WI: Suvurov vs Napoleon

So during the War of the Second Coalition, Alexander Suvurov, who never lost a battle, was in command of defeating French Army of Italy. That is, until the Austrian High Command gave him extremely stupid orders, causing the Tsar to withdraw from the war. At around that time, Napoleon returned from Egypt and became First Consul. His first act as First Consul was to retake Italy. So what if he had done so, and Suvurov was waiting for him? Who would win this clash of the titans?
 
Second Battle of Zurich

So during the War of the Second Coalition, Alexander Suvurov, who never lost a battle, was in command of defeating French Army of Italy. That is, until the Austrian High Command gave him extremely stupid orders, causing the Tsar to withdraw from the war. At around that time, Napoleon returned from Egypt and became First Consul. His first act as First Consul was to retake Italy. So what if he had done so, and Suvurov was waiting for him? Who would win this clash of the titans?
Does the second Battle of Zurich still occur?
 
I'd say in any Battle after May 18 1800 Napoleon would have won any battle with Suvorov due to his distinct advantage as per OTL.
 
I'd say in any Battle after May 18 1800 Napoleon would have won any battle with Suvorov due to his distinct advantage as per OTL.
I dont know it really depends on external factors really. Suvorov was a brilliant commandes but his assoicates.... well they were an interesting bunch. Now in a serious battle between Suvorov and Napoelon which is fought on relatively even footing the outcome would be up to chance.

In realistic situation though Suvorov would have had to retreat eventually simply because he was only one competent general among the Austrian and Russian officers. Whereas Napoelon, not only was he a competent commander but he had competent officers all of whom were geniuses in their own right, so eventually the incompetent Austrian and Russian commanders will lose their battles somewhere and like otl Suvorov will be cut off and have to retreat.

But in any situation where his men fight napoleon's on the battlefield with even numbers of soldiers like I said earlier the winner is going to be determined by luck.
 
I dont know it really depends on external factors really. Suvorov was a brilliant commandes but his assoicates.... well they were an interesting bunch. Now in a serious battle between Suvorov and Napoelon which is fought on relatively even footing the outcome would be up to chance.

In realistic situation though Suvorov would have had to retreat eventually simply because he was only one competent general among the Austrian and Russian officers. Whereas Napoelon, not only was he a competent commander but he had competent officers all of whom were geniuses in their own right, so eventually the incompetent Austrian and Russian commanders will lose their battles somewhere and like otl Suvorov will be cut off and have to retreat.

But in any situation where his men fight napoleon's on the battlefield with even numbers of soldiers like I said earlier the winner is going to be determined by luck.
The advantage that Bonaparte had over Suvorov after the middle of May 1800, wasn't just his officer corps, Suvorov btw had Bragatition who was certainly no slug in the commanding department.
The 'other' advantage Napoleon had was that he, unlike Suvorov, was still breathing.
 
The advantage that Bonaparte had over Suvorov after the middle of May 1800, wasn't just his officer corps, Suvorov btw had Bragatition who was certainly no slug in the commanding department.
The 'other' advantage Napoleon had was that he, unlike Suvorov, was still breathing.
I dont know about bagration, wasnt he the guy who couldn't get along with the other big RUssian general and screwed things up.
 
Top