Jump to content


Suvorov vs Napoleon


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3 replies to this topic

Yamaxanadu #1 Posted 24 February 2013 - 06:04 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1215 battles
  • 5,031
  • Member since:
    10-07-2011
I started to wonder who of those famous general from 18th century could win if they met on battlefield... For example, in 1805 near Austerlitz. So, let's gather a little info about both commanders and  see what their strong and weak points was.

P.S.
Well, I afraid there will not be any poll since results are quite BIASed basing on whom the community favor.

sv3rre #2 Posted 24 February 2013 - 07:20 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 10975 battles
  • 171
  • Member since:
    03-18-2011
Well... who's defending, and who's attacking?


This is quite a difficult question; Napoleon was probably the finest defensive minded general in the history of modern warfare (aka with fire arms), just check out his "Six Day's Campaign". http://en.wikipedia....x_Days_Campaign
He also managed to hold off several coalitions of great european powers during the revolutionary wars and up until 1814.


Then again, Suvorov is the only general in recorded history not to lose a _single_ battle, and he also copied Hannibal in crossing the Alps with a field army with minimal support.



Napoleon strong points: Offensive and defensive improvisation, small core of extremely loyal and dedicated troops (old guard) punching well above their weight taking numbers into consideration. Able to magically "conjure" up support for his cause.

Napoleon weak points: Over-stretching of supply lines, underestimating his opponents and being generally too ambitious and not focused enough on logistics. Vanity.

Suvorov strong points: Takes planning to the extreme, everything is taken into account. Always has a plan or an escape route.

Suvorov weak points: Takes planning to the extreme, may perhaps result in a lack of flexibility.





All depends on the situation I guess, but if it's a whole strategic and not just a tactical scenario my money is on Suvorov. Napoleon was the better tactician, Suvorov the better strategic.



EDIT: Kinda like the relationship between Rommel and Manstein. I would have Rommel manage my divisions, but Manstein manage the front as a whole. One is clearly the better field general (Napoleon), while the other excels at managing the war/battles as a whole (Suvorov).

Edited by sv3rre, 24 February 2013 - 07:22 AM.


Yamaxanadu #3 Posted 24 February 2013 - 07:41 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1215 battles
  • 5,031
  • Member since:
    10-07-2011

View Postsv3rre, on 24 February 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

Well... who's defending, and who's attacking?
Tactically, Suvorov is considered offensive and siege commander. Even when he was in defensive he liked to launch counter-attacks to stagnate enemy as long as possible. He was master of skirmish strikes. His core troops was the most trained (the infantry actually aimed at enemy instead of simple barrage) and extremely loyal to him.

View Postsv3rre, on 24 February 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

Suvorov weak points: Takes planning to the extreme, may perhaps result in a lack of flexibility.
Well, actually Suvorov is one of the most flexible commander. And he drilled it into his troops. I think the main weakness of Suvorov is that he do not relied on artillery. Usually he used only light cannons.

mr3awsome #4 Posted 24 February 2013 - 10:36 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 17455 battles
  • 3,086
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011

View PostYamaxanadu, on 24 February 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

favoUr





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users