Ooof, hard choice.
I’ve read a fair amount about the Napoleonic Wars, and one thing that keeps me wondering about Napoleon’s supposed skill was the total incompetency of many of his opponents. They often formed up their armies in obviously vulnerable ways that Napoleon only had to try to exploit.
Also Napoleon often made some bone headed decisions that by luck and the sheer determination of his troops paid off, namely the decisions to make an all-out frontal attack in both Austerlitz and Borodino battles.
Wellington’s record is harder to judge IMO since was basically fighting kind of a harass/keep-away campaign in Spain against lesser French commanders. The only time Wellington was in command in the main fray was the 100 Days Campaign/Waterloo. And his leadership there wasn’t particularly brilliant, indeed, the fact that Napoleon even had a chance against the superior Allied armies was due in large part to Wellington and Blucher stupidly separating their forces, allowing Napoleon to wedge them apart for a time. Wellington’s main achievement at Waterloo was to stake his forces to a good defensive position and hold. And he would have been crushed by Napoleon if the French pursuit force under Grouchy had kept closer to the main body and blocked Blucher from flanking Napoleon late in the day.
So hard to say. I think I would choose Napoleon if I were in a desperate situation and needed decisive action. Wellington would seem more appealing if time was on my side.
