For more A.F. Branco cartoons, go to WesternJournal.com/cartoons.

On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters in Abu Dhabi a meeting with Russias President Vladimir Putin would happen as soon as we can set it up.Russia and Ukraine are holding their

Good Friday morning. Here is whats on 46 agenda today: 10:50 AM AST THE PRESIDENT participates in a US-UAE Business Council Breakfast Roundtable 12:25 PM AST THE PRESIDENT tours the Abrahamic Family

The Midcontinent Rift is a giant tear that formed in what is now the U.S. Midwest 1.1 billion years ago. Nicknamed North America's "broken heart," it is filled with solidified magma and lava.

A study analyzing how leaves fall appears to support the "fast leaf hypothesis".

Britain and Russia were notably enemies during the Crimean War (1853-1856). However, the two countries briefly clashed during the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815). Yet, Britain and Russia were allies for most of the coalition wars against revolutionary and Napoleonic France (1792-1815). So, what prompted the Anglo-Russian War in 1807?The answer lies in Napoleons form of economic warfare against Britain (the Continental System) and developments within the Baltic region. Moreover, Russian efforts to end the war laid the groundwork for the renewed conflict against Napoleon in 1812.Historical Context of the Anglo-Russian WarPortrait of Tsar Paul I of Russia, by Stepan Shchukin, 1797. Source: Wikimedia CommonsBritain and Russia had been uncomfortable allies during the French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1801). Russian ruler Tsar Paul I resented British ambitions in the Mediterranean. Specifically, the island of Maltas future derailed Anglo-Russian relations. Paul I had been the protector of the Order of the Knights of St. John, which had ruled Malta for centuries before Napoleon conquered the island in 1798.Britains seizure of Malta and insistence on maintaining control infuriated the tsar. Soon, Russian forces were withdrawn from the battlefield. Moreover, as historian Charles Esdaile notes, the Russian ruler left the coalition against France and revived the anti-British League of Armed Neutrality, dating from the American Revolution (2007, 104-105).France also benefited from the falling out between Britain and Russia. Not only did Russia withdraw from the coalition fighting the French, but Napoleon and Tsar Paul I entertained an alliance where Franco-Russian forces would threaten Britains hold on India.Denmark, Sweden, Prussia, and several minor German states joined Russia in this anti-British alliance. However, the League quickly disintegrated in 1801 with Tsar Pauls assassination. Moreover, Britains Royal Navy under Admiral Sir Hyde Parker and Vice-Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson rattled Denmark by bombarding Copenhagen in April 1801. By June 1801, Britain had signed agreements with all the Leagues former members.Historian Andrew Roberts notes that Napoleon was enraged at the news of Pauls assassination (2014, 295). Napoleon hoped to forge close ties with Pauls successor, Tsar Alexander I. However, he would soon be disappointed as Russia once again challenged France by joining in coalitions of rival European powers orchestrated by Britain.The Continental System and TilsitInterview of Tilsit between Napoleon I and Tsar Alexander I of Russia on the Niemen River on June 25, 1807, by Adolphe Roehn, 1808. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Chteau de VersaillesNapoleons decisive victories over Austria, Russia, and Prussia in 1805-1806 enabled the French to launch an ambitious form of economic warfare against Britain. The Continental System, initially created through the November 1806 Berlin Decrees, aimed to seal European ports off from British trade and thus cripple Britains economy and war-making capabilities which would bring about a favorable Anglo-French peace agreement for Napoleon.Instead, as Andrew Roberts notes, Napoleons desire to impose this blockade of British goods on Portugal, Spain, and Russia would ultimately lead to his defeat and fall from power (2014, 427).Despite a hard-fought campaign against Napoleon in Poland during 1806-1807, Russia was forced to seek peace as French forces threatened to cross the River Niemen and enter Russian territory. As a result, Napoleon met Tsar Alexander and Prussian King Frederick William III on a barge on the Niemen at Tilsit in June 1807.Napoleon insisted that Russia join the Continental System and close ports to British trade. Alexander, for his part, agreed to declare war on Britain should his efforts to mediate a peace agreement between the British and French fail.The Road to WarGrbrdre Torv, Copenhagen after the bombardment of 1807, by Jens Peter Mller, 1808. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Frederiksborg Castle, Hillerd, DenmarkWith Napoleon mainly controlling mainland Europe, British policy sought to limit Frances grip on continental ports and prevent serious naval competition with the Royal Navy. By 1807, neutral Denmarks sizable navy posed a threat to British interests should the Danes side with Napoleon.As a result, British forces once again attacked Denmark in September 1807. Charles Esdaile notes that the fighting marked Sir Arthur Wellesleys (the future Duke of Wellington) first taste of battle since returning from India (2007, 312).However, the British attack on Copenhagen is better known for the devastation caused by artillery shells and the newly invented Congreve rocket. As Esdaile points out, most of Copenhagen was built of wood, which turned the city into an inferno (2007, 311-312). The British bombardment forced the citys surrender, but at a terrible cost. An estimated 2,000 civilians were killed, which caused outrage across Europe.Indeed, Britains attack on Denmark marked one of the final events that culminated in Russias declaration of war on Britain in 1807. Moreover, despite seizing many Danish naval vessels, Britains attack fueled a prolonged naval conflict with Denmark known as the Gunboat War (1807-1814).A Smokeless War?Battle between the Russian ship Opyt and the British frigate HMS Salsette, off the coast of Nargen Island, 11th July 1808, by Leonid Demyanovich Blinov, 1889. Source: Wikimedia Commons/State Central Navy Museum, St. PetersburgHistorian Alexander Mikaberidze explains that, in the 1920s, Russian historian Nikolai Dubrovin, described this Anglo-Russian conflict as a Smokeless War (2020, 753). Indeed, there were few battles beyond minor naval skirmishes in the Baltic. Neither side was invested in fighting a larger war. One reason was that Russia and Britain had enjoyed a lucrative trade relationship before 1807.Mikaberidze points out that British officials seized several Russian vessels docked in British ports upon receiving news of war. For example, a 44-gun Russian frigate carrying the payroll of Russias Mediterranean Fleet was seized in Portsmouth (2020, 753).There were also several minor naval skirmishes and raids between 1808 and 1810 in the Baltic and Barents seas. For example, the Royal Navy destroyed several Russian gunboats in the Baltic Sea in July 1809. Moreover, Mikaberidze notes that the Royal Navy raided Russian positions as far as Murmansk (2020, 358). Nevertheless, engagements between British and Russian naval forces remained limited.However, some British officers joined the conflict against Russia by intervening in the Russo-Persian War (1804-1813). For example, Mikaberidze notes that William Monteith was an advisor to Qajar Crown Prince Abbas Mirza during an unsuccessful campaign against Russia in the Caucasus (2020, 753).Admiral Senyavins GamblePanel of azulejos depicting Sir Arthur Wellesley receiving the defeated French commander at Vimeiro in August 1808. Source: Wikimedia CommonsPerhaps the most unusual event in this unusual conflict involved the fate of Admiral Dimitri Senyavins Russian fleet. In 1807, part of Russias Baltic Fleet under Senyavin was stationed in the Ionian Islands. Recalled to Russia, Senyavins command encountered terrible weather and was forced to dock at Lisbon.At this moment, Lisbon was in turmoil as a French invasion loomed to force the Portuguese to join the Continental System against Britain. Moreover, the Royal Navy was on the way with the offer to escort Portugals royal family to safety in Brazil. Historian Alexander Mikaberidze notes that Britains devastating attack on Copenhagen likely helped convince Portugals royals to accept the offer of exile in Brazil (2020, 341).Senyavins Russian ships were outnumbered and outgunned by the British force that arrived in Lisbon. The Russian commander rejected British demands to surrender. In fact, Senyavin threatened to destroy Lisbon and then his ships if the British made any effort to attack the Russians.Senyavin faced increasing pressure to surrender after British forces defeated the French at Vimeiro in August 1808. Despite Britains control of Portugal in the battles aftermath, Royal Navy commanders agreed to escort Senyavins ships to Britain (with Russian flags still flying).The arrival of Russian ships with their flags flying in a time of war stunned British officials in Portsmouth, unaware of the agreement at Lisbon. Nevertheless, Mikaberidze notes that British officials delayed Senyavins departure for Russia on various pretexts. In fact, only after another year of virtual captivity was Senyavin transferred on British ships to Riga. The Russian vessels remained at Portsmouth until 1813 (2020, 357-358).Russias War With SwedenPortrait of Jean-Baptiste-Jules Bernadotte, Prince de Ponte-Corvo, later crown prince of Sweden Norway as Karl XIV Johan, Marshal of France, by Joseph Nicolas Jouy, 1852. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Chteau de VersaillesWhile Tsar Alexander was not interested in pursuing a significant conflict with Britain, the same could not be said for his attitude towards Sweden. The Swedes were British allies and historic rivals of Russia in the Baltic region.Mikaberidze notes that Russias invasion of Swedish-controlled Finland had more to do with the traditional Baltic rivalry than the Napoleonic Wars (2020, 346-347). As a result, Tsar Alexander was far more invested in seizing Finland from Sweden than waging war on an important economic partner in Britain.In 1808, Russian forces invaded and seized Finland from Sweden. The conflict formed part of a series of events that launched a succession crisis in Sweden. Swedens costly conflict with Russia, coupled with the sudden death of the elected crown prince, Danish prince Charles August, plunged the country into crisis.Eventually, the Swedes elected French Marshal Jean-Baptiste-Jules Bernadotte as crown prince. Although he was Joseph Bonapartes brother-in-law and one of Napoleons senior commanders, Napoleon and Bernadotte had a contentious relationship.Andrew Roberts notes that the Swedes were unaware of this problematic relationship. Indeed, at the time, Swedish officials hoped offering the crown to a French officer who had been kind to Swedish prisoners of war in a previous conflict would remove the threat of Napoleonic conquest (2014, 547).Nevertheless, the decision in 1810 to elect Bernadotte as crown prince (he formally became king in 1818) proved a success for Sweden. Indeed, the dynasty founded by Bernadotte survives as Swedens royal family to this day.The Path to Peace and War in 1812Portrait of Imperator Alexander I of Russia, by Stepan Shchukin, 1808. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Pavlovsk Palace, RussiaTsar Alexanders path to forging a peace agreement with Britain involved distancing Russia from Napoleonic France. Indeed, Franco-Russian relations declined sharply between 1810 and 1812. For instance, Napoleon failed to offer promised support in Russias war against the Ottoman Empire (1806-1812). Relations between the two emperors also became frosty.Another reason for the deteriorating Franco-Russian relations involved Alexanders decision to permit Russian trade with Britain from 1810.As war between France and Russia approached in early 1812, Alexander set out to make peace and prepare for Napoleons next attack. Historian J.P. Riley notes that in April 1812, Russia and Sweden signed a mutual defense pact (2001, 24). Russia also made peace with the Ottoman Empire through the Treaty of Bucharest in May 1812.Peace with Britain came about as part of the treaties of rebro in the summer of 1812. The Anglo-Russian agreement occurred just as Napoleons massive army invaded Russia. Confusingly, another treaty finalized at rebro ended a brief state of war between Britain and Sweden. This conflict did not result in a single battle or casualty.Napoleons Continental System produced many conflicts, some of them of major historical significance (such as Napoleons 1812 invasion of Russia and the Peninsular War). At the same time, the Continental System also produced several relatively minor and often confusing wars, including the Anglo-Russian War of 1807-1812.Aftermath of the Anglo-Russian WarThe Night Bivouac of the Grande Arme during the retreat from Russia in 1812, by Vasily Vereshchagin, 1896-1897. Source: Wikimedia Commons/Museum of Patriotic War 1812, MoscowToday, the unusual Anglo-Russian conflict during the Napoleonic Wars is largely forgotten. Indeed, few histories of the Napoleonic Wars even mention this war between Britain and Russia.Nevertheless, as Alexander Mikaberidze points out, this conflict is of interest partly because of its connection to several significant chapters in the history of the Napoleonic Wars, including the road to Napoleons disastrous invasion of Russia in 1812 (2020, 356). Moreover, this brief conflict also formed part of the Peninsular War story and the Baltic regions history.References and Further ReadingEsdaile, C. (2007). Napoleons Wars: An International History. Viking.Mikaberidze, A. (2020). The Napoleonic Wars: A Global History. Oxford University Press.Riley, J.P. (2001). Napoleon and the World War of 1813: Lessons in Coalition Warfighting. Cass.Roberts, A. (2014). Napoleon the Great. Penguin.

At the beginning of 1890, Menelik II, Emperor of Ethiopia, one of the only two independent African countries, contacted the leaders of the Western powers to announce his accession to the throne. To his shock, his correspondents informed the emperor that all his diplomatic relations should be handled by the Italian government, as Ethiopia was a protectorate of Italy. However, Menelik did not remember agreeing to waive his countrys independence. The confusion regarding Ethiopias status stemmed from a translation error in the Treaty of Wuchale, which was redacted both in Amharic and Italian. The ensuing dispute over the correct interpretation eventually led to the First Italo-Ethiopian War.Emperor Yohannes, Sahle Mariam of Shewa, & Italy: The Origins of the TreatyEmperor Yohannes palace in Makelle, Ethiopia. Source: Hadgi TourismIn the second half of the 19th century, the European powers launched a series of aggressive expansionist campaigns overseas that resulted in the forced partition of the African continent, commonly known as the Scramble for Africa. Only Ethiopia and Liberia managed to maintain their sovereignty during this period of intense exploitation and conquest. In the 1880s, however, Italys imperialist endeavors threatened Ethiopias independence.By the time the Italians began to advance onto the highlands from their outpost in Massawa, a strategic port on the Red Sea, Ethiopias ruler, Emperor Yohannes IV, had already successfully defended his country from Egypts invasion attempt. Even though the military victories had strengthened his hold on the imperial throne, Yohannes still struggled to contain the challenges to his rule from powerful contenders within the country. The emperors most dangerous rival was Sahle Mariam, the charismatic negus (king) of Shewa, a southern province of Ethiopia. While the provincial leader had formally recognized Yohannes position in 1878, he had not abandoned his plan to secure the throne for himself.The Italian government aimed to exploit the internal tension to undermine Yohannes IV and establish its authority over Ethiopia. To this end, Pietro Antonelli, the Italian emissary in the African country, began cultivating diplomatic ties with the king of Shewa, sponsoring his project to ascend to the throne. After the death of Yohannes, a thousand pretenders will fight over an empire that no longer is, remarked Antonelli. Following the Machiavellian divide et impera (divide and rule) policy, Italy planned to ensure that a pro-Italian ruler would wear the imperial crown.Italian immigrants holding the flag of the Kingdom of Italy upon leaving the peninsula. Source: Liceo Sophie M. Scholl TrentoIn the 1880s, Italy and Sahle Mariam formed a military alliance. According to the agreement, Italy would support the King of Shewa against Yohannes, delivering ten thousand Remington rifles and other modern military equipment to his army. In exchange, Sahle Mariam promised to hand over a portion of the northern territories to the Kingdom of Italy.The Italian armed forces previous attempt to expand into the Ethiopian highlands had been largely unsuccessful. In 1887, at Dogali, Ras Alula, Yohannes right-hand general, had decimated the Italian troops led by Colonel De Cristoforis. In the aftermath of the humiliating defeat, known in Italy as the Dogali Massacre, the Italian government saw their alliance with Sahle Mariam as a means to avenge the national honor.Meanwhile, Yohannes, in the face of the ongoing Italian imperial ambitions, hoped to persuade the charismatic King of Shewa to join him in his defense of the country against the Western country: If the two of us remain united with the help of God we will win, declared the emperor.In 1889, however, a new threat forced Yohannes to divert his focus from his campaign against the Italians. After the Sudanese army invaded Ethiopia in March, Yohannes died from a wound sustained during the battle of Metemma. Sahle Mariam, with Italys approval, immediately proclaimed himself negusa negest (king of kings) with the name of Menelik II. In May, the new emperor formalized his ties with the Kingdom of Italy with the Treaty of Wuchale.Italian Colonialism & EthiopiaMap of Massawa, the port on the Red Sea Italy acquired in 1884. Source: Library of CongressWhen Italy joined the Scramble for Africa, the other Western powers had already partitioned most of the continents territory. While the newly united Kingdom of Italy was a newcomer to the international political landscape and imperialist exploits, the Italian government took part in the 1884-1885 Berlin Conference, where it was awarded the East African territories on the Red Sea that would later form the colony of Eritrea. In 1870, the Genovese Rubattino Company had already purchased the port of Assab, a strategic location near the Suez Canal they later sold to the Italian state.At the time, the Italian government struggled to turn the former local states of the peninsula into a homogeneous political entity. We have made Italy, famously stated Massimo DAzeglio, now we must make Italians.However, the hazardous task of developing a sense of national identity and establishing a bond between society and state was made more complicated by the pressing economic and financial problems straining the new nation. In this context, future Prime Minister Francesco Crispi saw the prospect of colonial expansion in Africa as a means to address the pressing issues of widespread poverty and unemployment.Without a single drop of bloodshed, commented Crispi, an immense space is being offered to our industry and our trade where they can invest their money safely and to their great advantage.Front page of the map of Eritrea published by the Italian Institute for Military Geography. Source: Library of CongressIn the years following the Risorgimento, the movement for national unification, Italy was also concerned about the mass migrations of Italian citizens overseas, especially to the Americas. In the second half of the 19th century, as the number of Italians leaving the peninsula in search of better life prospects increased, the government started promoting colonial expansion in Africa as a means to provide the impoverished peasants a closer settlement.Thus, the nexus between migration and territorial expansion became a staple of Italian colonialism, legitimizing the establishment of an African empire as securing a vital space for the Italian peasants. In 1911, Italian poet Giovanni Pascoli famously titled his 1911 speech to celebrate the annexation of Libya: The Great Proletarian, She Has Risen!One Treaty, Two Translations: The Treaty of WuchaleDrawing of the negotiations between Menelik II and the Italians to solve the dispute surrounding the Treaty of Wuchale. Source: Library of Congress BlogsIn March 1889, after the death of Yohannes IV, the Italians were eager to formalize their alliance with his successor, hoping to secure their hold on Ethiopia. Similarly, Menelik, fearing the claims for the throne advanced by Mangasha, the former rulers son, saw his ties with the Italian government as a means to strengthen his position. Thus, on May 2, 1889, Menelik II and Pietro Antonelli (on behalf of King Umberto I of Italy) signed the Treaty of Wuchale, named after the Ethiopian town where the two countries representatives met to negotiate the agreement. Two official versions of the document were produced, one in Italian and the other in Amharic.According to Article 3 of the treaty, Menelik formally recognized Italys territorial possessions in modern Tigray and Eritrea. It is the first time that a king of Ethiopia cedes part of his territory by accord, boasted Antonelli in an 1890 letter to Francesco Crispi. In exchange, with Article 6, the Italian Kingdom granted the Ethiopian emperor the exclusive right to import arms and ammunition through the port of Massawa free of charge.The provisional draft of the treaty, presumably written in Italy before the beginning of the negotiations, also included a provision proposing that Menelik II conduct all future diplomatic relations with the European powers through the Italian government. In the Italian version of the Treaty of Wuchale, Article 17 thus announced that the Emperor of Ethiopia agreed to use (consente di servirsi) the liaison services of the Italian government for his foreign relations. The wording of the phrase seemed to imply a future Italian protectorate over Ethiopia.Map of Eritrea, Italys colony established after the Treaty of Wuchale. Source: LimesHowever, the implication of Article 17 regarding the future status of the African country was lost in translation. Indeed, the Amharic text of the treaty merely stated that the Emperor may, if he desires to (yichalachewal), refer to the Kingdom of Italy in his dealings with other European nations.Contrary to the Italian document, the Ethiopian text did not suggest that Menelik II would be required to relinquish his right to independently conduct a foreign policy. As the word protectorate was not explicitly mentioned by either version of the Treaty of Wuchale, Menelik II understood the use of Italys assistance in his future diplomatic initiatives as optional.Despite the discrepancy between the Italian and Amharic wording of Ethiopias status, Article 19 confusingly reassured the signatories that the two copies of the document have equal validity and legal force. The same paragraph also attested to the accuracy of the translation from the Italian draft: le due versioni combaciano perfettamente fra di loro (the two versions are exactly the same).Wuchalegate: An Error or a Double-Cross?Photo of King Umberto I of Italy. Source: Museo Nazionale Risorgimento Italiano, TorinoThe year following the signing of the Treaty of Wuchale, Emperor Menelik II attempted to establish diplomatic ties with key European leaders, including Queen Victoria of Great Britain and Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany. In February 1890, when his correspondents responded to his previous letters, Menelik made a troubling discovery.[The] Italian government, wrote the British queen, have notified us that by a Treaty concluded between Italy and Ethiopia, it is provided that His Majesty the King of Ethiopia consents to avail himself of the government of His Majesty the King of Italy for the conduct of all matters which he may have with other powers or Governments.The German Kaiser similarly informed Menelik that Ethiopia was now an Italian protectorate, insultingly addressing him as Your Highness instead of Emperor.After the initial bewilderment, Menelik discovered that the Italian government had notified the Western powers about the newly established protectorate over Ethiopia in conformity with the General Act of the Berlin Conference. Meanwhile, in January 1890, the Kingdom of Italy had announced the creation of the colony of Eritrea (from the Greek erythros, or red) in the territories gained with the Treaty of Wuchale.Emperor Menelik II of Ethiopia. Source: St. Marys University, San AntonioTo protest the deception, Menelik contacted King Umberto I: I said that because of friendship, our affairs in Europe might be carried on with the aid of the Sovereign of Italy, but I have not made any treaty which obliges me to do so, and today, I am not the man to accept it. That one independent power does not seek the aid of another to carry on its affairs, your Majesty understands very well.Hoping to safeguard his countrys independence, Menelik wrote to the European leaders, informing them that the Amharic text of the treaty, equally binding as the Italian version, did not commit him to waive Ethiopias sovereignty. According to his biographer Afework Gabre Yesus, the African emperor directly complained to Count Augusto Salimbeni, the Italian envoy sent to Ethiopia to clear the confusion surrounding the treaty, about what he believed to be a double-cross from the part of the Italians: I have never even dreamt of Ethiopia being an Italian protectorate.From the Treaty of Wuchale to the First Italo-Ethiopian WarThe battle of Adwa, 1896. Source: Black PastAs the dispute over the interpretation of Article 17 continued, the relationship between Italy and Ethiopia quickly deteriorated. The Italian government, bent on establishing the newly united nation as an international power, refused to revoke its claim over Ethiopia. In January 1890, when Menelik had yet to discover the mistranslation of the Treaty of Wuchale, General Antonio Baldissera, the commander of the Italian forces in Eritrea, received the order to march into the Tigray Province up to the town of Adwa.In 1893, faced with the aggressive Italian expansionist policy, Menelik II decided to unilaterally abrogate the Treaty of Wuchale. He also declared null the additional convention between the two nations signed on his behalf by Ras Makonnen (Meneliks cousin and father of the future emperor Haile Selassie) in 1889.Announcing his decision to the Western powers, Menelik yet again condemned Italys double-cross, denouncing that the Italian government was trying, under the mask of friendship, to take possession of this country. Ethiopia, added the emperor, is strong enough to maintain its independence, and it does not care for any protectorate.Three years after Menelik rejected the Treaty of Wuchale, his army inflicted a humiliating defeat on the Italians at Adwa. It was the first time an African country successfully defended its independence against a colonization attempt. In October 1896, with the Treaty of Addis Ababa, the Kingdom of Italy formally recognized Ethiopias independence.The disastrous outcome of the First Italo-Ethiopian War remained an open wound in the history of the young Italian state. In 1935, Benito Mussolini ordered the invasion of Ethiopia, declaring his intention to avenge the disaster of Adwa. At the end of the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, the African country, an international symbol of Black pride, became an Italian colony.

Who was the more successful? Who was the more capable? Who accumulated the most victories? Who has the greatest legacy? Who is better loved by modern historians? Let us step back into 19th-century Europe and attempt to discover, out of the Duke of Wellington and Napoleon Bonaparte, who was the better man?Wellington and Napoleon: What Did They Think of Each Other?Napoleon I, by Philibert-Louis Debucourt, 1807. Source: The MET, New YorkThe first thing to know about the Duke of Wellington and Napoleon Bonaparte is that, although they shared an ongoing and relentless rivalry throughout their lives, they did not actually know each other personally.Never once did the enemies meet, never once did they correspond in any way, and never once did they share any contact of any kind. Nonetheless, to this day, the encounter of their opposing armies at the Battle of Waterloo remains one of the most famous in European history.Everyone knows that Wellington and Napoleon hated each other. This fact could not be more obvious. Interestingly, however, Wellington had more respect for Napoleon than Napoleon did for Wellington. Historian Andrew Roberts stated that it has long been assumed by historians that, in the words of one: Napoleon consistently misunderstood and underestimated Wellington, Wellington was never in doubt about the genius of Napoleon.Despite the fact that Wellington was an exceptionally experienced leaderhe was present at more than 60 battlesNapoleon still gave scathing reports of him. On the morning of June 18, 1815, just before the Battle of Waterloo began, Napoleon was said to have informed his army that Wellington was such a poor general that they had nothing to fear.The Morning After the Battle of Waterloo, by John Heaviside Clark, 1816. Source: Wikimedia CommonsWellington, in contrast, was realistic about Napoleons ability. He famously said that Napoleons presence on the battlefield was worth forty thousand men. Publicly he praised, but privately he criticized. To his friends, Wellington said of Napoleon his whole life, civil, political and military is a fraud.In this article, we will weigh Wellington and Napoleon against each other, taking into consideration each aspect of their lives, both public and private. Who was the better educated? Who was the better Christian? Who was the better leader? On a slightly more frivolous note: who was the better-looking? Who was the better husband? Dare we venture into this territory, who was the better lover?Before we attempt to work out who was the superior of these two historic figures, it is important to rediscover their individual lives and achievements. Wellington and Napoleon; who exactly were they?What Do We Need to Know About the Duke of Wellington?The Duke of Wellington, by Thomas Lawrence, 1815-6. Source: English HeritageThe first thing to know about Arthur Wellesley, the first Duke of Wellington, is that he was one of the leading figures in Britain during the late 18th and early 19th centuries.Arthur Wellesley was born on May 1st, 1769. His parents were Garret Wellesley, first Earl of Mornington (1735-1781), and his wife, Anne Hill-Trevor (1742-1831). Arthurs life spanned the reign of four British Monarchs: King George III, King George IV, King William IV, and Queen Victoria.Wellington also had a wifeKitty Pakenham (1773-1831)whom he married in 1806. The couple had two children: Arthur Wellesley, second Duke of Wellington (1807-1884), and Lord Charles Wellesley (1808-1858).Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Wellesley, aged 26, in the 33rd Regiment, by John Hoppner, 1795. Source: Wikimedia CommonsWellington is now famous for two reasons. Firstly, he is famous for his crucial role in the Napoleonic Wars, for his ongoing rivalry with Napoleon Bonaparte, and for his unmatched ability to lead the English army to victory at the Battle of Waterloo. This victory was the one that set him up for life; when he returned to Britain he was hailed as a champion, was formally honored, and presented with an estate in Hampshire and a vast fortune of 400,000.Secondly, he is famous for becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on two separate occasions. His first leadership occurred between 1828 and 1830 when he served under both King George IV and King William IV. His second was somewhat shorter; he was Prime Minister once again between November and December of 1834.At varying points in his life, he also held the titles of chief secretary for Ireland, commander-in-chief of the British Army, leader of the House of Lords, home secretary, foreign secretary, and British ambassador to France.Although he enjoyed a successful political career, it was his capability on the battlefield that ensured Wellington would go down in history as a national hero. He is still well remembered for his adaptive defensive style of warfare and is still consideredalongside his enemy Napoleonas one of the greatest commanders of the modern era.So highly esteemed is the Duke of Wellington as a strategist and military mastermind that the Encyclopaedia Britannica describes him as the conqueror of the worlds conqueror, and claims that there is still widespread appreciation of his military genius and of his character as an honest and selfless politician, uncorrupted by vast prestige.What Do We Need to Know About Napoleon Bonaparte?Napoleon Bonaparte, by Jacques-Louis David, 1812. Source: National Gallery of Art, WashingtonNapoleon Bonaparteoriginally named Napoleone di Buonapartewas born on August 15, 1769. His parents were Carlo Maria Buonaparte (1746-1785), and his wife, Maria-Letizia Ramolino (1750-1836). It should be noted that his family was not French but Italian and that his first home was the Maison Bonaparte in Ajaccio, on the island of Corsica.Napoleon is remembered for being a French military officer and statesman who originally rose to prominence during the French Revolution. He was leader of the French Republic from 1799 to 1804, and then of the French Empireas Emperor of the Frenchfor a decade from 1804 until 1814.Napoleon also possessed a wealth of other titles at varying points during his life: President of the Italian Republic, King of Italy, Prince of Elba, and Mediator of the Swiss Confederation to name but a few.His romance with Josephine de Beauharnais (the quote not tonight, Josephine, immediately springs to mind) is also renowned. The couple were married in 1796, and their largely unhappy union ended with divorce in 1810. Although Josephine had two children from her previous marriage to Alexandre de Beauharnais, she and Napoleon shared no further issue.Alongside the Duke of Wellington, Napoleon is still admired as one of the greatest commanders in world history. His tactics, just like Wellingtons, are still studied in military schools, even in the 21st century.Wellington vs. Napoleon: Who Was Better Educated?Napoleon at the age of twenty-three, by Henri Felix Emmanuel Philippoteaux, 1835. Source: French Ministry of CultureBoth the young Arthur Wellesley and the young Napoleon Bonaparte received excellent educations.It was in January of 1779, at the age of just nine, that Napoleon moved to the French mainland and enrolled at a school in Autun. The main intention of this enrollment was for him to improve his French, as his mother tongue was the Corsican dialect of Italian. Although he soon became fluent in the desired language, he wrote and spelled very poorly, and was made fun of into young adulthood for his strong Corsican accent.It was in May of that same year that the most difficult period of his education began. He was transferred to the military academy of Brienne-le-Chateau, where he was constantly bullied by his classmates for his birthplace, his short stature, his unusual mannerisms, and his poor manner of speaking.One of Napoleons teachers noted that he was distinguished for his application in mathematics, fairly well acquainted with history and geography. He also suggested that the boy would make an excellent sailor.Another anecdote regarding Napoleons time at the academyrecording a possible turning point in his popularitywas that he led his team to victory in a snowball fight against a senior group of students. Some historians claim that, although childish, this was his first major victory and a sign of what was to come in the way of his skills in leadership.The central building of the cole Militaire Complex in the 7th arrondissement of Paris at dusk. Source: Wikimedia CommonsIn September of 1784, Napoleon began his further education at the Ecole Militaire in Paris. It was here that he trained to become an artillery officer. Due to the death of his father in May of the following year, he chose to complete the two-year course in one year, before returning to help his family at home. This he did with surprising success, and he notably became the first Corsican to graduate from the establishment.The only drawback was that he was by no means the top of his class; he ranked only 42nd in a class of 58 students.The young Arthur Wellesley, on the other hand, enjoyed an education befitting the young son of a wealthy and aristocratic family. He attended a boys boarding school from an early age. He was lonely and withdrawn both at school and at home. By the time he was ready to begin a formal education, his father was already dead, and his mothers disinterest in her children had rendered him and his siblings practically parentless.Anne Wellesley, Countess of Mornington, mother of Arthur Wellesley, by Thomas Hodgetts, 1839. Source: National Library of WalesNonetheless, Arthur Wellesley first went to the diocesan school in Trim, then to Mr Whytes Academy in Dublin, and then to Browns school in Chelsea, London.To complete his education, he attended Eton College; one of the most expensive and prestigious establishments in Britain. However, despite being provided with the highest possible quality of education, he failed to excel in any subject, probably due to lack of interest rather than lack of ability.Arthur Wellesleys mother was said to have grown concerned over his apparent lack of distinction and lack of inspiration and stated that she didnt know what to do with her awkward son Arthur.In 1786, Arthur Wellesley enrolled in the French Academy of Equitation in Angers. It was here that he was turned into an excellent horseman and even became fluent in French, which obviously proved very useful in later life. Upon returning to England, he shocked his mother with the man he had suddenly become.Conclusion: Wellington and Napoleon received equally beneficial and prestigious educations, and their educations prepared them in equal measures for the careers that lay ahead of them.Who Was the Better Leader?Wellington at Waterloo, by Robert Alexander Hillingford, 1815. Source: National Army MuseumWhen it comes to their skills and tactics in leadership, Wellington and Napoleon were total opposites.Wellington mimicked and developed a highly successful strategy that had been used by many renowned generals of the past. He took a long-term view of conflict as a whole and never lost sight of his final goal; he conserved his troops by refusing to waste time on high-risk battles; he avoided any encounter unless he was certain of victory; in the bigger picture, he was totally relentless, and knew better than anyone how to wear an enemy down. Napoleon, on the other hand, was generally a little less sane, a little less thoughtful, and his actions were ten times as urgent. His strategy could be described as high-risk, at best.Wellington was cool and decisive. Napoleon was hot-tempered and haphazard.Wellington admitted his mistakes, learned from them, and readjusted in time for the next battle. Napoleon found it difficult to accept his mistakes and forgot his failures quickly.Like all great leaders, Wellington accepted his defeats and took the blame upon himself. Napoleon usually put the blame on someone else anyone else.Wellington was more considerate of his men, and on many occasions declined the chance of victory if he knew it would result in a high rate of casualty. Napoleon seemed unable to feel remorse for the millions killed by his whims in war.Napoleon Reviewing the Imperial Guard, by Horace Vernet, 1838. Source: French Ministry of CultureWellington was sensible regarding the medical services that would be required after each battle. In this respect, Napoleon neglected his army completely and even failed to arrange medical supplies for any major battles.Throughout his military career, in the way of strategy, Wellington made no notable blunders. He said of his troops, They never let me down. Napoleon, on the other hand, made some of the worst mistakes imaginable: his invasion of Egypt, his invasion of Spain and Portugal, and the invasion of Russia while hundreds of thousands of troops were tied down in Spain by the Duke of Wellington, were just a few of his biggest disasters.Conclusion: Wellington was the better military leader. Although their strategies could not have been more different, they are remembered equally for their unprecedented talents and successes. Even without the comparisons listed above, it cannot be argued that Wellington was not the more competent of the two. After all, it was Wellington who ultimately defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.After the Battle of Waterloo, upon hearing of the 50,000 dead, Wellington wept and said I hope to God I have fought my last battle. And he had.Who Was Better Looking?Duke of Wellington Statue, Princes Street Edinburgh. Source: Wikimedia CommonsBoth Wellington and Napoleon possessed an exceptional talent for attracting female attention. They were both equally sought after by women; whether for their physical appearance, their wealth and power, or their intellect and charm, is left for us to decide.The Duke was not only typically good looking but also knew how to endear himself to the ladies. Of Wellingtons attractive personality and appearance, Countess Granville said, The fact is that I really believe that the Duke finds so few women that do not kneel to him, that he must feel a sort of respect for any who do not make up to him. The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that Wellington was slim, five feet nine inches, often wore the perfectly cut civilian clothes he preferred, had wavy brown hair and brilliant blue eyes.A young, unidentified woman who made Napoleons acquaintance in the year 1795 reported that had he not been so thin as to have a sickly air which was quite pitiful to see, one would have realised that he had unusually delicate features; the lines of his mouth in particular were full of charm. Apparently, Napoleon possessed a nose that was slightly curved and an unhealthy complexion, but also fashionable blue, deep-set eyes.Conclusion: Both were good-lookingdepending on who you were talking to, of coursebut Wellington was significantly more so. However, due to the nature of their positions, both were extremely attractive to women.Who Was the Better Husband?Josephine de Beauharnais, by Antoine-Jean Gros, 1809. Source: French Ministry of CultureContrary to popular belief, neither Wellington nor Napoleon were particularly happy in their marriages.Napoleon was married twice: firstly to Josephine de Beauharnais from 1796 until 1810, and secondly to Marie Louise of Austria from 1810 until his death in 1821. Strangely, Napoleon is probably best remembered for his romance with Josephine even more so than for his military career. Despite their initial obsession with each other, both partners were serially unfaithful. They lived separately much of the time and shared no children.Wellington, on the other hand, was married only once. His wife was Catherine (or Kitty) Pakenham, whom he married in 1806 and stayed with until her death in 1831. Although she remained devoted, he enjoyed a string of romantic, extramarital liaisons.Arthur Wellesley, 1850. Source: National Library of WalesHowever, one strong mark of Wellingtons chivalrous and dedicated character can be found at the very beginning of his story with Kitty Pakenham. In their youth, the couple had been very much in love; he had asked her to marry him twice but had twice been denied by her family. The pair were separated when Wellesley and his regiment were sent to India, and they did not lay eyes on each other for eleven years.At the time of his return home, Kitty still adored Wellesley and had even rejected other suitors for love of him. Feeling bound by his initial promises, and having elevated his own position and wealth significantly, he proposed once again by way of a letter.Kitty was thrilled but did not accept the offer immediately. She wrote back to confess that she had changed since they had last seen each other. She warned him that in so many years I may be much more changed than I myself am conscious of. If when you have met me you can tell me that you do not repent having written your letter I am answering now, I shall be most happy.Josephine as portrayed by Vanessa Kirby in Napoleon, 2023. Source: acasta.netWhen Wellington arrived home in 1806, he saw that she was right. He was disappointed with her looks; with disapproval, he confessed to his brother that she has grown ugly, by Jove.But Wellington was a man of his word. He had proposed to her, and therefore he would marry her. He kept his thoughts to himself and went through with the wedding on April 10, that same year.Although the marriage produced two children, it produced very little in the way of happiness.Catherine Pakenham died on the 24th of April, 1831. During her final moments, Wellington sat at her side. His own records tell us that, before taking her last breath, Kitty had run her fingers up Wellingtons sleeve, wondering if he was still wearing an armlet she had given to him many years earlier when they were in love. She found it, Wellington said, just as she would have found it any time these twenty years, had she cared to look for it.Conclusion: neither Napoleon nor Wellington were good husbands to their wives, but they both had good and bad points in marriage. Wellington was the man who remained true to both his initial engagement and his marriage vows. Napoleon was genuinely in love with Josephine, and it is possible that he may have been a better husband, had she been a better wife.Who Was the Better Lover?Giuseppe Grassini, by Louise Vigee le Brun, 1800-1805. Source: Wikimedia CommonsOne might ask, How could we possibly compare the Duke of Wellington and Napoleon Bonaparte as lovers? Furthermore, How could we think to determine which of these figures gave a better performance in the bedroom?Of course, both figures have been dead for around two centuries; so have the various wives and mistresses they cared to spend a night with. Even if they were still with us today, surely most women of the era would be too shy and modest to reveal any detail regarding such intimate matters.Fortunately, there is one existing anecdote that reveals a little glimpse into the boudoirs of Wellington and Napoleon. Somewhat shockingly, there are two women who were known to have slept with them both. These two lucky ladies were Giuseppina Grassini (an Italian opera singer), and Marguerite Georges (a French actress).Giuseppina was discreet regarding both of her affairs. However, Marguerite was a little less so. She freely shared her experiences with all and sundry and even went as far as to comment on and compare the performances of her lovers. When asked directly about which of the men was more capable of pleasing her, and which was more skilled in his way with women, she answered with the words, Monsieur le Duc etait de beaucoup le plus fort.This translates from French to English as the Duke was by far the stronger.Of course, this can hardly be taken as solid proof; Marguerite is only one woman, and these things are subjective. However, other than the number of mistresses these men attracted, Marguerites answer is the only piece of evidence we have.Conclusion: Wellington was the better lover.Who Was the Better Christian?Madonna and Child, by Rogier van der Weyden, 1454. Source: Houston Museum of Fine ArtsWhen it comes to the question of who was the better Christian, we must first address the religious denominations to which Wellington and Napoleon belonged. Napoleon was a Cradle Catholicborn and baptized into the Churchand Wellington was a faithful and committed Protestant.In the way of his religious life, to say that Napoleon made some blunders would be an enormous understatement. Not only did he divorce his wife (an act disallowed by the Catholic Church in general), but he also managed to get himself excommunicated by Pope Pius VII, have the Pope kidnapped as revenge, and, as a final flourish, keep him imprisoned for six years.Generally speaking, it is acknowledged by historians that Napoleons relationship with the Church was much less about his own personal fulfillment and dedication, and was much more about his ambition. His interactions with the Church were, more often than not, extremely politically motivated.One of Napoleons most significant decisions involving the Catholic Church can be found in the Concordant of 1801. This was an agreement between Napoleon and Pope Pius VII to re-establish Catholicism in France after the French Revolution. However, with this treaty, Napoleon took clever and careful measures to ensure that the Church remained under the control of the state. One might easily mistake the reasons for his actions. It is probable that he did not particularly care if France was a Catholic country. Instead, he desired to use a powerful force such as the Catholic Church to stabilize and legitimize his own rule.Pope Pius VII, by Thomas Lawrence, 1819. Source: RKD ImagesNapoleon was not stupid. He understood the importance of religion in 19th-century society. He knew that religion, particularly his own religion, played a significant role in maintaining order.Nonetheless, the agreement reaffirmed the Catholic Church as the majority Church of France and also restored its civil status. However, despite this agreement, Pope Pius VII and Napoleon continued their conflict.Eventually, Pius VII took the dramatic decision to excommunicate Napoleon. In response to this, one of Napoleons most ambitious officersa man named Lieutenant Radetsaw an opportunity to win favor. He kidnapped the Pope, and although Napoleon claimed that he did not approve of such radical actions, decided to keep Pius imprisoned in what turned out to be a six-year-long confinement. Pius did not return to his seat in Rome until May 1814.The Duke of Wellington, on the other hand, was by all accounts the perfect example of an English Protestant. Realistically, it simply cannot be argued that Napoleon was a better-behaved Christian than Wellington. Wellington was known to attend Church weekly and spend much time on Godly pursuits. Certainly, he never so much as raised his voice to any authoritative figure in the Church of Englandlet alone kidnap oneand only ever showed the utmost respect to both Queen Victoria and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.The Coronation Portrait of Queen Victoria, by George Hayter, 1838-40. Source: Wikimedia CommonsWellingtons religious observance was far more than just a matter of duty. He held a true faith close to his heart, throughout good times and bad, and held firm in the strong belief that he was under the protection of God.One piece of evidence to support this idea can be found in a letter of 1813. Wellington wrote to his brother, William Wellesley, that he had escaped a battle unhurt, and that he believed the finger of God had been upon him.Wellington also studied Protestantism in depth. One of his favorite books was reported to have been Alexander Keiths Demonstration of the Truth of Christianity. He called this the most interesting work upon any subject, that he had ever pursued and even claimed that he sat up, half the night reading it.Wellington is also noted for his tolerance of other religions, which was somewhat unusual for a politician of his era. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Wellington was sympathetic toward the Catholic population in Britain and Ireland. During his time as Prime Minister, he worked unceasingly to ensure the passage of the Roman Catholic Relief Act (also known as the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829) and even threatened to resign if King George IV did not provide royal assent. The passing of this act granted full civil rights to Catholics in the United Kingdom and even allowed Catholics to sit in Parliament.King George IV, by Thomas Lawrence, 1821. Source: Royal Collection TrustAlthough so far, it may seem as if Wellington was the more pious of the two enemies, it cannot be denied that Napoleon experienced a change of heart and a change of behavior in later life. When things began to fall apart, like many sinners before him, Napoleon became penitent and decided he had better reconcile himself with God.While in exile on St Helena, Napoleon requested a Chaplain and explained that it would rest his soul to hear Mass. Kindlyas they were under no obligation to grant any request of Napoleonsthe British sent Abbot Ange Vignali to Saint Helena.On April 20, 1821, with just a few weeks of life remaining, Napoleon stated: I was born in the Catholic religion. I wish to fulfill the duties it imposes and receive the succour it administers.He died on May 5, after receiving the sacraments of Confession, Extreme Unction, and the Eucharist.Conclusion: taking into account his unwavering and lifelong commitment to his faith, Wellington was undoubtedly the better Christian.The Deaths of the Duke of Wellington and Napoleon BonaparteDuke of Wellingtons funeral procession, 1852. Source: London Historians BlogNapoleon Bonaparte died on May 5, 1821, at the age of just 51. His last words were reported to have been, France, larmee, tete darmee, Josephine. This translates from French to English as France, the army, head of the army, Josephine.His remains now lie in the Cathedral Saint-Louis-des-Invalides.The Duke of Wellington outlived Napoleon by 31 years. He died on September 14, 1852. At the time of his death, he was residing at his favorite house, Walmer Castle in Kent. He had reached the great age of 83.Like many great figures of his era, Wellington was buried in St Pauls Cathedral.Queen Victoria wrote that Wellington was the pride and bon genie, as it were, of this country; he was the greatest man this country ever produced, and the most devoted and loyal subject, and the staunchest supporter the Crown ever had.

The Pokemon Trading Card Game looks set to continue its 2025 hot streak with Destined Rivals. Following the incredible Prismatic Evolutions and Journey Together, the new expansion comes out swinging with the reintroduction of Team Rocket to the TCG. While it's another expansion that's going to be hard to get hold of, Destined Rivals is sure to be a fan favourite.