In October 1814 Wellington wrote to Lord Bathurst, Secretary for War, offering his opinion of who could take over from Sir George Prevost as C-in-C in America. Of Sir Rowland Hill he said:
“Hill is an excellent fellow; but I should say that he wants a commander. He likes his troops in order, but he is too good natured to exert himself about it, and he would require some assistance in that way. He has talents and God knows experience enough for any situation, and he might command in chief as well as anybody else; but I should be inclined to doubt it; and to have him fail as well as out troops would be terrible.”
This seems quite damming of one of his most trusted subordinates, who operated fairly independently for many years in the Peninsula. Their styles of command were very different with Wellington being infamous as a micro-manager, whereas Hill had a softer style and was happy to delegate. Hill's Assistant Adjutant General Lt.Col. Charles Rooke wrote of Hill: "He likes to see everything well done, but at the same time makes no fuss, and places the utmost confidence in those under him." Hill is well know as Daddy Hill, taking care of his men, but at the same time was quite willing to drive them hard and take calculated risks.
In my professional life I've come across alpha-male, hands-on managers who see any other form of management as weakness. Is there a bit of this in Wellington's assessment of Hill? Or to succeed as a general in this period did you have to be more of a Wellington than a Hill?