"Hundred Days: Any chance nappy could've won?" Topic

I just got harrangued by one of Bonaparte's supporters on another thread where I pointed out that the Hundred Days was a totally irresponsible boondoggle that was doomed to failure from the start, and that I thought it was pretty good evidence that Nappy was a nutty egomaniac for even attempting it.

This guy's reply, essentially, was that in calling Napoleon a nut, my opinions were discredited.

Well, whatever else he was, the man was certainly a great politician. Even two hundred years later, he still has legions of grognards willing to defend him to the death, and who get incensed when anybody pokes fun at their hero. Ya gotta give the man that.

But, more importantly, do you really think that Napoleon's Hundred Days was the act of a responsible statesman? Europe was so terrified of him, and so ready to mobilize against him, and France was so exhausted, do you really think that he could have won? If not, what possible positive benefit could have accrued either to him or to France?

There is no way that the European governments were going to let him sit on his throne and let bygones be bygones. He had lied to and attacked them too often -let us not forget the Spain was Napoleon's ally right before the French armies marched in and deposed the king- and they knew that nobody had a general who could match him in a fair fight.

But am I wrong? Could Napoleon have beaten all of Europe at the head of an army of 12 year old boys? I don't see it, but maybe some of you do.

BTW: All that side, I recognize Napoleon's greatness as a general, and I do love gaming the period, though I am in a minority in that I play skirmish level Napoleonics in 54mm scale.

I just think that the man was an egomaniac, and I think that history supports that position.

He could have won for a Hundred Days but after that no.
His army was already exhusted and He had to many enemies.

Depends on what you call winning?

Could he have won at Waterloo? Sure. Could Grouchy's pursuit been better? Hard to say weather made things tough on him but should have been just as tough on the Prussians.

Were the French doing OK against other opponents? Actually they weren't doing half bad. Assuming Napoleon chased the Brits out of Holland Belgium and destroyed the Blucher's Prussians, what next?

Well now we enter the realm of speculation. The odds were certainly against Napoleon but if Napoleon stayed close to home and relied upon interior lines. Assuming a good harvest, assuming continued public support, he might have fought them to a stand still.

I question whether Napoleon's health would have sustained his efforts.

I also question whether France could develop an answer to the British Navy. Guess they could take a page from the Americans and build some super frigates but I think the Brits would have had it all their own way on the waves.

mjc

quidveritas "Depends on what you call winning?"

I think I'm fairly clear on that. "…what possible positive benefit could have accrued either to him or to France?"

If Ney had no hesitated at Quatre-
Bras,
napoleon would have probably won the waterloo campaign, but he would have probably not been able to hold on too power for too long.
the Allies outnumbered him 6 to 1 and generally the French people were tired of more warfare and there were inserrectuions going on in France as all this was going on.
maybe if we won he might have been able too rally the french people to his side for one more push but
i doubt it.

Militarily he could have (and with a little luck should have) heavily defeated the Anglo Dutch forces at Quatre Bras/Waterloo and at least inflicted heavy enough losses on the Prussians (Ligny and Plancenoit)to put them out of the war for the shorter or longer term.

The question is after this, fighting a defensive campaign could he have defeated the Russians and Austrians. I believe he could have fought them to a standstill, making the most of their extended supply lines.

The deciding factor would have been Britain's willingness to continue the fight after Wellingtons defeat. Would Pitt and the English establishment be prepared/able to raise another army.

Any time you can walk into a country and the army and people come over to you without a fight, must mean something. Napoleon did try diplomacy with the other countries, and they were the ones who turned him down.

Austria was exhausted. Russian was a long was away and who wants a horde of Russians tramping through the neighborhood. We saw what type of army Prussia and England could assemble, talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Were the French in much better shape no, but they had Napoleon who had to be worth something on a good day, even if he didnt have most of his great Marshalls.

Maybe just maybe if he had trashed the Prussians and English, and captured Wellington, he could have pulled back to the French borders and offered a truce again. If he promised to step down and let one of his heirs rule. The other nations might have gone for it. The other monarchies were going to require a royal family on the throne, just did it really have to be the fat pig that they had forced on the French after Nap.

The allies had their own problems… if Napoleon was able to pull off the 100 days I am not sure that the coalition would have held… the austrians were suspicious of Prussia and Russia (hey they had lamost ogne to war for poland before napoleon left Elba…) minor allies were exhausted of war in general. And Napoleon was the last chance for austria to have friend (the son of Napoleon and Marie Louise on the throne of france). Britain was the great what if… they had fought napoleon almost to economic death… but then if Napoleon was able to stay quiet in france probably even Pitt would have acquiesced. Of course Vienna would have to be modified… and probably Italy would have been divided between France and Austria…

But the condition was shattering the english army and stave off the other partners. Wellington amry was in pretty bad shape after Mont Saint Jean… and I doubt that without Blucher they would have held; actually they were pretty sure that the battle would have been renwed the day after and no one at the moment was thinking about victory (a lot of journals and personal letter written that evening by annglo allied officers have survived and the picture was gloom).

Of course the entire 100 days was a biug gamble… but a gamble that could have been succesfful IMHO

Napoleon did try diplomacy with the other countries, and they were the ones who turned him down.

Given that he had been declared an outlaw by the Congress of Vienna for breaking his parole and returning to France, that's not really surprising.

By thus breaking the convention which had established him in the island of Elba, Bonaparte destroys the only legal title on which his existence depended, and by appearing again in France, with projects of confusion and disorder, he has deprived himself of the protection of the law, and has manifested to the universe that there can be neither peace nor truce with him.

The powers consequently declare, that Napoleon Bonaparte has placed himself without the pale of civil and social relations; and that, as an enemy and disturber of the tranquillity of the world, he has rendered himself liable to public vengeance.

Austria was exhausted.

Before or after the battle of Tolentino, where they kicked Murat's arse?

We saw what type of army Prussia and England could assemble, talk about scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Were the French in much better shape no, but they had Napoleon who had to be worth something on a good day, even if he didnt have most of his great Marshalls.</Q>

Yet the scrappings (sic) beat the great Napoleon. Shame he was having an off day on June 18 1815 eh?

The other monarchies were going to require a royal family on the throne, just did it really have to be the fat pig that they had forced on the French after Nap.

The other monarchies didn't have much choice. Restore the Bourbons, or return to a republic? Hmmm.

It had to be a Bourbon, and Louis XVIII was a legitimate claimant.

No!

Dude.

If Napoleon had won in Belgium, there was a chance to win overall for the campaign. Austria had a habit of changing sides when things got a little rough, and with the British and Prussians defeated in Belgium, the two toughest of the allies would be out of the game.

Russia would have gone home if she had found herself isolated and without allies. And, Napoleon's mobilization plans were to have 800,000 men under arms by October. He had won in conditions just as desperate, as he had in 1797-1797, and in 1800.

Sincerely,
Kevin

10th Marines "Napoleon's mobilization plans were to have 800,000 men under arms by October."

Who?

Yeah, but Nappy wasn't the same guy as in 1800. Great General. Only politics could have saved him this time (and perhaps Wellington's death or capture). It however, was a gamble he was bound to take.

Thanks,

John

According to Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon…The Allies were looking at mobilizing between 800,00 and one million men while the French at best could muster maybe half that many (pg 1015). So this was a last grasp by Napoleon, but, I think he was the only great general of the period who could pull off what was accomplished. He had a knack for the battlefield I don't think we have seen since.

His major talent was in the field of "operations" -- that vital area between strategy and the battlefield that involves getting the greatest possible force to the battlefield in time to do some good there. Another great practitioner was von Manstein in WWII.

Absolutely impossible question to answer in any meaningful way – too many variables.

You have to remember that they had been offering him peace that would allow him to stay in power to a fairly late stage before 1814 campaign. It is not hard to imagine a panic setting in if Wellington and the Prussians had been crushed.

If, and here is where it fails, napoleon would have accepted a peace leaving him in power but not asking too much else. One suspects that a crushing victory in Belgium would have hardened his negotiating position and he would have acted as he did in 1813.

Would Pitt and the English establishment be prepared/able to raise another army.

The latter, probably. The former, almost certainly not, since he'd been dead for nine and a half years by that point.

As to whether the Hundred Days was 'irresponsible', you have to look at the information that Napoleon and his spies had at the moment that he attempted it.

Reports would have reached him that the nations at the Congress of Vienna were nearly at war with one another.

Louis XVIII was loathed and the country yearned to have Napoleon back.

He could raise an army with what was available, should he need it.

Europe wanted peace.

As the money owed him by the terms of his surrender was not being paid, he had legitimate grounds for attempting it and perhaps the other nations would acknowledge it.

Given those conditions, it seems to me to be a reasonable wager. The actually truth of the situation is irrelevent when one is passing judgement UNLESS, the point is to pass jusdgement on his intelligence services.

I didn't take part in the original conversation, however:

"This guy's reply, essentially, was that in calling Napoleon a nut, my opinions were discredited."

It is easy to discredit opinions (intelligent or otherwise) if they are accompanied by commentary. I'm not saying your view was incorrect, I'm saying it gave your opponent a get-out-of-jail-free-card.

"But, more importantly, do you really think that Napoleon's Hundred Days was the act of a responsible statesman?"

I think there is a decent argument that few if any of the players were responsible statesmen – which is to say, I don't think that is what it was about for any of the parties involved.

"Europe was so terrified of him, and so ready to mobilize against him, and France was so exhausted, do you really think that he could have won?"

Yes. I believe it was highly unlikely, but possible? Yes, crazier things have happened. Run the odds, it is more amazing that Apolo 13 came home safely. It is rather amazing that Steve Jobs returned to Apple and the company did not die. Neither of these is of the same scale, but I am talking about long odds – point is, sometimes they do come out.

"If not, what possible positive benefit could have accrued either to him or to France?"

It would have gotten him off the island … seriously. After dominating the entire continent of Europe, the center of technology, economic power, and society, would you want to live out your days being beaten, or would you want to try again to put humpty dumpty back together again? Same reason we chase any other accomplishment. What was in it for France? Well, he probably thought it was the right thing to do for France, if people believe their bad press they never get out of bed in the morning. Napy obviously believed he did have something to offer and frankly, I believe logic, facts, and intuition. The guy had done incredible things before, I think it is very possible to believe he could have done them again.

Possible of course, probable, of course not – it didn't happen after all.

Cheers,

The Bandit

France was nearly totally bankrupt, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel when it came to conscripting new troops and Napoleon felt he was over the hill in a bad way and feared an insurrection would overthrow him at any moment.

Napoleon kicked ass for nearly 20 years, but like Hannibal, he won battle after battle, but lost the war badly. The hundred days could have been another victorious campaign, but sooner or later he would have faced his Waterloo.

I dont think he could of pulled it off. He was already passes his best. He made mistakes, in both the choices of his staff and on the battle field. Even if he had one at waterloo, somehow managing to beat the British and the Prussians his army would have been battered and weakened to fight the Austrians and Russians. I doubt he could have destroyed the British completly, it would have been a quick retreat and then on to their ships for them.

He could have won the battles dont get me wrong there, but the whole campaign.. doomed from the start I reckon. Despite what people have said I dont think Austria or Russia would have olerated him back in power, and would have carried on at him, Britain would have returned to the fray eventually, Prussia too most like.

sorry @"one" should read "won" dont know why a wrote "one"

As the 'guy' Mephistopheles refers to at the start, I suppose it's inevitable I should wade in.

Firstly, having an ego does not make one a 'nutjob'. That's not a credible definition and can never be. Secondly, as an englishman, I don't watch Waterloo hoping for a French win. It doesn't mean, however, that I cannot respect an enemy, particularly so talented an enemy.

Chandler accounts in detail his photographic memeory, his ability at command, his capacity for organisation, et al.

As to the Wateerloo campaign, he certainly should have won the immediate campaign against us and the Prussians. His mistakes, as have already been hinted at, revolve not in misreading the situation – he was fully informed of what was going on and knew that it was his last chance to reclaim his throne. Had he appointed Soult and Davout as wing commanders and Suchet as chief of staff (instead of making Davout minister of War and relegating Suchet to a secondary theatre of no immediate value) then the chances of all the mistakes perpetrated by Grouchy and Ney would have been much less. The fact that Murat was incapable as a commanding general do not change the fact he was the best cavalry leader on the continent, and had Napoleon accepted his offer of service (Tolentino is a red herring – who wins with Neapolitans?) then the cavalry reserve would surely not have been misused. Even if not using Murat, surely Grouchy, a cavalryman, would have been better employed commanding cavalry?

Napoleon's manoeuvers prior to Waterloo were little short of astonishing, bearing in mind what he had to work with, and while he wasn't the man he was before 1809, he may well have had enough in the tank to beat the likes of Schwarzenberg and Barclay de Tolly.

If Wellington had been crushed at Waterloo and Blucher not allowed to recover from Ligny, the Austrians and Russians would have found themselves practically alone, unless Prussia and Britain were going to miraculously replace the potential loses they would have suffered, the British government might well have fallen, and an equally tired Europe might well have decided to settle for a peaceful resolution, particularly as Belgium was ripe for a pro-French revolt.

So, whilst we will never know, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that it was possible.

No way.

Good argument. Well put.

Facts: Napoleon started the war in Spain, but most if not all others were not of his initiative. European powers repeatedly broke treaties and forced him into wars.

Now, when he came back from Elba, he tried to avoid war. "I offer peace to Europe" he said to European leaders. Of course no one could tolerate it, they were too scared of him. But that war too was started by the Allies coallition.

So was he hoping to win the war? He first tried to avoid it, then did his best not to loose it, with the end we all know. He didn't want this war.

Note: if all Europe was not at war with France from the counter-revolution wars, Napoleon would not even have raised as a great leader. The Frenchman in me invites to think of the responsability of the whole Europe in those terrible wars.

Cordially,

Unlikely in my mind
At this time Napoleon was not really the military and political leader of France that he had been previously.
He was increasingly unwell.
Any political solution that previously had allowed him to consolidate following a military victory would ,in my opinion, have been denied him.
The other European powers would not have agreed to this.
There may have been subsequent victories after a French victory at Waterloo but these would have been unsustainable.

Other than on the battlefield (where he was still way better than most) Napoleon had shown within a few weeks just how energetic a leader he still was. What he accomplished with a country not even wanting a war was phenomenal. It has to be remebered that the whole of Europe was tired of war, not just the French, and if Napoleon had managed to crush Wellinmgton and Blucjher as he had the opportunity to do then the Austrians and Russians may have felt a lot differently about fighting so far from home.

It is of course possible that having put a price on his head they would have kept to their guns, and it's also possible that Napoleon would have been unable to stop himself having another crack.

As for those making out that mostly Napoleon was forced into war by others, while this may technically be true it inmplies a naivety in the man's thinking for which there is no evidence of existence. Napoleon was the shrewdest of operators and manipulators, and he knew that his actions were very often too provocative to be ignored.

So he invaded poor Russia in 1812 just out of good will, because he was such a peace loving git?

All he could do was to intimitate all other nations by threatening invading them, he overreached himself and should have stopped in 1808 and avoided the disastrous campaigns of 1812 – 1815 – which he all lost in a row.

In 1815 he was in no state to beat the rest of the world.

All the continental wars were driven by the incessent war between France and Britain. It was war with Britain that forced him to invade Russia. It was war with Britain that obliged him to act decisively in Spain to avoid the possibility of it going over to Britain should the wrong monarch win power.

That doesn't remove 'blame' from Napoleon for the aggressive conduct of the war but I think it is a mistake to imagine France was somehow this bullying nation bent on global conquest. Given Napoleon's nature I doubt that it would have been a peaceful period if Britain and France had found a way to coexist but France put a soldier on the throne because they had to.

Eh, pretty doubtful, IMO. The key is how well the coalition holds together and people here are pointing to the cracks and disagreements. But these were basically the SAME cracks and disagreements that existed in 1813-14. So I don't see things being much different, as long as Napoleon was running France, he was a serious threat to all of the coalition members and they would pull together until he was defeated as in 1813-14.

One comment above that struck me as very odd – "Austria had a habit of changing sides when things got a little rough" – where did this come from? The only time over the 23 year period that Austria "changed sides" was in 1813 when they left the alliance with France that they had been coerced into and acted for their own best interests instead. Never struck me as a matter of "things getting rough", more a matter of getting the chance to get theirs back. Even if someone wants to imagine the circumstances of 1813 in this way, one occasion does not a habit make. Austria was committed to Napoleon's defeat and the only chance they would have pulled out would be if Napoleon could have somehow convinced them that it was more to their interests to have him ruling France than fat Louis – a hard sell with his track record and with Talleyrand sitting in Vienna. A weak king of France who owes them a favor is preferable to a strong emperor of France who had a habit of kicking their butts.

If, while Napoleon was on Elba, Schulmeister (disguised as a French Governess) had managed to push Tallyrand off a balcony at Schonbrun, Napoleon could have won. The problem is that Admiral Sir Sydney Smith would have been there to pull off the spy's wig at the last minute and there is no doubt that Neipperg would have have put Schulmeister into a diabolical deathtrap indeed.

But if Schulmeister showed up in Talleyrand's room dressed as a French governess, would Talleyrand have gone to the balcony with Schulmeister or would he have escorted "her" straight to the bedroom? And would Schulmeister have put his arse on the line for Napoleon under the circumstances?

If purely looking at the campaign against the 'British' and Prussians, he won it from a strategic pov in the opening moves by splitting their armies. Unfortunately he failed to capitalise on his local superiority by utterly crushing the Prussians at Ligny and then the British at either QB or Waterloo. It was quite withing the bounds of possibility for him to destroy both armies though.

How he would have fared vs the Russians and Austrians is anyones guess though.

Napoleon needed two things to win.

1) He needed good weather.

Didn't get it

2) He needed better commanders in key positions.

Grouchey is a cavalry commander by trade. That pick was suspect.

Ney was a much better corps or division commander than a army wing commander.

If Davout, for instance, was in command at the critical moments at Quatre Bras, the outcome might have been different. He almost certainly would have been more aggressive. he almost certainly would have let D'Erlons corps move to encircle the Prussians.

The English were probably not going to win Waterloo without the Prussians. Even Wellington said, "Give me Blucher or give me night."

With better consideration for commanders and better weather, Napoleon would likely have won opening phases. Austria didn't really want a fight. I suspect that eliminating 2 powers off the bat would have sent Austria reeling into a peace settlement with France. That would have left Russia all alone and their lines of communication would have been really long.

John

As I've mentioned in similar threads, I believe that had Blucher been killed/captured under that horse after Ligny, everything would have changed. I don't believe that the Prussians would have marched to Waterloo without Old Vorwarts but more, if Wellington had heard that Blucher was gone, he'd not have trusted any Prussians to show up and would not have tried holding at Waterloo. What then could he have done but march for the boats? Others believe that the Gniesnau was just as much a fighter and just as loyal as Blucher to Wellington. *shrug*

Gniesnau was not really loyal to Wellington. He had a chip on his shoulder. With that, he almost certainly would have tried to march in support of Wellington just to prove that the Prussians were not whipped…

malcolmmccallum "Louis XVIII was loathed and the country yearned to have Napoleon back."

Mmmmm… half truth, and one that Napoleon's supporters are continually guilty of.

Remember that Napoleon never really had a popular mandate. He took power at the point of a gun, and that is how he kept it. "Democratic" referendums and elections with questions like "Shall Napoleon Bonaparte be elected First Consul for Life?" were shams at best. Rebellion in La Vendee was endemic, and after Waterloo he lacked support in Southern France as well.

Truth to tell, Napoleon was seldom more than one major defeat away from being overthrown. The fact that he kept creatures like Talleyrand and Fouche in his government is very revealing. He knew exactly what these men were, so why did he keep them on instead of having them shot? Because his government wouldn't operate without them.

Bear in mind also that not all of the great Revolutionary generals jumped on the Napoleonic bandwagon. Carnot was a case in point. He resigned from service tothe Empire when he believed that Napoleon was becoming too despotic, and did not return until the 1814 campaign, when France itself was being attacked.

One's thing is pretty sure: He could not have won if he had stayed on Elba.

Some excellent discussion and analysis, despite the inherent difficulties of dealing with "what ifs".

Most of what I might have said has been said. But I would like to highlight again these comments:

"I think it is a mistake to imagine France was somehow this bullying nation bent on global conquest. Given Napoleon's nature I doubt that it would have been a peaceful period if Britain and France had found a way to coexist but France put a soldier on the throne because they had to."

Yes, the context is very important to understanding this period and the personalities that dominated it. In concentrating on Napoleon's faults, it's easy to overlook those of his numerous enemies, who were not necessarily any more attractive. Napoleon suffers from being under a microscope more than the rest. It's also easy to forget that Europe hadn't exactly been at peace for the preceding 100 years -- Napoleon was no sudden strange phenomenon (well, he was, but he wasn't). If he'd been able to occupy the throne in a period of relative peace, he might have focused his considerable talents to other ends than the wars at which he was so brilliant (too brilliant for his own temptations). But he rose from violence and by choice and by necessity he survived and finally fell through violence. It is hard to see the rest of Europe, by 1815, consenting to co-exist with the ruler who had sent so many of their armies packing and occupied so many of their capitals. Britain was always remorseless, and able to fund anti-Napoleon coalitions with impunity. They would have stiffened their resolve even had Wellington been destroyed. Napoleon's only hope lay in fending off the enemy generals and hoping to split the coalition -- had Austria gone neutral, based on the marriage connection, it might have solved many problems for the Emperor. He had a weak hand in 1815, once he took his gamble on returning to France (and how likely was his the virtually bloodless return to power from Elba? How can you know this and not believe that anything else must be possible?), but he had no choice but to play it as well as he could and hope for events to take a turn in his favor. A lot had to break Napoleon's way in 1815 for him to succeed, and his luck ran out by June.

Mephistopheles said: "Mmmmm… half truth, and one that Napoleon's supporters are continually guilty of."

Strange how the man turned up back in France with a 1,000 men and a few weeks later was an emperor again. The Bourbons were chased out on the back of street riots and while Napoleon had no particular 'mandate', as you put it, with the exception of Britain (and we still had a poke-your-nose-in monarch anyway) I don't look around the Europe of the time and see a vast swathe of elected governments. Do you?

Trying to put a modern spin on historical events doesn't work.

As for trying to demonise Napoleon for taking a throne, weren't you just eulogising Bernadotte for the self same thing? At least Napoleon didn't desert anybody to get his.

Finally, here's your maths adding up on Bernadotte and Davout: both are dead. The difference is that serious Napoleonic students have nothing but admiration for Davout and contempt for Bernadotte. Sure, there are exceptions, but you do the maths.

The question "Any chance…". The answer, yes just a slim one. If anyone could have, it would be Napoleon.

Pre 1812 sure, but he left too many veterans in shallow graves. I know that his 1814 campaign was brilliant, especially with the resources available, however those same war weary enemies hammered his forces. They did not have to win all the battles just keep putting the pressure on, and don't quit. A very similar situation to Lee after the wilderness. They both still won great battles but….the flow was going to be against them.

It does all of our hearts good to root for the "underdog" so we all sometimes hope and pray that they win against the odds. Partly because we see the odds in life to not always be on our side, partly because movies rarely make heroes out of the guy with the biggest army.

I have seen lots of tactical and operational games of the Waterloo campaign, and both sides can win with some skill and a little luck. Has anyone ever played a strategic game with all forces, perhaps with different players for each army. What were the results, noting that none of us are truely Napoleon.

"As for trying to demonise Napoleon for taking a throne, weren't you just eulogising Bernadotte for the self same thing? At least Napoleon didn't desert anybody to get his. "

Bernadotte did not desert anybody as well. He left the service of France in accordance of Napoleon.

Bonaparte left his soldier when stuck in Egypt and again when starving in Russia

"Finally, here's your maths adding up on Bernadotte and Davout: both are dead. The difference is that serious Napoleonic students have nothing but admiration for Davout and contempt for Bernadotte. Sure, there are exceptions, but you do the maths."

Serious students will have also admiration for Bernadotte – in case they read other sources than Petre, Chandler and the usual propanda by Napoleon.

But in the maths, you are right, both are dead RIP

Old Bear "Strange how the man turned up back in France with a 1,000 men and a few weeks later was an emperor again. The Bourbons were chased out on the back of street riots and while Napoleon had no particular 'mandate'"

The fact that the army liked him does not mean he had a popular mandate.

"As for trying to demonise Napoleon for taking a throne, weren't you just eulogising Bernadotte for the self same thing? At least Napoleon didn't desert anybody to get his."

Now this is just plain… well… I guess you just gotta be you. But I'm sure you are aware that Bernadotte was asked by the Swedes to come and be their king. He didn't march into the legislature at the head of his troops and take over. Fact checking is a wonderful thing.

"Finally, here's your maths adding up on Bernadotte and Davout: both are ."

That's brilliant, man.

"The difference is that serious Napoleonic students have nothing but admiration for Davout and contempt for Bernadotte."

And the whole Swedish nation admired Bernadotte. Napoleon, OTOH, is admired by a bucn hof frustrated wargamers. Yep, done the math all right.

von Winterfeldt "Bonaparte left his soldier when stuck in Egypt and again when starving in Russia."

Also after Leipzig.

Bernadottes' family are still on the throne.

So whose the better politician?

Name something the family of Bernadotte did that influenced anyone outside of Sweden (outside of attending – I use that word on purpose) the 1813 and 1814 campaigns.

Politicians do influence events right?

Cheers,

The Bandit