"Why was Napoleon so Successful? " Topic

Empires aren't generally based around one highly influential individual, when they are they tend to be short lived, examples would be Alexander, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler. The empires that existed at roughly the same time as Napoleon were generally western style countries that weren't invading other western nations, they conquered territory that they considered unsettled, as in the British in Africa or the US in the American west. As they weren't trying to take over the world or ran by supreme egos, they tended to last much longer.

What about the Russian empire? And the Austrian empire? And Prussia's territorial ambitions in Germany?

None of those fill your criteria as stated above.

All three were expanding empires in Europe at the expense of other nations. They were also the three empires that dismembered Poland in the 1790s. And all three engaged in wars of aggression against Napoleonic France.

You didn't notice that I used the word "generally" I'm not going to name every empire in the last 300 years. Besides which, the Russian empire was mostly based around the conquest of Muslim states and pagan tribes, in a similar way to the US taking on the Mexicans and Indians. The Baltic states they considered as Russian, much the same as Prussia viewed the rest of Germany.

Wars of aggression against Napoleon, do you mean that peace loving man who stayed inside France's borders and never went on an all round Europe conquering trip, don't make me laugh.

I reckon Correlli Barnett had it right: Napoleon the statesman was so inept that he ended up setting impossible tasks for Napoleon the general.

Those pesky, war-mongering Hapsburgs. The dismemberment of Poland aside, in what direction was the Austrian Empire expanding and at whose expense?

of course Boney had the obsession to rule the world, read the memoires of Rapp – and Rapp cannot be accused to be hostile to his master

Corelli Barnett's 'biography' on Napoleon is badly sourced and some of his opinions on Napoleon are way out of line and inaccurate.

Those pesky, war-mongering Hapsburgs. The dismemberment of Poland aside, in what direction was the Austrian Empire expanding and at whose expense?

They were competing with Prussia for dominance in Germany. Why do you think they invaded Bavaria twice-in 1805 and 1809?

…read the memoires of Rapp…

Citation please.

The Hapsburgs were dominant in Germany and had been since the C15th. The Prussians had been competing with Austria since Frederick II of Prussia marched into Silesia in 1741. Was the Austrian march into Bavaria a question of territorial ambition?

Surely, the incursions by Austria in 1805 and 1809 were as a result of Bavaria being a strategic pawn in the power play between Austria and France on the upper Danube, not territorial expansion. Anyway, while still an Electorate, Bavaria lay within the hegemony of the Holy Roman Empire- until that entity was dissolved, setting all Germany free (have I got that last bit right?).

By that point, Austria was already strugglng to hold onto its existing position as the dominant power in central Europe. It had abandoned its territories in the Low Countries as early as 1795.

I would recommend reading some of Brendon Simms' work, especially The Struggle for Mastery in Germany 1779-1850 as well as The Impact of Napoleon: Prussian High Politics, Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Executive, 1797-1806.

Austria's and Prussia's struggles for domination in Germany continued until Austria was defeated in 1866.

The major states of the Confederation of the Rhine, Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Baden, and Hesse-Darmstadt were faced with either being ingested by Austria or Prussia or turning to France in 1805. Napoleon's solution was the organization of the Confederation of the Rhine with Napoleon as Protector by treaty. Those states were not ingested, but were treated as allies by Napoleon, something neither Prussia or Austria wanted to do. Prussia's 'war of liberation' in 1813 was nothing more than grabbing as much of western Germany as she could-witness what happened to Saxony.

The Holy Roman Empire was neither an independent state nor a viable political entity by the end of the Seven Years' War.

Wars of aggression against Napoleon, do you mean that peace loving man who stayed inside France's borders and never went on an all round Europe conquering trip, don't make me laugh.

Great Britain was at least as guilty as France was for the failure of Amiens. And she was the allied paymaster which except for the British subsidies, the coalitions would have failed economically since Russia, Prussia, and Austria were not wealthy and their governments were usually in debt.

Austria attacked Bavaria in 1805 and the Bavarians turned to Napoleon for help. Prussia was the aggressor in 1806 and Russia was complicit in the aggressions of 1805 and 1806 and Austria was again the aggressor in 1809. How do you account for that?

megalomaniac
[mɛ¨Àələˈmeɪnɪak]
NOUN
a person who has an obsessive desire for power.

Definition of megalomania (from Webster's Dictionary):

1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance.
2 : a delusional mental illness that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.

Unless you have any contemporary evidence of this malady for Napoleon, then the idea is at best ludicrous and at worst disingenuous. Trying to 'analyze' a historical figure from 200 years ago is both futile and ridiculous. It is merely psychobabble.

Definition of psychobabble
1.a predominantly metaphorical language for expressing one's feelings
2a. psychological jargon

b. trite or simplistic language derived from psychotherapy

From JC Herold, The Mind of Napoleon, xxxviii-xxxix:

­'…Napoleon was a lawgiver whose code spread across continents¡­
Napoleon, sane and self-controlled, despised ideologies¡­
Napoleon [appealed] to honor…'
Napoleon, ­in his historic action left positive achievements behind him¡ ­he left Europe not in ruins but brought up to date.'

'Far from being evil, Napoleon was naturally good. If he had been evil with so much power at his disposal, would he be reproached for two or three acts of violence or anger during a government that lasted fifteen years!'-Baron Fain.

He may or may not have stated he wanted to rule the world, just because it's not written in one of your books doesn't mean he didn't, impossible to prove either way. I think the evidence of him trying to conquer as many countries as he could rather speaks for itself.

You may have confused the idea of 'defeating' with 'conquering.' If Napoleon was interested in conquering countries, both Prussian and Austria would have ceased to exist as being ingested into the French empire. He went to war to defend France and the Empire.

To represent Austria's marching into Bavaria in Sept 1805 as 'attacking Bavaria' is incorrect. The Austrians believed Bavaria would support them against Napoleon.

megalomaniac
[mɛ¨Àələˈmeɪnɪak]
NOUN
a person who has an obsessive desire for power.

Definition of megalomania (from Webster's Dictionary):

1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance.
2 : a delusional mental illness that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.

Unless you have any contemporary evidence of this malady for Napoleon, then the idea is at best ludicrous and at worst disingenuous. Trying to 'analyze' a historical figure from 200 years ago is both futile and ridiculous.

From JC Herold, The Mind of Napoleon, xxxviii-xxxix:
¡®¡­Napoleon was a lawgiver whose code spread across continents¡­Napoleon, sane and self-controlled, despised ideologies¡­Napoleon [appealed] to honor.¡¯
Napoleon¡­in his historic action left positive achievements behind him¡­he left Europe not in ruins but brought up to date.¡¯

'Far from being evil, Napoleon was naturally good. If he had been evil with so much power at his disposal, would he be reproached for two or three acts of violence or anger during a government that lasted fifteen years!'-Baron Fain.

He may or may not have stated he wanted to rule the world, just because it's not written in one of your books doesn't mean he didn't, impossible to prove either way. I think the evidence of him trying to conquer as many countries as he could rather speaks for itself.

You may have confused the idea of 'defeating' with 'conquering.' If Napoleon was interested in conquering countries, both Prussian and Austria would have ceased to exist as being ingested into the French empire.

I would recommend reading some of Brendon Simms' work, especially The Struggle for Mastery in Germany 1779-1850 as well as The Impact of Napoleon: Prussian High Politics, Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Executive, 1797-1806.

Austria's and Prussia's struggles for domination in Germany continued until Austria was defeated in 1866.

The major states of the Confederation of the Rhine, Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Baden, and Hesse-Darmstadt were faced with either being ingested by Austria or Prussia or turning to France in 1805. Napoleon's solution was the organization of the Confederation of the Rhine with Napoleon as Protector by treaty. Those states were not ingested, but were treated as allies by Napoleon, something neither Prussia or Austria wanted to do. Prussia's 'war of liberation' in 1813 was nothing more than grabbing as much of western Germany as she could-witness what happened to Saxony.

To represent Austria's marching into Bavaria in Sept 1805 as 'attacking Bavaria' is incorrect. The Austrians believed Bavaria would support them against Napoleon.

The Bavarians believed that Austria wanted to 'ingest' Bavaria into at least an Austrian client state, which was their intention. That is why Bavaria allied itself with Napoleon against Austria.

As the Austrians crossed the Bavarian frontier without permission of the Bavarians, I would interpret that as an attack. It wasn't a friendly act.

Austria intended to exercise her traditional right of free passage through Bavarian territory, a right granted to the members of the HRE because their territories were non-contiguous. Habsburg holdings in 1805 included a fair number of scattered territories throughout Swabia and it is not at all unreasonable that the various states allowed free passage between the chunks and they had done so for centuries. Bavaria enjoyed a similar right of passage through Austrian Swabian holdings as far as I know. Anspach was also traditionally subject to the right of free passage for belligerents, but Prussia was embarrassed into making a case of French passage through Anspach in 1805 because she had refused Russian troops free passage through Prussian Poland and didn't want to give the appearance of playing favorites. France had previously negotiated similar rights of free passage with several of the south German states, with the result that in 1799 both French and Austrians moved through and into southern Germany prior to the commencement of hostilities and soldiers of both sides actually met and fraternized quite amicably in south German villages in the days immediately before the shooting started.

The reality of this was clearly recognized in 1805. Napoleon wrote to Talleyrand instructing him to portray the Austrian move into Bavaria as if it were an act of war. In fact, Napoleon had outlined the situation weeks earlier to Talleyrand. The coalition was arming against him and by spring there would be 500,000 Russians, Austrians and probably Prussians on the frontiers of France. He expressed to Talleyrand his determination to strike at them FIRST before they could move into position – i.e. preemptive strike. This predates the Austrian move into Bavaria.

The Austrian move into Bavaria (conducted with the expectation of Bavarian support against France) backfired because of long-standing friction between Bavaria and Austria and secret agreements between Bavaria and France to support Bavaria against Austria if it became necessary. In other words, the situation was secretly changed while Austria was kept in the dark about it. Napoleon's move against Austria is plainly a defensive act. But Austria's move into Bavaria did not constitute an act of war or invasion of a French ally, simply routine preliminaries for a war with France. In Napoleon's view, the war had begun before Austria moved into Bavaria. In Austria's view, war had not yet begun even as her forces took position around Ulm.

Some interesting quotes from Napoleon himself:

To Talleyrand, 13 August 1805
"Also write to Mr. Otto that it is necessary that Bavaria decide, and that I will not allow it to remain neutral." The same message went out to Baden and Wurttemberg.

16 August he instructed Talleyrand to send the Elector of Bavaria his assurance of military support by promising to send 200,000 men to Bavaria if Austria did not stand down from the frontier. "With a character as hesitant as that of the Elector of Bavaria, unless there were such strong provisions, he would not do it [sign an alliance]." – a friendly promise of assistance, or a veiled threat to intimidate the Elector?

23 August, also to Talleyrand:
"My intention is that your language with the ambassadors always rolls in this direction, and that you make to my various ministers a circular written in the same spirit, in which you will charge to Austria the beginning of the hostilities. … You must not say that I answer war with war; but that the war in fact is declared" -- to Napoleon the cassus belli was mobilization on the frontier, not the "invasion" of Bavaria. War is in fact declared, according to Napoleon, almost two weeks before Austrian forces crossed into Bavaria. N's message to the elector of Bavaria was: "if Austria does not evacuate the Tyrol, I am determined to put myself at the head my forces, and that Germany will see more soldiers than it ever saw" – once again, a friendly promise of assistance, or a veiled threat to intimidate the Elector?

27 August – Napoleon orders his army from the channel coast to the Rhine.

5 September Austrian troops crossed the Inn and entered Bavarian territory. At this point, the Grande Armée had already been marching for the Rhine for about a week. The same day, Napoleon wrote to Berthier: "I must say to you, but absolutely for you only, because this is a political secret that it is important to keep scrupulously, that the Elector of Bavaria has placed his troops at the disposal of the Emperor [of France], and that, if this prince were attacked by Austria, he would go with 25,000 men by Donauwoerth and would operate in conjunction with you."

So plainly the depiction of the Austrian move into Bavaria as the invasion of a French ally and that this "invasion" provoked war are both false positions (though this is how Napoleon instructed Talleyrand to portray it and is also what he had published in the Moniteur). The agreement with Bavaria came about in secret negotiations during the last two weeks of August 1805, and there is more than just a whiff of coercion involved the negotiations. When Austria marched into Bavaria, Bavarian opposition blindsided them.

All very interesting I'm sure Brechtel198, however the title of this thread is "why was Napoleon so successful" I don't define success as losing a war and being exiled to die on a small island. You can win as many battles as you like, it's the end result that counts.

So… Alexander… Hannibal… CharlesXII… Lee … Cesar …. etc were all loosers?… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Why have you put Alexander on that list? But yes, Hannibal and Lee were ultimately losers. Never heard of Cesar, if you mean Caesar, then no, he was murdered by political rivals before he could carry out his next conquest.

"So… Alexander… Hannibal… CharlesXII… Lee … Cesar …. etc were all loosers?"

Yup, they all came to a bad end one way or another- although I am not quite sure how Marse Robert crept into the picture (or was there a Chinese Emperor Lee?).

Hannibal a very tragic end, a bad looser indeed, betrayed by everyone, Charles XII – a fiasco – Russia again.

Charles XII had the best army in the world in 1700, but his personal anger at Russia(and the others) led him to do strategic blunders upon strategic blunders.
The Swedish tactic was extremely simple. We're better so just go straight ahead and we'll win. Unlike Napoleon, Wellington, Frederick, Lee, Sherman, Marlborough Charles never showed any strategic or tactical brilliance at all.

When Austria marched into Bavaria, Bavarian opposition blindsided them.

What, then, were the Austrian intentions regarding Bavaria?

And Austria was 'prodded' into war with France by Great Britain…

We're at cross purposes. Surely we are talking about Bruce Lee here?

"My style? You can call…de art of fighding widda ow fighding."

Charles XII had the best army in the world in 1700, but his personal anger at Russia(and the others) led him to do strategic blunders upon strategic blunders.
The Swedish tactic was extremely simple. We're better so just go straight ahead and we'll win. Unlike Napoleon, Wellington, Frederick, Lee, Sherman, Marlborough Charles never showed any strategic or tactical brilliance at all.

Weren't the Russians and their allies the aggressors against Sweden?

Yes and after beating them they were all willing to do very generous peace terms. But Charles refused, wasted 6 years in Poland, then invaded Russian, leaving Poland to it's powder keg self that exploded almost immediately. And instead of just take st Petersburg (which was the one thing that Russians didn't want to surrender in the peace) he goes for Moscow. Wipeing out his army which is a signal to this previous defeated enemies and Denmark/Saxon/Poland and soon Prussia joins the fight.
The war could have ended in 1701-1703. Instead Charles get shot in the head and his eyes pop out.
And never more would Sweden be a military power of any reputation.

When did Peter the Great offer generous peace terms to Charles?

I am curious why Napoleon is responsible for the deaths during the Napoleonic Wars. I think most of the time, he was the one who had war declared on him by European Coalitions. Even his invasion of Russia was based on their not abiding by a treaty.

Anyway, the Royal families of Europe were keeping most people in practical slavery. A lot of Napoleon bashing comes from the British who were terrified of Napoleon. The British even lied about Napoleon's height which was 5'8" and not that short for the time.

He was great because he was smarter than everyone else and he had a vision.

Even his invasion of Russia was based on their not abiding by a treaty.

So – Russia should ruin itself that Boney can destroy the Brits?
Russia was a sovereign state and the Russian Emperor had to lock after the interest of Russia and not Boney's

Anyway, the Royal families of Europe were keeping most people in practical slavery

Can't agree on this one, no where with maybe the exception of Russia a police state, a totally controlled press, was as severe as under Boney.

His vision was to establish an aristocratic hereditary monarchy and rule Europe with an iron fist crushing all opposition by brute force, a bully.

Did the ever so smart Boney achieve any of his goals? No – he was destroyed, he ruined France, he lost his throne – his wife and his son.

Is this success??

So – Russia should ruin itself that Boney can destroy the Brits?

Actually Russia ruined himself that Alexander can fulfill his idee fixe to become to "Napoleon".
Continental blockade don't ruined Russia, creation the array of Russian invading armies does.

Is there an echo in here?

If you mean, that current czar ***in do the same things, which is a traditional Russian policy, then you are correct.

The British were trying to overturn the Revolution and then get rid of Napoleon and thus the Continental system was self defense; it was also clever.Look I get that the British dont like him but they need to fess up that they didnt like him because they were frightened by him.

And the Russians didnt have to do anything but abide by the treaty they signed. If they broke it and Napoleon declared war on them, then it was hardly wanton aggression on Napoleon's part.

Napoleon had his shortcomings and he had imperial dreams but he was hardly a continuation of feudalism. I believe he instituted some sort of national literacy campaign.

Anyway, some poster ascribed all the killed as a result of the Napoleonic wars to be his doing and I pointed out that with maybe one exception, it was the other Powers who declared war on him, even when he wanted peace. They did so because they wanted to eliminate the notion that monarchies could be done away with. And, if Napoleon indeed wanted to rule Europe with an iron fist, how is he less entitled than the other feudal Monarchies?

And, his advantage was that he was indeed smarter than everyone else but in the end, he was overwhelmed by numbers. Winning isnt everything, you know? Napoleon was the giant of his age and everyone else sort of danced around him.

Although, when I played an 1814 campaign, it's true many players referred to his strategic agility as the "Incredible dancing Frog".

Replace every time you wrote "Napoleon" with "Hitler" and then look how silly your argument sounds.

Replace every time you wrote "Napoleon" with "Hitler" and then look how silly your argument sounds.

The only silliness here is once again attempting to compare Napoleon with Hitler. That old, tired, and bankrupt argument is nothing more than an insult to Napoleon and a great compliment to Hitler, which the latter does not deserve.

The only silliness here is once again attempting to compare Napoleon with Hitler. That old, tired, and bankrupt argument is nothing more than an insult to Napoleon and a great compliment to Hitler, which the latter does not deserve.

Really? Both became sole ruler emperor/dictator of their countries after a period of internal turmoil. Both conquered most of continental Europe. Both invaded Russia and were beaten back. Both went into Africa and were beaten. Both had ambitions to invade Britain, both gave up. Both had initial success in their dreams of power, both were beaten in the end by a coalition. Both died in defeat. Very comparable.

in case Boney was such a genius, why was he such a failure?
his rule ended in sheer disaster – for France and for himself.

I just checked Lieven on Russia, well he isn't spotting the Russian Army as culprit of Russian economical disaster, instead he raises well the problem of the continental blockade.

The Brits had good reason to be frightened of him, he created a huge invasion army, no wonder they tried to find Allies.

Yes, the Continental System was very clever, for his enemies, one of Boney's worst mistakes.

Other monarchies seemingly were just content to rule their own countries, I cannot see anybody as mad for power and ruling over all Europe – destroying countries as Boney.

But this thread runs the usual circle, I move on.

@FoxWeasel

Your kneejerk reaction sums up the correctness of my statements about Napoleon.

Your subsequent post carries some false equivalencies and inaccuracies. That two men become dictators (I think you mean "tyrant") after a period of turmoil does not make them similar. Hitler created nothing but a cult around himself, Napoleon was involved in lasting educational and legal reforms. I dont think Napoleon was in charge when he went to Africa and he wasnt beaten in Russia until he made a bad decision to try to get back to France before wintering in Moscow. General Winter defeated Napoleon and not the Russians.

Invading Britain was a dream of lots of people, the British being a very sexy, easy going race. :)

So, Napoleon was defeated? I believe he is the most written about person ever. He died of stomach cancer a few years later anyway. Why is ultimate success/defeat the measure of greatness?

In any case, the OP asked what made him successful, and I assume he means during the time he was "winning". The answer is that he was more talented and clever than anyone else. Most of the other countries put people in places of authority because of their birth and not because of their talents. I believe they were fighting Napoleon for their right to keep giving their stupid offspring privileges.

In many ways, Napoleon was a true meritocratic man which is something Western democrats admire.

And, opposing what another poster claimed, the butchers bill of the Napoleonic wars cannot be solely his responsibility. The Coalitions declared war on him constantly and napoleon defended both himself and France. Sure he was beaten but I dont know what your point is with this? Are you insinuating because he was beaten, he must've been evil?

'I believe they were fighting Napoleon for their right to keep giving their stupid offspring privileges'

Unlike Napoleon who created puppet kingdoms for his brothers

Right, and all of those puppet kingdoms for his brothers backfired on him; which means when he copied the Old Monarchies stupid, it turned out stupid for him as well. Seems a pretty good case that it was stupid all around.

I'm British, I see European dictatorships in a different way to Americans. In 1812 the American people would have seen Napoleon as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" To me he's just the enemy, Napoleon didn't have bizarre theories of racial superiority or extermination camps, apart from that I stand by the similarities I stated.

I really do think there's an echo in here somewhere.

"he wasn't beaten in Russia until he made a bad decision to try to get back to France before wintering in Moscow. General Winter defeated Napoleon and not the Russians"

Sounds like a lot of hair-splitting going on there. I would suggest that Hitler's defeat in Russia was also down to some bad decisions and that winter played a part too.

Well that's fine, being British and seeing dictatorships your own way is hardly objectionable but just see it as your own preference and not a reason to justify categorizing two different men as the same. Napoleon had some selfish motives and some shortcomings but he wasn't a danger, like Hitler was, to world civilization. He represented a new world order and the old world didnt like it.

I think some of his motives for establishing a dynasty were to reassure the other monarchies that he was trying to fit in and not continue to rock the boat. Frankly, they should've played ball with him because their commitment to eliminating him in many ways ensured they were bound to go the way of the Dodo. For instance, Prussian mass conscription led to the end of 18th century views that the army was only the toy of the king. The Russian occupation of Paris exposed their officer corps to a more democratic form of government which led to a gradual downfall of the Tsars.

In many ways, Napoleon had the last laugh.

The continental system was basically a trade/anti trade agreement (which besides trying to hurt the British had the "side effect" of enriching Napoleon and his family at the expense of "allies to the French" I don't see sending a 650 000 strong invasion army as an appropriate response to breaking of a trade agreement

In many ways, Napoleon had the last laugh.

I think you'll find that it was the captain of the St Helena guard in 1821 who had the last laugh, when he found out he could go home at last😁

By all accounts he was a small minded, petty man who wouldnt even let Napoleon get the newspapers. If being a tiny minded sadist is a last laugh, then yes, he got the last laugh as well as his only claim to fame.

I see my attempt at humour totally passed you by. But if you're being all serious, it's a jailers job to be not very pleasant, Napoleon wasn't sent there for a holiday.