"Napoleon's Worst Battle?" Topic

As far as the worst battle he won, I agree with the person who nominated Wagram. Significant weight of numbers, but the horrific and ill-thought out sledgehammer attack by MacDonald. Without Davout, not much at Wagram would have looked good. Without a 15-20,000 troop and 200 gun advantage, could Napoleon have won at all?

Cheers,
John

You guys are all off.

It was obviously Sedan, duh!!!!

138Squadron said:

As an aside those evil British decided that they would damage their own trade by suppressing the transatlantic slave trade while fighting Napoleon.

Gazzola:

And in bringing up aspects like slavery it is quite clear you need to do further research. Slavery continued in the BRITISH EMPIRE until 1833. As far as I'm concerned, I don't agree with slavery in any form by any nation at any time. It is Napoleon haters that like to throw things like this up against him while ignoring the reality of what is happening and being undertaken by other nations.

More of your misquoting I see? Check your history Gaz…

The Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was passed in 1807 but that Act allowed for the continued ownership of slaves within the British Empire. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 banned slavery throughout the British Empire. It also resulted in the biggest tax payer bailout (slave owners were compensated for the loss of their private prpoerty (ie slaves)) in British history, until the 2009 bank bailout. So which bit of history is in need of checking, or have I missed something?

You have to read what was written. 'slave trade' Which was different from 'slave ownership'

Gazzola said slave ownership ended in 1833, which is correct. I am still unclear which history he needed to check. As to why the British ended the trade in 1807, there are plenty of fine speeches of principle. I'm sure they were also weighing up the relative impact for France and themselves . . .

I think the key phrase overlooked was, "suppressing the transatlantic slave trade."

Undeniably, though, in British tradition the continuation of chattel slave ownership and forced labour is often overlooked, and most British of a certain vintage taught about the genuine virtues of William Wilberforce will be ignorant of the fact that slavery in the West Indies continued for another thirty odd years.

I suspect that for many in 1807 the horrors of the 'Middle Passsage' were seen as an infinitely worse evil than the simple fact of African slave labour on which the profits of the New World plantations depended.

Well this thread went off on a tangent! ROFL

I recently finished up a computer game (Campaign Eylau-Friedland for John Tiller Software) and the 1807 campaign ranks as one of the biggest wastes of life in the Napoleonic history. Napoleon's loss of so many of his men in the winter of 1807 has to rank as third to Russia and Spain but for the losses he sustained its first as far as the most men in the shortest amount of time. Something like 150,000 casualties from December until the end of February. Pretty sad. All of those fine soldiers of the 1805-1806 campaigns gone.

Napoleon was bad at fighting small animals and judging weather.
Sitting in Warsaw, he expected his generals to be able march their troops as fast as if they were on a dry road in france, when they really were on liquid/frozen mud roads in Poland.

John Edmundson

The quote by Gazzola has been edited. He clearly stated 'slave trade' I do not dispute slave ownership within the British Empire was not abolished until 1833. But ownership was not trading which had been outlawed.

Sitting in Warsaw, he expected his generals to be able march their troops as fast as if they were on a dry road in france, when they really were on liquid/frozen mud roads in Poland.

Napoleon was usually, if not always, when the Grande Armee was campaigning, so when did the above supposedly occur?

Napoleon's loss of so many of his men in the winter of 1807 has to rank as third to Russia and Spain but for the losses he sustained its first as far as the most men in the shortest amount of time. Something like 150,000 casualties from December until the end of February. Pretty sad. All of those fine soldiers of the 1805-1806 campaigns gone.

Do you have a source for these numbers?

The battles of Pultusk, Golymin, and Eylau did not produce 150,000 French casualties, nor did the various small actions add up to that total posted.

Napoleon had approximately 300,000 men 'under arms' in Germany and Poland in the winter of 1806-1807. I don't believe that half of them became casualties.

In Poland itself the Grande Armee's strength was 133,600 as of 31 January 1807 and that included the garrison of Warsaw, the new X Corps forming in the vicinity of Thorn under Lefebvre as well as the V Corps now under Savary along the Bug River east of Pultusk.

So where did your figure of 150,000 casualties come from?

And it should be noted that most casualties were wounded, not dead, and a significant number of those wounded would return to the army.

As far as the worst battle he won, I agree with the person who nominated Wagram. Significant weight of numbers, but the horrific and ill-thought out sledgehammer attack by MacDonald. Without Davout, not much at Wagram would have looked good. Without a 15-20,000 troop and 200 gun advantage, could Napoleon have won at all?

You're neglecting a few things:

-The employment of Lauriston's large 102-gun battery against the Austrian line.

-Massena's tactical skill to meet the emergency on the French left.

-The superb performance of the French during the second Danube River crossing,

-And last, but certainly not least, is the much-improved performance of the Austrians.

The Austrians fielded 136,200 men and 446 guns at Wagram while the French had 188,900 men and 488 guns. After Essling Napoleon ensured that he had a numbers advantage as he would be attacking.

Napoleon was usually, if not always, when the Grande Armee was campaigning, so when did the above supposedly occur?

It was before Napoleon went into inter quarters half way through the Eylau campaign. He was charmed by a certain Polish lady and stayed in Warsaw while his generals and soldiers slogged through the mud and ice.

Source?

Napoleon was in Warsaw at the beginning of January 1807. The Grande Armee had gone into winter quarters, and those dispositions are shown on Map 71a of the Esposito/Elting Atlas. Lannes V Corps, plus the Guard and the divisions of Nansouty and Reille were also in and around Warsaw.

After Eylau, the Grande Armee again went into winter quarters around Osterode and Napoleon himself was headquartered at Osterode, where he lived 'in miserable quarters.'

So, the Grande Armee went into winter quarters twice in Poland. Are you insinuating that Napoleon abandoned his army while in pursuit of Marie Walewska? If so, please provide any evidence to support that idea.

Apparently, Napoleon met her while in Warsaw. It was an accidental meeting, in that it was not planned.

James R Arnold Crisies in the snow.
Napoleon was in warsaw warm and in the amrs of a beautiful polish lady, sending messages to the front because he didn't believe his own generals when they described the horrors of the polish winter.

And the date? I found early January when the Grande Armee was in winter quarters as already stated.

Accordingly on pages 94-95, 101, and 180-182 doesn't support your description of the situation. Napoleon certainly was in the field with the army and knew and understood the weather and terrain. Perhaps you found something else? On page 182 it states that he spent 30 days in Warsaw and that his workload didn't change, Walewska or not.

In short, it looks to me as if you're painting a biased picture of Napoleon and his relationship with the army and his subordinates.

And it should be noted that Napoleon was not only an army commander, but he was also head of state and had to pay attention to those duties as well.

dibble

How did they actually come own slaves if they didn't 'trade' to buy them? LOL

Trading must have been available at the time in order to buy a slave. And, as far as I am aware, slave traders did not give them away for free.

I think you just don't like anything negative being proved about Britain.

By the way my post is what I wrote before anyone replied to it and as was also proven you misread my post.

Does anyone else find it interesting that the three most important women in Napoleon's life (apart from his mother) were brunettes called Marie?

Marie-Josèphe Rose Tascher de La Pagerie, a.k.a. Josephine;
Marie Walewska;
Marie Ludovica Leopoldina Francisca Theresa Josepha Lucia Hapsburg, a.k.a. Empress Marie-Louise.

I believe he technically won at Borodino. But he lost at Waterloo. So the answer is Waterloo.

Gazzola.

dibble

How did they actually come own slaves if they didn't 'trade' to buy them? LOL

Trading must have been available at the time in order to buy a slave. And, as far as I am aware, slave traders did not give them away for free.

I think you just don't like anything negative being proved about Britain.

By the way my post is what I wrote before anyone replied to it and as was also proven you misread my post.

I know what you originally posted so stop the pretence.

Britain outlawed the trading and exportation of slaves in 1807. In fact, the Royal Navy was seizing slavers before the act became law. That there was clandestine slave trading going on in the 'world' is without doubt. It goes on even to this day but Britain enforced the ban.

Slavery was like the drugs trade is today. There were the suppliers (mainly Arabs, Africans, and Asians) and the users (almost the whole world). The drugs trade is illegal but it still goes on. Both cause great misery to humanity.

For my opinion based upon my limited knowledge I would say that Leipzig was Napoleon's poorest showing, only because while he had the internal lines of communication, he allowed himself to hit from multiple directions. Had he been able to better separate and knock off his adversaries piecemeal it would've been a different story in my opinion.

Perhaps I missed it but Brechtel198 and Gazzola can you please each mention what you believe to be the answer to the original question asked? While I have no doubt that you know your stuff in regards to Napoleon, but remember people are expressing their opinion about which battle Napoleon botched and while opinions should be supported by facts, they are still opinions.

Also, folks, as someone who tries to learn things from these types of discussions based upon the amount of knowledge that flows through these 'chats' can I be silly and ask that people stick attack the argument and not the arguer. I know that is not TMP practice but wouldn't be nice for once.

I believe he technically won at Borodino. But he lost at Waterloo. So the answer is Waterloo.

Not that there is any automatic way of saying so.
If you lose a battle but lose 5% of your force, that's not so bad, if you win a pyrrhic victory but lose 40-60% of your army, well then it's better to lose.

Napoleon was in bad form on both Borodino and Waterloo, but he had to fight Waterloo, he could have called it quits before Borodino(long before too) So sending 30 000 French soldiers to their death when you could call it quits. and not only did you just waist 30 000 soldiers, but because you "won" the battle you continue the invasion and so lose 90% of your remaing force.

Gunfreak – Your post reflects an issue that not everyone on this thread may appreciate; did Napoleon have to fight that battle to achieve his tactical/strategic objective. The choice to fight is a indicator of sound judgement as well.

Privat Matter

I did answer the question on the 25th. But some people often add something in their posts that needs to be addressed and debates go off in another direction for a while. Sometimes it is fun and sometimes people do learn from it, although what they learn might not always sit well with their blinkered viewpoints.

dibble

Have a read of this. It is very informative. As you see, it informs 'blinkered' people like yourself that when the Slavery Abolition Act of 1838 was passed, there were 46,000 slave owners in Britain. (Note the 'in Britain' bit)

link

History is history of course and we can't change those ugly facts or events, but not to accept them as part of British History is just as ugly.

I'd say either Marengo or Waterloo.. At Marengo he misread the Austrian intentions and had to have his chestnuts pulled out of the fire by Desaix. Waterloo mainly because of his failure to keep Ney on a short leash OR failure to ensure that the cavalry attack he gave the OK to was properly supported (depending on which version you believe). Also his unclear orders to Grouchy although they may be viewed as separate from Waterloo itself. It can be argued. of course, that he was let down by his subordinates, but it was Napoleon in command, and he would have been quick enough to claim credit if the French had won, so the buck must stop with him.

he wanted and had to fight Borodino as well, his one and only hope to end the Russian campaign was une bonne bataille, which the Russians cleverly denied ever so long.

Still he won and he may have had a short window of negotiation at Moscow, or re orientate (means retreat PDQ) – but Belle Alliance, yes he wanted to fight the battle as well, but instead to concentrate his forces he dispersed them, I cannot see anything much worse in the whole concept in any other battle of Buonaparte, maybe Marengo.

Napoleon was in bad form on both Borodino and Waterloo, but he had to fight Waterloo

Why did he have to? Specifically, why did he have to choose to fight on that day at that place?

dibble

Have a read of this. It is very informative. As you see, it informs 'blinkered' people like yourself that when the Slavery Abolition Act of 1838 was passed, there were 46,000 slave owners in Britain. (Note the 'in Britain' bit)

link

History is history of course and we can't change those ugly facts or events, but not to accept them as part of British History is just as ugly.

And? I know of that Guardian link so nothing new there. I also saw the BBC documentary a few years ago. Nothing enlightening apart from the selective writings used to get the message across, penned by certain, martinet slave owners of the day. The alleged 46,000 slaveowners in Britain did not own them in Britain, they owned them abroad and no one is disputing the fact either. Those slaveowners after 1833 used the slaves themselves to work as apprentices and "given board and lodging for another 6 years. Children under 6 were immediately emancipated. Full emancipation for all was made legal on 1 August 1838."

Seeing as you are so keen to post matters slavery, that you might now want to post about slavery in the origins of the supply and ownership in the rest of the world and while you are at it, what they did to stop it.

dibble

Nothing enlightening! Are you sure you actually read or watched the documentary? Un 1833 Billions of pounds (in todays terms) were paid to the slave owners for loss of their 'property' and paid by the taxpayer! And the slaves were still made to work for 45 hours a week for the same people without pay! Is that your idea of a Great Britain?

'Did not own them in Britain.' LOL Dibble, you really are funny! Owners of slaves are slave owners wherever they live.

In terms of posting more about slavery. Don't be silly. I posted because you tried to offer something positive for the Napoleonic British while offering something negative, as usual, for the Napoleonic French. I was merely pointing out that, despite your flag waving posts, the British did not end slavery in 1807. But, considering you say you read the article and saw the excellent documentary, you should already have been aware of that? But in terms of flag waving, why let the truth get in the way of a myth, eh! LOL

I reckon Borodino must qualify as his worst battle, because the battle plan was barbarously unsubtle and produced appalling losses, yet wholly failed to decide the campaign.

dibble

Nothing enlightening! Are you sure you actually read or watched the documentary? Un 1833 Billions of pounds (in todays terms) were paid to the slave owners for loss of their 'property' and paid by the taxpayer! And the slaves were still made to work for 45 hours a week for the same people without pay! Is that your idea of a Great Britain?

There you go again! Same old diatribe.

'Did not own them in Britain.' LOL Dibble, you really are funny! Owners of slaves are slave owners wherever they live.

There were no slaves (unless it was happening unlawfully) in Britain.

In terms of posting more about slavery. Don't be silly. I posted because you tried to offer something positive for the Napoleonic British while offering something negative, as usual, for the Napoleonic French.

Umm! I take it you can read? I offered nothing about the French and slavery (even though Nappy reintroduced it)

I was merely pointing out that, despite your flag waving posts, the British did not end slavery in 1807. But, considering you say you read the article and saw the excellent documentary, you should already have been aware of that? But in terms of flag waving, why let the truth get in the way of a myth, eh! LOL

And like I posted It was nothing new.

I was merely pointing out that, despite your flag waving posts

I don't wave flags, I wrap myself in them. And please point to where I have posted 'myth' and if you can, use quotes. I and everyone else do, I'm sure you can too.

You are the one who 'as usual' bleats and blusters about "myth" I challenge you to show where it is in my posts…Put up or shut up.

dibble

It is facts dibble, negative ones against Britain which you obviously don't like to hear, but facts all the same.

No slaves in Britain – just the owners, all 46,000 of them! In your eyes I guess that makes Britain squeaky clean. LOL

Yeah, wrapping yourself in flags can have the effect of blurring out the truth.