Welcome back to Generals and Napoleon.

We have a big extravaganza for you today.

We have a panel discussion of the top 15 commanders of the Napoleonic era.

And I'm so thrilled to be doing this episode with and sharing it with all my listeners.

We have the who's who and Napoleonic experts joining us today.

Hello everyone, how are you?

Good.

How are you?

Good.

Thank you.

Yes, thanks for having me.

Yeah, yeah.

So we have 5 terrific guests on the line with us today.

We have the great Rachel Stark.

Hello, Rachel, How are you?

I'm good.

Thank you.

Thanks for having me back.

Yep, Bookish Rachel on Twitter.

She's my Marshall's expert.

We have the great Jonas Denise.

Hello, Jonas.

I'm very good.

We have the brilliant Graham Callister.

How are you, Graham?

I'm very well.

Thanks, John.

Great to be here.

Thanks for having me on.

My pleasure.

We have Major Mike Hamill joining us from West Point.

Hello, Mike.

Hey, pleasure to be on.

Yeah.

And finally, last but not least, the great Nick Cramer from the University of North Texas.

Hello John, thanks for having me on.

Good to see you again.

Yeah.

My pleasure, My pleasure.

So what we're going to do today is we're going to each present our list of the top 15 generals commanders of the Napoleonic era.

Well, of course, have some debate after each person gives their list.

That's kind of the structure of it.

So we're going to kind of go in order, ladies first, of course, with Rachel going first.

But before I get into that, I do have a little disclaimer I have to do.

The opinions expressed herein are those of the individual and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Army U.S.

military Academy or the Department of Defense or the US government.

OK, glad I got that in there.

Appreciate that.

OK.

Before we get into that, I want to make sure I give a shout out to anything you guys have coming out or you're promoting or anything going on.

Rachel, do you have anything new or exciting coming out?

I know we have your Marshall's blog still on WordPress.

Yeah, sorry, I'm the sort of least qualified one here.

I'm just here by virtue of being a Marshall's nerd, so nothing to promote.

My actual day job is business lecturing, so nothing very glamorous.

No, sounds glamorous to me, Jonas, I know you have a great blog, right?

Well, trying my best but trying to get eyewitness accounts from officers and soldiers, translate from French to English and making them accessible look as some of them are quite rare or came out of print or or just you know, worth mentioning more often.

So I try to collect them there and please have a have a look over there.

And you just rebranded your blog, right?

You got a new logo there.

I got a new logo going.

I think also maybe look wise might have a change soon.

So, but mostly it's it's mostly content that's going to keep on expanding.

So keep an eye on it.

OK, yeah, look at for it.

Napoleon Chronicles is the blog and I recommend that.

Graham, what do you have going on?

Well, at some point there will be a book on conscription coming out, still being written at the moment, but if you want to to catch up on my work, you can see bits and pieces online.

I had a book out last year on Waterloo that has actually been called the best thing ever written on Waterloo.

Called that by me.

But nonetheless, it's a it's a book on on 1st course attack at Waterloo.

So if you're interested in this very specific bit, you can can get that.

But yeah, it's the conscription book that's underway at the moment.

Very good.

Nick, do you have anything cooking?

Other than cooking away at my dissertation on Prince Schwartzenberg, not really.

It's quite AI.

Just got back from Vienna doing research for the second year in a row.

So still got 30,000 photos and documents to sift through.

So that's a labor of love and passion, but it's been very fun.

OK.

And Major Mike Hamill, do you have anything that we should know about coming up?

I just had an article come out and the War Studies journal volume to which I'm pretty proud of, but other than that, that's the most recent thing.

OK, very good.

So yeah, to my listeners, please support and follow all these fine guests wherever they are on their websites and books.

I would very much appreciate it.

OK, now we're off.

So how this is going to work is each of us has a list of 15 commanders, generals that we're going to list without interruption from the other panelists.

After they're done with their list, we of course will add commentary.

Full mocking insults will be accepted.

Belittling is fine, Whatever you feel comfortable with.

Or, you know, accommodation.

Like maybe one of our lists will match up perfectly with someone else's.

I think it'll be very interesting to see what happens here.

But yeah, we're going to start off with the ladies first, so we're gonna start with Rachel Stark, and then once Rachel is done, we're all gonna kind of chime in and then move on to Jonas after that.

So, Rachel, the floor is yours.

OK, thank you very much, I said.

We were chatting just before we started.

I did sort of say that my probably does have a fairly hefty Marshall's bias, but I've tried not to be completely blatant.

I've kept my top five the same, but I feel like I've changed everything else about a dozen times this week.

But I'll take you through the current list as it was because we were again saying before we started, great, such a subjective term.

And depending on the lens through which we view them and view most of these men, we could rank them.

God only knows how many ways we could be here for days.

So I've kind of gone for battlefield competence, commandability, consistency, leadership, and strategic impact.

So my number one was probably not very surprisingly, Napoleon.

It kind of has to be, doesn't it?

He's either defining not just for the various remarkable victories that he has, although there's plenty of them, but because he in so many ways kind of reinvents the art of warfare, you know, use of master utility, core level manoeuvre and rapid concentration of force and so on.

The first Italian campaigns, kind of like the high bar, isn't it?

I mean, it just stands in a league of its own.

Obviously I'm not speaking to the ethics of him.

Um, but you know, his multi theatre dominance of Europe for so long that the ability he had to maintain that control is pretty extraordinary.

And even after he was defeated, his fingerprints are kind of all over.

So much of what came after, you know, and even in defeat, things like the, the retreat from Moscow, catastrophic though it was what he did manage to control and what he did manage to still achieve even that was pretty remarkable.

So I think whether you love them or loathe them, and people invariably are going to do both, nobody commanded with so much strategic vision or sheer audacity as he did.

And I think that's exactly why people are still drawn to him.

You know, 200 odd years on, he just is the era defining guy, my number 2 and I, I think he's fairly worthy.

Second, I have to say is Wellington, Napoleon's ultimate adversary, even though they never really directly meet until right at the end, or at least never directly fought each other.

And while Napoleons like this ever effervescent, like flash of brilliant Wellingtons.

Not that he's not a glamorous, charismatic personality at all, he's a fairly cold fish.

But what he is, I think is Mr.

Steady and consistent.

He is the ultimate like professional soldier.

He is reliable.

He's determined.

And before him, he comes back me with a pitchfork.

I know he wasn't just a defensive general, but I think he's a defensive master, absolutely the master of of defensive command.

He excels choosing his ground, choosing impenetrable positions.

He forces the enemy to break themselves against him.

He, you know, fights intelligent warfare.

And really importantly for me, what I think he can never be accused of, is holding life cheaply.

And probably that's something we could charge Napoleon with.

He achieves great victories, but I don't think he always necessarily reflects on the human cost of those victories.

Wellington doesn't waste people's lives cheaply.

And he's sometimes called cautious for this.

But I think if you're one of the people who is involved in those battlefields, you're probably quite glad your life's not going to be, you know, spent without good reason.

He's obviously his excellence shines in the Peninsula War.

His career was established before that.

He wears down the front to calculated campaigning, logistics, sheer professionalism.

And obviously outside our sort of little country of nerds, he's best known for Waterloo and being a very bad Prime Minister.

But he has some really spectacular victories and amongst all that as well, you know, things like I say earlier on in his career, things like obviously Salaman has a triumph.

So not necessarily the most glamorous a man, but probably the ultimate professional soldier.

And very much in a similar vein for #3 I've got my guy Davu.

He was going to be in my top three undoubtedly.

Um, I couldn't really justify putting the money higher, even though he's obviously my number one.

Um, I am steadfastly cheap Chief Davuti and celebrator of antisocial baldy gets.

But of all the Marshalls and we've got some really big characters and amongst the 26, and obviously myself and Graham and John have been involved in a Marshall debate over in the Napoleonic pod.

He for me is the greatest of the 26 and probably not very dissimilar to Wellington.

Not glamorous, not particularly friendly, but superbly competent, ultimately professional.

Always where he needs to be, exactly when he needs to be there.

He's one of Napoleon's most reliable subordinates, Aaron clad integrity.

No looting, no thievery, no unnecessary inflammation of the population.

Never decisively defeated, detail orientated and the sheer fact that it's when it's Davoos men finally break in Russia, that's when people say that's it.

His his men are the indicator of all that is good in the the Grand Army.

And that's down to his discipline, his logistics, his detail orientation and the sort of high, high expectations he has for his man high taskmaster.

But that reflects well on on his core.

He's got triumphs to his name, obviously ersh that but also Ekmu.

He plays key roles roles at Austerlitz, Vagram, ILO and he's trusted with independent command, as are quite a few of the marshals.

But he excels and it's only really down to his nigh miraculous efforts as Minister of War in 1815 that there really even is the French force that there is at Waterloo.

So yeah, for me, a man of Aaron clad principles as well as iron determination and very high quality professionalism, and then my number 4 is a man who's basically Davoo's antithesis in every way apart from the fact that they're really both flipping talented and that's LAN.

He is brash, he's mercurial, he's temperamental, he's charismatic, he's brave and he's one of the most tactically gifted of the marshals.

If Davoo's the iron spine of the grand are May lungs, it's heart, and it's really interesting.

Well, certainly for my ranking, he's the top one who doesn't have a military education.

You know, Wellington, Napoleon, Davu, they are trained for the art of command.

They are trained to be military man.

LAN is somebody who we would in modern parlance, say he's working class.

He comes up from nothing.

He's one of the poorest, educated to the marshals.

You know, some people derisively say he's barely literate, and yet he becomes this phenomenal commander on sheer innate talent.

He's incredibly, you know, personally brave.

He sort of personifies everything about the revolution, somebody who's come from nothing, who has got themselves there on merit.

He's obviously very beloved by Napoleon.

He's a friend, umm, but he leads by example, he inspires, he's charismatic, he gets people on side.

He's the kind of man you would want to follow.

You know, he's obviously got great victories to his name.

He's present at things like Austerlitz, Friedland, umm, his.

What he does at Aspirin Essling is decisive, even though it ultimately ends up being his, his last battle.

He's never a yes man.

He's very happy to tell Napoleon to bugger off when he feels it's justified.

And that was necessary.

He needed somebody to speak truth to power and he always got away with it.

It's a mark of how much esteemed Napoleon held him in.

You know, he wants flying stuff on unofficial leave because he felt he hadn't got enough credit and he got to do it.

And, you know, he came back when he felt he'd had his leave and his loss devastated Napoleon.

And it's really one of the big amazing what ifs to consider.

Had he not been lost when he was, you know, what might LAN have gone on to do?

Would we, you know, have seen more triumph?

40?

You've turned it's it's a really, really interesting, you know, consideration.

My number 5 might be controversial.

I've gone for Mistena, who I know has a career of, you know, very much peaks and troughs, certainly towards the end.

But I think at his peak in Italy, he's a general who we might have conceivably called Napoleon's equal.

He is a brilliant general at his best.

Again, like land, no military education, no privilege.

He pulls himself up through talent, gets himself ahead also by stealing quite a lot of stuff.

He's an invectorate looter.

There's that amazing passage in Udinho's memoirs where their wives are talking in the retreat.

And Madame Messina says to Udinho's wife, you know, how much money have you got, you know, kept aside, like, how much have you got in the boot of the carriage?

And she rattles off this amount that basically makes Madame Udinho's jaw drop because they are so wealthy, because he's stolen basically everything that isn't nailed down.

So that does kind of go against him, but I think, you know, his innate brilliance kind of can't be doubted.

You think of things like Rivali Zurich, his heroic resistance at Genoa and how that helps pin the anime down, You know, where they're not elsewhere.

Napoleon calls him the darling child of victory.

And I don't actually think that's too hyperbolic.

He really was at his best, uh, bold, aggressive at that time, indispensable general obviously let down through his performance in the Peninsula War, but crucially, I think we could say in his defence, he didn't want the command.

He felt like he'd he'd done his duty.

He was getting old.

He wanted to just be at home and enjoy his enormous fortune.

He was strong armed into doing it.

And you know, that brilliant career begins to decline.

But I do think it is best for me.

He's a worthy #5 6:00 I've got sushi.

I umed an ad quite a lot about where it puts sushi.

This is like not this highest he's been.

I also had him down at 13 at one point.

He comes to the fore, obviously slightly later than the others as a Marshall, obviously as a general, his career goes right back.

He actually worked very closely with Messina and Italy.

And I am acutely aware he gets a very different billet in Spain than the other Marshalls.

It's it's we're never comparing apples and apples here, but I'm ranking him high for sheer effectiveness and political savviness.

The Marshalls weren't necessarily all a very politically savvy, but Sushi kind of has the insightful notion that maybe if we're going to pose as all liberators are overlords or however we're going to spin it, maybe if we come in and oppress and we behave brutally, people aren't going to like it very much.

And he actually, you know, he uses his heart and minds campaign and and it works.

I mean, most of Marshall struggled in the politically hostile environment of Spain, but Sushi adapted.

He was a very adaptable general.

He doesn't just govern, He obviously he does win battles, but he held his territory, he pacified regions, he administers with skill and with integrity.

Again, one of the marshals, he could look and say, well, his conduct actually holds up.

His campaigns in Aragorn and Catalonia are examples that he effectively integrated not just military governance, but battlefield competence as well.

So pretty good.

And then I'm one more Marshall and then there is a break and it's suit and he's the Marshall that I sometimes think doesn't get the credit he deserves.

I sometimes think the Peninsula War turns into a bit of a stick to be soaked with, almost unjustifiably.

It gets overdone.

His contribution, I think sometimes is undersold.

He's one of the big organising generals, not necessarily one of the flashier personalities, very methodical, detail orientated, capable of handling pretty big logistical burdens, a good tactician.

And there is that quote from Wellington about, oh, he turned up in a battlefield and then he never knew what to do with his man when he got there.

But I think sometimes that's too harsh and I know it's semantics.

I don't think it's so much that he lost in Spain is that he failed to win in the environment he was operating.

And I think none of the Marshalls dummer who we put there, I know people got a Hoffy, Chuck Davu and it would have been different.

I don't think any of the Marshalls could ultimately have won Spain.

His campaigns in Portugal and the Ponies do show his ability to operate independently and under pressure.

Obviously famously made chief of staff at Waterloo, he probably would have been better suited to a battlefield command, but he is one of the generals with the most tangible legacy post conflict.

He obviously serves as Prime Minister of France several times and enacts some significant military reforms that we can still see in place today.

And then I'll pause with French.

Sorry for my blatant pro French bias, but then I've got Archduke Charles.

If Wellington's the ultimate adversary, maybe we give him credit for being certainly one of the earlier figures who manages to hold their own against Napoleon to some degree.

He reforms, obviously, the the Habsburg army into a much more modern fighting force, not alone, but he's a significant player in it.

And he leads them to some of their best performance in the conflicts.

And really notably, obviously, his aspirin Isling, he kind of gives Napoleon his first check.

And I think psychologically that's quite important as well because, you know, people, including Napoleon, we're starting to believe his legend.

He is Fortune's favorite child.

He's undefeatable.

There's nobody who's going to win against this guy, So actually being able to perform that check, hold on, this guy isn't going to win decisively every time.

I think that's got psychological impact as well as the physical.

Again, not necessarily very glamorous, sometimes framed as a bit cautious, but I think he's got a deep understanding of operational warfare and plays an important role.

My #9 is Barclay Tolley, not a very popular man in his lifetime, God bless him, viewed as overly cautious and, you know, foreign, goodness forbid.

But I think he does deserve a space on the list because his decision making, loathed as it was at the time, plays an ultimately significant role in the defeat in 1812.

His, you know, strategic approach was pivotal.

It was his idea to kind of trade space for time, pull Napoleon deeper into Russia, deny him that decisive battle that might have completely.

You know, turned things around and did the campaign in Napoleon's favour.

And that decision helps obviously, as we all know, critical the Grand Army and he returns to command obviously later in the wars.

He's highly competent.

He's a very good coalition commander, which not all of the very good generals necessarily were.

Some of them are really poor collaborators.

So he's, he's very quiet, he's very considered analytical and his decision making obviously ultimately was vindicated #10 I've put Kutasov, another Russian, I've Suvarovs very noticeably missing on my list.

And that's because I've kind of stuck to the Napoleonic conflict rather than bring Napoleonic revolutionary France.

So it's not that I've not valued the man accordingly, it's just I've stuck to that kind of time frame.

So I've gone for Kutasov of some much bigger personality than Barclay to Tolley overseas, the the unravelling of the Russian campaign, his choice to withdraw after Borodino, to abandon Moscow again.

See, a lot of these decisions are controversial.

And I think it takes a very different kind of bravery, you know, from battlefield bravery to be able to make decisions that are ultimately so unpopular because you believe it's the right thing to do.

I'm not a tactical genius, certainly compared to some of the guys on this list.

But he understands context very well.

He knew when to fight, when not to fight, want to be patient.

And that level of patience ultimately pays off in the end.

And of course, as a symbol, he's got he's got value.

He becomes almost like the embodiment of of the Russian resistance or #11 I've got blue fur.

Again, using the proviso I understand this man is not a strategic genius by Anna stretch of the imagination wreck aggressive almost the point of recklessness on occasion and that aggression pays off what he brings the tables this sort of raw, almost manic energy fighting spirit, this unrelenting drive to defeat Napoleon.

He was not going to have Napoleon triumph and so long as he had breath and his body left, helps reform the Prussian army alongside Shirenhurst.

And I always mangle his name, I'm sorry.

And obviously famously plays the critical role at Waterloo.

Had he not arrived when he was supposed to, or when he was most needed, potentially the battle itself, if not the campaign, might have ended differently.

And I'm back to France for number 12.

I've got Marshall Sonseer, who is a really interesting character.

If any of the Marshalls could be psychologically analysed, I would love to see what somebody would make of him.

He's cerebral, he's cold, he's awkward, he's an absolutely terrible collaborator.

Not particularly nice subordinate either, but deeply analytical, general.

And that didn't always necessarily endear him to Napoleon.

Again, somebody who was not a yes man.

He was adamant for a good chunk of his career that Napoleon held him back because he didn't agree with Napoleon enough.

But on campaign, in terms of his battlefield competence is is very, very strong.

You know, his maneuvering in Germany, in Italy again shows that level of sort of subtlety and patience and understands in a context that not all of the marshals had very, very good at defence.

A meticulous planner and it would have been interesting to see what might have become of him if he'd gotten his Marshall it earlier.

Obviously one of the one of the later batons.

If he'd had independent commander earlier, would we potentially have ranked him with Davu and LAN?

Who knows.

Then I've got an A and he had to be on the list.

He has to.

He, again a bit like LAN, typifies everything about the Grand Army.

Yes, his decision making could be erratic.

Yes, his performance could be the same.

He could perform brilliantly, he could clock up brilliantly, and he usually redeemed himself pretty quickly.

But for charisma, for inspiration, for the sheer legend that he becomes, he has to be on the list.

He's one of the people you know, if, if you know nothing about the Napoleonic Wars, you've probably heard of, obviously you've heard of Napoleon.

You may have heard of Wellington.

Even then, people still tend to know about Nate, the Marshall of France who gets shot at the end of the conflict for turning against the king.

The guy is a living legend.

And I think for for that level of impact, emotional impact, for the ability to inspire people, his rearguard effectiveness, yes, we can talk about his decision making in Russia for sure.

Could anybody else have held out in the way that he did, you know, have have got his man out in the way that he did?

I'm not sure they could have.

So yes, he's not as high as some of the others, but my God, what an absolute giant of a personality.

And then 14 very different sort of personality.

I've gone for rolling tell he I am very, very fond of.

And you know, Wellington wanted if if something happened to him, command should go to hell.

And I think that's everything.

Wellington's not a man who's particularly effusive in his in his praise.

And Hill is again, one of these people who is not a big dominating personality.

There's certainly more flamboyant British generals under Wellington, but he's calm, he's steady, 100% reliable.

Again, one of these people you could trust to know to be where you're supposed to be, to do what you're supposed to do when he was supposed to do it.

Often operated in detached missions in the Peninsula War, sometimes commanded, you know, huge amounts of the British Army, always performed well.

Not particularly innovative general, maybe not a strategic innovator, but he was the kind of leader that any good commander wants on his flank.

And I also think, and again, this is a very biased statement, but when I look at this list that I've pulled together and maybe some of the other personalities we'll talk about, we've got a lot of great men.

I don't think great and good are necessarily all were synonymous.

Messina is a great general and he stole everything.

You know, Sult was a massive leader.

We could go on about quite a lot of them.

Hill was a great man and he was also a very good one.

And I think that's an important distinction to make as well.

And then lastly, I've got Eugen, Prince Eugen, Napoleon's stepson.

I think if Napoleon had quite a few more Eugen's and a few less Jeromes and Joseph's, he'd have been admirably better served.

He grows into his role in Italy and in in academia we talk about exit velocity.

You know, when a student comes out at the end, we we look at the improvement in their grades.

And for me, Yujiang can advise exit velocity.

You see how he grows into his competency as a commander throughout the conflict and he shows steadiness.

He shows maturity in his decision making.

Obviously very personally loyal to Napoleon, much more so than his own blood relations, and he was very steady in the face of very difficult odds during the 1812 retreat.

He performed admirably.

He kept cohesion after Murak cleared off to look after his own interests.

He's not a military genus in the way that his stepfather was, but I think he's a very steady, thoughtful commander who matured under fire.

And I do think if he did a few more of you, Jen, and a few last one apart, Napoleon would have done a bit better.

And so when does the list?

Oh.

Well, applause.

That was amazing.

Great job, Rachel gents.

I'm kind of blown away I didn't.

I've totally forgot Eugene on my list.

Now I'm like rewriting my list as we talk.

What do you guys think?

Well, there's certainly going to be some debate.

I'll say that.

My list is different, but that's a good thing.

What do you think, Jonathan?

Yeah, actually, my this is quite similar, only maybe two or three different names in there.

And now that I think about it, maybe I'm kind of regretting it or maybe I'm going to put them together because I just feel they're so interchangeable.

The arguments that Rachel made, you know, it can work both for and against in certain cases.

So Asian is a is a is also quite a good pick, actually quite underrated.

Someone who really came into his own, starting from eighteen O 9, very capable in Russia.

And then 1813, you know him, him technically being like the last defense, you know, holding off the allied thrust.

So yeah, it's quite me.

And then these years in Italy, keeping everything afloat.

Yeah, Graham, what do you think?

I think that's a really good list, but again, there's going to be huge crossover, I think, with a lot of them.

I thought I'd be the only one to have you here on my list, to be honest.

So there goes my Thunder.

But no, I think, I mean, I can't really dispute any of them.

There's some that, you know, like Barclay Dutali, I'm not a massive fan of.

I think he kind of rewrote Running Away into a really thought out strategic retreat.

But equally he then stuck to it and with Scorched Earth it did actually work.

So, you know, we'll give him credit.

I don't think I've got him on my list, but, you know, I understand why, why he would be there.

But I think I've been a bit less French heavy maybe.

But I also understand why it would be French heavy because this is a period of, you know, a series of colossi in the French army.

Now these, these generals, these marshals, the men that Napoleon builds the army around are superb, you know, independently and collectively.

So I absolutely understand that that heavy French bias upfront.

Again, there's a couple I don't have on my my list, but you know, I've got a list of 15 that couldn't make the list of 15 who you, you know, you think she'll be there.

So no, I really like that that list and I really like the the explanations for each person as well.

Yeah, really detailed.

Major Hamill, what do you think of Rachel Starks list?

Now, I was hoping to have some sort of debate here, but I think 12 of the 15 are on my list as well.

I didn't put Hill on my list.

I mean, I really like him as a general.

I love him as an officer.

He is.

He's a great case study of of how you should lead men and how to be a good officer but also a competent 1.

I just don't think there's really any good independent victories to his name.

He was always kind of playing against the B team, so if I was going to take umbrage with anything, it's that.

But at the same time, I'm not mad at him being on the list.

Very good.

Very good.

Yeah.

So that was good stuff.

Yeah.

Like Rachel, you blew us away.

Really good stuff.

Really good details on each one.

There's only one omission that not necessarily any of us but a lot of people would take umbrage with is why a final birthier?

Not a great, not a great battlefield commander.

But I mean, a lot of people would argue that without him, the Army doesn't function at all.

Full disclosure, I have him pretty low compared to a lot of other people, but just wanna hear your thoughts on why he just straight up excluded him.

So the only reason I've put Bertie not on my list is largely semantic.

But I think we were gonna argue most indispensable commander he'd be #1 because he's indispensable to every French victory.

He's the organizer, the architect thereof.

But I feel sometimes with Bertie, his genius is that he translates that he is a conduit for Napoleon's.

I think if you sum up Bertie, if you think of that sort of quote in the Sherlock Holmes story, Bruce Partington plans.

Everybody else is a specialist.

His speciality is omniscience.

That's that's Bertie for me.

But his genius is so tied up in Napoleon's.

They're like this symbiotic double act.

Napoleon's the strategic visionary.

Bertie is the man.

He actually makes it happen.

He sits to me almost like a little aside.

He's the most indispensable officer of the entire Grand Army.

But if we're ranking generals on and as I say, things like battlefield competence and consistency in Under Fire, things like that, the only reason he's not on my list for indispensability, he's number one.

He's, you know, peerless among staff officers.

He he's the staff officer, the man who kind of sets the bar.

But I feel like his his great role is as this sort of working partnership with Napoleon as an independent general, which is how I've ranked all the others.

I don't think, again, we're comparing apples and apples.

He's a very different stamp of officer and that's the only reason he's not on my list, because he's an absolute powerhouse.

Good call out.

OK, so now we're going to go to Jonas.

But just to switch up Jonas, could you do yours in reverse order?

Could you do 15 to 1?

Yeah, for sure, for sure.

So for me, it was my list is infinitely long.

If I could have, if I could have done it mostly.

There's also a bit of a fringe bias here, but I did my best to to give the allied commanders their credit where it is due.

I kind of worked in in bubbles because I just in between these three bubbles that I have of five each.

I feel it can be quite interchangeable given context.

Personality wise are things to be for and against about.

So I'll I'll start with the the lower the lower 5 Barclay de Tolle basically for him to kind of mastermind this this plan for the withdrawal for the Russian army in 1812 specifically, you know, can be argued that it was the right thing to do.

It wasn't liked during the period, especially also, you know, by his fellow Russian born commanders.

It was still it was still the the good tactic to come up with and that in in collaboration with sorry Alexander, which is kind of sidelined.

It's actually quite fascinating.

Then I would go for blue fur.

Also kind of like Rachel pointed out, he's just that that fire firebrands.

So personification of, you know, that Prussian resistance almost kind of like a Prussian name in a way, maybe the foolhardy, not maybe the cleanest of, of track record, but you know, eventually when the drive was necessary to get France within its borders.

You know, in the later years.

I mean given also the fact that you know the the beating that he caught initially in the early 1814 campaign and then still managing to get his men follow him and be consistent is is quite commendable.

Then I have Archduke Charles, very methodical commander when also went against a lot of voices at Austrian courts, still making his own.

Reforming the Austrian army mid war is also actually quite, quite astonishing given how much strain that the Empire lost dealing with a multinational army.

It's also maybe affected that we should focus on and you know, the the Austrian, the Austrian army in that regard is a bit underrated in my opinion.

Then I would go for an A basically deep personification of the ground armay when it comes to especially to bravery.

So that's my pick.

And then on the top of that lower bubble that I have, I did put Bertier because I do kind of feel like the administration part of the French army might not be as as interesting, but how to how to translate Napoleon's mind onto paper and distributing it.

And basically also like the whole, you know, the study of the Tamar, sure, the transit Tamar sure is actually very interesting.

Shows how how that army function doesn't get a lot of credit.

So I would put them on the top of that lower bubble.

So that second bubble that I have lower end is I have could to solve mostly in in the way how he kind of represents, you know, the Russian Russian army in a way, as in, you know, rallying it together when this you know, this huge invasion for especially for 1812, how he can personify that resistance is actually quite formidable.

Also very much a mind of his own and go against his fellow commands base.

He sticks through to the end is very commendable.

You know, unfortunately dying in 1813 would have been a great what if for how the 1813 campaign would have continued and and so forth.

Then I have long, although he is competing with two other names that I feel could could be interchangeable because I have sushi and salt.

I can make a bit more of a case for sushi where where I feel he's people know him, but I still feel when it comes to his governance of Catalonia Aragon, there's actually a great study done on him by Yuan Kim, which I can highly recommend to read where he shows where, although, you know, there's maybe a little bit of misconception where he led, but he he could lead with it with an iron fist, just like the case to make for Tarragona, where the Garrison was was really put to the sword.

But he he would use those instances to really make his name and then come back to the negotiating table with Spanish locals and and the administration to, you know, make that Napoleonic rule there work and and make it more or less acceptable.

And this is something that I feel most of the other marshals and generals in the Peninsula War didn't really get a real catch on, even though some of them were faying, you know, you have assault wanting to be king of Portugal at one point.

We are keeping an eye on that on the throne of Spain, at least for such a there's a lot to commend for that.

He actually knew how to be a good administrator and a political leader.

Then on top of those three that I mentioned, I would put Miss Sena, especially if like, you know, for his track record, especially in the early years, the revolutionary period, what he did, what he did in Italy, very good stuff.

Kind of like also what Rachel mentioned before, once, you know, the H catches up on him.

You know, he's especially when he's thrusted into the third invasion of Portugal.

Yeah, you can.

You can kind of tell that he doesn't really want to be there anymore.

And while he has to work with some of the, you know, some of the commanders that aren't necessarily very willing to follow him, he still couldn't make it work.

And he he gave Willington a hard time up till Toys With Us and Fuentes.

Donoro could have turned out differently if the coordination would have been more optimized, especially with this.

Yeah.

For instance, then I go for the top five again, spot, you know, spot #3 I could, I can basically put like 3 different names.

Very hard to just decide.

But when I, if I go for the French side, it would be undoubtedly Devoux, given, you know, he's also like really like a personification of proper conduct.

Like his core can almost be put on the same level as the Imperial Guard when it comes to administration, how it's run.

The commanders that he picks a lot of the names on basically on the general list that I made are from Devus core, you know, throughout his career.

So, you know, it just shows like how he had an eye for, you know, picking men that are also very willing to follow him, but are also willing to follow his type of administration, his type of rule, this type of style of command.

So then that, that makes him quite a household name.

Then I go for two Allied commanders, Suvorov and Nelson.

I must say I'm not very well versed into into the Navy side of things.

But when it comes to him putting his name on a lot of French defeats, you know, against against the French Navy, you know, he knew the name well.

Basically what he did on on sea is just as commendable as, you know, having several Army Corps going about doing their things.

So it is quite, quite phenomenal what he did.

And you know, with the highlight, especially Trafalgar is definitely worth mentioning.

For Suvorov.

It is kind of a big what if for me, if he, you know, if he would have, if there would have been a direct clash with Napoleon, how that would have how that would have figured it out.

But especially I think Massena in particular, he got a good sense what the Suvorov could do.

And thinking about the, you know, all the battles, you know, prior and building up towards Zurich, I think they're very commendable men of the of the cold steel, which is also quite, quite astonishing to see in this type of warfare.

And also like his earlier career too, is also quite fascinating to see how we went up against the Ottomans in, you know, in going against odds that are quite, quite astonishing and still making it out of there is it's quite interesting.

Then the top 2, although with a bias, like I said, for France, Napoleon is, is an easy spot to, to allocate him to just personification of, of this period that is named.

Whether you like him or or loathe him, people will still read his biographies 1st and delve into other details of, of, of the Napoleonic period and, and the revolutionary period as well.

So that personification is very, very praiseworthy.

And now we revolutionized the state, you know, as as a leader.

Very, very interesting things to, to look about then.

Whereas, you know, Wellington, you know, as as mentioned before, he's kind of like the antithesis, quite aloof.

But you know, a man of logistics gets its, its grapes here and there in, in the, in the peninsula when it comes to siege warfare.

But I mean, the siege warfare in in general is isn't the easiest thing to to do, but you know, basically like a better personification for the British Army.

Pretty much everyone will go to that name Wellington.

So that's that's my take on things.

Very good applause for Jonas there.

Nice work, my friend.

Yeah, great list.

Really good stuff.

Good sidebars on each one.

What did you think, Rachel?

Nothing to nothing to argue about chucking and a naval commander is pretty inspired I think.

Yeah, I hadn't really considered putting Nelson in, but yeah, I 100% agree with everything you said about him.

And I think our lists were so similar there's nothing I could argue with anyway.

What do you think next?

I mean, yeah, just to echo what Rachel said, great list.

Good job putting Nelson in there as well.

I don't have him, but more of the military side.

I'm, I'm still interested.

The first, you know, Rachel and Jonas, you both had Barclay Ditali.

My research focuses on him as well, but he's a subordinate to Schwarzenberg in 1813 and 14 and he's a not the most popular guy, not also the most obedient, kind of likes to March to the beat of his own drum and kind of counterintuitive to what the allies best interest is.

So I have a little bit lower view of him, but he still should deserve, like you guys said, deserves a lot of credit for 1812, even though he's not very popular amongst the Russians.

And also the fact that he's able to sideline Alexander in 1812, which is good for the Russians.

And I bet if French Schwartzenberg could do the same thing in 13 and 14, he would have loved to have sidelined the Tsar as well.

It's good to point that out.

I.

Think if I can make a point with.

I find it quite surprising that you feel that when it comes to abiding to Schwartzenberg's command, I find it quite interesting because you know, both of them basically when it comes to working out the Trachtenberg plan, I would assume that totally would have been quite a, quite a supporter of this kind of plan where, you know, you basically, you know, try to draw in the marshals, but not necessarily Napoleon.

What would what would be your comment on that?

Well, I mean, it's the best way to work is because in 18 FO, you know, you whenever you avoid Napoleon, it seems like good things happen.

But I think also you got to consider, you know, a lot of people are in favor of a more aggressive campaign, especially the Russians is because you just fought a whole year long campaign in Russia which devastates the countryside and then you fight in the spring of 1813.

So, yeah, you kind of want the war to be over as quick as possible.

And by pitching a plan of, oh, we're just going to avoid battle and we're going to, like, starve them out.

And that's not very popular because that takes time.

And you've just fought for a year and a half and thousands are dead.

So you can see why you'd want to end it quickly.

It makes sense because up to that point puts us off wasn't actually also not really keen to cross the border because they felt that, you know, as as much as a as a victory as as it was for the Russians.

A lot of lives on the Russian side were lost.

So how to, you know, get all those forces back and then drive in the heartland of of Europe?

That would have been quite a challenge.

Did they make it work?

But Kutuzov wasn't really wasn't really a fan of it.

And he felt, he actually kind of felt that, you know, if if if a push forward could actually, you know, trigger the allies, maybe turning on them at at a later point because they might be tapping on the table a little bit too much on, on the negotiating, negotiating table and so forth, and on the side of the diplomatic side.

So yeah, that actually makes sense.

I think it's also worth, it's also worth mentioning, you know, like 1813 is fought in Germany.

You know, this isn't Russia.

So what do you really have to gain?

I mean, yeah, you obviously have stuff the game, but also, is it worth sacrificing thousands more lives for Germany, especially in camp?

Like southern Germany's very loyal to Napoleon because a lot of those Princess in like Vertenberg, Boden, Bavaria, the king of Saxony, they gained a lot of power, a lot of influence from being a Napoleon's rule.

Are they German?

Yeah, But, you know, under the Holy Roman Empire, you didn't really benefit a lot from that rule.

So the fact that Napoleon, yeah, he's French, which may not make a lot of sense today.

It's like, oh, well, why are you taking orders from a Frenchman?

They gained a lot from it.

So are the southern German Prince is going to be on board with it.

Like, and especially in 1813 and 14, there's a lot of what ifs and a lot of a lot of things to consider that the allies don't get a lot of credit for considering.

But like Kudosov, Ditali, Metternich, all them, they deserve a lot more credit for dealing with all that those insurance and outs as well.

I.

Agree.

OK, Graham, we have you back.

So that's good.

I lost Graham there temporarily, so hopefully that's resolved and we're going to plow ahead now.

We're going to allow my major, Mike Hamill.

He's going to give us his list and we'll see what we learn on this one.

All right, so a lot of my list is the same as y'all's, but there are some different ones starting with 15, maybe somewhat controversial.

I have Ojiro, and I say this because no, he's not some amazing independent commander, but I think at the division level, as a subordinate commander, he's really supreme at that really in depth tactical level.

Not a lot of people know about his exploits in Spain in 1794.

He takes his division of about 4000 men, slips over the Pyrenees, over goat trails for 10 hours, and then he pounces and destroys the single cannon foundry that had been keeping the Spanish army supplied, captures all sorts of stuff.

And then he stays there.

Not really sure why he stays other than, you know, he said he's going to do it anyway.

And he makes de Gomie, the French commander, a little bit salty because de Gomie is like, hey, don't be all there exposed.

But then when the Spanish attack him with a force that was more than twice his size, he defeats them in detail.

And so, I mean, hats, hats off to Ojiro.

You know, he is the proud bandit.

He did like looting things, but I think he could say that about half of his marshals.

I just, I just, I love the bold offensive style.

And he's not somebody who usually makes this list #14 I think this might be a new one.

Aggression.

I don't think he gets gets a lot of credit.

He isn't.

He's one of the masters of the rearguard.

He shows that in 18 O five.

He shows that again in 1812 where he does lose about half of his men, but he protects the main Russian army.

And I think if he doesn't die in 1812, I think he shows a lot of success in in the following campaign.

And he just has a lot of tenacity and operational daring.

So maybe that's a little bit different.

13 I'll go with him a little bit as Marah.

Now, one of the main reasons he makes this list is for his hair and uniforms.

I love going to the Louvre.

I've been a few times and I just I go down the Napoleon section and you can immediately pick him out based off his hair and his uniform.

But more than that, he has he has legendary courage and he is just master of the horse and he's probably one of the best calf commanders of all time.

Plays a huge role at Austerlitz, his pursuit at Yena is legendary.

And of course at Ilao he he saves the army, he leads a charge of over 10,000 horsemen and he is actually of effective reformer as a king of Naples.

And he's largely popular.

Now, he does have a lack of strategic acumen, probably politically disloyal, somewhat impulsive, but I just, I love the aura, as the kids would say, moving up to 12 Barclay to Tolly.

And I'm actually relatively a fan of the Tolly.

And I don't want to repeat anything that's been said.

I think we've we've said a lot of things.

But I will say he's one of those guys who has a lot of success in the Finnish war of 18 O 8 to 18 O 9, which I will put as part of the Napoleonic Wars.

And he leads his army across 100 kilometers of the frozen gulf to attack Sweden directly in the winter.

Very audacious, could have gone wrong, but he pulls it off.

I think he performs well as commander in the 6th Coalition.

And I personally think a lot of the hate that he gets is he wasn't very popular in the court.

He has Scottish and German ancestry.

And I still think, I mean, there's a lot of work to be done on him as, as the as more sources are opened up.

And it's certainly somebody, if you know, if you ever talked to the doctor, Mick Burizza, he has some really good insights on him #11 Seoul.

I think he is a master tactician.

I think he's just a perp organizer and administrator.

And he does have a lot of early military prowess.

Everyone else has already talked about a lot of what he does.

As was said, he gets he gets a lot of hate for his performance in Spain.

But I very much agree with Rachel that I don't think it matter what Marshall you put there.

I don't think they went because by the time Wellington is pushing in Spain's a secondary theater, they don't have the best troops.

And this is a side tangent, but I think Spain is relatively easily conquered if Russia doesn't kick off large parts of Spain's was pretty passive, it had been pacified.

And it's not really until the French pull out of Spain for Russia that everything really kicks off.

But I'm a fan of soul #10 Suchet for all the reasons we've been said.

In addition to he is a master of siege warfare.

There's a number of sieges in eastern Spain between 1810 and 1811, and he's really a master of pulling those off.

Also, he's really exceptional logistically.

And I would just, I would just say somebody worth to be studying if you are going, if you're trying to study some counterinsurgency.

Now, he does have some notable military defeats.

So once again, he's, he's kind of in the middle there.

Moving up to #9 excuse me #9 isn't a yes, he isn't the smartest, but I love him.

And he is master of the rearguard action.

And looking at this from the perspective as as an army officer of the rearguard action, at no matter what level you pull it off, it is the hardest maneuver to carry out.

And he does it time and time again.

He's excellent in the 18061807 campaign.

He is a little bit insubordinate in the Peninsula War, but I think his his rearguard action in Russia is exceptional.

And I know he gets a lot of Flack first performance in the 1813 campaign, and it's deserved.

But in his defense, I don't think he's the same officer and same general, the same Marshall that he is after Russia.

I think he has a lot of baggage.

After that retreat.

He's no longer the same commander.

But you know, the bravest of the brave.

He has to be on my list #8 maybe somewhat controversial to some people.

I have Miss Sena.

He's, he's just brilliant tactically as, as, as Rachel was saying, like Second Battle of Zurich in 1799, essentially knocks Russia out of the coalition.

And he is unlike a lot of the other marshals.

He is a master of independent command and has already been said with the Penance War.

He didn't want to be there.

He tells the emperor he doesn't want to be there.

He tells us officers, This isn't verbatim, but he pretty much says, hey guys, I don't want to be here.

I'm old, I'm tired.

But the Emperor says I have to be here, so I'm here.

And even if you're going to criticize him for his invasion of Portugal, he does pretty well.

And then we'll see just hides behind the walls.

And, you know, it's a scene out of Monty Python.

And it's like, come down from the walls and fight.

And then, well, see, says no.

So I don't, I don't know what he's supposed to do.

There's there's nothing else he could have done better #7 LON superb tactical acumen, Battle of Montebello, He has 8000 guys.

He attacks and routes the Austrian army of 18,000 Freeland, his fifth core Hells off pretty much the entire Russian army for hours.

And like some of the other people my list highly effective and in the pendant command.

And yeah, he is.

He does have a volcanic temperament to be said, but I think that chills out a little bit over time.

Some financial impropriety with spending a lot of money on uniforms, but I would say a lot of the Marshals have some issues with that and corruption.

So number six.

So maybe this is where there's going to be some debate because I have Blucher, yes, he's very aggressive, but I think that's what was needed at the time.

And I think his single greatest asset was just his refusal to be broken by defeat.

And that's what the coalition needed.

And often reckless.

His aggressive spirit was just vital and coalition command.

Because time and time again, the coalition's had been defeated by just being either indecisive or just being too passive.

And she just doesn't let that happen #5 Kudosov, right?

Master of defensive warfare strategy, arguably the savior Russia, pragmatic and cunning.

I think a lot of where people would rank him lower based off the catastrophe at Austrolitz.

And I know he was kind of the du jour commander of the combined Russo Austrian army, but he advises against attacking the French.

And I think had, you know, anybody listen to him, maybe Australian doesn't have it.

And he's often accused of being passive and indecisive.

But aside from being late in his career, I think a lot of those accusations aren't really valuable because by the time you hit 18101812, how many armies has Napoleon defeated?

How many Coalition wars have been lost?

And so when you're going up against Napoleon, I think it's good to be a little bit conservative #4 So this one might raise some eyebrows.

I have Archduke Charlie.

OK, just hear me out.

All right?

First one to defeat Napoleon, a major battle.

Aspirin nestling.

And yes, Napoleon didn't make a lot of mistakes by crossing 1 bridge, but he did win.

And I think you have to look back further as to why I ranked him higher.

If you look at his Ryan campaign of 1796, it is a masterpiece.

He's using central position and he's maneuvering, defeating 2 superior French armies separately.

And I think he is also a groundbreaking military reformer.

A lot of their forms obviously aren't completed by the time they're really needed in 1806, but he does push them forward.

And he was working against the institutional inertia of the Austrian army and the Austrian court.

And once again, yes, he's conservative, but I I don't blame him.

I'm not saying he's the best commander.

I think he needs more credit than he usually gets.

And then the top three, there's not a lot to be said #3 the Iron Marshall Devu, legendary corps commander, I'll just say it, Austrolitz, he covers 70 miles in 48 hours, which is absolutely insane to me as somebody who's done a lot of rock marches.

And I, you know, I think Austrolitz is the greatest military victory of all time.

And that does not happen if Devu doesn't pull it off.

There's so many other accomplishments to his name.

#2 as much as it pains me, Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, I don't like him as a commander.

I don't like him as a person.

But massive strategic impact in Spain by forcing France into that protracted secondary theater.

He wins time and time again.

He knows when to withdraw by the time he actually faces Napoleon.

Napoleon is not at his best or using his best troops, but ultimately Wellington is Wellington for reasons.

And of course #1 Napoleon creates the operational level of war.

He studied to this day.

I'm, I'm teaching a class on him next semester.

I'm not teaching a class on anybody else.

So he he has to get my #1.

Very good, very good.

OK, Graham, are you more appalled with Archduke Charles at 4:00 or Blucher at six?

Well, I don't want to give any spoilers away, but I'm not particularly appalled by either.

And I I really like this list.

There's some people on it that aren't on mine.

But again, you know, we, we can't get everyone in.

I think Sushi sometimes gets a lot of credit for, well, he obviously gets a lot of credit for Spain.

He deserves that.

But I'm not as convinced by Sushi as a battlefield commander, as you mentioned, in sieges counterinsurgency, he's actually quite politically savvy.

But as a battlefield commander, not so convinced.

Yeah, I'm not going to give any spoilers of what's on my list of who else isn't there, but some really interesting ones on that one.

I think Bluca being that high is a really interesting choice.

But as you say, you know, he's the right man at the right time.

He does what is necessary.

I think some of his his campaigns are are inspired, you know, the the move from to to Waterloo on the 18th of June is often just put off.

As as you know, he marches to support Wellington.

He is marching across the axis of advance of someone that's just beaten him two days before with his army strung out in the March to go to the assistance of someone who promised to help him two days before and didn't show up.

Now this is a a colossal risk he's taking, but he he pulls it off.

His aggression is there his willingness to to work with someone else there.

So I think, you know, Bluker give him a lot of credit and maybe wouldn't have him as high as 6, but but fantastic.

So, you know, it's another list I really like.

I really like the reasoning.

You know I can't fault any of it particularly even if mine will be slightly different.

Really good point on Waterloo and Bluker's efforts there.

Jonas and Rachel, you've already gone.

I'm going to go to Nick last because he hasn't given his list yet, but what did you think about Mike's list?

Yeah, I love this list.

Not to spoil my list either, but I have Charles High as well for a lot of the reasons you have as well.

I think it's also going to be worth mentioning that he's not the guy who's defeated in 1805 spoiler.

But yeah, I have Charles high as well, so I'm glad that somebody else does.

Blucher, having him pretty high.

I also have him in my top ten because he just, he kind of typifies like the later Prusso German tradition, you know, just very aggressive and that's what was needed, especially in 1813 and 1814.

But everybody remembers him as aggressive.

But he's also very he sticks to the plan and he has sometimes he charges blindly forward, but there are other opportunities where he could just charge riot Napoleon and they're like, no, and he doesn't.

He retreats, calls the Reichenbach plan.

So he's very tactically and strategically in lockstep with the plan.

But he also just like the inertia of the Coalition is with him, class of its would call like the center of gravity that's with his army and Napoleon chase after him the most because Blucher's got kind of the emotional capacity and the the fire of the Coalition is with his army.

So I think he deserves a lot of credit and he deserves to be high up on the list, although a lot of people might not think so.

I agree with Michael.

He deserves to be up there.

OK, yeah, just, I'll just respond to that now, Nick.

Nick and myself are probably a little bit biased because our advisor, our master Doctor Michael Ajeri did write, you know, Blue Curse Gorge Napoleon.

But I think a lot of how people think about Bluker, it's based off previous misconception.

I think Bluker guess he's aggressive, but it's calculated risk and I think he has a much better grasp of military strategy and the operational art then then he's he's been given credit for him.

He was nicknamed Marshall Ford.

But right, if you read the book to plug that, he actually retreated more often than he attacked.

And so when he is going forward, it is a calculated risk.

And so I'll defend his position.

All right, Jonas, what do you think of that?

Listen.

Pretty good, pretty agreeable on a lot of things maybe, although maybe I can't really go into a lot of the details, but maybe something doesn't really stick well with Mirab being so high up.

Especially maybe when it comes to.

I think that there's like a bit of an after taste with 1812 where I've been reading a lot of the eyewitness accounts and where you feel like a lot, especially is cavalry forces are just being thrown into a lot of situations where maybe caution would have been the better option.

But I mean, yeah, benefit of insight here.

Yes, superb cavalry commander, but I can I can actually kind of feel, but there could be some generals of division out there that I actually put on my list that are are a good match for him when it comes especially for the Kudoi.

I mean, if you have people like LaSalle or Montclair Killerman, I have I even have a discourse the Sankwa, which I feel is very underrated, like life cut short.

But I think he could have, could have been some, some good Marshall material.

I think they can, I think they can tug on murals coat, if you know what I mean.

I mean swagger, audacity, quite interesting.

Especially I feel in the later years, I feel he kind of loses oversight of of grant strategy.

I feel especially in 1812.

There's, like I said, I feel there's quite some, some eyewitness accounts out there, some some material that yeah, I kind of made the argument that, you know, he he would lose the oversight and that it would cause a lot of death and destruction for little good reason.

OK, I know Clarity Marshall Mura is on my list, but we haven't gotten to my list yet.

Rachel, what did you think of Mike's list?

Yeah, I thought it was so well argued.

Love seeing Ojiro on the list.

He's such a great personality.

Again, only when I disagree with his Mura, but then I'm certainly overtly have said in various other podcasts.

I think he's but you know, I again, that's the whole point of doing these things.

That's the fun of it is looking at how many different ways we can look at it and who admires what and how we can, you know, pull out the various characteristics these these men.

So it's, yeah, it's great to listen to.

Very good.

Yeah, I'll just, I'll just jump in real quick.

It's almost hard with the list when I was making this.

I don't know if he found this, but they're almost different people depending on what war you're talking in.

And so I'm not going to argue that Mara isn't the best later on because he's just he's not.

But like when he's great, he's the best, but then he's just not.

But just like Napoleon himself, Napoleon at the end is, is not the same.

And you have some glimpses of his his old self and really eight in 1814.

But when it's too late.

But I think with a lot of these people, it's just, it's like, why weren't you how you used to be?

So I'm I'm not going to get pushback on the raw.

Roger that.

All right, well, we got two more to go, actually, three more to go if you count myself.

And I think we'll pause here for Part 1.

We will have Part 2 of the Top 15 Generals of the Napoleonic Cage next week.

If you like this episode, please be sure to rate and review us wherever podcasts are heard, and we'll see you soon.

Thanks so much for listening.