Editor in Chief Bill | 22 May 2019 3:56 p.m. PST |
Which battle is the worst example of Napoleon's generalship? |
Old Peculiar | 22 May 2019 4:09 p.m. PST |
|
robert piepenbrink | 22 May 2019 5:18 p.m. PST |
Leipzig. I can't see that he ever had a plan for winning that one, let alone one which justified the risks. He just couldn't imagine fighting a battle and losing. It makes Borodino look like good generalship by comparison. |
Narratio | 22 May 2019 7:17 p.m. PST |
Got to go with Borodino. When you're at the back end of nowhere, with nothing like a real supply chain or reinforcements anywhere in sight or sound and then you fight a murthering great battle because you know in your heart that if you just win this one battle then the entire country falls over… |
21eRegt | 22 May 2019 7:18 p.m. PST |
I want to say every battle after the 1813 armistice, but to be serious Aspern-Essling. He was so convinced in his "star" that he thought he could get away with anything. |
Kevin in Albuquerque | 22 May 2019 8:04 p.m. PST |
|
La Fleche | 22 May 2019 10:03 p.m. PST |
The 1796 Battle of the Marriage Bed where Napoleon suffers a setback when "Fortune" makes a surprise flank attack. |
Lets party with Cossacks | 23 May 2019 1:00 a.m. PST |
Another vote for Borodino. Even Davout's flanking manoeuvre didn't spark his commander's interest, and it appeared to be nothing more than a slug fest. |
langobard | 23 May 2019 3:12 a.m. PST |
Borodino, though things tended to go downhill after that, the fact he had gone so far out on a limb against an opponent he didn't understand (or at least didn't ask for peace when Moscow was occupied) pretty much sets the scene for what happens next. |
Brechtel198 | 23 May 2019 3:41 a.m. PST |
'I want to say every battle after the 1813 armistice…' Dresden was fought after the armistice and Napoleon fought outnumbered and won, inflicting four times the casualties he incurred. Hanau was also fought after the armistice and after Leipzig… Waterloo is probably the 'worst' example of Napleon's generalship. He remarked later that no one, including himself, did their duty. The troops, however, fought magnificently. It should also be noted that Ligny was one of the best battles Napoleon had fought in his long career. |
advocate | 23 May 2019 4:35 a.m. PST |
Ligny-QuatreBras: Except that 1st Corps was allowed to be marched back and forth. If it had been able to have a significant impact on either battlefield, Waterloo might not have been necessary to break the Allies in Belgium. Discuss. |
Nine pound round | 23 May 2019 5:10 a.m. PST |
Waterloo. He had every advantage, but he still lost- and in a way that not even he could recover from. Waterloo ought to have been, at worst, a muddy Eylau, but it turned into something not just decisive, but final. Proof that genius of the greatest kind is no necessary security, I guess. |
Whirlwind | 23 May 2019 5:39 a.m. PST |
Definitely not Waterloo. He just got beaten by a better general with superior numbers, no real story there. Aspern-Essling, La Rothiere and Arcis-sur-Aube all show similar failings perhaps. |
Nine pound round | 23 May 2019 6:41 a.m. PST |
Beg to differ- Wellington was a very great General indeed, and he undoubtedly got the better of Napoleon at Waterloo, but I think it's a much more complicated story than that. Napoleon as a general was sui generis: beating him was a triumph for both Wellington and the Anglo-Allied army, but they didn't win because Wellington was intrinsically the more able General, in command of a better army. It's the complexity of that story that makes Waterloo so fascinating. |
Whirlwind | 23 May 2019 7:16 a.m. PST |
I don't disagree with that really. I would only say that I think that Wellington has marginally the more convincing record on the battlefield itself (rather than on campaign, in which case I might go the other way); and I don't think the Anglo-Allied army of 1815 was intrinsically better than its opponent. But stripping out all the fascinating detail, the affair resolves itself to a slightly numerically superior army attacks the defender in a strong defensive position, fails to break through, and eventually collapses from the pressure of a flank attack and superior numbers (performed by an allied army, in accordance with Wellington's plan). I think the battles I mentioned above show a more specific weakness of Napoleon's generalship – accepting, or being caught, in positions where he was grossly overmatched and relying on his own personal superiority vis-a-vis the enemy commander to achieve success. |
kevin Major | 23 May 2019 7:32 a.m. PST |
I think Waterloo and specifically the campaign show the danger of the manoeuvre of the Central Position. You have to defeat each flanking enemy decisively. At Ligny Napoleon got a victory but failed to turn it into a decisive victory with an active pursuit (oh! for a Murat). Without the Prussian army being available Wellington retreats past Brussels, no battle at Waterloo. As history happened Whirlwind has it spot on. Was it Wellingtons plan? or both Wellington and Blucher's. Without Ney and with better organisation by Wellington Ligny could have be a similar battle to Waterloo but with the British Allies arriving to drive in the French flank. It was the plan from before Napoleon made his invasion. |
ColCampbell | 23 May 2019 7:45 a.m. PST |
I would have to agree on Aspern-Essling. Jim |
Andrew Walters | 23 May 2019 8:18 a.m. PST |
Borodino. I'm not expert enough to give a real guess. I suspect there's a small, little known battle somewhere where he really messed up. But for conversational purposes I will back Borodino for its utter lack of subtlety. He had the better army, even if it was in dire straits. A little more recon, a little more preparation, a little more maneuver, a little less large scale, frontal assault on a prepared enemy. |
miniMo | 23 May 2019 10:06 a.m. PST |
The Great Rabbit Hunt of 1807. Utter humiliating defeat and retreat! |
4th Cuirassier | 23 May 2019 10:08 a.m. PST |
Aspern shades it for me because he didn't have to fight there at all. And then he stuffed it up. Waterloo and Borodino were politically necessary. Waterloo was mismanaged worse. After Borodino his army was still able to fight whereas after Waterloo not much of it was fit for use. Agree with Kevin re Ligny. Very close to a new Jena. |
Andrew Walters | 23 May 2019 10:45 a.m. PST |
because he didn't have to fight there at all Good point, but it raises the specter of whether or not he had to fight anywhere. It's not like France was being invaded. But that way lies digression and madness. |
Brechtel198 | 23 May 2019 11:39 a.m. PST |
In 1809 Austria invaded Bavaria without a declaration of war while most of the Grande Armee was in Spain. The Archduke Charles had crossed the Danube and the war wasn't over and Napoleon had to find a way to get at the Austrians. And it should be remembered that Essling was almost a success-and the Austrians, even though they outnumbered the French, were unable to drive them into the river. The Austrians were outfought at Essling by inferior numbers of French and allied troops from the Confederation of the Rhine. |
von Winterfeldt | 23 May 2019 12:04 p.m. PST |
|
Whirlwind | 23 May 2019 9:00 p.m. PST |
Was it Wellingtons plan? or both Wellington and Blucher's? Yes, quite right that it was their shared strategy. I merely meant "as events turned out" it was Blucher arriving on the flank in Wellington's battle as he planned it, rather than the other way around. That said, an alien observer might have expected that Blucher, who outnumbered Napoleon at Ligny more than Napoleon outnumbered Wellington at Waterloo, could/should have won at Ligny anyway. Agree with Kevin re Ligny. Very close to a new Jena. IMHO it was more impressive than Jena in context. Hohenlohe was always going to get a hiding in the end, as more and more of Napoleon's troops turned up. Both still less impressive than Auerstadt though… |
von Winterfeldt | 23 May 2019 11:00 p.m. PST |
so Ligny was Boneys worst battle? |
Whirlwind | 23 May 2019 11:28 p.m. PST |
so Ligny was Boneys worst battle? One of his best, surely? |
Brechtel198 | 24 May 2019 2:51 a.m. PST |
it was more impressive than Jena in context. Hohenlohe was always going to get a hiding in the end, as more and more of Napoleon's troops turned up. Both still less impressive than Auerstadt though… The numbers actually engaged at Jena were close to even. At Ligny, Napoleon was outnumbered by Blucher. |
von Winterfeldt | 24 May 2019 4:25 a.m. PST |
I was under the impression that this topic was worst battle – in case about Ligny, a bad day in the office for Boney, despite a tactical win, Ligny was one of the causes for his catastrophic mismanagement of Belle Alliance. |
Whirlwind | 24 May 2019 4:56 a.m. PST |
I was under the impression that this topic was worst battle – in case about Ligny, a bad day in the office for Boney, despite a tactical win, Ligny was one of the causes for his catastrophic mismanagement of Belle Alliance. Quite right of course, it would have made more sense to go on the other thread: TMP link Why do you consider Ligny a bad day at the office? |
deadhead | 24 May 2019 5:35 a.m. PST |
How much did Napoleon actually have to do with the conduct of the battle of Waterloo/La Belle Alliance? I get the impression his personal intervention centred around the threat from Plancenoit and the final half-hearted Old Guard attack. If the answer is very little and he was let down throughout the short campaign by incompetent and idle juniors, then that does not absolve him, as he was a Commander in Chief. Despite that, the opening moves were superb, in splitting the two Allied Armies. But for Netherlands initiative, remarkable Prussian determination to fight on and extraordinary French indolence, he might just have got away with it. |
Sho Boki | 24 May 2019 5:42 a.m. PST |
Definitely not Borodino. Despite the superior numbers and bravery of Barclay and Bagration the Russians were stunningly beaten and leaved the battlefield with significantly higher casualties. Arcole may be? When commander must by himself with flag in hands (even this is only legend) lead desperate attack, then something goes very bad before this. |
Whirlwind | 24 May 2019 6:48 a.m. PST |
Definitely not Borodino. Despite the superior numbers and bravery of Barclay and Bagration the Russians were stunningly beaten and leaved the battlefield with significantly higher casualties. Since IIRC the casualties on either side are not reliably known, I'd be cautious about attributing success or failure on that basis. |
Sho Boki | 24 May 2019 7:28 a.m. PST |
Why "not reliably known"? Ponasenkov on page 399 in his work "Pervaja nauchnaja.." gives us reliable numbers, after long and deep analyze.. Russians lost more than 53 000 men against 22 000 Allies. |
Whirlwind | 24 May 2019 7:45 a.m. PST |
Sorry, not familiar with his work. The ones I have seen attribute losses of 25000-60000 to the Russians and 28000-60000 French. The Russian losses being slightly more solid than the French. Mikaberidze has a useful table detailing all the various claims in his book on the battle. If the guy has managed to find accurate French figures, that would be very interesting. |
21eRegt | 24 May 2019 8:10 a.m. PST |
@Brechtel198: I was too subtle I guess. My comment was intended to show that continuing the fight after the Armistice and generous terms was his biggest mistake so every battle fought was his biggest mistake. Not that I'm under the illusion the Allies would have honored a long-term peace, but he needed to stop and consolidate for a few years. |
Sho Boki | 24 May 2019 8:30 a.m. PST |
Ponasenkov gives us these official French HQ number also – 28 086 for Allies. 6 567 killed and 21 519 wounded. But these are latter numbers and also contains casualties from two weeks after and before Borodino. One Guard General says, that casualties from Borodino were reported 22 600, but 5000 of them were only lighly scratched and also couple of thousands were added by Colonels to cover previous deserters and must be subtracted. |
Mike Petro | 24 May 2019 8:30 a.m. PST |
Napoleon's worst battle was cancer. Cost him his life. |
Whirlwind | 24 May 2019 8:57 a.m. PST |
Ponasenkov gives us these official French HQ number also – 28 086 for Allies. 6 567 killed and 21 519 wounded. But these are latter numbers and also contains casualties from two weeks after and before Borodino. One Guard General says, that casualties from Borodino were reported 22 600, but 5000 of them were only lighly scratched and also couple of thousands were added by Colonels to cover previous deserters and must be subtracted. Ah okay. Mikaberidze does deal with all that. He points out the reverse, that the 28000 figure only covers 7 September itself and thus appears to under-estimate the figure in comparison to the Russian losses which cover 5-7 September. The "Guard General" stuff I find slightly head scratching. If one makes those kind of speculative adjustments from the French side, then why not make them for the Russian side too? |
Sho Boki | 24 May 2019 9:22 a.m. PST |
Number 28 086 is taken from 21.September HQ report. Ponasenkov gives us examples, how losses near Mozaisk are included there. And also especially notes, that these casualties were declared as "for both days of battle". So not only 7 September. "Guard General" and other French sources are perfectly named, but I am not able to transcribe it from cyrillic to latin. |
138SquadronRAF | 24 May 2019 9:52 a.m. PST |
Marengo. Boney was effectively beaten, it was only Desaix quick thinking and marching to the sound of the guns that save him. The fact that Desaix had the convenience to die meant that Boney could claim it as his win. Mind you Marengo is much less significant than Battle of Hohenlinden than persuaded the Austrians to mark peace, but of course Moreau and the Army of the Rhine aren't going to get any credit here. |
Korvessa | 24 May 2019 11:41 a.m. PST |
I always thought that Napoleon was more gifted as a strategist than a battlefield tactician. The Waterloo campaign was excellent – at first anyway. I think Waterloo itself was more Ney's battle than Napoleon's. |
roundie | 24 May 2019 6:37 p.m. PST |
Austerlitz. Yes, yes, one of his best, but after which he started believing he was pretty much a god of war (unbeatable). Therefore (one could argue) his worst as it forever skewed his judgment and reduced his ability to realistically assess tactical situations believing all were beneath him on the field of battle. This in turn would ultimately lead to the disasters in Spain and Russia. |
von Winterfeldt | 24 May 2019 11:57 p.m. PST |
Sho Boney leading the attack at the bridge at Arcole with a colour – is one of the many lies, it was Augereau who did – Boney fell into the swamp and had to be drawn out by grenadiers. Arcole was decided by a flank attack when the river was crossed further away from the bridge, yes indeed not a good battle for Boney, but as usual propaganda turns it into legend. |
Gazzola | 25 May 2019 5:37 a.m. PST |
No praise from VW for Napoleon ordering the flank attacks then? LOL |
Gazzola | 25 May 2019 6:03 a.m. PST |
In some ways, Waterloo could be considered the worse because, unlike the defeat at Aspern-Essling, which was followed by the victory at Wagram, there was no follow up victory after the defeat at Waterloo. In 1815, Napoleon also relied too much on his officers achieving what he ordered. In this case, Grouchy failing to stop the Prussians from reaching the Waterloo battlefield, fact no one can deny. However, someone stating that Wellington was the better commander because Napoleon lost the battle, seems somewhat bizarre. Yes, he was on the winning side, but he gambled on the Prussians sticking to their word and arriving to save his skin, which, luckily for him, they did. Imagine what people would think of him had they not managed to reach the battlefield? He would have been severely criticized for holding a position that may have been in danger of being outflanked (had Grouchy had more bottle and marched to the sound of the guns)and which relied on help arriving from an army that had recently been beaten. |
huevans011 | 25 May 2019 9:40 a.m. PST |
Leipzig. As was said above, I can't perceive a plan that was workable. Once Nap's thrusts against the Army of Bo hadn't worked in the south, surely it was time to bug out fast while he could still get his army across the Elster. Then a fighting retreat through the hill country between Saxony and the Main River while idiots like Bluecher and Schwarzenberg fumble their pursuit – just like 1814, but with more and better French troops to hit back hard. At Leipzig, once Yorck breaks through Marmont at Moeckern, the poo is going to really hit the fan and the French are screwed. |
huevans011 | 25 May 2019 9:47 a.m. PST |
However, someone stating that Wellington was the better commander because Napoleon lost the battle, seems somewhat bizarre. Yes, he was on the winning side, but he gambled on the Prussians sticking to their word and arriving to save his skin, which, luckily for him, they did. Imagine what people would think of him had they not managed to reach the battlefield? He would have been severely criticized for holding a position that may have been in danger of being outflanked (had Grouchy had more bottle and marched to the sound of the guns)and which relied on help arriving from an army that had recently been beaten. My own theory is that Wellington was going to retreat due West and pull his left flank, incl Picton and Bijlandt back after him as a rear guard, if Bluecher didn't show up in time. But what happens is that Uxbridge smashes D'Erlon with the Union Bde and that ruins any opportunity the French have for a quick breakthrough. So the Duke waits it out on the hilltop until evening and the final Prussian breakthrough. |
Brechtel198 | 25 May 2019 10:00 a.m. PST |
Boney leading the attack at the bridge at Arcole with a colour – is one of the many lies, it was Augereau who did – Boney fell into the swamp and had to be drawn out by grenadiers. You are wrong. And it isn't a 'lie.' Clausewitz in his work on the 1796 campaign states that both Augereau and Napoleon seized a flag in order to get across the bridge, and both failed in the attempt(page 186). Martin Boycott-Brown in his The Road to Rivoli on pages 464-465 also states that both Augereau and Napoleon seized a flag to rally troops to cross the bridge and both failed in their attempts. Captain Joseph Sulkowski, an eyewitness, to the event states that: 'We suddenly saw him [Napoleon] appear on the dike, surrounded by his staff and followed by his guides, he dismounted, drew his sabre, took the color and sprang towards the bridge in the midst of a rain of fire…The soldiers saw him, and none of them imitated him. I was witness to this extraordinary cowardice. Was it for the victors of Lodi to cover themselves with infamy? The moment was short, but it was catastrophic for all those who surrounded Bonaparte: his ADC, Muiron, General Vignolle, the lieutenant of the guides, and Belliard's two assistants fell at his side. I myself was struck right on the chest by a grapeshot, but my rolled cloak, which I was wearing bandolier fashion, saved my life.'-as cited in Boycott-Brown, 465. Ramsay Phipps in Volume IV of the Armies of the First French Republic, page 114 recounts the same episode including Napoleon's horse tossing him into a canal near the dike. He was pulled out of the water by Marmont and Louis Bonaparte. Belliard, who later would be chief of staff of the Cavalry Reserve, rallied some grenadiers to cover Napoleon getting out of the water and preventing him from being captured by the Austrians. The Esposito/Elting Atlas also states that both Augereau and Napoleon took a color and attempted to take the bridge and both failed. See Map 23. |
Brechtel198 | 25 May 2019 10:03 a.m. PST |
No praise from VW for Napoleon ordering the flank attacks then? Napoleon did order the flanking movement and that is recounted both by Phipps and Esposito/Elting. VW does his best to blacken Napoleon's reputation whenever the 'opportunity' presents itself. He also continues to praise the dubious character of Moreau, Bernadotte, and Marmont-officers who turned against France and the troops they had commanded. Interesting choices, aren't they? |
von Winterfeldt | 25 May 2019 10:20 a.m. PST |
better and best are terms to be avoided, Wellington was certainly a clever commander, in case the Prussians wouldn't have turned up – he would have had – and that is a mega distinction to Boney at this time – plan B in his sleeve and pull it – if necessary. In his good days Boney had this skill too, but not any longer in 1815. Grouchy of course wasn't allowed to march to the guns, as any marshal wasn't allowed to do this, they had to execute commands to the words, marching to the guns is another propaganda story, Boney expected blind obedience. If a subordinate came up with a different idea – he was either ignored or reprimanded. |