Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by HarryInk</i>
<br />Now that's robust debate, sirs!

I like what my commander says. With the luxury of space, the Russians were formidable.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Its like saying that British were formidable sitting behind that water ditch called Lamansh.

Major Alexey Tartyshev
Moscow Grenadiers Regiment
2nd Grenadier Division
8th Infantry Corps
2nd Army of the West (NWC)

Time and Space - Command and Moral

Whomever chooses and can minipulate them in concert for the longest period whilst still able to be offensive will be the victor. Moral is by far the prominant however the complexity and diversity of each situation and circumstances preclude one mix being right for all. Hence the adaptability and speed of action are keys at the operational and tactical level. Focus and concentration of force are keys at the strategic level. The French and Napoleon proved themselves time and again.

Western European countries do not have the ability to use time and space therefore rely on good command and control whilst looking for that decisive battle to break the will and the ability of their enemy.

England, Russia and Spain have a combination of time and space to resist. Although using different means England: the channel and her Navy, Russia the vastness and the winter, Spain the terrain and the savagery. L'Emperor was able to defeat the armies (even the Russians at Austerlitz and Friedland for those who may have forgoten)but not in combination with the environmenal specific time and space and whilst engaged on other fronts.

However just like the Americans in Vietnam and the Russians in Afghanistan there was not the ability or commitment at all levels to maintain a continual war effort. Britian and America, England, Russia and Spain (in our period) all had a combination and focus to be able to avoid defeat. Only then in conjunction with overwhelming force and commitment were the other european nations able to overcome the one.

The ability to identify the nation's or ruler's critical issue to resist need to be identified first and a plan of operations directed at that. Some achieve that quickly, others over years. Being able to identify that is often easy, but to get your armies to achieve it is the hard part and what makes it so fascinating and chaotic as your opponent strive to thwart you.

Only one man in time has ever come close to total victory in that sense, Alexander the Great.

But only one man has ever had a whole period named after Him, Napoleon Bonaparte, who lifted warfare and the world from brutal contests of strength and will to the true Art of Warfare! In doing so he presented the world an enlightened and truely modern age of Diplomacy, Nationhood, Civil Liberties and WAR.

I'm sure.

Col Mike Ellwood
Commander Officer
3rd Dragoon Division
Reserve Cavalry

Mike,
No doubt the guy was a genius to beat the Russians a few times. However, when he was absent French struggled for whatever reasons. That’s exactly what Anton was pointing out.



Major Alexey Tartyshev
Moscow Grenadiers Regiment
2nd Grenadier Division
8th Infantry Corps
2nd Army of the West (NWC)

Excellent Mike. You have been eating lots of fish I can see.

General de Brigade Knox
Grand Duc d'Austerlitz et Comte de Argentan



Escadron Mamelouks
Chasseurs a'Cheval
Division de Cavalerie la Vieille Garde.





CO. 1er Brigade, II Heavy Cavalry Division, Reserve Cavalry.
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

"But only one man has ever had a whole period named after Him, Napoleon Bonaparte, who lifted warfare and the world from brutal contests of strength and will to the true Art of Warfare! In doing so he presented the world an enlightened and truely modern age of Diplomacy, Nationhood, Civil Liberties and WAR."

Hmm, I would differ on this as the entire era of the Seven Years War dealt with maneuver with the battle being an outcome of such. It was never in their minds to just line up and beat each other senseless (though you see that at many of the battles).

The Wars are named after Napoleon because he was the central figure. Not because of any incredible greatness that he possessed. He happened to have a way with war that was not so new as in that it took advantage of the stagnant state of affairs that was the general staffs of most of the armies.

For instance: Hannibal understood maneuver and used it against the Romans. Yes, he was boxed in at times but he reacted much like Napoleon and would defeat one army and turn around defeat another. Similar to Napoleon beating one force in Italy and turning on another.

Likewise Frederick the Great also would deal a defeat to one army and then turn on another. We see this with all of the Great Captains. But in my mind Napoleon was faced by FAR inferior opponents when compared to Frederick, whose drilled infantry were the pride of Europe. Napoleon possessed the ability to get to a place with the most troops or rely on his enemies' lack of ability to win the day.

Frederick was often outnumbered - Napoleon was RARELY outnumbered! Check out his campaign against Mack at Ulm. A great turning movement, yes, but he would have won regardless of what Mack did as he had more men and mobility, a killer combination.

Frankly, the more I read of Napoleon's subordinates, especially Murat, the less the French army shines. There is no doubt that at Austerlitz had the Allies nominated Kutusov to be the commanding general and then just stayed out of his affairs that things would have gone differently. I predict a drawn battle. Then winter quarters in Vienna for Napoleon and Olmutz for the Allies. Possibility of Prussia joining later in the war.

I see in Napoleon an ability to use his drive and energy, much more than the average commander of his period (it was like me trying to beat this guy Mike in my Phys Ed class in any kind of a race - he was wired up and full of nervous energy) to get his subordinates in the right places. And frankly that was not always the case (Ney's attack at Bautzen for instance) as he could not fully command them at all times.

Frankly as a diplomat Napoleon must receive a D-. Probably one of the worst of the Great Captains in this regard. Far too self-serving and in 1813 when the writing was on the wall and a peace would have helped to restore his image and helped with internal issues in France he gave it all away on one toss of the dice at Leipzig.

I have followed the career of Napoloen with interest and with some awe but in the end he was a man that caved into ambition and pride over realistic goals and achievements. His civil achievements far outshine his skill in the diplomatic area.

The countries of Europe had fallen into a stagnancy. It would take a Napoleon (who did engage in some pointless frontal assaults in 1807, 1812, etc) to shake them up a bit but in the end any figure with drive and energy could have achieved the same. As a matter of fact if you find someone with much less ambition you probably could find a different France than what you see today. Whoever had come on the scene and won the victories, provided he was humble like a Washington or Lee, could still see his sons or successors in power provided they to practiced diplomatic caution and dealt with the other nations in like manner.

Thus I have to disagree on the diplomatic claim and the art of war had fallen stagnant, not been invented, by the time that Napoleon stepped onto the scene.

Colonel Bill Peters, 17th Dragoons, III Corps, French Army
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Swiss-Swedish Army CinC, Musket and Cannon Game Club - Come over and see what we are all about!

Nice writing, Bill.

Boy, I am always going to ask for advice about Amazon purchases if this is the result! lol

Oh, and yes the Big Nappy whacked the Ruskies @ Austerlitz & Friedland and achieved the decisive result. That was his great ability. But along the way there was Eylau and Heilsberg, and a host of lesser successes against his henchmen.

Podporuchik HarryInkski,
Lithuanian Uhlans
14th Brigade, IV Cav Corps,
2nd Army of the West

Gents,

We are going from one extreme to another. Napoleon did say a new word in warfare. We did execute strategical operations with decisive aims. It was he who acted in a consequence - first put the enemy in a condition where he can't neither win nor retreat, next defeat them and next pursuit them until the whole army is destroyed and the victory in war is secured. No one did this before. Frederick didn't possess enough forces to conduct strategic pursuit. In all but one operations of Suvorov such a strategic pursuit was not needed. And in that only one (pursuit after Adda towards Turin) he acted in a similar manned. But that was improvisation, not a trademark. It worked well as long as it was applied to armies with paralyzed will. But it was never successful after Jena campaign. Russians in 1805, 1806-07 and 1807 again, Brits in 1809 (Coruna) and Austrians in 1809 (after Eckmuhl) amanged to retreat and continue the war. Sometimes it was more effective and even resulted in French defeats (Heilsberg, Aspern-Essling and to some extent Eylau), other times it was not so effective. Why the will of the Armies of Austria and Prussia was paralyzed is explained in detail by that very Maude. Be sure to read his books on cavalry and tactics as well. They are worth it!

As for the quality I do not believe in conclusions like "The French won hence they had better quality troops". They only way to assess the quality is to compare the forces in details. Unfortunately such details are not available. All I could find are these three articles:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military ... ience.html
http://www.genstab.ru/cap_n_fr.htm
http://www.genstab.ru/cap_n_ru.htm
(the later two being in Russian). From what I can see in them by 1812 the French didn't on the average have advantage neither in war experience nor in education. British and Russian officers corps had qualitatively the same parameters. Obviously it was not the same in 1805 - the French had much more military experience. Obviously with officers (and NCOs) corps reconstructed after 1812 they were at a clear disadvantage. But still, extensive data is missing and I would avoid any assessments made. Ed, Alexey, thanks for your comments! I expected this very reaction. Hope you will forgive my provocation[:I]

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Adjutant Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

Gents,

I was not saying he invented the Art of War but he lifted it to a whole new level or whole new 'Art'.

As for Napoleon rarely being outnumbered and
'We see this with all of the Great Captains. But in my mind Napoleon was faced by FAR inferior opponents when compared to Frederick, whose drilled infantry were the pride of Europe. Napoleon possessed the ability to get to a place with the most troops or rely on his enemies' lack of ability to win the day.'
I would consider this proof of his superior generalship qualities at all levels, diplomatic, strategic, operational and tactical.

As for the diplomacy. Most definitely he was self seving but he served himself well up to 1813. He actually made the european nations bend to his will uhtil then and only in their mastering diplomacy amongst themselves where they able to defeat him. No one alone were able to completely defeat him until all joined in 1813/14 /15. By then France had exhuasted her resources and will to continue. Hence the French had become the inferior force both quality and quantity when faced by a combined allied force.

I would not say all the marshals/generals struggled when he was absent. Davout and Lannes had considerable talent as independant commanders. Soult and Messena were no fools either. Murat and Ney we all recognise their flaws.

I do find it hard to fathom for all the flaws Napoleon and the French seem to have had that the Allies took so long to defeat him. Twice. Its a real quandery how he defeated so many so often with such 'overstated' greatness that he seems never to have possessed [;)].

It is such a fascinating era of history with so many viewpoints and factors in the mix. I do however consider this book review a little over the top [:D]

Vive L'Emperor!


Col Mike Ellwood
Commander Officer
3rd Dragoon Division
Reserve Cavalry

You just wait til I start popping in juicy bits of the text for you all to pounce on! lol

Podporuchik HarryInkski,
Lithuanian Uhlans
14th Brigade, IV Cav Corps,
2nd Army of the West

For a general/statesman to be considered great he must not only be able to win the war but win the peace. Napoleon never won the peace because eventually they would be wanting to get after him again.

If he had played off the Allies, one against the other, THAT would have been a great show of diplomacy to me.

Yes, he could dictate terms but he could never get any major power to side with him. Russia only reluctantly entered into a treaty with him and quickly bailed out of it after only a mere four years.

A lasting peace is what France needed. They would never get it with Napoleon looking to OCCUPY territory.

Had he instead used Italy as a buffer and left off from capturing portions of Germany I believe he could have indefinitely held off the Allies. Instead he participated in some six major campaigns prior to 1813. None of which brought a lasting peace to Europe.

Once Napoleon started using nobility ranks I think that this may have incensed both nobility and Republican alike. Once that occurred his days were numbered. Far better to have remained First Consul than First Emperor.

From a military standpoint he did much in the operational aspect to revolutionize warfare but on the battlefield only alot of elan and a superior staff system predominated. His attacks at times (even the Pratzen at Austerlitz) were not always things of brilliance. Austerlitz is a closer run thing that just "move onto the Pratzen once the Allies move off" - there were times when his troops ran and if the Allies had recalled the Left Wing they might have been able to press him off of the heights.

At Jena he was lucky to run into the smaller of the Prussian forces. I still believe he would have defeated the Prussians/Saxons in a large battle anyway.

In 1807 he blundered to victory. Eylau was a disastor. Friedland was not his masterpiece but a piece of Russian blundering (Russians are not very brilliant during the Napoleonic wars where it regards battlefield management - Barclay being the only exception). At other battles in 1807 his commanders had to accept a Draw.

In Spain the French were never able to defeat Wellington and based on Napoleon's use of his subordinates I doubt that even he could have defeated the Duke unless he had possessed overwhelming numbers.

1812 and 1813 are forgone conclusions - his men would fight for him with great courage in 1813 if he was present but were less than stellar without him. And by then his lack of cavalry was causing him to use his infantry as clubs. Pirna, not Dresden, was the place to launch an attack on the Allies in August 1813 once the Army of Bohemia attacked the city. Had he done that he would have been able to turn their flank and partially cut them off from their depots. In that he showed that he was not up to his usual brilliance.

Frankly I can count on one hand the battles where Napoleon showed great brilliance. Operationally is where he excelled but there are many battles where his troops won the glory but he gets the credit (Friedland is one good example). I also would point out that Marengo (my favorite of the battles) was a result of one general marching to the guns as Napoleon had spread out his army which went against his own rules of warfare.

Colonel Bill Peters, 17th Dragoons, III Corps, French Army
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Swiss-Swedish Army CinC, Musket and Cannon Game Club - Come over and see what we are all about!

Bill, your lat two posts were brilliant! I take my hat off![:I]

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Adjutant Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

Bill said,

"Frankly I can count on one hand the battles where Napoleon showed great brilliance. Operationally is where he excelled but there are many battles where his troops won the glory but he gets the credit (Friedland is one good example). I also would point out that Marengo (my favorite of the battles) was a result of one general marching to the guns as Napoleon had spread out his army which went against his own rules of warfare."

In my opinion, which is less eduacated than many on this forum, is that Bill's statement leads me back to some earlier comments. Until 1813, the French had good Division, Brigade and regiment commanders, even in Spain, although perhaps less so there. The training the army went through before its aborted invasion of England is, as far as I know, unique for the period in its intensity and duration of large formation training manouvers. This level of coordination served the French well for year. As late as 1809, especially the Eckmuhl fighting, the Austrians were still fighting as regiments in practice and the Prussians in 1813 were not much more coordinated.

What I am getting at is that Napoleon did not always have to be tactically brilliant, because he had a well trained, experienced, and cohesive force that he was often able to mass in superior numbers Whereas the other nations may have had excellent middle level leadership, it took sustained campaigning and major reforms to embrace the idea of fighting with coordinated brigades and divisions.



Feldmarschall Jim 'Prinz' Pfluecke
Commander, Austrian Cavalry Reserve
3 Graf O'Reilly Chevauxleger Rgt
Hahn Grenadier Bn

Well, Maude's 'Jena Campaign 1806' duly arrived in the mail today and I've duly read the first chapter which addresses the Prussian army before Jena. I've also read the last few posts here. Again, like General-Adjutant Kosyanenko, I find the comments extremely cogent. Bravo gents!

Bill, your key point that Napoleon could win the wars but utterly failed to win the peaces is so clear and basic to this whole era, and yet is lost in our excitement for the colour and drama of the fighting, that I delighted in reading it.

I shall be keen to read Maude's other works now. I've been trying to dig up biographical details about him. If not directly a practical military man of the late C19th, he certainly must have kept company with such men and paid attention! He shows a compelling grasp of both the brute practicalities of 'traffic management' of large groups of men on the field; the nuanced differences between battlefield and parade ground drilling; the purpose, practice and effect of competent inspection of troops (and the development of skills- and mind-sets within each arm); and of politico-military policy. Quite a breadth of knowledge to pack into just a first chapter! I might reserve the right to quibble with some minor details but he's a great read. Perhaps he would have enjoyed our debate and been a member here had he been about 140 years old! LOL


Podporuchik HarryInkski,
Lithuanian Uhlans
14th Brigade, IV Cav Corps,
2nd Army of the West

A few points about Napoleons diplomatic failures. First off, I think it is key to remember that he inherited the animosity of the monarchial governments. That animosity actually began during the Revolution with a certain head chopping. The primary aim of the monarchial governments was to restore a Bourbon King to France. Napoleon or not there was going to be no peace until that goal was accomplished. Secondly there is a matter of context. There were certain treaties signed that were at the time seemed to be major coups for Napoleon. Luneville and Amiens at the time they were signed seemed to mark the end of hostilities Europe wide. It was not Napoleons fault that they did not. It was the formation of yet another coalition funded by Britain that ended that peace. Tilsit seemed to be another coup when it was signed. Over time Britain was able to pry Alexander away from the French orbit which led to Napoleons invasion of Russia.

I have to dispute the claim that Napoleon actually conquered and kept territory with the exception of some of the N. Italian states which did become part of the Empire. The territory in Germany, Holland and Poland taken form Austria became the Confederation of the Rhine, Batavian Republic (After 1806 Kingdom of Holland) and Duchy of Warsaw. Certainly they were satellites but I think they were willing satellites that benefited under Napoleon. These were the buffers Napoleon sought and successfully created for France for a while at least.

Finally, Napoleon made a terrible decision in continuing to keep Talleyrand on as Foreign Minister even after he knew he could trust him. This cost him both diplomatically and militarily as Talleyrand actively fed information to the Coalition partners.


Lieutenant General
Ed Blackburn
Commanding Second Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards

Holland was absorbed into Metropolitan France in 1810, as was most of the territory to the Rhine.

N was no saint in keeping the peace, and arguments have been made the British instigated coalitions were responses to N's violations of the treaties you mention, or they were pre-emptive moves to head off N's violations of said treaties.

Colonel Amos, 1ère Brigade Commandant, 2ème Division de Dragons