Napoleon Vs. Suvorov: Who Wins?

Napoleon Vs. Suvorov: Who Wins?

  • Napoleon

    Votes: 64 50.8%

  • Suvorov

    Votes: 55 43.7%

  • The battle ends in a stalemate

    Votes: 7 5.6%
  • Total voters
    126

Anaxagoras

Banned
Suppose that, for whatever reason, Napoleon remains in Europe rather than going off on a wild-goose chase to Egypt. Napoleon and Suvorov end up fighting a pitched battle in northern Italy, each commanding an army of, say, 60,000 men.

Who wins?
 

schrodingerscat

Depends on a lot of factors, but probably Napoleon. He was more daring than Suvorov, to be honest, and seemingly more aggressive.

But then again, I'm biased as I love Napoleon.:D
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
I've wondered this as well. I think it depends on the extent of the campaign. In a single face-up battle, I think Boney would win, but if it was a grand campaign chasing each other around Italy, Suvorov might have the advantage.
 

Stalker

Banned
schrodingerscat said:
Depends on a lot of factors, but probably Napoleon. He was more daring than Suvorov, to be honest, and seemingly more aggressive.
But then again, I'm biased as I love Napoleon.:D
Click to expand...
Yes, it depends upon lots of factors, for example, upon the impact of the use of artillery. My sympathies are with Alexander Vassiliyevich Suvorov, although I've been Bonaparte's admirer but evidently not in this case.;)
Concerning aggressiveness - well? there's a good saying by Suvorov: "There are three skills of war: visual measurement; secondly - fastness; thirdly, onslaught. Oh, Alexander Vassiliyevich was very aggressive. Who else, less aggressive, could have beaten 100 000 Turkish army under command by Yussuf-Pasha (not quite a bad commander, BTW) with only 20 some thousand of allied Austro-Russian troops?:rolleyes:
 

schrodingerscat

Stalker said:
Yes, it depends upon lots of factors, for example, upon the impact of the use of artillery. My sympathies are with Alexander Vassiliyevich Suvorov, although I've been Bonaparte's admirer but evidently not in this case.;)
Concerning aggressiveness - well? there's a good saying by Suvorov: "There are three skills of war: visual measurement; secondly - fastness; thirdly, onslaught. Oh, Alexander Vassiliyevich was very aggressive. Who else, less aggressive, could have beaten 100 000 Turkish army under command by Yussuf-Pasha (not quite a bad commander, BTW) with only 20 some thousand of allied Austro-Russian troops?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Mmmmm true :D But I'm still sticking with Napoleon. :p
 

Fellatio Nelson

schrodingerscat said:
Depends on a lot of factors, but probably Napoleon. He was more daring than Suvorov, to be honest, and seemingly more aggressive.

But then again, I'm biased as I love Napoleon.:D
Click to expand...

What? You're Portuguese!

How can you love the Monster of Elba, who tried to impose greater freedom on Europe (the UK was different, because he wanted to cripple us or overrun us, even though life for the average guy might've been more equitable under Boney).
 

ranoncles

Interesting question.

Napoleon usually won his early battles with fancy footwork, outmanoeuvring his opponent, unsettling him and destroying his will to fight rather than destroy him in pitched battles. This worked extremely well against such ‘fair weather soldiers’ like the Austrians and their Italian allies but the Russians were made of sterner stuff, as seen in 1805. They put up quite a fight against the best French troops of the Napoleonic era (the 1805 Grande Armee) under lesser commanders than Suvarov.

I think Suvarov would be less likely to fall for Napoleon’s manoeuvring with small(ish) columns and that he would fight his battles with great aggressiveness, thereby smashing any detached element of Napoleon’s army before the other columns could march to the sound of the guns. Suvarov would also be less likely to panic if and when French columns appeared on his flanks or rear.

In short, Suvarov probably was an amalgam of Wellington’s doggedness and strategic ability and Blucher’s aggressiveness and ‘never say die’ attitude. And we all know what those two did with Napoleon…..
 

colonelrabin

In the last decades, there was a lot of criticism against Suvorov in the Russian historic and military literature; attempts were made to withdraw his legendary rumour. Nevertheless, no one could deny the simple fact that Suvorov never lost a battle. Simply no lost battles in his whole career.

So, I think, he would win this time, too.
 

bill_bruno

A cut below Napoleon

Suvorov was good, but he wasn't the only general who could boast of victories in the Russo-Turkish War of 1787. Repnin bested a force, also commanded by Yusuf Pasha, that outnumbered him more than 2-1. One suspects that the Ottoman Empire just wasn't at the top of its game.

I also question his logistical sense. His campaigns in Poland and Bessarabia were fought relatively close to home. He seems to have underestimated the difficulties of campaigning in Switzerland.

Finally, I think he was an aggressive general but something of a blunt instrument strategically, who once said "‘Reconnaissances! I do not want reconnaissances!"

I think Napoleon would've faked him out the way he did Kutusov at Austerlitz.

A fine general, the equal of Archduke Charles, for example, but a cut below Napoleon.
 

Stalker

Banned
bill_bruno said:
I also question his logistical sense. His campaigns in Poland and Bessarabia were fought relatively close to home. He seems to have underestimated the difficulties of campaigning in Switzerland.
Click to expand...
Suvorov's opponent in the Switzerland campaign, marshal Andre Massena later said that he would have traded all his victories for a single Alpine raid by Suvorov.
Don't forget that after Korsakov's defeat at Zurich and separate peace signed by the Austrians, Suvorov found himself in a desperate situation and what he did then with his army against ALL ODDS is simply fantastic!:p
Emperor Paul should have given a triumph to him for that but he didn't. Old generalissmo was unpopular at the court.
 

Digi

Alexander Suvorov was the one man who, at the end of the 18th century, could have stopped Napoleon. He did beat Napoleon's generals Moreau, Macdonald, and Joubert.
 

de Lattre

bill_bruno said:
Suvorov was good, but he wasn't the only general who could boast of victories in the Russo-Turkish War of 1787. Repnin bested a force, also commanded by Yusuf Pasha, that outnumbered him more than 2-1. One suspects that the Ottoman Empire just wasn't at the top of its game.

I also question his logistical sense. His campaigns in Poland and Bessarabia were fought relatively close to home. He seems to have underestimated the difficulties of campaigning in Switzerland.

Finally, I think he was an aggressive general but something of a blunt instrument strategically, who once said "‘Reconnaissances! I do not want reconnaissances!"

I think Napoleon would've faked him out the way he did Kutusov at Austerlitz.

A fine general, the equal of Archduke Charles, for example, but a cut below Napoleon.
Click to expand...

Napoleon would have lost. Not that he was inferior in skill to Suvorov. On the contrary, at his best, he was more than a match for the Russian. But Napoleon badly underestimated Suvorov. He considered that Suvorov “had the heart but not the brains of a great general” (and that was after the Russian leaders’s Italian/Swiss campaign, mind you).
Thus, if Suvorov had remained in Italy in 1800, he would have caught Napoleon off guard, much like General Melas did at Marengo. But unlike the careless Melas, Suvorov would have ruthlessly kept on attacking until the French army was destroyed.
 

RGB

It would really depend on where and what campaign is taking place. If Suvorov can get the jump on Napoleon, Napoleon has a good chance of losing, and Suvorov would keep at it. On the other hand, anywhere where artillery could not be easily overthrown and Suvorov HAD to give battle, I'd give it to Napoleon.

Overall however, I must admit I'm biased and Suvorov it is.
 

Yorel

Very biased opinion as a French and a Napoleonic fan, I would go for Napoleon. However I do not know much about Surorov.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top