"Suvorov vs Napoleon." Topic

Old man was really itching to cross swords. "This boy is really moving, time to stop him". Never happened. Any other French commander lost- sometimes pretty horribly.

This all depends on so many factors of course but if all things were equal I feel that Napoleon and Suvorov were very similar in style at least. Attack being the favoured option in any battle. However, Napoleon did show an exceedingly brilliant ability to fight defensively as well. I dare say that Suvorov would have attacked Napoleon first if they clashed and Napoleon might have been caught and forced to fight defensively fist. Napoleon would have fought an excellent defensive battle and counter-attacked later.

As for outcome? only god knows that one.

Joe Louis vs. Ali.

Its not just about the C-in-C. He has a team of generals and officers under him to execute the Orders. This was a strength of napoleon's armies, where generally speaking it was not really the strength of the Russian army. I guess I'm implying that whilst the action was small enough for Suvorov to control personally in terms of area and numbers he would possibly be competitive but napoleon could probably scale more effectively with the excellence of the French commanders at multiple levels.

Just my opinion, Nick

It may have been closer to happening than you realize. There's an interesting article on the Napoleon Series, pretty brief, but it has an OOB for a Russian army under Suvorov that was assembling to march against the French in 1796, handy for a what-if scenario, maybe against Bonaparte's army soon after he crossed the Tagliamento. i seem to recall a Nafziger OOB for the French at Tagliamento that could be used.

The article format on this website is weird, you have to use the pulldown at the bottom to navigate to the next page and the appendices.

link

that is a solid way at looking at the question Nick. I did not think about it from that perspective.

Duffy asks the same question in "Eagles of the Alps" he comes down on the side of Suvorov; mainly because Suvorov admired Napoleon. In contrast Napoleon seems to underestimated Suvorov.

It would have been one of the most memorable battles of the period and could have changed the course of European history; a defeat for Bonaparte in 1800 would have weakened him politically.

Suvorov in Italy would be even more interesting. The consequences of a defeat in 1796 would have had an even more devistating effect on Bonaparte.

Elliott,

It also comes down to Duffy not being an admirer of Napoleon. That has to be taken into consideration.

I believe that a major defeat in 1800 would have been disastrous for Napoleon politically. He needed a showy victory and his 'retelling' of Marengo was what he did, portraying it as going exactly as planned.

The original official history, done by Colonel Vallongue, was an accurate presentation of what happened. Napoleon ordered it rewritten and all of the copies destroyed. One copy, however, remained and was later found.

Sincerely,
K

"One copy, however, remained and was later found."

Where can one find a reprint of this?

I heard it was tucked in between the girly mags in the john at Fontainebleau.

Kevin,

Marengo – the words "write me a victory…" somehow echo in the back of my mind.

There are two battles of Marengo – the one that Napoleon lost and the one that Desaix won. Desaix had the good fortune, from Bonaparte's point of view, to die and so could be conviniently forgotten.

Moreau's victory at Hohenlinden was the victory that forced the Austrians to make peace, but again that does not fit in with the political natative that Napoleon wanted.

This is why I'm so of fond of the Phipp's 'Armies of the First Republic' that gives due justice to the armies of the Rhine so often overlooked.

I too would like to see the original copy.

I also note that you and I are the only ones to review Marengo and Hohenlinden: Napoleon's Rise to Power by
James Arnold on Amazon:

link

Best,

Elliott

Considering that Suvorov was fighting French armies that were not only very experienced, but very uniform in composition. They had proven generals leading them and a confidence that only previous victories can bring.

Against the French, Suvurov had a command split between the Austrians and Russians, the Austrians having been repeatedly defeated in Italy. The two commands had to communicate in French [irony there…] The Russians were not top line troops. Suvurov had to be supplied by the Austrians, who didn't do that great a job.

I have no doubt that Napoleon could have done a better job than the French generals Suvorov defeated, but considering the handicaps Suvorov had to deal with, he did an amazing job. Any battle between Suvorov and Napoleon probably would have been more like Eylau or Borodino, rather than Friedland…

The two commands had to communicate in French

Suvorov's advice to his officers "Speak French, but always let them know you're Russian" (presumably speak it with a Russian accent)

I do agree with McLaddie. However. Suvorov was able to pick and choose his troops AND generals (somewhat Russians- but a lot of Austrians). Many of them he knew from Turkish wars. he was very fond of some Austrian Cav generals. So he took what was the best available there and then. I would argue here that his subordinates were quite on the par with opponents in Napoleons army.
IMHO Suvorov was much more able to do some out of the ordinary attack, putting Nap on defense and possibly defeating him severely.

'Desaix had the good fortune, from Bonaparte's point of view, to die and so could be conviniently forgotten.'

I don't agree here Elliott. Napoleon considered Desaix the most balanced of his lieutenants' and grieved his loss at Marengo. He also 'took in' his two aides-de-camp, Rapp and Savary, after Desaix was killed.

And if you look in Phipps, you'll see that Desaix hitched his star to Napoleon in 1797.

If Desaix had survived, Napoleon would have made him a marshal.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'I also note that you and I are the only ones to review Marengo and Hohenlinden: Napoleon's Rise to Power by
James Arnold on Amazon:'

Elliott,

I like Arnold's work. He attacks it in his own way and does a lot of work. I agree with you that it would have been better with more on Hohenlinden-and it is also noteworthy that Moreau's battle was won for him by his subordinates, just as Marengo was won for Napoleon by his.

Sincerely,
K

I have no idea where a copy of the original 'report' on the Battle of Marengo is. However, du Cugnac's study on the battle, translated into English by Lanza at Fort Leavenworth is easily available (I ordered my copy of Lanza from the library at Carlisle) and I highly recommend it.

The camapign is traced by the correspondence and after action reports by both the Austrians and the French and two things are noteworthy in this material-that the Army of the Reserve operated on a shoestring and it was the first time the French used the corps d'armee system in combat. You also get an excellent look at Napoleon's character and sense of humor and a greater appreciation for the talents of Alexandre Berthier, that most maligned of marshals, yet the one indispensable to Napoleon.

Sincerely,
K

Kevin,

My point is that from a political point of view having the man who saved your army out of the way means that 'write me a victory' becomes easier.

I also not that Desaix was a very close friend of Gouvion Saint-Cyr which their contemporaries considered an odd match
I wold fully agree that Desaix would have been a Marshal in the first creation.

Best,

Elliott