FORWARD
After reading dozens of books about the Napoleonic Wars, I’ve compiled a best-and-worst list of military leaders from several nations. Throughout my reading, I took extensive notes—lots and lots of notes—and used them to rank the military leaders discussed in these books. This list includes French, Russian, British, Spanish, Austrian, and Prussian leaders from 1807 to 1815, ranked across six levels: Incompetent, Average, Skilled, Veteran, Gifted, and Brilliant. These rankings are based on categories from my own NNNG system, and at the end of this article, I’ve included my rationale for each selection, along with their in-game effects. There's also a bonus leader at the very end for those who stick around.
When I began this project over a year ago, I reached out to five groups for help, seeking their thoughts and input. I ended up receiving a consensus from three of these groups, totaling about 400 replies. Some responses were brief, listing only the leader’s name and ranking, while others offered more detailed explanations about why they ranked their choices the way they did. Every response was valuable in refining this list. By that point, I had already prepared my own selections and rankings, and many of the community’s suggestions lined up with mine—though some did not. In the end, I decided to blend part of the consensus with my own selections.
Before finalizing the list, I double-checked various sources to ensure historical accuracy and made a few minor last-minute adjustments. Of course, many of these rankings are subjective, as it’s difficult to capture the full complexity of a leader’s life and decisions in just a few sentences. I’ve primarily based the rankings on historical results, particularly battlefield outcomes. Thus, I had trouble categorizing some historical figures to some of the commander levels. Most especially troublesome were the Spanish and to a lesser degree the Austrians.
To narrow down the selections and ensure a fair assessment, I asked three key questions:
1. How well, or poorly, did the leader perform during battle?
2. Did the leader demonstrate an understanding of the challenges he faced?
3. What were the final results of his leadership?
For each leader, I’ve provided a brief note explaining my reasoning behind their placement in a particular category. Additionally, I’ve included the NNNG game ratings for each leader (CE, MR, CP) to give some insight into how they would perform in-game.
Please keep in mind these few historical leaders are just examples based on a limited amount of criteria, which in turn is based on the known facts of the battlefield, at least as written in journals of those who were there, and military historians of the past and present.
First up is a summation of the rankings, in case you prefer a quick glance at the results.
*After posting this yesterday, in rereading it today, I noticed a couple of editorial blunders, which I have now corrected. If you have alternative leaders, please post them, along with a short explanation as to why you think they should be included, as I'm truly interested in other people's thinking.
~N~
Summary of Commanders by Nation
French:
- Incompetent: General Claude Victor-Perrin
- Average: General Antoine Drouot
- Skilled: Marshal Michel Ney
- Veteran: General Jean-de-Dieu Soult
- Gifted: Marshal Louis-Nicolas Davout
- Brilliant: Marshal Andre Massena
Russian:
- Incompetent: General Alexander Tormasov
- Average: General Peter Bagration
- Skilled: General Michael Barclay de Tolly
- Veteran: General Dmitry Dokhturov
- Gifted: Prince Pyotr Bagration
- Brilliant: Field Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov
British:
- Incompetent: General Sir John Whitelocke
- Average: General Sir Thomas Picton
- Skilled: General Sir John Moore
- Veteran: General Rowland Hill
- Gifted: General Sir Arthur Wellesley (pre-Wellington)
- Brilliant: Duke of Wellington
Spanish:
- Incompetent: General Francisco Castaños
- Average: General Gregorio de la Cuesta
- Skilled: General Joaquín Blake
- Veteran: General Jose de Palafox
- Gifted: General El Empecinado (Juan Martín Díez)
- Brilliant: General Francisco Javier Castanos
Austrian:
- Incompetent: General Karl Mack von Leiberich
- Average: General Johann Kollowrat
- Skilled: General Johann von Hiller
- Veteran: General Ignaz Gyulai
- Gifted: General Johann von Klenau
- Brilliant: Archduke Charles of Austria
Prussian:
- Incompetent: General Friedrich Wilhelm von L'Estocq
- Average: General Ernst von Ruchel
- Skilled: General August von Gneisenau
- Veteran: General Johann David Ludwig Yorck von Wartenburg
- Gifted: General Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher
- Brilliant: General Gerhard von Scharnhorst
An Explanation of Rationale
FRENCH (1807-1815)
Incompetent (CE: -5, MR: -5, CP: 1)
Example: General Claude Victor-Perrin at the Battle of Leipzig (1813)
- Description: Though a capable commander earlier in his career, by the time of the Battle of Leipzig, Victor’s performance faltered. His indecision and inability to properly organize his corps under pressure during this decisive battle contributed to his troops' lackluster performance, which contributed to Napoleon’s defeat.
- Impact: His poor leadership at Leipzig caused confusion and diminished morale among his men, resulting in critical failures during the battle.
Average (CE: +5, MR: +2, CP: 2)
Example: General Antoine Drouot
- Description: Drouot was a solid, capable officer known for his organizational skills, particularly with artillery. He lacked the charismatic leadership to stand out as an elite battlefield commander, but he was consistent and dependable, especially in supporting roles.
- Impact: Drouot’s troops performed well under him, but he rarely made daring or decisive moves. He was steady and reliable, which is often exactly what was needed for logistics and artillery coordination.
Skilled (CE: +10, MR: +5, CP: 3)
Example: Marshal Michel Ney
- Description: Ney was known as the "Bravest of the Brave" for his personal courage and tactical ability, but he sometimes lacked strategic insight and his impulsiveness got the better of him. At the Battle of Quatre Bras (1815), Ney showed his skilled leadership in initially holding off Wellington’s forces, but his lack of coordination at Waterloo illustrated his limitations.
- Impact: Ney inspired tremendous loyalty and boosted the morale of his troops through his bravery and presence, but he sometimes overstretched his forces or failed to follow strategic plans.
Veteran (CE: +15, MR: +7, CP: 4)
Example: General Jean-de-Dieu Soult
- Description: Soult was a skilled tactician and well-regarded commander throughout the Napoleonic Wars. At battles like Austerlitz and during the Peninsular War, he demonstrated strong battlefield leadership and solid understanding of operations. However, he could be overly cautious, which sometimes limited his effectiveness in bold offensive actions.
- Impact: Soult’s ability to inspire his troops and manage large formations made him one of Napoleon’s most reliable marshals, though he occasionally hesitated when decisive action was needed.
Gifted (CE: +20, MR: +10, CP: 5)
Example: Marshal Louis-Nicolas Davout
- Description: Known as "The Iron Marshal," Davout was one of Napoleon’s most talented and capable marshals. His leadership at the Battle of Auerstadt (1806), where he defeated a superior Prussian force, showcased his incredible strategic and tactical abilities. He was highly respected by his troops and considered one of the most competent and reliable commanders in the Grande Armee.
- Impact: Davout’s presence on the battlefield significantly raised the combat effectiveness and morale of his forces, and he was often trusted with critical missions by Napoleon due to his ability to maintain cohesion and discipline under pressure.
Brilliant (CE: +25, MR: +15, CP: 6)
Example: Marshal Andre Massena
- Description: Massena, known as "The Victor of Austerlitz" and "The Hero of Italy," was one of Napoleon’s most brilliant marshals. His leadership during the Peninsular War and at the Battle of Rivoli (1797) demonstrated his superior strategic insight and adaptability in complex situations. Massena was entrusted with critical missions and was able to consistently deliver results, even in the face of overwhelming odds.
- Impact: Massena had an almost unparalleled ability to inspire his men and turn the tide of battle with his quick thinking and tactical acumen. His forces often performed at their peak when under his command, making him one of the most respected military leaders of the era.
Russians (1807–1815)
Incompetent (CE: -5, MR: -5, CP: 1)
Example: General Alexander Tormasov
- Tormasov’s leadership during the Russo-Turkish War and his slow response to Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 exposed his indecisiveness. His failure to engage effectively early in the Russian Campaign reflected poor judgment and leadership.
Average (CE: +5, MR: +2, CP:2)
Example: General Peter Bagration
- A solid commander, Bagration showed bravery and competence but lacked some of the more refined strategic skills. He was a capable leader in battle, particularly at Borodino (1812), where he held his position heroically before being fatally wounded.
Skilled (CE: +10, MR: +5, CP: 3)
Example: General Michael Barclay de Tolly
- Barclay de Tolly was a skilled commander who played a key role in the Russian army’s scorched earth tactics during Napoleon’s invasion of Russia. While initially unpopular for retreating, his strategic withdrawal ultimately helped trap Napoleon in Russia.
Veteran (CE: +15, MR: +7, CP: 4)
Example: General Dmitry Dokhturov
- Dokhturov’s reliable command in key battles like Borodino and Maloyaroslavets earned him a reputation as a solid and experienced general. His ability to maintain control in tough situations marked him as one of Russia’s most dependable military leaders.
Gifted (CE: +20, MR: +10, CP: 5)
Example: Prince Pyotr Bagration (Alternate for Veteran/Skilled)
- Bagration was a highly gifted leader and a national hero of Russia. His ability to inspire troops and his bold strategies were particularly notable at Austerlitz and Borodino.
Brilliant (CE: +25, MR: +15, CP: 6)
Example: Field Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov
- Kutuzov was the mastermind behind the Russian victory over Napoleon in the Russian Campaign of 1812. His strategic withdrawal and use of the harsh Russian winter to weaken Napoleon’s forces demonstrated brilliant strategic insight. Kutuzov's patience, tactical brilliance, and ability to inspire his troops make him one of the standout commanders of the era.
British (1807–1815)
Incompetent (CE: -5, MR: -5, CP: 1)
Example: General Sir John Whitelocke
- Whitelocke’s failed expedition in Buenos Aires (1807) resulted in a disastrous defeat for British forces, leading to his court-martial. His poor planning and leadership marked him as one of the least effective British commanders of the era.
Average (CE: +5, MR: +2, CP: 2)
Example: General Sir Thomas Picton
- A solid leader, Picton commanded the 5th Division at Waterloo but was known for his rough temperament. He was reliable and brave, but not at the level of Wellington or other top-tier commanders.
Skilled (CE: +10, MR: +5, CP: 3)
Example: General Sir John Moore
- Moore's leadership during the Peninsular War, particularly his actions at Corunna (1809), where he saved the British army from destruction, showed skillful command. He was well-regarded for his training of British light infantry.
Veteran (CE: +15, MR: +7, CP: 4)
Example: General Rowland Hill
- Hill was a trusted subordinate of Wellington and demonstrated consistent leadership in the Peninsular War. His defensive operations and ability to manage large forces under pressure make him a standout British veteran commander.
Gifted (CE: +20, MR: +10, CP: 5)
Example: General Sir Arthur Wellesley (pre-Wellington)
- Before becoming the Duke of Wellington, Wellesley’s leadership in India and his early successes in the Peninsular War show his gift for command. He effectively balanced offensive and defensive tactics with precise execution.
Brilliant (CE: +25, MR: +15, CP: 6)
Example: Duke of Wellington (Arthur Wellesley)
- As the commander of British forces, Wellington’s strategic genius was displayed in victories like Talavera, Salamanca, and, most famously, Waterloo (1815). His ability to utilize terrain, discipline his troops, and anticipate enemy movements made him one of the greatest commanders of the Napoleonic era.
Spanish (1807–1815)
Incompetent (CE: -5, MR: -5, CP: 1)
Example: General Francisco Castaños
- While not entirely incompetent, Castaños' poor coordination with other Spanish forces during the Peninsular War and limited success in major engagements, like the Battle of Tudela, point to ineffective leadership.
Average (CE: +5, MR: +2, CP: 2)
Example: General Gregorio de la Cuesta
- De la Cuesta was stubborn and often at odds with British commanders like Wellington. His leadership at Talavera was lackluster, and although brave, his forces were poorly organized and often routed.
Skilled (CE: +10, MR: +5, CP: 3)
Example: General Joaquín Blake
- Blake was one of the more capable Spanish commanders. He managed to coordinate guerrilla actions with conventional forces effectively, though he suffered from lack of resources and support. His leadership during the Battle of Espinosa showed his potential despite heavy odds.
Veteran (CE: +15, MR: +7, CP: 4)
Example: General José de Palafox
- Palafox was a tenacious defender during the Siege of Zaragoza (1808), where he led Spanish forces in a heroic but ultimately doomed defense. His determination and the morale boost he provided to his troops made him one of Spain’s stronger commanders.
Gifted (CE: +20, MR: +10, CP: 5)
Example: General El Empecinado (Juan Martín Díez)
- As a guerrilla leader, El Empecinado was highly skilled in asymmetrical warfare. His ability to disrupt French operations and inspire local forces against the French invaders made him one of Spain’s most gifted military figures during the war.
Brilliant (CE: +25, MR: +15, CP: 6)
Example: General Francisco Javier Castaños
- Although his overall performance was mixed, Castaños led Spanish forces to victory at the Battle of Bailén (1808), where his tactical brilliance resulted in one of the first major defeats for Napoleon's forces in Spain. This was a significant morale boost for the Spanish cause.
Austrians (1807–1815)
Incompetent (CE: -5, MR: -5, CP: 1)
Example: General Karl Mack von Leiberich
- Mack's surrender at Ulm (1805) without a fight was one of the most humiliating defeats for Austria. His indecision and failure to coordinate with allied forces showed incompetence at a strategic level.
Average (CE: +5, MR: +2, CP: 2)
Example: General Johann Kollowrat
- Kollowrat was a trusted officer, frequently given important commands, which speaks to his reliability. However, he didn’t show the kind of boldness or decisive action that would push him into the limelight. He was a solid commander who could follow orders and execute plans but was not someone who could make game-changing decisions on his own.
Skilled (CE: +10, MR: +5, CP: 3)
Example: General Johann von Hiller
- Hiller was a decent field commander but often lacked the vision to make decisive moves. His cautious approach at the Battle of Wagram (1809) demonstrated his limitations, though he was an extraordinary defensive commander. Hiller’s exceptional ability to manage defensive actions, his role in Napoleon's defeat at Aspern-Essling, and his competence in coordinating rear-guard actions mark him as a solid tactician. He was more effective than many of his peers but lacked the boldness to elevate him to greater standing among the more able leaders.
Veteran (CE: +15, MR: +7, CP: 4)
Example: General Ignaz Gyulai
- Gyulai was a reliable veteran officer who performed well in multiple battles against the French. His leadership at Linz and other engagements made him a dependable, if not extraordinary, commander.
Gifted (CE: +20, MR: +10, CP: 5)
Example: General Johann von Klenau
- Klenau was one of the few Austrian commanders to consistently perform well during the Napoleonic Wars. He played a key role in the Battle of Leipzig and Aspern-Essling, showcasing both tactical flexibility and boldness.
Brilliant (CE: +25, MR: +15, CP: 6)
Example: Archduke Charles of Austria
- Description: Archduke Charles is widely regarded as one of the most brilliant Austrian commanders of the Napoleonic era. His leadership in the 1809 campaign, particularly at the Battle of Aspern-Essling, where he handed Napoleon one of his rare defeats, showcased his tactical and strategic brilliance. Despite facing logistical and political challenges, Charles reformed the Austrian military and consistently performed well against Napoleon’s forces, making him one of the few commanders who could hold his own against the French emperor. His use of defensive tactics and ability to inspire his troops make him one of Austria's most legendary military leaders.
Prussians (1807–1815)
Incompetent (CE: -5, MR: -5, CP: 1)
Example: General Friedrich Wilhelm von L'Estocq
- Description: L'Estocq's leadership in 1807 was notably ineffective during the Battle of Eylau, where he struggled to coordinate his forces with the Russians. His failure to act decisively or coordinate effectively with allies led to missed opportunities and poor battlefield performance, reflecting a lack of competence in commanding forces during critical engagements.
Average (CE: +5, MR: +2, CP: 2)
Example: General Ernst von Rüchel
- Description: Rüchel played a role in the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt (1806), where his failure to coordinate with other Prussian commanders led to his forces being routed. While brave, Rüchel’s performance was largely mediocre, and he struggled to manage his forces effectively during the critical engagements of the Napoleonic wars.
Skilled (CE: +10, MR: +5, CP: 3)
Example: General August von Gneisenau
- Description: Gneisenau was an influential Prussian military reformer and strategist. He played a key role in the rebuilding of the Prussian army after its defeats in 1806 and later served as Blücher’s chief of staff during the Waterloo Campaign. His skill in logistics, organization, and strategic insight made him a highly effective commander, particularly in the latter stages of the war.
Veteran (CE: +15, MR: +7, CP: 4)
Example: General Johann David Ludwig Yorck von Wartenburg
- Description: Yorck was a seasoned and respected Prussian general who played a key role in the War of the Sixth Coalition. His leadership during the Battle of Leipzig (1813) and his successful command of rearguard actions highlighted his tactical flexibility and experience. Yorck was instrumental in rebuilding Prussian military confidence after earlier defeats, and his decision to sign the Convention of Tauroggen helped lay the groundwork for Prussia’s eventual defection from Napoleon’s side.
Gifted (CE: +20, MR: +10, CP: 5)
Example: General Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher
- Description: Blucher, known as "Marshal Forward," was one of the most aggressive and bold Prussian commanders. His leadership during the Waterloo Campaign, particularly his timely arrival at the Battle of Waterloo, was crucial in securing victory for the Allied forces. Blucher’s charisma and determination made him a beloved and highly respected commander, and his offensive mindset inspired his troops to fight with ferocity. He excelled in rallying his men and pressing attacks against the French.
Brilliant (CE: +25, MR: +15, CP: 6)
Example: General Gerhard von Scharnhorst
- Description: Scharnhorst was a military theorist and reformer who laid the foundation for the modern Prussian army. His reforms after the crushing defeats of 1806 helped create a more agile, disciplined, and effective force. As Blücher’s mentor, Scharnhorst had a profound influence on Prussian military doctrine, and his strategic brilliance in reorganizing the army was crucial to Prussia’s resurgence as a major military power. His ability to see beyond tactical engagements to the broader strategic picture marks him as one of Prussia’s most brilliant military minds.
Bonus Example:
Napoleon Bonaparte (CE: +30, MR: +20, CP: 7)
While not included in the commander table, Napoleon himself would be at the very top tier of brilliance. His ability to raise the performance and morale of his troops, his unparalleled strategic mind, and his charisma on the battlefield made him a historical outlier. His influence on an army was so significant that his mere presence often decided the fate of battles.