"A Pre-professional Institution: Napoleon’s Marshalate..." Topic

…and the Defeat of 1813

Of possible interest?

"Napoleon's defeat in 1813 generates a number of explanations from historians regarding why he lost this epic campaign which ultimately resulted in France losing control over the German states. Scholars discussing the French marshalate of the Napoleonic era frequently assert that these generals could not win battles without the emperor present. Accustomed to assuming a subordinate role under Bonaparte's direct supervision, these commanders faltered when deprived of the strong hand of the master. This thesis contributes to this historiographical argument by positing that the pre-professional nature of Napoleon's marshalate precluded them from adapting to the evolving nature of warfare during…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Good find, Armand!

Always nice to be cited as a source!

Hmm. I'd have said there was a difference between a rank or a title and an institution--and that some of the Marshals were quite capable of adaptation. Very few slow learners rose to the top during the wars of the French Revolution.

Napoleon also had an unsavory habit of hogging the best units under his personal command, then blaming the subordinates he'd stiffed. His own record grows less impressive as his opponents adapted.

Frederick the Great once allegedly said that there are few 'offensive generals' in any army and time, and by that he meant those that could be trusted with an independent command.

Davout, Soult, Suchet, Lannes, Massena, and possibly St Cyr were certainly capable of independent command.

Davout won Auerstadt and Eckmuhl on his own. Soult was sent back to Spain in 1813 because Napoleon trusted him. Marmont did well in Illyria and Dalmatia. Suchet did very well in eastern Spain.

Napoleon's assignments in 1813 are curious. Davout was tied to Hamburg, but Oudinot and then Ney were given command on the Berlin front and didn't do well. Macdonald was defeated on the Katzbach, disobeying Napoleon's orders as he did so.

I don't see evidence of Napoleon 'hogging the best units and then blaming the subordinates' in 1813 or later. In Germany in 1813 all of the new units were subject to what their commanders did with them, with the exception of the Imperial Guard which was still picked veterans.

Napoleon also appears to have lost some of his grasp of strategy after Russia. He was strongly advised to pull half of the veterans out of Spain and put them in Germany where Eugene was performing superbly both building up an effective army and trading space for time. Half of the veterans being assigned to the new Grande Armee could have decisively defeated the Russians and Prussians and stopped the Austrians intervening on the side of the allies.

Leaving Suchet in overall command in Spain and withdrawing strategically would have left Wellington isolated in Spain with few options after a decisive win in central Europe. But, unfortunately, Napoleon wouldn't listen…

It was specifically the Guard--and the cuirassiers--I was thinking of as "hogging the best units." Frederick the Great does something similar: grenadiers, cuirassiers and even the better dragoon regiments are seldom present in force when Frederick isn't. There's reason to it in both cases: give the best units to the best general. But it's worth remembering that Oudinot, Ney and Frederick's generals lacked that veteran core which can tip the balance in a close fight and keep a defeat from becoming a rout.

The Imperial Guard was designed to give Napoleon a highly reliable reserve to be committed when and if necessary.

And the Old and Middle Guard units were formed from highly qualified veterans. The Young Guard came from the pick of the conscripts.

The Guard also gave back to the Line with their Battalion of Instruction at Fontainebleu.

The veteran core was largely not present in 1813. From at least 1805-1807 there was a veteran core in most, if not all, French units. Even in 1809 there were still veteran cores in French units, though most of the Grande Armee was then in Spain.

and possibly St Cyr were certainly capable of independent command.

St. Cyr had and has long since proven himself more than capable and worthy of independent command, I myself place him on the the same footing as Davout in all respects.

His only fault(s), if you could call them as such, were pride and a sense of honor that few men could match, he was not willing to be a syncophant to the Emperor.

The <allegorical> "UPS delivery truck dropping off and throwing his Marshal's Baton into the mud at his feet" for Pultusk was more of an insult than an honor.

He was loyal to FRANCE, which Napoleon never quite understood, but it also meant he would harbor no treason or ever treat duplicitously with Foreign agents and intrigue.

Indeed, George H. Thomas exhibited those very same qualities some fifty years later and only in the past fifty or so years has his reputation been restored.

Glad you like it my friend!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

St Cyr was no Davout. Further, he had little regimental service which hindered his effectiveness as a commander.

Are you suggesting that Davout and other marshals were sycophants?

Further, he failed to support Vandamme at Kulm in 1813 and surrendered Dresden after 'a not-too-spirited defense, two things Davout would never have done (nor Lannes and other marshals for that matter).

Fezensac complained that he never showed himself to his troops and all they ever knew about him as their commander was his signature on the orders he sent.

Macdonald and Thiebault didn't like him, (I don't think Thiebault liked anyone but himself) and they slandered him unjustly.

Brechtel…I WILL NOT get into it with you.

No, Davout was NOT a syncophant, nor were some of other Marshals, but others were.

Yes, regimental service as a Colonel commanding would have rounded St Cyr out quite nicely, but methinks he and Desaix were rather busy during the Revolution trying to save the Republic to have that happen.

I think St Cyr has been fairly vindicated in regards both to Kulm and Dresden…but to each his own opinion.

None of them, like the rest of us, are perfect.

Happy Holidays!

There is no need to raise your voice.

And whether or not you respond is immaterial.

What is important, however, is the accurate exchange of information.

And I don't agree with you on St Cyr. Regimental service as a junior officer working his way up was what was needed. Murat had the same problem.

In defense of Saint Cyr… we did well in Russia and defending Dresden upon de arrival of Napoleón and the Guard…

But the troops don't like him… they called him "The owl"

Always distant from them and showing sharp ways … he never earned their love and respect.

Amicalement
Armand

Strictly skill wise, by all standards, St Cyr was up there, but I must admit his social skills were lacking.

Part of that was due to the fact that he was never a Colonel commanding, but the untimely death of Desaix did not help either, as he knew both how to deal with St. Cyr and introduce/excuse him to others and smooth the path before him.

I've always thought that had his rank and seniority been maintained and guaranteed during the Consulate period, it would have been a good time to make him a Colonel or even Lt. Colonel in order to gain the experience he needed in dealing with and handling men.

Sorry Brechtel, I was defending his military prowess and treatment by Napoleon and I had forgotten his almost complete lack of people skills.

As an aside I've always thought that Grenier deserved a baton, but I suppose that being stuck in Italy kept him away from Napoleon's eyes.

Agree completely on Grenier and there were others who deserved the baton and never got it-Vandamme for one, even though he lost at Kulm.

And I have agreed with you that St Cyr was one of the most skilled of the marshals. It was in my first posting on this subject.

Yes, so many great possibilites for the Marshalate that could have been, but in the end it all boiled down to Napoleon himself and his own mistakes in just the political arena alone…

If you want to talk about "hogging the best units", may I commend to you Lord Cornwallis in the American Revolution.
When he was a subordinate commander, you will find him commanding ALL the Grenadiers, Light Infantry, Guards, most of the artillery, and when circumstances permitted, the 33rd and 42nd foot. Oh yes. All the cavalry too.
I've always said that Cornwallis is the patron saint of wargamers.