Wellington Vs. Davout

[Anaxagoras]

Who would win in a battle between the Duke of Wellington and Marshal Davout? Assume each commands an army of 45,000 infantry, 7,500 cavalry and 65 cannon. The terrain is slightly hilly and forested.

[MrP]

You'll probably want to specify the attacker/defender, old man. And remember that you will get people asking how good the different sides' troops are, even though you're clearly aiming for equality.

[DMA]

I'd have to say too close to call. Of course, as P has said, it depends on a lot of factors - troop quality, but above all who is attacking as against who is defending. Plus a date wouldn't go astray either as an earlier Wellington probably isn't as effective as a later one.

[037771]

Im thining Davout; he won an impossible battle at Auerstadt i think.

[67th Tigers]

Davout was one of Napoleon's best, probably better than Napoleon himself.

The crucial question is what years this takes place in? Anytime after 1808 and it's Wellington hands down, the French never replaced the high quality troops they had 1805-7.

[037771]

Napoleon was far worst than Davout; later and later on his battles later became far more bloody and degenerated into draws, like Borodino. He showed a flash of genius when France itself was invaded, but it was gone quickly.

[Thande]

If any French general could beat Wellington, it's probably Davout. But I think it's too close to call if we assume their forces are equal in every way.

[DAv]

Originally Posted by 037771

Im thining Davout; he won an impossible battle at Auerstadt i think.

But look at Assaye. By how much was Wellington's Army outnumbered and yet he still won a terrific victory.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by 037771

Napoleon was far worst than Davout; later and later on his battles later became far more bloody and degenerated into draws, like Borodino. He showed a flash of genius when France itself was invaded, but it was gone quickly.

I've decided recently that Napoleon was a competent General, but not really anything special (on the field, his political abilities were superlative). He was lucky to have inherited a superior military system (which he spent his time destroying) and some exceptional Generals (notably Berthier).

[Susano]

/E: Ooops, mis read your post.
Changed post of mine below:

Politic Superlative? Eh, only in domestic affairs - Code Napoleon etc. But diplomatically...The guy got broed when he had a year without campaigning season, he saw his military as mor eor less his only diplomatic mean. I think he was more of a general than a diplomat - or more of a lawmaker for that matter.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Susano

/E: Ooops, mis read your post.
Changed post of mine below:

Politic Superlative? Eh, only in domestic affairs - Code Napoleon etc. But diplomatically...The guy got broed when he had a year without campaigning season, he saw his military as mor eor less his only diplomatic mean. I think he was more of a general than a diplomat - or more of a lawmaker for that matter.

He had Tallyrand for external affairs....

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by DAv

But look at Assaye. By how much was Wellington's Army outnumbered and yet he still won a terrific victory.

He also had an absurd number of advantages at the battle. His troops were entirely armed with firearms, while the Marathas were not. His army had better cohesion, dicipline, and morale then his opponents. Maratha tactics were not designed to fight a pitched battle, and to fight as individuals. They had no one overall commander.

Let's look at davout's career. He can be given credit for winning Austerlitz in his own way, as it was his arrival which saved Napoleon's plan. He won against a far superior force at Auerstadt. He delivered the killing blow for Napoleon in several battles, and held Hamburg for over a year in spite of an untenable position. Finally, he was undefeated in Battle, something that some have claimed about wellington, despite instances to the contrary (his conduct of the siege of Burgos comes to mind). Given the right troops, davout can defeat wellington.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Atreus

He also had an absurd number of advantages at the battle. His troops were entirely armed with firearms, while the Marathas were not. His army had better cohesion, dicipline, and morale then his opponents. Maratha tactics were not designed to fight a pitched battle, and to fight as individuals. They had no one overall commander.

The Marathras Regular Army were equipped and drilled as per European norms, and their artillery (100 guns vs Wellesey's 20) were very well sited and did great execution.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

The Marathras Regular Army were equipped and drilled as per European norms, and their artillery (100 guns vs Wellesey's 20) were very well sited and did great execution.

I believe the artillery was Goanese and trained to European (Portuguese) standards.

[DAv]

Originally Posted by Atreus

He also had an absurd number of advantages at the battle. His troops were entirely armed with firearms, while the Marathas were not. His army had better cohesion, dicipline, and morale then his opponents. Maratha tactics were not designed to fight a pitched battle, and to fight as individuals. They had no one overall commander.

Let's look at davout's career. He can be given credit for winning Austerlitz in his own way, as it was his arrival which saved Napoleon's plan. He won against a far superior force at Auerstadt. He delivered the killing blow for Napoleon in several battles, and held Hamburg for over a year in spite of an untenable position. Finally, he was undefeated in Battle, something that some have claimed about wellington, despite instances to the contrary (his conduct of the siege of Burgos comes to mind). Given the right troops, davout can defeat wellington.

Wellington was also able to claim great victories against equal and even superior Armies. His use of tactics at Salamanca show a great use of offensive knowledge as well as his 1813/1814 campaign into France itself. He was also able to hold together a great Army in the Iberian Peninsular, defeating opponent after opponent with Burgos being his only noteable defeat (Although this was as much to do with a lack of time as anything else). With equal troops, I think that it would have been a draw, a possible Wellington victory if Davout was the one attacking.

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by DAv

Wellington was also able to claim great victories against equal and even superior Armies. His use of tactics at Salamanca show a great use of offensive knowledge as well as his 1813/1814 campaign into France itself. He was also able to hold together a great Army in the Iberian Peninsular, defeating opponent after opponent with Burgos being his only noteable defeat (Although this was as much to do with a lack of time as anything else). With equal troops, I think that it would have been a draw, a possible Wellington victory if Davout was the one attacking.

Burgos was a siege, and it was really lack of time.

The British fought 40 formal battles against the French in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. Played 40, won 31 (one a phyrric victory), drew 2 and lost 7. Sieges are played 15, won 10, lost 5 (one a phyrric French victory, Toulon). The British overall have a greater success rate than the French in battles Napoleon commanded.

[Atreus]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

Burgos was a siege, and it was really lack of time.

True, but Wellington did not exactly conduct a very good siege, all things considered. Ignoring his refusal of Popham's offer of cannon, his reliance on simple storming parties (which could have been made larger) was definatly not a good decision.

On the defense, wellington was superb. Torre Vedras, Vimiero, Talavera, and others attest to that. On the offense, when he does not have the advantage of suprise, I am not so sure. On the other hand, davout has a fairly balanced repitoure of actions. The impossible victory at Auerstadt, the forced march of 70 miles and decisive attack at Austerlitz, his victory against tough odds (orders he disagreed with from Napoleon to attack and Austrian plans to encircle and trap him) at Eckmuhl, his holding actions in the Siege of Hamburg. Wellington might beat davout in a defensive action, but in most other circumstances Davout will be able to handle him. In addition, Davout was a staunch disciplinarian whose units were known for their precision and trustworthiness, which makes a victory similar to wellington's at Salamanca (picking up on a minor lapse by the french) unlikely.

[DAv]

I think Wellington's skill as an offensive general have been overlooked as he deliberatly chose battles where he knew he could very well win. Risk taking wasn't his forte unless it was a calculated one. lus he had to deal with incompetent allies and subordinates constantly when fighting in the Peninsula. Look at Talavera.

[Nytram01]

At which point do the actions of a general subordinate to another equate to equall that of a general in command of all forces at their disposal?

With the exception of Auerstadt, Mohilev and Hamburg every battle Davout was in he was a subordinate. Though the actions of him and the forces under his immediate command may have been very impressive when commanding his smaller part of the army at Neerwindem, the Pyramids, Marengo, Austerlitz, Eylau Friedland Eckmuhl, Wagram and Smolensk these were battles that he fought under the direction of another with limited responsibilities and only limited areas that he had to focus on and fight in.

Wellington however fought almost every battle as commander of the whole army with all responsibilities on his shoulders and having to focus on the whole picture not just an isolated bit. Wellington was a subordinate at Boxtel and Seringapatam but was in command of all forces at Assaye, Arguam, Gwalighur, Rolica, Vimiero, Douro, Talavera, Busaco, Sabugal, Fuentes do Onoro, Almeida (Siege), Ciudad Rodrigo (Siege), Badajoz (Siege), Salamanca, Burgos (Siege), Vitoria, SanSebastian (Siege), Pyrenees, Nivelle, Orthez, Toulouse, Quatre Bras and Waterloo.

With the exception of Assaye, Arguam and Gwalighur all of Wellington's battles were fought against the French, supposedly the best Army in the World, and he never lost.

To tally this up:

Davout - 3 battles in independent command and 7 battles as a subordinate - no losses

Wellington - 21 battles in independent command and 2 battle as a subordinate - no losses.

Can they really be compared? And if they can could anyone really say that someone as untested in independent command as Davout could defeat a man so utterly successful in independent command as Wellington was?

[Thande]

Wellington vs Hoche might be a more interesting comparison, if Hoche had lived longer.