Who was the better commander?
Who was the better person?
Horatio Nelson was a counterrevolutionary fuck and I'm glad he died.
>>864957
Frenchaboos are revolutionary fucks and I'm glad you'll die someday
>>864957
Explain
>>864944
I guess nelson was probably more influential to naval warfare globally (two lines, not just one!), which shaped British fortunes in a more meaningful way than wellingtons romps on the continent - but thats just influence on history (and arguably after the 7th coalition, formed modern europe.)
A commander that blazes a trail, loses an eye and an arm and his life is a pretty good one in terms of SERVICE rendered.
But Wellington didn't die, and was a gentlemen. and diplomat.
Make your own conclusion.
>>864944
The qt is the better person and commander
>>864944
Pretty much this >>865016
Neither Nelson nor Wellington were hugely innovative in the way they fought, but Nelson's charismatic command, aggressive tactics (the 'pell-mell' battle rather than just shooting at each other in line) and the degree of freedom he gave to his captains once battle was commenced allowed him to set a precedent for the Royal Navy.
Wellington was a good general, but by comparison he preferred a top-down style of command, being involved in every decision from logistics to the exact placement of individual battalions on the battlefield. The British Army became an instrument that only worked in his hands, which in time proved to be a bad thing because of his hostility to change and completely ignoring the need to reform the army. So I guess in terms of who was the better commander, I'd say Nelson.
When it comes down to who was the better person I'd probably go with Wellington. To my knowledge Nelson and Wellington only ever met once, about a month before Trafalgar. Nelson walked into the room where Wellington was waiting to see a cabinet minister and, in Wellington's words, "entered at once into conversation with me, if I can call it conversation; for it was almost all on his side, and all about himself; and really in a style so vain and silly as to surprise and almost disgust me". Then Nelson left the room, someone told him who Wellington was, and when he returned he started talking like an 'officer and a statesman', actually treating Wellington as an equal human being. Nelson was massively arrogant, although very brave. Wellington certainly had some arrogance too, but wasn't quite so self-obsessed.
>>864968
Instrumental in suppressing the Neapolitan revolution and thereby abetting the crimes that resulted.
>>864957
Fuck the revolution, man
And I'm French
>>865240
Nelson was innovative, his aggression, two line combat and allowing his other captains freedom to make their own decisions in combat were certainly not used by any navy earlier
>>864944
Naval and land warfare are completely seperate realms. Unfair to compare.
>>865313
He was innovative up to a point; breaking the enemy line like he did at Trafalgar wasn't a completely new tactic. At the Battle of the Saintes Admiral Rodney broke the French line like this (Nelson made specific reference to this event before Traflagar) and at the Battle of Camperdown Admiral Duncan divided his fleet into two, albeit looser, formations in a similar way. The trust he gave individual captains to act on their own however, was very innovative
Nelson was probably a hindrance to his otherwise effective and disciplined forces. Until Waterloo the french always outfought Wellington, but he really did do the best he could with what he had (british and spanish infantry, the latter were a good european force but the spanish lol naw). Wellington was in the good position of having numerous allies and used that to his advantage. My vote is Wellington.
Nelson lost like half his battles
>>864944
>Who was the better commander?
Nelson I guess, Wellington was pretty bad
>Who was the better person?
Both were assholes, but Nelson more than the Irish dude
