Napoleon was one of those generals, a bit like Patton, who really didn’t care how many of his men got killed as long as he got his victory. He was a very ruthless man. He wanted to be the next Alexander the Great. He also had extraordinary charm and he was a fascinating man. He was a dangerous man because he was in love with war. Wellington was never in love with war. He didn’t like war. War had to be fought, you had to do it well, you had to win, but it was not by itself a good thing. For Napoleon war was a good thing, an exciting thing. I think that was the difference between them.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
In conclusion ...
... Interview With Sharpe Creator Bernard Cornwell, Part III.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From the evidence of Carlo d'Este's biography, Patton did care how many men he lost. He was a highly aggressive commander because he felt that anything less than aggression would, in the end, lead to more casualties. He constantly inspected his men and made sure they had the best supplies (things like socks, for example, which are by no means unimportant). i don't think it's so much that he didn't care how many men he lost as that he accepted men would be lost because that is the nature of war. Superficially, a cautious commander is more protective of his men, but Patton wasn't famous for nothing - he was famous because he won victories. He wouldn't have kept on winning if he was losing inordinate numbers of men.
ReplyDelete