Napoleon Bonaparte vs Fredrick the Great

Just like my thread on Julius Caesar vs Alexander the Great but now from the gun-powder age. Of these two enligntened despots who would most likley win in a face off.

Arthur Wellesley was much cooler than both of these.

This is very easy. First off Napoleon's Army was much more advanced than Fredrick's. Not only were they upgraded with superior technology they had much more experience, especially his guard.

Now as far as tactics & strategy go Napoleon takes the day. He was one of the first people to employ combined arms, corps, etc. He completely revolutionized warfare. He would be on Fredrick before he even knew it.

Also we could talk about how not only were Napoleon's soldiers superior he had much more of them than Fredrick, but I assume we are going off the assumption they are commanding the same sized armies.

You could look at their records as well. Napoleon fought better generals than Fredrick did, better soldiers than Fredrick did, & in a greater number of enemies than Fredrick did, & he won(a majority of the time, he won around 61 of the 68 battles he fought).

So General Bonaparte should beat Fredrick with ease.

FREDERICK THE GREAT FOREVER!

Anyway, I will try and analyze this.

GeneralBonaparte is right, Nappy had more men and superior tech. Better cannons, better muskets, and the whole combined arms. However, if we level the playing filed, giving each 50,000 men each with Napoleonic Age tech, then I feel that Frederick will win. Frederick, sort of like Nappy, fought many enemies all at once. BUT! Prussia was a small state. Quite pitiful. Yet, he lasted out the entire 7 Years War fighting against the Austrian armies, the Russian armies and the French armies, all at the same time. And won. He never had any rest when it came to fighting his enemies, and it truly is a testament to how amazing Frederick was as a general to be able to hold off forces of superior number, sometimes superior quality, under OK generals, and better cannon and come out unscathed. Oh, and he took territory from the Austrian Empire. I mean, in the late 18th century, they were the greatest on mainland Europe. And some small German state up ad takes it from them. How funny is that!

Well you could make the argument that even thought Prussia was a small state, France was lower on the totem poll considering they had just axed their king & were having to start their army from the ground up with mobs. Napoleon took them & had to quickly turn them into an effective fighting force that would grow into the the head bustin' 7 ft. conquers of Europe. If anything the transformation the army took under Napoleon's Leadership & what he was able to do with that army ofis more incredible than what Fredrick did.

Napoleon would clearly win in a fight for he has a million clones.

Frederick the Great because Napoleon himself said so.

Napoleon wasn't usually humble, but he was in that quote. He thought he was the greatest general ever & acted like it.
When Napoleon entered Berlin he was offered Frederick's sword to which he replied "No thank you, I have my own sword".

True, but considering at the time of the 7 Years War, Prussia's armies were surrounded on 3 sides by enemy's. Unlike France, it didn't even have the manpower capabilities to field men on all 3 fronts. And yet, Frederick successfully did so.

France didn't either & the men they did field were mods most of the time. Toulon, Napoleon's fist victory, was stalled for a good while because there were problems reinforcing the area.

Toulon was only one battle in a war between France and Austria, Prussia, Russia and the UK. Those troops were obviously in the other theaters of war (Italy, Austrian Netherlands, Germany, HRE). France had several hundred thousand men to call upon. Frederick had at most (I believe) 80,000, and that was only for a short period of time. Mostly, the average for his army was in the 35,000 to 55,000 range, sometimes less, sometimes more, but usually within that range. And that army was pretty much Prussia's main army. There was maybe one secondary army of 25,000 to 35,000, but that was rare. It usually was just Frederick and his army. Napoleon had several armies, ranging from 75,000 to 115,000, all on different fronts (in France, Spain, Germany, Austria, Russia, Italy and HRE).

He only got that many soldiers after going years on fighting with a few rags. Yes, the reason Toulon was hard to reinforce was because of of the multiple wars, but that doesn't detract from the fact men were few because they were spread so thinly. If this is a contest between who did best with the least, Napoleon still takes the day. All of his greatest battles have him beating a numerically superior opponent. At Austerlitz he was horribly out numbered yet he scored a victory Frederick could only dream of.

When Napoleon lost, he usually was the numerically superior opponent. For what ever reason he preformed best with a small amount of men regardless of their caliber.

Frederick was the same though. His greatest battles, Rossbach and Leuthen, were both when he was significantly outnumbered and still made a resounding victory. In tactics, he pioneered the oblique order, and used it to success on many occasions. And not only this, but in the previous war, the War of Austrian Succession, Frederick smashed armies either equal or greater in number of troops to his own army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rossbach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leuthen

@above

tl;dr

I am aware of those battles. Frederick preformed well, but a good hunk of those victories resulted on the French & Austrians making mistakes Napoleon wouldn't have overlooked.

I can throw out Lodi, Arcole, Marango, Pyramids, Dresden, Toulon, Friedland, Ligny, Wagram, & the list goes on.

Napoleon had greater victories in a greater quantity that were half the time against a superior foe. Yes Frederick faced a similar situation, but Napoleon did it on a much larger scale.

I mean Napoleon studied Frederick. He knew how things worked under him, filtered out the good, & implemented it in his own plan.

True, true. The only problem I find in these threads about this commander vs that commander is that it always ends up being commanders from different time periods. Nappy's army's (and most army's in Europe) had adapted to be able to defeat Prussia's army. With the technological advances of the day, and new tactics and such, obviously Nappy ends up winning. Find it hard to argue Frederick. -_- But I still have a place for Frederick in my heart .

But let us be honest here. If Frederick was alive and led the Prussian army when the 1st/2nd Coalition invaded France (and Nappy was still an unknown artillery captain), France would have been smashed. Crushed. Blown to small tiny bits. Bourbon monarchy restored. The end. Nappy never makes it past captain. Imagine a world like that!

Well yes, because Napoleon isn't a commander. Let's even things out. Let's say Napoleon just got back from Egypt. He has just become First Council. Austria never invades Italy instead they are invaded by Frederick. France isn't the big empire it turned out to be yet, but Napoleon has a sizable army. I think that is as even as you can pit the two.

Now in that instance Napoleon also carries the day, & here is why. First his troops are on par with the Prussians. No one has a clear edge except in artillery. Napoleon's ability to strategically employ artillery is a huge strike for Frederick. He would not be able to use his as effective as Napoleon.

Second, subordinates. Napoleon had a huge mass of generals close to his own brilliance. If he was accompanied by Marshals Davote & Lannes has usual Frederick wouldn't have a chance. Corp would have him surrounded.

Third, General Bonaparte's corps. This was a new concept to Frederick. He wouldn't know how to combat Napoleon who would have fought with a few contingents that resembled mini armies. Heck, even Napoleon's enemies wouldn't know how for years to come!

So my verdict is Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte is the victor. It would take a miracle for Frederick to win.

Good job mr. bonaparte. You are taking up where nappy left off as the defender of Napoleon!

Minus the broken English, & impersonation.

I'll go with Frederick the Great here, if only because he has an epithet that will forever be in his name, while Napoleon does not.