Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I have read with some despair that many including our esteemed house game designer do not rate Napoleon a very good general.

For me no soldier in history other than Alexander compares.

Somewhat ironically for a man of small stature Napoleon is to me the perfect warrior. Indeed the greatest soldier in history and an intellect which we mortals feel but a pale shade compared too.

Anton the cossack will most certainly disagree as he is an advocate of Suvarov who without doubt was a great general. But as modern literature is so biased against our Russian brothers he is no doubt an under recognised hero [:D][:D]

Sir Muddy will say Wellington Wellington. And General Ludwig will no doubt cry out for the nutter Blucher. [}:)][:p][B)][:D] and perhaps Field Marshall Pfluecke for Charles.

Well Rhine Tavern what say you?

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

In a nutshell?

- Obviously, a great leader of men who continued to inspire them nearly to the end;
- tactically very good, but certainly not without peer;
- operationally excellent; I'd say this is where he really shines;
- strategically mediocre (have a war in Spain that sucks the heartblood out of your army, and you still go and invade Russia ... Russia!?);
- grand strategically / politicaly abysmal (if you think conquering the world is a manageable military problem, that's a bad case of political myopia in my book).

My two € .02. [;)]

<center>
[url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_walter/NWC/2nd_Dragoons.htm"][/url]
Maj. Gen. D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
~ 2nd Dragoons (Royal Scots Greys) ~
2nd (Union) Brigade, Cavalry Division, Anglo-Allied II Corps
----------
~ 3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards ~
[url="http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/AAA/BritGuardHorse.html"][/url]
</center>

A very good post from D.S.Walter. The first three points characterize Napoleon in the role of general, which is the original question of Colin. On them I agree wholeheartedly.

The last two characterize Napoleon in the role of statesman, and here I agree less. I guess it was hard to be faced with so many hostile countries which relentlessly tried to restore pre-1789 order and just defend without returning the blows. The return blows were initially very successful (1805-1807), but they again caused even more hostility and new wars versus entire Europe which led to the downfall of Napoleon. There was simply no place for French Republic or French Empire in that age. Napoleon tried to subdue all to recognize him but this was a doomed attempt. He might have as well never tried to become the head of French state.

Colonel Dominik Derwinski (LoH, OCR, OE, CV, EM, MM)
Duc de Sacile et Comte de Garonne
Commandant Cavalerie de la Jeune Garde
La Grande Armée - IIIe Corps d'Armée - 2ème Division (Friant)

Gentlmen,

Remember first and foremost we have the luxury of hindsight. Napoleon was doing this in real time with scant information on which to operate both politically and militarily. He was developing a whole new political and military system whilst actually running the nation and conducting continental wide operations. No man in history other than Alexander and maybe Ceasar have ever mangaed to do that and leave such a lasting inprint on our culture.

There can be no questioning his greatness.

Speculate where he went wrong and discuss his decisions as much as we like. His achievements speak for themselves. His detractors highlight and promote his flaws and percieved weaknesses. Had these been that bad he would never have achieved half of what he did. Do not compare him with todays standards. When stood against the standards of his day his weaknesses are no worse and his strengths infinitely better than most doing the same things at the that time.

No single individual had, or has had, the combined intelligence, ability, capacity and drive that was able to galvinise a nation and transform society as Napoleon did and still does. His mark continues on society today, like no other individual in history. Four of the most obvious being:
The Code Napoleon
The Continental System (EU)
The Combined Arms Corps and Army
Operational and Strategic level thinking

Napoleon dragged Europe (and ultimately the world)from post Monarchial Fuedalism to Modern National Militarism! (Thats my own litarary quote by the way [:D])

To speak of his tactical ability as a weakness in comparison to his contemporaries disregard his main role. These were of little consequence as his tactical decisions had little impact on the larger operational level that had already dictated the outcome of most of HIS battles.

Spain he had conquored and considered a minor affair not expected to drag on as it did. He under estimated the ability of Wellington and the combined actual terrain and guerilla warfare effects. Russia was similiar and was just too large a proposition. But hey! Would anyone with his record, self belief and forces at his disposale, have not tried it!? [:)]

To hold together the Country, the Politics, the Marshals, the Family, the Army, the Allies as he did and what he achived whilst doing it is, surely this is an incomparable and great human feat!

20yrs as a Supernova or a lifetime as a stable monarch...? Only the dull and passionless who lack greatness would even consider the latter!

Col Mike Ellwood
Commander Officer
3rd Dragoon Division
Reserve Cavalry

Its really interesting to read the early days of Napoleon. How through a serious of connections with powerful men (and women) he got to power.

Certainly he didn't do that on his own. His genius could not have foreseen the series of events in France that would put him on the throne. In 1796-97 he was the conquering hero in N.Italy. By 1800 he would be part of a trio of rulers. So how could he have foreseen such a large step as he was watching Oudinot lead his men across the bridge at Lodi?

His brand of divide and conquer, however, extended to the Marshals and for that he is to blame. Instead of teaching them his methods in a war college he set them off one against the other.

Instead of being satisfied with the Peace of Tilsit and to have left Spain alone, he brought on France more suffering.

I like how Chandler summed it up: in 1805 they were cheering Napoleon for his victory in the War of the Third Coalition. By 1806 they were tentative and by 1807-09 they were desiring peace.

I would rate Genghis Khan over Napoleon. He conquered many more peoples and also developed a method of war that was unstoppable, provided that he had good troops (as certain of the Mongol armies were defeated by the Mamelukes).

Napoleon was far too self seeking. Other great leaders were far more modest and looking out for their country/people. To me they are the greater leader. Kublai Khan for instance was far more tolerant of religions. Napoleon was not.

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!

Napoleon certainly possessed most of the traits common to great generals and if you judge by results he was certainly great. He also commited some great blunders. He had an amazing capacity to remember details and amazing capacity for working long long hours. He was an expert at motivation and was able to improvise and think on his feet. Early in his career was extremely lucky as well. He won more battles than he lost but he lost the last one. I think over all he helped France more than he harmed it but not by a great deal. If the ability to win battles is the main criteria for greatness then he was great. If the criteria includes what effects did he have on his country and the rest of the world it is arguable. I would still call him great but flawed.

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

lol I've a very different view than Bill on N 1er.
In particular I'm very surprised by Bill's comments on Napo's lack of tolerance about religion!

1) he organised the first Jewish religious structure in France (Sanhedrin) and made them equal citizens throughout the Empire.. remember they had no rights and were living in ghettos...

2) he was a great admirer of Muslim world. he was actually less critical of muslim religion beliefs than christianity.
3) he signed the Concordat to recognize the Catholiic Church again after all the revolutionary crackdown on Church (clerics, properties, etc). obviously it was purely political, but he reinstated the traditional religion in France to pacify his own people.

Though he was influenced by great writers of the time - Enlighment - he did support the religion development in the Empire and as such was more than tolerant.

whether he believed himself is another story...

Jean-Denis - quite true. I think I was mainly speaking of the way that he dealt with the Pope. And I am not sure that he would have supported an Islamic France either!

But hey, not trying to downplay what he did - just remembering that some were upset at his handling of the Papacy. But hey, the Papacy has not always been without its issues too. More political than religious for much of its existence.

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!

Yes, Napoleon's invasion of Papal States to reinforce the continental blocus, his excommunication by PieVII and the emprisonment of the later clearly shows that the relations between both were terrible.
But this was political and reflected the continuation of the Revolution that deprived the Church from its temporal powers.

This undermined the Empire and had serious consequences in particular in Spain..

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jean-Denis</i>
<br />Yes, Napoleon's invasion of Papal States to reinforce the continental blocus, his excommunication by PieVII and the emprisonment of the later clearly shows that the relations between both were terrible.
But this was political and reflected the continuation of the Revolution that deprived the Church from its temporal powers.

This undermined the Empire and had serious consequences in particular in Spain..

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

Totally agre with you there Jean-Denis, both your posts are what I was aware of and always thought the later dealings had everything to do with politics and not religion. Unfortunately its only in the recent century the church has not been overtly political.
It was one of the factors I most admire about Napoleon is his treatment of the Jews in Europe and his tolerence of other religions, not a bigotted man but an opinionated one [:)].
I believe at heart he was an adventurer for sure as well. The Egyption foray, his attempt at invading England and then invading Russia! The Rosetta (sp?) stone was worth his conquest of Egypt in itself.
Unfortunately it has always been easy to stir up unrest when the religious card is played on the uneducated and destitute.

Col Mike Ellwood
Commander Officer
3rd Dragoon Division
Reserve Cavalry

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mike Ellwood</i>
[br I most admire about Napoleon is his treatment of the Jews in Europe <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I was reading somewhere (can’t remember the source) some article called along the lines of “Jewish soldiers of Napoleonâ€

<font face="Book Antiqua"></font id="Book Antiqua">
As a kid, I was told that Napoleon won every battle he fought until his last. He is legendary, always considered one of, if not the best of all time.

But the more I read and game his battles, the less of an icon he appears to be. Take a look at the record. He lost an army in Egypt, a huge army in Russia, and most of an army in Leipzig. Each time he wrote them off and bailed out. Then at Waterloo he lost an Empire.

Even the battles that he won were not the sure things that legend implies. He was ready to have Desaix covers his retreat at Marengo, but Desaix said this battle is lost but we can win the one we start now and went on to sweep the Austrians off the field. Desaix was killed and over the years, Napoleon rewrote the story to shape his own reputation. Austerlitz was Napoleon's spectacular triumph, but that was not a sure thing, his victory aided by the blundering and loss of command control by the Allied side. I was always amazed that the night before the battle, he predicted that the Allies would leave their center open and he would attack it on the Pratzen Heights and rout their army, until I read that he actually made that statement after the battle to put into the well known "Bulletin".

When you compare Napoleon's record to other military figures, it is amazing that his reputation puts him on a pedestal with the likes of Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, etc. It seems to me that part of the reason for his inflated reputation is that he wrote his own history the way he wanted to be viewed. He was a great spindoctor, but even his own army was dubious, coming up with the phrase, "lie like a bulletin". Secondly, I believe that the British, especially authors, have much to do with Napoleon's reputation for greatness. Building up Napoleon was a round about way of building up Wellington and the British army who beat him, in effect making the British better than the best.

Napoleon's best work happened when he had very capable leaders at the head of his divisions and corps to get the job done. In my opinion, Davout was the better general. If he had been at Waterloo, it would have been a different story.

Marechal Chuck Jensen

One of the finest commanders I have ever read about was the fine German officer Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck. He probably has the record for tying down the most forces with a smaller force than any other in history.

His force of about 800-1800 tied down a quarter million British Empire forces during WW1 in East Africa.

If you guys haven't read about him you should. A classic study on how to use the terrain to your advantage and keep the enemy constantly guessing where you are.

He was never captured and only because the war ended did he have to capitulate.

Amazing man and at one point he downsized his force for logistical reasons.

A good example of the British mindset at the time. It would have been sufficient to have just kept a force monitoring his movements and used those troops elsewhere.

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!

I recently read in the excellent Naopleon1 magazine that one polish cavalry brigade was constituted entirely of Jews during the uprising of 1794 in Poland. It was called the "bearded brigade". Their leader went on to fight for the Polish corps and died in 1809 in a skirmish with Austrians. His death created a polish expression meaning "not doing too well". I'll check the article again for his name and maybe some of our Polish readers can confirm.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I was reading somewhere (can’t remember the source) some article called along the lines of “Jewish soldiers of Napoleonâ€

Chuck,

If we think that Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne etc did not modify the facts for their own purposes then we are being a little naive I think.

There is no denying he manipulated the media and was probably able to use it more effectively than most others. However this does not hold up under serious investigation to his battles and campaigns. reserachers are unlikely to be fooled when other information is easily accessible.

Your final paragraph I think sums it up, that when he was able to field good commanders at the Div and Coprs level his methods of war were well above the norm of the day. I would say that about all commanders. Thats what makes them great, those that can do it the best the most and at the right times.

Napoleon achieved this admirably whilst also running the machinations of a huge country and Empire. Its not just for his military glories that he is deemed as possibly the greatest captain of history [:D]

Col Mike Ellwood
Commander Officer
3rd Dragoon Division
Reserve Cavalry