"About French Army Staff and Officers " Topic

"The army that Napoleon inherited from Louis XVI of France and from the early Revolutionary councils was ready-made and had battle experience. What he did with that army was truly remarkable, even more so when it is acknowledged that Napoleon himself was no great innovator. He applied already-established concepts and, by the strength of his own personality, his brilliant leadership, and his understanding of the men he commanded, transformed the defeated army of the Seven Years' War (1756-1763) into an almost invincible force.

Napoleon took command of the (French) Army of Italy on 27 March 1796. He had some 58,000 men who were short of food and clothing and strung out along the coast from Marseilles to near Genoa. His success in this campaign was due to the characteristics mentioned above and to his strategy of hitting at enemy weak points and attacking where he was sure of victory. By 25 April he had defeated Johann Peter Freiherr von Beaulieu's right wing at Dego and Michael Freiherr von Colli's at Mondovi. His campaign continued with the brilliant coup at the Lodi Bridge, showing how much he believed in a commander's power to inspire men. His subsequent campaigns all demonstrated the validity of this concept.

One Napoleonic Order of the Day (bulletin to the troops) stated clearly how he thought the French soldier ought to respond to his particular call to arms; he posed it as an individual challenge to each of them: "All men who value life more than the glory of the nation and the esteem of their comrades should not be members of the French Army" (Chandler 1998, 149). His personal appearance at the crucial moment of a battle was profound: the famous British military historian and strategist General J. F. C. Fuller wrote that Napoleon said, "When in the fire of battle I rode down the ranks and shouted, `Unfurl the standards! The moment has at length come!' it made the French soldier leap into action" (quoted in Fuller 1970, 194). The art of leadership has rarely had a more able exponent…"
See here
link

Part II here
link
Amicalement
Armand

Very period specific. Imagine President Obama even visiting men about to go into battle in a few minutes let alone walking the FEBA trying to encourage them on like Napoleon did as Head of State! 8>) (For political correctness, replace with the person who icier current Head of State!)

This is why the study of the people of the times, their customs, habits, living environment, etc. is so important. While my example above makes for a good laugh, we must remember that we live in differentiates. What worked in the past in the French Society may not necessarily work in todays. The main thing to take (IMHO) is that someone DID SOMETHING to try and make a difference.

In a recent example of where someone IS trying to inspire is the current Secretary of Defense. he sends out weekly messages (via email) to the troops in an attempt to let them know what is going on World Wide and how important their efforts in achieving success across the board. While not literally waving the flag, the parallel can be made for the effort but the method of delivery adjusted for the modern period.

Well, Armand, someone finally added a post to this one.

Tom

The men of the times were George Washington, Andrew Jackson etc. I think they meet your criteria. As for a modern day personality I don't believe you would find a single head of any state rounding up the soldiers for one last push..

The President of the United States is a civilian and while commander-in-chief of the armed forces, per the US Constitution, he is not and was not designed to be an operational commander.

Comparing any president of the US with Napoleon is neither logical nor a valid analogy.

Thanks my friend!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Brechtel198. The comparison is where both, Napoleon and the President of the USA, were both heads of state. The highest officer in both military establishments. So I feel a darned good comparison due their position.

Granted that the US Commander in Chief should never be allowed to get that close to actual combat by design, both have/had the obligation to inspire the troops to great things.

My comparison also shows that it takes personal courage and devotion to duty in leading by example. BTW, the CinC of the USA can (and does) have a great influence on the operations within the military and especially on it's doctrine. While not commanding actual units, rather, he commands the actions of the whole on a different level than Napoleon did at a lower, tactical level. Times have changed since then.

v/r
Tom

Wasn't Madison on the front with army in Bladensburg, I read somewhere?

And what a success that was!

Brechtel198. The comparison is where both, Napoleon and the President of the USA, were both heads of state. The highest officer in both military establishments. So I feel a darned good comparison due their position.

Granted that the US Commander in Chief should never be allowed to get that close to actual combat by design, both have/had the obligation to inspire the troops to great things.

My comparison also shows that it takes personal courage and devotion to duty in leading by example. BTW, the CinC of the USA can (and does) have a great influence on the operations within the military and especially on it's doctrine. While not commanding actual units, rather, he commands the actions of the whole on a different level than Napoleon did at a lower, tactical level. Times have changed since then.

Napoleon was a civilian head of state as well as a serving officer who was the commander of the Grande Armee, which was his creation. Napoleon was not only the tactical commander on the battlefield, but also the commander on both an operational and strategic level.

The President of the United States is not a military officer-he is by definition a civilian and has no operational command in the field.

Two presidents I can think of right off the top of my head who tried to micromanage the armed forces during a war were Johnson and our present president. Both were dismal failures in that capacity. Neither knew what they were doing and hurt the overall war effort.

So, again, your analogy is not only illogical it is invalid.

Lastly, there is no Commander-in-Chief of the United States. We have a President of the United States who is also the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces as a civilian. The latter is a subset of the former. And the President is not an officer of the armed forces. If you don't agree either check the US Constitution or, if you don't have it to hand, I can quote it for you-article and section as appropriate. All you have to do is ask.