you have to have good logistics to win your battles.
And I, I think he was supremely talented #2 I have Marshall LON.
I know that's controversial, butas we pointed out earlier, I
mean, this guy had no formal military education.
Devue Wellington and Napoleon did, LON did not, and for him to

(55:27):
do as well as he did in Italy, in Egypt, in Germany, in Spain,
again, where other marshals had failed, I think he doesn't get
enough credit. I think he did the most with the
least. And then of course, number one
is Napoleon. So that is my list.
You may pick me apart now if you'd like, but let me know how
I did. Let me start with the instructor

(55:48):
first. How did I do, Mr. Hamill?
No, no real gripes about the list, I think.
I don't think we've really had any gripes about anybody's list.
There's been onesies and twosiesto nitpick at, but I mean,
you're easy to make sense to me.Graham, did I have in your raw
too high? I'd say so, but equally you

(56:09):
know, I see why you've done it. No, again, no problems at all
with that list. A lot of them recur from from
list, don't they? Because they are quite frankly
worthy of a place there, you know, in a place or two here or
there, up or down, isn't going to make a difference.
So I like that. Good list.
Nick, did you like my Schwartzenberg placement?

(56:31):
Yes, it's very nice to have Schwartzenberg in there.
It's funny that I like my dissertation on Schwartzenberg.
And of the three people include him on their list, I had him the
lowest. I had him at 13th, and you had
him at 12 and Graham had him at 7:00.
But yeah, great list. Love Subarov.
He just didn't make mine. You know, he dies in 1800.

(56:51):
So just the longevity factor, but you do got to give props to
what he did before that. And I, I, I don't care what
people say. I, I think Mira is great.
I mean, problematic, but I don'tknow, finest horseman of Europe.
So I think he deserves a lot of the praise that he gets.
Jonas, how'd I do? Not can I agree with with the

(57:14):
majority. Maybe Mira a bit lower for me,
but overall greatness. OK.
And Rachel? I'm good.
All goods, no grapes from me. Very good, always being nice to
the host. I love it.
OK, so we're going to jump into honor mentions and then we let
my hosts go again. I'm going to do ladies first.
So Rachel, let me know your honorable mentions.

(57:34):
Just, I mean they were really close to making the top 15 but
didn't quite get over the hump. LaSalle, Kellerman Junior Good
to know Murat. No, I'm not being held hostage.
He gets it for the reasons you guys have all big translated on
and Marshall Le Fev for no otherreason than I love him.
I love that. I like the LaSalle and I like
the Marshall Le Fev. That's awesome, Jonas.

(57:56):
You're honourable, man. It's it would be pretty much a
whole page, but I'll have to pick Moreau de SE Santillaire
and I criminally underrated in my opinion, LaSalle.
And then maybe to wrap things up, you know what I go for?
I go for the underdogs, Gucci. Grouchy.

(58:19):
Love it, love it. Love a Grouchy mention.
That's fantastic. And in Moreau, that's really
cool too. OK.
So going from there, we go to Major Michael Hamill, your
honorable mention. I'll keep it the one because the
rest of my honorable mentions are on other people's list.
Not a really well known name. Spanish captain General Antonio
Ricardos, he invades France and some 23 does not lose a battle.

(58:45):
He's he's really doing the best with what he can given Spain's
institutional incompetence, and he holds his ground.
And it's it's not until he dies that France is able to push back
into Spain. Love that.
All right, Nick, who do you get?I'll adopt the same approach as
Michael because a lot of a couple of my honorable mentions

(59:07):
were already on people's lists, like Eugene for example.
So my 3:00 that I want to mention General Van Damme,
probably the best non Marshall on the list.
I mean to say if he had lived long enough would have been made
one. So I don't count him.
The pulling famously said if I was marching into hell I would
want Van Damme at the Vanguard. Noteworthy praise.

(59:31):
But then his aggressiveness getsthe better of him at calm so
that's a disaster. Gets captured.
So that's why it doesn't make the top 15.
General Bulo, Michael. I think Doctor Lazieri would
love hearing that name. The winner at Denovitz against
Ney and also the winner of the battle of Gross Baron.

(59:51):
Very important in going against General Bernadotte's lethargic
behavior. Carries the war to the enemy.
So Bulow deserves a mention. And the other one is the other
cavalry commander of the French army is Marshall Bessier.
Best Year also commanded the Imperial Guard for a time.
Very loved by the men. I'm during a battle they thought

(01:00:12):
Best Year was killed. They stopped fighting and
started crying. Napoleon famously said like wow
what a cannonball that was best year.
It reduced my guard to tears. Loved by the men, Great leader.
Unfortunately is killed in the spring of 1813.
It's good I couldn't put him on the list because I wanted Mira
on there and I think Maraz Betters and Mara Lowe was I

(01:00:34):
possibly could have humanly put him.
So that's why Best Year got the cut.
Love it, love it. OK, Graham, your honorable
mentions, please. A few under the people's lists
like Hill, obviously the Marshalls I missed off Sushi,
Muir, Assault and nay. So they can all get mentions
Berkeley. But I also want to throw in
General Rapp, who was developinga very promising career when he

(01:00:59):
ran out of water to develop into.
So General rap will be the the honourable mention.
I, I would give one to Benedict,but I'm not sure if there's a
huge amount that's honourable about Bernadotte.
So we we give him shakes in the head.
So I'll not mention him. Yeah, yeah, I am.
I had all those as well. I had Soltes de Tolle, Saint
Hilaire Rap and General Hill as my honourable mention.

(01:01:22):
But yeah, those are all good honourable mentions and all
talented generals in their own right.
OK, so we finally come to the end, my glorious guests and
listeners, and really I want to again thank everyone, Justin
Eve, Rachel Stark, Major MichaelHamill, Nick Cramer and Graham
Callister for joining us. And yeah, it's been a really
educational episode. It's good to hear different

(01:01:44):
opinions and ideas. And I, I really thank each and
everyone of you for joining me. Thanks.
Thanks very much for having us. Appreciate it.

All Episodes

Episode 139 - Part II of the Top 15 Generals of the Napoleonic Age, with a panel of experts

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Episode 139 - Part II of the Top 15 Generals of the Napoleonic Age, with a panel of experts