In an 1812 battle with 80,000 men each who would win?
This is tough, based on nothing else besides the equal numbers given and the Field Marshals listed, but I opted for Schwarzenburg...
What's the army composition. Do they have horses? Field artillery? Is this a big fist fight?
Going with Russia either way. They were kicking a lot of ass around this time.
Going with Russia either way. They were kicking a lot of ass around this time.
The location of that field matters. Logistics are important. The Grande Armée will not lose 600 000 troops if the 1812 campaign is in central Europe, instead of going deep into Russia.
Assuming that they are all fighting at about the same distance from their home countries . . . maybe Austria? Their army fought fairly well in the 1809 campaign.
During the 1812 campaign in Russia the Russian inflicted higher losses in most battles. In 1813 the prussians inflicted higher losses in most battles.
Who by 1812 did not (IIRC) held a serious independent command .... Neither did Blucher except for a brief period after Jena and it did not end well. I doubt that Schwarzenberg would risk to fight a battle against Napoleon (?) with the equal numbers and while Blucher almost definitely would, we may guess a result. Not that either of them are relevant in 1812: one is not in charge of any fighting force and another is pretending that he is fighting against Russian 3rd Army.
Kutuzov as a victorious battle commander .... remind me which battle exactly did he ever won? Oops... he was present at Krasnoe (eventually) and his contribution was remarkable: first, he saved Davout from annihilation and then forbade pursuit of the French. Does this count for having him on the list?😂
Last edited:
None of these statements is unquestionable: numbers for the losses at Borodino are all over the place and highly politicized. At Dresden the allied losses were few times higher then French.
By 1812 or after 1812? Kutuzov didn't live much beyond that, and I think was inactive after Nap got sent home, tail between legs... I almost went for Blucher... Blucher had perseverance
but on the balance of things, I went for Schwarzenburg... he came out badly at Dresden but was otherwise quite competent...It says 1812 (which does not make too much sense to me). Kutuzov formally was in charge until his death but as far as being active, it is a matter of opinion if he was “active” even in 1812.By 1812 or after 1812? Kutuzov didn't live much beyond that, and I think was inactive after Nap got sent home, tail between legs... I almost went for Blucher... Blucher had perseverance
“None of the above” 😂So your pick of the three would be......?
BTW, I agree that Schwarzenberg was competent: this was a problem which was plaguing Austrians since at least late XVIII: they tended to think too much instead of acting and rarely had a “winning attitude” (observation stolen from the French ambassador at the court of CII). I don’t remember who wrote that there is a hidden truth in a monument to Archduke Charles in Vienna: even at his heroic moment he looks backward.
Last edited:
I'll accept it!
Nah, seriously Blucher had some strong points... but just looking at performance, he lost more battles than he won, but he was on the winning side on the important ones... and he seemed to do better when the odds were in his favour.
Blucher was like the old Timex watch commercials... he could take a lickin' but still keep tickin'
Still gotta go with Schwarzenburg's Austrians, though... at least in the absence of more detailed info from the OP
Nah, seriously Blucher had some strong points... but just looking at performance, he lost more battles than he won, but he was on the winning side on the important ones... and he seemed to do better when the odds were in his favour.
Blucher was like the old Timex watch commercials... he could take a lickin' but still keep tickin'
Still gotta go with Schwarzenburg's Austrians, though... at least in the absence of more detailed info from the OP