"Napoleon at the top of his game" Topic

…militarily speaking. Admittedly it can be difficult to separate the interplay of politics in his decision making, but which battle or more probably campaign do you think showed his talent at its best…which need not be it's hight. That is to say, Napoleon worked wonders in the dark days of 13-14, even though most would agree his star was in descent.

So to start the ball I nominate 1806. Some have ascribed the Prussian loss to outmoded systems. It was more than that. Would another have succeeded in Napoleon's place?

Bob

Austerlitz. It's all downhill from there.

1796 followed by the Ulm maneuver of 1805

The 1809 campaign before Aspern Essling, who he turns the tables on the Austrians and pushed them into the defensive in a matter of weeks…

Ligniere,

Funny. While I ascribed the Prussian loss to Napoleon's talent, I have always thought of Ulm as Mack's failure.

A possibly false notion and I should reexamine it.

Thanks.

Bob

M C MonkeyDew
There's also good reason to think that it was Davout's genius in 1806, at Auerstadt, that gave Napoleon the result in that campaign.
Given the numbers Napoleon had concentrated for the Jena battle it was a tough one to lose. Auerstadt could be argued as a tough one to win for the French.
However, I would say that the French Army was at it's peak performance in 1806.

The French army was certainly at its best in 1805-1806 but I think Napoleon was personally best in 1796. Admittedly his opponents were dunderheads but the amount of maneuvering and nail biting action for such an extended period can't be topped

Tom

All these are good answers and won't disagree, however I am fond od the post Russia campaigns where he no longer has the Uber efficient military machine and his opponents are forcing him to scramble.

Col. Scott: From what I know of the campaigns that is a sound statement. The man was really forced to, for lack of a better term, "work", in order to make do with that which was on hand.

Been meaning to read more detailed accounts of these campaigns as time allows.

Bob

In 1806 he had 4 to 3 superiority.
Sometimes in 12-13 when things did not work well, with inferiority in numbers and intel, his maneuvers were actually brilliant, spoiled by chance and incompetents ( that he put in charge).
1805 top.

I think it went downhill when Lannes died.

Well I think as time went on losing LaSalle, Lannes, and other worthy leaders did not help much. I agree the army was at its best during 1805-1806, but Napoleon the leader was maybe at his best 1813-1814 with fewer quality generals and a Grand Armee itself inferior to its former self.

Napoleon was personally best in 1796. Admittedly his opponents were dunderheads

Colli and Beaulieu were dunderheads. Wurmser and Alvintzy, while outclassed were worthy opponents. Alvintzy won two battles against Bonaparte. Melas had a pretty solid victory stolen from him.

OK, all the Austrians were still thinking of strategic points instead of crushing the enemy army, but some of them were tough soldiers.

And the corsican had a spy into the Austrian staff. Knew disposition at start for each sub- campaign. Helps a lot.

" had a spy into the Austrian staff."…

Part of the Art no? Would that count as military or political or the grey area in between?

Bob

No you were right first time – 1814. Strange but true….

His campaign to get corrinated. After that he spent most of his time on the run after ever more elusive symbols of glory….that never compared.

So, what, 1814 was at the bottom of his strategic and operational abilities???

Politics is where he made his major--and fatal--mistakes, not on the battlefield.

1814, followed by the Marengo campaign.

I believe Wellington himself said that the 1814 campaign in France saw Napoleon at his best.

He was certainly in a position to judge.

It could be argued that Napoleon's finest work as a commander was in Italy through 1800 and 1814. In 1805-1807, he commanded the finest army in Europe with some of the best generals of the age. It was certainly much easier to be 'at the top of his game' with at to work with.

In Italy and 1814, it was a different story and yet he showed brilliance in both campaigns. In Italy he was commanding [anything apart from artillery]for the first time. In 1814 he was desparately outnumbered and still continued to beat the Allies with inferior troops.

Certainly Napoleon's health was a factor later, but I don't see a decline in his 'game.'