Help support TMP


"Austrians at 1814" Topic


6 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please avoid recent politics on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

Napoleonic

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

2 Elves for Flintloque

I paint the last two figures from the Escape from the Dark Czar starter set.


Featured Workbench Article


Current Poll


917 hits since 6 Nov 2009
©1994-2026 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Armand06 Nov 2009 4:55 p.m. PST

It's true, or at least are there any document that said that the Austrians under the command of Schwarzemberg on 1814 didn't made the movements or fight with enought force against the French because the Austrian Emperor wish to put in the throne his grandson?.
Or that Nap remains there?

Another question: Why the Austrian Emperor didn't met the Russian and Prussian Emperors at the front line in the 1814 campaign?.

Had he health problems?.

Amicalement
Armand

ArchiducCharles06 Nov 2009 5:26 p.m. PST

Well, Austria certainly was more inclined to let Napoleon on the thone than the other two powers and it did it's best to sign a treaty that would've kept Napoleon on the throne of a still powerful nation. Metternich was convinced (with good reasons) that a strong France was important to counter-balance Prussia expansionism and Russia's ambitions and powers. If only Napoleon would have accepted what I think were good terms considering the situation he was in, things might have been different indeed. But by that time, Napoleon policy was anything but logical. It cost him dearly.

Old Bear07 Nov 2009 5:06 a.m. PST

It only goes to show though that there were almost always different strengths of feeling against Napoleon, and that had his overly-aggressive foreign policy been a bit more restrained he might well have been able to bring peace to Europe that would have benefitted France.

Cacadores09 Nov 2009 9:36 a.m. PST

Well Bony did have peace, didn't he? The Peace of Amiens October 1801 to May 1803 – with borders the Sun King could only have dreamed about. But the sneaky cove only went and annexed Switzerland and Piedmont, didn't he? Seems the short man couldn't kick that invasion fix.

Old Bear09 Nov 2009 10:55 a.m. PST

Yes, I rather suspect that's not far off the mark. Even so, though, what he had by 1811 would keep most monarchs happy for a while. He could have made use of the time to shore up his dynasty, although I guess he felt himself to be unbeatable.

summerfield11 Nov 2009 8:34 a.m. PST

Dear Armand
The finances of France were ruined by the Seven Years War, famine, support of American Independence, Revolutionary wars, Napoleonic Wars, Continental Blockade etc….

The only way that France could balance the books was to plunder the riches off other countries. This worked to 1807 but soon started to unravel. The expence of the standing army fell upon the Confederation of the Rhine, Duchy of Warsaw, Italy, Naples and Prussia. The expense of the army in Spain was initially carried by Spain but soon this poor country could not maintain them.

Napoleon should have stopped in 1807 with what he had and consolidated but was probably driven by the financial issues. The beleif that he could defeat the British by the continental blockade was ruinous. This lead him to annex Hanover, northern Westphalia and Oldenburg. The last was an offront to the Tsar who was related to the Oldenburg family.

The offer of peace at the various times in 1813 was very generous. It could be that he could not have accepted these as this would admit defeat and so undermine his power in France. The other explanation is less flattering of course. A conqueror does not know when to stop.

The decision he made strategically after 1807 were in the main political rather than military. These were often poor. He army had grown to huge proportions so could not be controlled and the timing/opportunity in battles lost. The system of communication he required was only solved in part in the First World War with field telephones etc… and in the 1930s with increased use of radio communication.

Austria was playing like the other combatants a careful game. It was not really a winner out of the Congress of Vienna. It had lost leadership in Germany and had not regained it. It regained the Tyrol and Italy. A strong France was essential to Austria. It was how to acheive this. Austria had become denuded of money through war in 1793-6, 1799-1800, 1805, 1809, 1812, 1813-4 and finally 1815. Her richer areas had been removed from her and lost a seaport to the outside world.

You could say money makes the world go around. Alas Central Europe there was no cash flow. It was in the position as we now have of the credit crunch. Currencies were devalued and too much paper promisary notes from the French occupation forces/garrisons etc… The economy and industry was ruined.

Stephen

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.