Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)
https://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/

Battle of Jena-Auerstadt
https://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15324		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Bill Peters [ Wed Oct 14, 2015 4:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Battle of Jena-Auerstadt
Today is the anniversary of the Battles of Jena and Auerstadt.

The drink are on the French of course! :frenchsalute:

It is also the anniversary of the Battle of Liebertwolkwitz where Murat used up a lot of good horses for an attack that did not accomplish much. We Allies can always hope that there are many Murats on the French side of the club! :frenchlol:
Author:  John Corbin [ Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Battle of Jena-Auerstadt
Belly up to the bar boys... My purse is wide open :nappy:
Author:  Mark Oakford [ Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Battle of Jena-Auerstadt
Can't have John paying for all of the drinks! :thumbsup:
Author:  Bill Peters [ Thu Oct 15, 2015 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Battle of Jena-Auerstadt
I was thinking about the accomplishments of Marechal Davout and thought why not:

The Iron Marshall Quadragame - In order from 1805:

1805 - Davout's attack at Austerlitz
1806 - Auerstaedt
1807 - Davoud's attack at Eylau
1809 - Davout at Eckmuhl (same map would offer several scenarios)

What is funny .. I could actually do this using the Austerlitz game. Put in a small map of the area of the Eylau battlefield where Davout fought (without compromising any title on Eylau) as well as the Auerstadt map from Jena (again just a portion) along with a portion of the Eckmuhl map from Eckmuhl.

But it would be a great board game design to pursue. :frenchwink:

A toast to Marechal Davout, the greatest subordinate field officer/organizer of the Napoleonic Wars! :frenchsalute:
Author:  Christian Hecht [ Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Battle of Jena-Auerstadt
Bill Peters wrote:
A toast to Marechal Davout, the greatest subordinate field officer/organizer of the Napoleonic Wars! :frenchsalute:

Very true! :frenchvive1:
Author:  Ernie Sands [ Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Battle of Jena-Auerstadt
Davout, unlike Ney, never swore allegiance to the Bourbons and never plotted to capture Napoleon and return him to Elba.

So, Davout was a more honorable and loyal Marshall.
Author:  Bill Peters [ Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Battle of Jena-Auerstadt
I think loyalty to France came first to be honest. I would have NOT followed Napoleon in 1815.

In 1814 the Austrians were making peace overtones to Napoleon that were PERFECTLY acceptable. The Austrians didn't want to see the Russians and Prussians carve up Europe.

Napoleon was blind by 1813 to the realities of what was going on.

So in the end you have to stay loyal to your country and not an individual. While what Marmont did was not very loyal to Napoleon the French people had already suffered too much. He was loyal to France and frankly that was the right move.

Anyone that swore alegiance to Napoleon in 1815 was an idiot. If he could have had Austria as an ally by then maybe he could have had some clout to instigate an overthrow of the Bourbons.

Had Napoleon taken the offer from Austria in 1813 it would be interesting to see where France would be today. Napoleon should have used some common sense, rebuilt France for his son, and had him rule when he passed on. I don't see the Bourbons getting power again under a non-aggressive France.
Author:  David Guegan [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Battle of Jena-Auerstadt
Quote:
In 1814 the Austrians were making peace overtones to Napoleon that were PERFECTLY acceptable. The Austrians didn't want to see the Russians and Prussians carve up Europe.

It would have been difficult from the French perspective to ally with the Austrian knowing how those did "help" during the time they were allied (Russia and the return from it). As I remember Austria broke the French alliance in 1813 and remained neutral until August.
In 1813, even after returning from Russia with almost nothing, Bonaparte was able to reconstruct a new army beat the allies a few times before getting beaten at Leipzig (thanks to Austria getting back on the allied side).

As for the peace treaty proposed in November (the Frankfort proposal) I don't think the British would have accepted it even if Napoleon had agreed to it.
To the point that the British reacted to it by sending Castlereagh to the allies. He then proposed to put Louis XVIII to the throne of France and restore the 1792 (instead of the "natural borders" of the original proposal). Metternich ended up siding with the British position as they secretly agreed with Britain to weaken the Russian position (who wanted to put Bernadotte as king under Russian influence).

It's only the tactical victories of Napoleon in mid-February 1814 that created a wave of defeatism (or a panic attack) for the Tsar and Schawrzenberg. That fear was exploited by Castlereagh... In the end the 4 members of the coalition signed the treaty of Chaumont in March 1814. There was no more space for a peace treaty between France and Austria at that time.

As for Napoleon's blindness or the idiots of 1815 I leave it to your judgment as you might be an expert on that. :mrgreen:

But I have been told that it's the bad politic of Louis XVIII that drove the French people back in the arms of Napoleon.
Author:  Francisco Palomo [ Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Battle of Jena-Auerstadt
Hubris is a harsh mistress and Napoleon was enmeshed in her coils as early as 1808 when he foolishly converted the long standing Spanish alliance into the Spanish Ulcer. He managed to win many more victories after 1808, but he never recovered his previous, deft diplomatic touch or the ability to objectively assess risk vs. gain. Launching the 1812 Campaign, his refusal to negotiate a peace in 1813, etc. all flowed from his hubris. Yes, he might have won the 1812 Campaign, or even the Battle of Leipzig, but, like a gambler that doesn't know when to walk away, he probably would have blundered into another debacle sooner rather than later.

Paco
Author:  David Guegan [ Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Battle of Jena-Auerstadt
Paco wrote:
Hubris is a harsh mistress and Napoleon was enmeshed in her coils as early as 1808 when he foolishly converted the long standing Spanish alliance into the Spanish Ulcer. He managed to win many more victories after 1808, but he never recovered his previous, deft diplomatic touch or the ability to objectively assess risk vs. gain. Launching the 1812 Campaign, his refusal to negotiate a peace in 1813, etc. all flowed from his hubris. Yes, he might have won the 1812 Campaign, or even the Battle of Leipzig, but, like a gambler that doesn't know when to walk away, he probably would have blundered into another debacle sooner rather than later.

Paco


That is a given. I was mainly answering to the hypothesis of Bill about an alliance with Austria in 1814.

Some people put 100% responsibility to Napoleon when it comes to the war that lasted about 25 years (on and of). I do think that the Revolution created a climate in Europe that didn't help reconciliation between the monarchies and the Republic and its offspring the Empire.

And if some kingdoms became allied with the French during that period it's mainly only because of a gain (or to avoid loosing too much) of territory or regional influence than any thing else.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/