"Napoleon as Psychopath / Balanced study deflates..." Topic

So do we agree it was incredibly stupid of him to invade Spain?

And even more stupid to then extract 350 million francs from it in "contributions".

With typical idiocy, he tried to tell neutrals who they could and could not trade with.

Nothing like what the British were doing-interfering with neutral trade, attacking neutrals at least twice, and provoking an unneeded war with the United States.

But of course that type of 'idiocy' was fine because it was the British doing it…

And that was the same type of high-handed behavior that lost Great Britain her 13 American colonies in 1783.

@4thCuirassier

You make a plethora of moral judgments about Napoleon but that's your business. My business is military history and wargaming.

So do we agree it was incredibly stupid of him to invade Spain?

Not a chance. Not only do I think his decision to invade Spain inspired but I think his only mistake was to not take the Grand Armee into Spain instead of Russia and absolutely smother both the Spanish and the British armies.

Are you going to admit that the French military machine was formidable, that Napoleon was the first soldier of the Age and that many of his marshals were accomplished and resourceful commanders?

@ MiniPigs

What "moral judgements about Napoleon" have I made? Pointing out that he was an inept statesman who brought about his own campaign defeats through diplomatic incompetence isn't a moral judgement.

Are you going to admit that the French military machine was formidable, that Napoleon was the first soldier of the Age and that many of his marshals were accomplished and resourceful commanders?

Sure, why wouldn't I? I'm not sure about his marshals; many were good – Davout, Lannes, Bessieres, Poniatowski – but many were also greedy dullards.

@4th Cuirassier

You've presented a lot of charged adjectives and images about Napoleon. I dont see that as a huge problem because I believe you just dont like him. I think you have every right to hold that opinion. For me, I am solely interested in the military subject matter. My only disappointment about Napoleon losing and having to abdicate is that it ended a fascinating military study. I find that depressing, like when a great film ends and you realize that that's all there is. Oh well, I'll always have the hundred days.

I think the people of Europe who found peace after Napolean's defeat may have been rather relieved the military study was ended.

However, it (the peace) was not to last.

Napoleon certainly is a character that history has kept at the fore of many discussions. I think it may be that he did things that some find to be good (bringing order after the chaos of the secularist reign of terror, for instance) as well as things many find to be horrific (declarations of war, invasions of sovereign nations to create an empire, continentalism, imposition of measurements, changing driving to the wrong side of the road, etc).

I also think by leaving out the political (the real reasons conficts are started, continued and ended) we leave out the reasons of 'how' and 'why' which are what give meaning to a subject.

We will never solve the issue online if it's not been done in person.

Although, the dawghouse does seem to settle things down for a bit.

Kind of like Napoleon being exiled …

Nothing like what the British were doing-interfering with neutral trade, attacking neutrals at least twice, and provoking an unneeded war with the United States.

Agreed. Nothing like.

And that was the same type of high-handed behavior…

As Napoleon's? Well, not really.

…that lost Great Britain her 13 American colonies in 1783.

-And brought to an end the fledgling British Empire!

Oh. Hang on …..

many were good – Davout, Lannes, Bessieres, Poniatowski – but many were also greedy dullards.

The best and most important marshal was Berthier. He was crucial to Napoleon's method of waging war and he was the premier chief of staff of the period. He had created a staff that was the best of its time.

Davout, Soult, Lannes, Suchet, Bessieres were among the greatest soldiers and commanders in military history. Some of the marshals disgraced themselves by their actions, such as Marmont and Bernadotte.

As to competence, in any period there are few commanders who actually shine and rise to the top of the pyramid. The French were fortunate that they had so many of that type, compared to other nations that they fought. Napoleon could never have been as successful as he was without them. And some of the best French commanders were killed during the French Revolutionary Wars, such as Kleber and Desaix. And some of the best never made marshal such as Reynier, Vandamme, and Grenier. Prince Eugene is probably the most underrated commander of the period.

I just don't dismiss people out of hand because they don't have a home library.

I don't either and if you believe that I do, please show where I said it.

I've been a professional soldier for 32 years, I've got better things to do than argue on the internet with people who only read about it.

And…? I have 27 years service and am a retired Marine Corps artillery officer. So I have done just a little more than 'read about it.'

Boney bloated ego or let's say his personal disorder ignored the advice of Berthier, like not to invade Russia – all the sage input attempted by Berthier ignored, also Boney treated Berthier very badly as human being, causing him to brake into tears ever so often, in the end Berthier hard working, stayed to be a chief clark who had no input in the operational art of war.

For a more realistic view of the pros and cons (yes they existed) see

Napoleon at work

link

some of the best French commanders turned against the tyranny of Boney – such as Moreau and others like Lecourbe did not fit into the lacky system and were only re activated when Boney's fate was in dire straights.

Neither Marmont nor Bernadotte disgraced themselves worse than Boney.

"Not a chance. Not only do I think his decision to invade Spain inspired but I think his only mistake was to not take the Grand Armee into Spain instead of Russia and absolutely smother both the Spanish and the British armies."

TMP members- we are witnessing the birth of something really special here. What can we call it? This is beyond counter-factual history- this represents perhaps the dawn of 'anti-history'. I've really never encountered any historian who has suggested that Napoleon's invasion of Spain (and Portugal) was anything other than a catastrophic miscalculation of politics, strategy and logistics which materially contributed to the eventual total defeat of Napoleonic France.

Apparently the above is all wrong and presumably 'fake history', and invading the Iberian Peninsula was indeed an inspired decision.

Wow- that's not a view that you get the chance to read every day.

LOL. The bit I liked was where Napoleon should have taken the Grande Armee into Spain. As, of course, he did, this is in fact counter-counterfactual history.

It's a bit like saying that the Allies should have invaded Normandy with five divisions on June 6 1944 instead of invading Normandy with five divisions on June 6 1944.

The first French invasion army was not the Grande Armee.

The second one was.

Vachee's work is not a reliable reference. He puts Napoleon too far forward and neglects the actual work of Berthier with the staff. He also uses Jomini, who was a failure as both a military governor and a chief of staff. His 'history' is unreliable and inaccurate.

…some of the best French commanders turned against the tyranny of Boney – such as Moreau and others like Lecourbe did not fit into the lacky system and were only re activated when Boney's fate was in dire straights. Neither Marmont nor Bernadotte disgraced themselves worse than Boney.

And which 'lackey' system was that?

Are you stating that the greater majority of French general officers were 'lackeys' because they served Napoleon? If so, that is a historic injustice and is outstandingly inaccurate.

Moreau was stupid enough to get involved in treason and later turned against France in 1813.

Bernadotte became a poor commander in 1806 as well as in 1813 and Marmont turned traitor because he listened to Talleyrand.

Marmont had the guts to help to dispose a tyrant who ruined his patrie, the lackys they were the cowards.

Marmont betrayed his own troops to the allies. That is an act of a moral coward.

And to whom are you referring to as 'lackeys'?

And France was not 'ruined' by the wars, most of which were started by the allied coalitions financed by the British government.

And by definition, Napoleon was not a tyrant as he governed by the rule of law. All you are doing here is repeating allied and British propaganda of the period.

Hi Brechtel,

Thanks for helping to clarify the Grand Armee's time in Spain. However, my dear friend 4th Cuirassier may be unfamiliar with synecdoches which would explain his curious D-Day analogy. I was referring not to 1808 but to the point just before the emperor was about to invade Russia (1812) and had a choice to first finish business with Spain. I suppose that wouldve technically been a re-invasion of Spain by the Grande Armee. Not really important though; the important part is that he should've finished off both the Spanish and the English first.

As it was, even his marshals only really started losing ground to Wellington when they found themselves continually stripped of troops by Napoleon starting from just before his invasion of Russia.

Incidentally, D-Day was a terrible plan but it is a good illustration of what i find alarming about the emperor's detractors on this thread. The fact that D-Day was sucessful, doesnt make it a good plan just like the fact the Napoleon lost doesn't make him a bad commander. And, like with the peninsula, I am glad Normandy took place because I like gaming it.

And France was not 'ruined' by the wars, most of which were started by the allied coalitions financed by the British government.

That doesn't seem entirely fair

Looks like Napoleon's effect is not related only to here and the dawghouse:

link

@wmyers

Are we to understand that you are introducing this gruesome, immoral story as levity?

This is in extremely bad taste.

Yes, it is. Excellent posting MP.

@ MiniPigs

Napoleon never returned to Spain after 1809. He could have done so in person at any time between about August 1809 and June 1812. Yes, yes, I know, Russia. But Russia was a choice. He could have gone back to Spain instead. Of course what would have happened was the same as 1809: outnumbered British evacuate then immediately reinvade.

I would suggest that the reason he stayed away was because he knew the campaign there was unwinnable. He had no wish to be personally associated with defeat or even stalemate. So in the same way that he quit his army in Egypt in 1798, he quit Spain 10 years later, leaving others to own the defeat.

Napoleon in 1809 to 1812 was in McNamara's position in about 1966. Both knew they could not win but neither had an exit strategy that would not precipitate a crisis. Massena and Ney doing a Hill 1388 at Busaco adds to the resemblance, complete with knowingly untruthful exaggeration of enemy loss figures.

With both the US in Vietnam and the French in Spain, diplomacy and politics created a problem that the military could not possibly solve. The major difference between the two situations was that in the case of Napoleonic France, unlike that of the USA 150 years later, the diplomat, politician and military commander concerned were all the same person: Napoleon.

There's no levity to it. I have to ask why you'd even think that?!

The thread is about supposed psychopathic behaviour related to Napoleon.

Various mental disorders related to Napoleon have been commonly reported for many decades.

It's like a magnet, in some social and psychological way.

Sadly, these also manifest on here, to an extent.

Like seriously, arguing/belittling/harassing/etc over what?!

It's like a grade 1 class for some, high school drama for others…

(Sorry, I don't want to take away from 4th's post; the comparison to Vietnam is interesting, I'm not sure I wholly agree (or grasp it), but it's very interesting. I'm certainly not going to have a tantrum over it or anyone else's posts, regardless of how I agree or disagree.)

+1 4th Cuirassier

The similarities between the Peninsula and Vietnam are in some ways quite eerie.

In both cases there were two bordering countries, one of which was the ally of and was supported by a major power (North Vietnam / Russia; Portugal / Great Britain). This alliance's goal was the capture of the capital and the overthrow of the regime in the other of the country, which enjoyed minimal popular support, was in place as the result of a coup, and was sustained by a rival power that was constructively in occupation.

The forces of the alliance comprised regulars and guerrillas. The guerrillas operated throughout the occupied territory, hiding among the local populace and attacking isolated enemy units whenever possible. In addition to this activity regular troops of the enemy regularly entered the country via a logistics route the occupiers could not interdict (the Ho Chi Ming trail / the sea). At no time did the occupiers look remotely like winning; any local successes tended to harden the resistance. They inflicted huge losses on the local populace but to no avail and the area of the country they controlled gradually shrank.

Politically it was feared that to quit the campaign would lead to disastrous consequences elsewhere, including acute loss of face and the encouragement of armed resistance to US / French imperialism. So as a result, neither France nor the USA ever came up with a coherent exit strategy that would enable a withdrawal without the collapse of the local puppet regime, and thus neither withdrew until militarily defeated.

Both wars were deeply unpopular at home, and triggered widespread draft dodging by conscripts desperate to avoid being sent there (widely seen as a death sentence). Reconstruction of the wrecked countries took decades but they're now popular tourist destinations with great weather, hotels and beaches. The entertainment industry subsequently sometimes appeared to think the losing side had actually won (Hollywood; TMP).

So while one shouldn't over egg it, there are some remarkable parallels.

And France was not 'ruined' by the wars, most of which were started by the allied coalitions financed by the British government.

This simply isn't true, whether one counts all of French aggression or just the invasions and annexations made just by Napoleon: Egypt, Malta, Netherlands, Switzerland, Hannover, Hessen-Kassel, Brunswick, Portugal, Spain, Hamburg, Lubeck, the Papal States, Oldenburg, Russia…(there are probably others I have forgotten).

It is quite obvious that we don't read the same books and source material.

And by definition, Napoleon was not a tyrant as he governed by the rule of law. All you are doing here is repeating allied and British propaganda of the period.

Why should I repeat British propaganda? In case that propaganda is much more close to the truth than the lies of Boney

@ 4th Cuirassier

Napoleon never returned to Spain after 1809. He could have done so in person at any time between about August 1809 and June 1812. Yes, yes, I know, Russia. But Russia was a choice. He could have gone back to Spain instead. Of course what would have happened was the same as 1809: outnumbered British evacuate then immediately reinvade.

OK, then you are in total agreement with me, the fault wasn't invading Spain,but rather not returning and finishing the job.

I would suggest that the reason he stayed away was because he knew the campaign there was unwinnable. He had no wish to be personally associated with defeat or even stalemate. So in the same way that he quit his army in Egypt in 1798, he quit Spain 10 years later, leaving others to own the defeat.

That's your opinion based on 20/20 hindsight. Do we have any authority where he refuses to return to Spain because he fears his reputation suffering tarnish or is this just speculation?

The similarities between the Peninsula and Vietnam are in some ways quite eerie.

Not really, Spain was an International Super Power with almost no challenge to it's monarchical hegemony and it's culture had a lot in common with France. People make generalized comparisons between Britain and the USA during the AWI that it was "Vietnam" for Britain too.

One could just as easily assert that the Invasion of Spain destabilized the Spanish monarchy which in turn set in motion a series of Independence and freedom movements around Latin America. In that instance, Napoleon was true to the revolutionary ideals that are a part of western democratic traditions.

I dont see why we have to re-anylyze or dive deeply into a comparison between The Peninsular War and Vietnam when we are struggling for common ground about whether Napoleon, his marshals and his army were top notch.

The only arguments I see above that he and they were not elite is that some posters on here just want it to be so. I suppose I could be fine with that but some other "poster" suggests that my view as a wargamer that invading Spain was inspired is a departure from the written history on the subject and thus fit to be ridiculed. So, which is it? Do we have to follow the body of writing on Napoleon or are we free to posit our own opinions with the same validity? Or, as a third option, are only the anti French/Napoleon speculations to be considered valid while mine can be ridiculed?

Apologies for going even further down this rabbit hole, however, sometimes I just despair….

"D-Day was a terrible plan" As opposed to which other ones that exist outside Hollywood or someone's gaming room?

"I am glad Normandy took place because I like gaming it." The residents of all those cemeteries must be so glad.

I think that the overall case for comparing the wars in Spain and Vietnam is quite compellingly made.

One difference though is that the US Forces were not routinely defeated by the NVA in full scale battle.

@ Seneffe

True. The US = France and the NVA = Britain and Portugal, who did indeed routinely defeat the French in battle.

A balancing similarity is perhaps that the other force, the Viet Cong / guerillas, did poorly in pitched battles but well in ambushes and communications denial. Any French formation smaller than a company was about as safe as a US helicopter.

@ MiniPigs

the fault wasn't invading Spain,but rather not returning and finishing the job.

No, I'm saying that reinvading would simply have failed again just as the invasion historically did.

Napoleon thought the war in Spain necessary otherwise he would have called it off. If it was necessary then obviously it needed to be won. So why didn't he go back and win it? What was keeping him so busy between December 1808 and June 1812? That's 3.5 years in which, apart from the 3 months of the 1809 war with Austria, he was personally available. His subordinates didn't win in 1809 or 1810 or 1811 and weren't winning in 1812 either. If it was winnable why didn't he intervene? There is no example in any of his other campaigns of his quitting the army and leaving his marshals to complete a victory. If there was a victory to be had Napoleon made sure it was associated with himself. When Napoleon quit the army in 1798, 1809, 1812 and 1815, in every single case it was because that army was defeated.

The absence of a reason why he didn't go back to Spain and his personal history of blame dodging tell us what was going on. Both Barnett and McLynn point to his recognising this and wishing to avoid personal association with defeat and failure. No, he didn't write down anywhere "I am frightened to go back to Spain because I will personally lose and look bad". There was likewise no written Fuehrerbefehl, yet nobody except holocaust deniers doubts what was in Hitler's head given the extent of his power and the facts.

@ConnaughtRanger

Apologies for going even further down this rabbit hole, however, sometimes I just despair….

"D-Day was a terrible plan" As opposed to which other ones that exist outside Hollywood or someone's gaming room?

"I am glad Normandy took place because I like gaming it." The residents of all those cemeteries must be so glad.

How do you reconcile the above statement with the below one?

Minipigs said: "it's the potential for the french to somehow pull it off that makes rereading about the battle remain fresh and fascinating."

ConnaughtRanger said: Sums up much of the content of the Napoleonic Discussion (sic) and Media Message Boards. We're supposed to be discussing history not fantasy – they lost and no amount of cut and pasting is going to change that – ever.

Surely youre not suggesting that I am re-killing them when I enjoy gaming Normandy? Nothing I can do, say or think will bring those people back. Am I the only gamer that likes gaming WW2 or the Normandy campaign? Am I supposed to build a time machine and change the past or take your advice and follow history? Perhaps it is the "enjoying" wargaming Normandy that you resent? If I were miserable or sad when wargaming would that meet with everyone's approval?

Honestly, I cant enjoy any period in wargaming because people died or it because the campaign or one of the campaigns was a bad decision?

What does that eliminate?

Napoleonic

Seven years War

Italian Wars

English Civil War

WW2

AWI

NWF

GNW…basically everything?

And D-Day Normandy was a terrible plan,

Maybe you believe I mean it wasnt "well" planned. Not the case. I think D-Day was immaculately planned but I think it was a bad concept; frontal assault in water against prepared machine-gun positions, in the open, on sand makes the average WW1 trench assault look like a walk in the park. I believe that John Keegan agrees with this assessment.

Additionally, I dont have to come up with a better plan to prove Normandy was a lousy one. I think we celebrate it because it wasnt the absolute bloodbath and defeat that Eisenhower budgeted for and because in spite of the odds, it succeeded.

I am glad it succeeded but it was still unimaginative.

@4th Cuirassier

MiniPigs said:the fault wasn't invading Spain,but rather not returning and finishing the job.

4th Cuirassier: No, I'm saying that reinvading would simply have failed again just as the invasion historically did.

Napoleon thought the war in Spain necessary otherwise he would have called it off. If it was necessary then obviously it needed to be won. So why didn't he go back and win it? What was keeping him so busy between December 1808 and June 1812? That's 3.5 years in which, apart from the 3 months of the 1809 war with Austria, he was personally available. His subordinates didn't win in 1809 or 1810 or 1811 and weren't winning in 1812 either. If it was winnable why didn't he intervene? There is no example in any of his other campaigns of his quitting the army and leaving his marshals to complete a victory. If there was a victory to be had Napoleon made sure it was associated with himself. When Napoleon quit the army in 1798, 1809, 1812 and 1815, in every single case it was because that army was defeated.

The absence of a reason why he didn't go back to Spain and his personal history of blame dodging tell us what was going on. Both Barnett and McLynn point to his recognising this and wishing to avoid personal association with defeat and failure. No, he didn't write down anywhere "I am frightened to go back to Spain because I will personally lose and look bad". There was likewise no written Fuehrerbefehl, yet nobody except holocaust deniers doubts what was in Hitler's head given the extent of his power and the facts.

OK but you're speculating. Nothing wrong with this but you're doing it with the benefit of hindsight. In Napoleon's mind, until he started withdrawing resources for Russia and afterwards, Spain was under control. The British didnt make significant inroads until the resources became more like parity. I dont see anything wrong with Swatting the British army back into Portugal, it was becoming something of a tradition.

Laudable though it might be, it not always fair on the rest of us when contributors are required to read and write in a language that is not their own.
"..glad Normandy took place.." means " ..I enjoy gaming Normandy.. "
..terrible plan.. " means "..immaculately planned.."
" ..unimaginative… " means ???????
Presumably something that doesn't include:
A deception plan that achieved strategic and tactical surprise that kept the bulk of the enemy's forces away from the battlefield.
Coups de main that cut enemy reinforcement routes.
Production of armoured support that could swim ashore, clear minefields, bridge obstacles, destroy strongpoints…. (unless you're on an American landing beach).
Production of 2 major artificial ports and an undersea pipeline to secure your logistic supply.
Plus any number of other "unimaginative" ideas.

I'd be genuinely interested to know what alternative operations there were besides the Normandy invasion.

On the topic of D-Day, Connaught Ranger has already highlighted that Operation Overlord was more than Omaha beach for six hours. Casualties there were disproportionate and I'm sure would have been far fewer had the planned deployment of over 100 DD Shermans in the first wave not gone awry. Given the fortifications in the Channel Ports and the experience of Dieppe, there weren't many other options for a landing in France, which politicians wanted. I gave a discussion task out at a meeting recently on whether, given Allied preparations and German constraints, the weather in June was the biggest threat to Overlord.

By the way Minipigs, you don't have to suggest an alternative to the Overlord, but without one your argument that it was terrible seems a bit weak and said for effect rather than with any real conviction.

I'm saying that reinvading would simply have failed again just as the invasion historically did.

And you know that how?

@Brechtel198

4thCuirassier said: I'm saying that reinvading would simply have failed again just as the invasion historically did.

Brechtel198 said: And you know that how?

The logic seems to be that if the war was winnable, why didnt Napoleon win it? It's a variant of the "Napoleon lost, thus he couldn't have been very good" argument which comes across to me like history as football hooliganism.

Neither Britain nor Spain could make any strategic headway against the French until they began draining resources out of Spain. Frankly, Britain, for all of its contributions against Napoleon, could never have beaten France without help from almost all the rest of Europe.

"Frankly, Britain, for all of its contributions against Napoleon, could never have beaten France without help from almost all the rest of Europe."

Hence Britain couldn't have been very good?

"Frankly, Britain, for all of its contributions against Napoleon, could never have beaten France without help from almost all the rest of Europe."

Is this the mirror of "France, even with help from almost all of the rest of Europe, didn't beat Britain?"

@42flanker

Not at all, I think Britain's contribution to that war effort to be both unique and irreplaceable. Further, British single-mindedness of purpose is to be admired.

I have never maintained that Britain's grand strategy and her military were not a force to be reckoned with. Rather, I have only ever maintained that France, Napoleon, his marshals and his army were also a force to be reckoned with and not the "B" team several partizan seeming posters have characterized them to be.

My issues lie not with the British but with a handful of posters who want to detract from Napoleon and his army without any real basis, except for personal feeling, to do so.

Again, as a wargamer, I love gaming the Peninsula and the hundred days campaigns and enjoy the British army. I believe I am currently having an entire British Peninsular army painted for me. I doubt if I would part with that sort of cash for something I didn't like.

My issues lie not with the British but with a handful of posters who want to detract from Napoleon and his army without any real basis, except for personal feeling, to do so.

Well said. That is exactly the point. The only thing I would change in your excellent posting would be 'feeling' for 'anymosity' in the last sentence.

@MiniPigs and Brechtel

100% in agreement with each of your posts just above.

There's something to admire and criticise in just about every nation, and the personalities too. Unfortunately, that seems a bit too nuanced for some. However, I suspect that some personal animosity may be informing some peoples' historical perspectives, which is a pity, because so many people around here are so knowledgeable about the period.

Substitute "French" for "British" then look in a mirror?

There's something to admire and criticise in just about every nation, and the personalities too. Unfortunately, that seems a bit too nuanced for some. However, I suspect that some personal animosity may be informing some peoples' historical perspectives, which is a pity, because so many people around here are so knowledgeable about the period.

I can't think of a single poster, whether that be pro-British Dibble or pro-Napoleon Kevin, who this is true for. I even think that 4th Cuirassier could think of something good to say about the Prussian Army, if he really tried…;-) What we argue about are questions of degree, typically. For instance:

Are you going to admit that the French military machine was formidable, that Napoleon was the first soldier of the Age and that many of his marshals were accomplished and resourceful commanders?

I'm guessing this was Minipigs? Well, I – and I guess, many others – would personally agree with the first and third of his propositions and not the second, although even that depends upon what is meant by the phrase 'first soldier of the Age'. So your condition of finding something to admire is met quite easily.

Well said. That is exactly the point. The only thing I would change in your excellent posting would be 'feeling' for 'anymosity' in the last sentence.

another group attack again?

I cannot see any – none – who attacks Boney and his army without real basis – in fact the basis is well found and sourced.

Really? I find that comment both rubbish and incorrect as to the postings on this forum.

I see few, if any, sourced comments regading negativity, which is rife here, to both Napoleon and the Grande Armee.

In point of fact, I was criticized for actually using sources to support what I post-and that is ludicrous.