"Napoleon's Finest Battle?" Topic

Which battle best demonstrates Napoleon's generalship?

Waterloo.

And so it begins!

Strategically ULM. However a strong case can be made that it was at this level, Napoleon did his best work. Crossing the Alps, the 1814 fighting withdrawal.
A single Operational level battle, maybe Austerlitz. Facing the might of the Austrians and the Russians.

Another vote for Austerlitz.

Austerlitz.

Austerlitz.

I will second Rudy's nomination with Ulm for best strategic operation and Austerlitz for best actual battle. 1805 was the height of the Napoleonic French army.

Jim

I'd have to agree with Ulm/Austerlitz

Lots of battles napoleon planned where flawless, but my favourite battle of many is Dresden, he reacted, marshalled his forces, attacked superior forces destroyed a wing and drove the enemy from the field

I would say Jena. While Davout held off and indeed handily beat the main Prussian body who outnumbered him 5 to 2 (sorry Prussophiles, but those are the facts: the Prussians were rubbish), Napoleon concentrated 96,000 against 48,000 and pretty much destroyed them. Elegantly conclusive.

Hanau was class. Montmirail/Chateau-Thierry were also an impressive pair of victories. Ligny is also underrated; with inferior numbers he effectively took three corps out of the picture on ground they chose, to the point where the unengaged one that had missed Ligny was the one picked to go to Waterloo.

I will second Jena and by extension Auerstadt. At Austerlitz, Napleon won the day. At Jena-Auerstadt, he annihilated his opponent.

Beresina.

As Marmont 1814 stated so well-Dresden

"Finest Battle"--Austerlitz
"Finest Campaign"--Ulm
"Battle Best Demonstrating his Generalship"--Borodino, maybe Wagram.

He mostly didn't do battles particularly well. At his peak, he did campaigns superbly.

Austerilitz was not only a great tactical victory, it destroyed the Third coalition and effectively secured Napoleon's position at home and abroad.

'Roll up the map of Europe' stated the soon to be late Mr Pitt.

Happy modelling.

Chris

The Battle of the Biographies.

The fight between all the Napoleon wannabes out there!

Austerlitz, Ligny, Wagram

Lodi

Waterloo – the campaign was masterful, he just didn't quite make the closer on the day.

Rudy nailed it, including his honorable mentions for the Italian & 1814 campaigns.

Rick

1805 – the Ulm Campaign operationally and then the genius of the battlefield victory at Austerlitz and then 1806 – the brilliance of the manouvering to set up the Prussians for the 1, 2 punch of Jena/Auerstadt where his ability to choose the right leaders and get them to the right place came to the fore.

Another vote for Ulm/Austerlitz. Jena & Auerstadt did not develop as Napoleon envisioned but he got lucky, particularly having Davout in the right place at the right time. And the Prussians were rubbish.

Austerlitz seem to be the only battle where his well laid plan actualy worked, the other battles he won, becasue he had better officers and soldiers.

You don't have to be a great general if you are fighting zulus with spears and you got gatlinguns(you get the point)

The enemy simply had worse officer corps, worse tactics, generaly bad leadership. His enemies had one and a half arms tied behind their back.

As soon as the enemy starts figuring out what they are lacking, Napoleon starts having problems.

Austerlitz is the battle where everything he planned turned to gold. Dresden as the battle where double enveloped a numerically superior opponent.

I grudgingly concede one thing to Napoleon, even if I do agree that, by 1815, the whole Campaign illustrates where he was failing.

Not one of his marshals approached him when in independent command (discuss). We all know the tale of attacking them, but retreating if facing Boney, as time passed.

They faced the same enemy as him….He did have his moments.

Austerlitz, maybe Friedland as a second.

Austerlitz.

Phil

Not one of his marshals approached him when in independent command (discuss)

Of which however there were very few, so it's hard to say given the paucity of evidence. Davout did well at Auerstadt and in 1809, then again in Russia commanding 70,000 men and again in northern Germany. Suchet did well in Spain, but against the poorly-led Spanish, and largely undistracted by Wellington. One tends to agree with the latter's judgment when asked about the prospects of French desertion in 1815 – "We might pick up a marshal or two, but not worth a damn."

My favourite is Wagram, or to be more precise: the crossing of the Danube pre-Wagram. It was a masterclass of how to make an opposed crossing of a major river, while in front of the main army of your enemy. Napoleon did learn his lesson at Aspern-Essling and showed why he was so feared by his enemies.

Austerlitz

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

I always have liked Marengo. Napoleon pulled off a win when by rights he should have been forced from the field.

Well, DeSaix may have had a role in that one, which had he survived, made it less known as a victory of Boney's

Austerlitz then Jena

Austerlitz

Austerlitz, Friedland,and Wagram. Masterpieces.

I think Napoleon himself spoke about Abensberg/eckmuehl as one of his best moments. Didn't I read this in Gill?

Six Days campaign deserves an honourable mention in my view.

Jena-Auerstadt

I would say his first Italian campaign where he had a small and poorly equipped army but he out maneuvered the enemy and used the strengths that his troops had to their best.