"A Tarnished Eagle, Napoleon's Winter Campaign in..." Topic

… POLAND, DECEMBER 1806 THROUGH FEBRUARY 1807

Of possible interest?

Free to read
PDF link

Amicalement
Armand

Its a good paper. In parallel with it is a good study on the French cavalry remount issue/challenge for 1805-07.

Indeed. A passable general-interest paper, exactly like all the others coming out of the Staff College.

Of course, there was an amazing bit of hyperbole in the opening summation:

"The Campaign cost Napoleon over 43,000 casualties and proved indecisive. The
campaign, and Battle of Eylau, ruined Napoleon's image of invincibility and completely
gutted the Grand Army of a wealth of leadership and experience. Over twenty general
officers were killed or seriously wounded at Eylau. Subsequently, Napoleon would have
to consistently rely on more conscripts and an ever-increasing number of foreign troops
to fill his depleted ranks. Napoleon's Army would never again resemble the previously
invincible Grand Army that died on the blood-soaked snows of Poland."

Funny that this gutted Grande Armee managed to rise like a phoenix in three and a half months at Friedland and beat Bennigsen into the dirt. And there were plenty of experienced and capable "general officers" left after Eylau to deal with the Russians.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Nap Wars also knows the same thing happened in 1809: defeated/indecisive/battered the end of May and the first week of July all over the Austrians like white on rice.

All in all, a rather sophomoric paper, relying as usual on the same old same old secondary sources, with a couple of Russian sources in translation for flavor. I'm guessing the sanguine portrait of the Russians originated from reding too much of Robert Wilson, who never met a Russian soldier he didn't just adore.

And then the little careless errors, like misspelling important names. I was fond of seeing how many different ways we were going to see the king of Prussia: Fredrick Wilhelm, Frederick Wilhelm, and so on. Never his proper number though…

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

In support of Maggie's excellent posting, it should be noted how Napoleon reinforced the Grande Armee after Eylau.

Espagne's cuirassier division, for example, was brought north from Italy and Jerome's command (the IX Corps actually under Vandamme's aggressive leadership) sent troops to the main army as reinforcements.

Augereau's VII Corps was broken up because of heavy losses at Eylau.

Mortier's VIII Corps was brought forward from Germany. Lefebvre's X Corps besieged and took Danzig.

Contrary to the paper's author, the Grande Armee did not die 'on the blood-soaked snows of Poland.' The Grande Armee went into winter quarters, and was resupplied, reinforced, and reorganized for the spring campaign. If the Grande Armee had indeed died in Poland, then Napoleon would have lost-he didn't.

I agree with the author that the back bone of the Grande Armée was ruined in the winter campaign of 1807, it suffered losses which couldn't be replaced any longer. From there on the So called Grande Armée was in steady decline – further the rest of the good regiments were wasted in Spain, only a few remained in Germany.
The glory days were gone no Ulm and Austerlitz as in 1805 but a prolonged fighting along the Danube in 1809, a blody nose at Aspern Essling, a blood bath at Wagram, the victories became very stale indeed.
The jovial and witty French soldiers were gone after 1807.

…further the rest of the good regiments were wasted in Spain, only a few remained in Germany.

After Tilsit and with the beginning of the French operations in the Iberian Peninsula, Davout was left in command in central Europe with 90,000 troops which included the heavy cavalry, the veteran III Corps, and St. Hilaire's veteran division.

Your 'assessment and opinion' is incorrect, as is your opinions of the campaign of 1809. Perhaps you should take a look at Saski?

I agree with the author that the back bone of the Grande Armée was ruined in the winter campaign of 1807, it suffered losses which couldn't be replaced any longer.

Both you and the author are wrong, and as usual you haven't used any credible source material to support your incorrect 'assessment.'

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand

any decent book about the winter campaign will support my thesis – like that one of Naulet

Cite examples then with references.

At the end of the day, the original paper is nothing original or even particularly scholarly; it's another of the interminable papers written by officers and required by the Staff College. No original research, no primary or archival sources, and 95% of the secondary sources are in English.

Not everything written about the Nap Wars from any perspective is worth reading, and this one is no exception.