"Battle of Hanau 1813" Topic

30th – 31st of October 1813

see also

TMP link

with a lot of links about this battle.

Die Schlacht war vorbei. Die Verluste der Verbündeten beliefen sich auf 184 Offiziere und 9.087 Mann (zum Vergleich: bei Sedan hatten die Deutschen 465 Offiziere und 8.459 Mann verloren), die tot, verwundet oder vermisst wurden.
Die Franzosen verloren nur an Gefangenen 5 Generale, 280 Offiziere und über 10.000 Mann.
Napoleon selbst gab seine Verluste an Toten und Verwundeten mit 4 – 500 Mann an – wie üblich stark untertrieben.
So lassen sich die Verluste nur schätzen, sie mögen 3 – 5.000 Mann betragen haben.

another pyrric victory by Boney

I don't think it's a pyrrhic victory if it accomplishes a strategic objective, von Winterfeldt. Bonaparte needed to get back to France with whatever troops he could and prep for the 1814 campaign, and this he did.

In my view it is, the French army suffered a lot of prisoners, I have to look it up, but it was abount 20,000 – yes, I agree Bonaparte was able to get back to France, but with an army even more beaten an destructed than without Hanau.

the prisoners/stragglers where unfortunate, but Napoleon achieved his strategic and tactical objectives, and the Bavarians didn't dare interfere until he had passed on. That's a victory, however you regard the days after, Napoleon couldn't save the stragglers

Wikipedia

Wrede suffered 9,000 casualties, Napoleon suffered fewer, but some 10,000 French stragglers became allied prisoners of war between 28 and 31 October.[11] The French reached Frankfurt on 2 November and were only 20 miles from their relatively safe rear base at Mainz.

Show me a way he could have lost fewer and I'll be more interested, von Winterfeldt. But the men were tired, sick, unpaid and a percentage were drafted Germans anyway. It's not as though Bonaparte could have halted while the provost marshal rounded them all up while somehow not fighting Wrede.

another pyrric victory by Boney

You dont have to root for Napoleon but who would root for the other side? All of them were outdated, oppressive feudal monarchies.

It's astounding that after Russia, Napoleon was able to cobble together an army at all. And most of the battles conducted are impressive and worthy of study. Meanwhile, the allies just stumbled toward him or devised a plan to avoid him altogether?

‌

You dont have to root for Napoleon but who would root for the other side? All of them were outdated, oppressive feudal monarchies.

Absolutely correct.

There were no democracies in Europe nor was the United States yet a democracy.

And no other European head of state implemented a social, societal, and political reform period as Napoleon did as First Consul. And the greater majority of those reforms lasted after Napoleon's second abdication. Not even fifteen years of restored Bourbon rule could erase them.

As for the campaign of 1813, it was in actuality two campaigns-spring and fall. Napoleon won the spring campaign defeating the Prussians and the Russians and driving them back to the Oder. The intervention of the Austrians provided the necessary cannon fodder that gave the allies a chance to win.

And the Prussians did not field an all-Prussian army in 1813-1814. Blucher's Army of Silesia, for example, was made up of both Prussians and Russians. And it was nearly destroyed in February 1814 in France.

Wrede was not only badly defeated at Hanau, he was also badly wounded.

'Poor Wrede. I made him a count, but I never could make him a general.'-Napoleon after Hanau.

Bavarian General Deroi was a much better officer and commander. Unfortunately, he was killed in Russia.

You dont have to root for Napoleon but who would root for the other side?

The reverse also holds true. You don't have to be rooting for the Allies in the latter part of the Napoleonic Wars to be rooting against Napoleon.

Whether the French troops were casualties during the battle of Hanau or were stragglers captured afterwards isn't relevant to whether Hanau was a Pyrric victory. They were losses that Napoleon could not afford. Stragglers could always be reintegrated into their old units or could serve as cadres for newly raised ones.

A good reference for at least part of Hanau is Napoleon et Les Allies sur le Rhin by Lefebvre de Behain.

From page 384, Regarding the Grenadiers a Pied:

"…their line swept down the slope in perfect order, but headlong and terrible for these men were furious. I see them yet…grinding their teeth, hissing like serpents, shaking their…terrible bayonets. In an instant everything before them was knocked over, run through, swept into the Kinzig…where seven to eight hundred bodies piled up. A frightful spectacle for a human being, a superb one for a soldier.'-a French officer eyewitness.

Wrede was expecting to scoop up nothing but French remnants but instead found himself facing the Imperial Old Guard-infantry, cavalry, and artillery.

Undoubtedly Wrede had second thoughts putting himself with a river at his back and then having to fight the Alt Kaisergarde.

The French victory was anything but Pyrrhic-the prisoners were stragglers following the formed bodies of troops just as most of the French prisoners at the Berezina had been…they were not in units able to fight, but a mob trying to escape.

The definition of a 'pyrrhic victory' from Webster's Dictionary:

A pyrrhic victory is a victory that comes at a great cost, perhaps making the ordeal to win not worth it. It relates to Pyrrhus, a king of Epirus who defeated the Romans in 279 BCE but lost many of his troops.

Hanau doesn't fit that definition as the French losses were not prohibitive and the win was important as it opened the way home that Wrede was trying to block.

You are ignoring the point Kevin. Stragglers are troops that are not in the ranks TODAY. That does not mean they are incapable of being returned to the ranks later once enemy pressure eases…or of being sent off to the depots to be used in raising new units…or being used to man fortresses. Its been known to happen. Losing them may not have the same immediate impact on the army as losing troops in the ranks, but it can have a long term impact.

I thought a Pyrrhic victory was one that, if repeated a few times, would see you defeated. It doesn't follow that a victory's Pyrrhic just because you lost more than the other guy. If you have 50,000 guys against 1,000, and you lose 1,001 while the other guy loses his entire force, that's not a Pyrrhic victory. You still have 98% of your strength intact and you wiped him out. That's just a victory.

I've just read in the Dawson, Dawson and Summerfield artillery book the assertion that the Allies were short on ammo; and incapable of fielding any more than 58 pieces out of the total (ie 30%). And the Austrians did run out.

Seems that would have had a major impact on the 'fortunes' of each. This was news to me, tho in the 'glory' of most reports every show of evidence is the 'charge' of the Guard Artillery, which given this factor may not be as magnificent as suggested. Another blot on the heroic efforts of an army desperate for relief?
~d

one can read more about in the usefull stuff section, there are a lot of links, yes without any doubt the rest of the French army after suffering a devastating defeat at Leipzig – Boney being outgeneraled and out manoeuvered in the autumn campaign of 1813 of the liberation wars, showed how dangerous they still were – but looking at the casualties – POWs included I cannot see it other as a pyrric victory.
Boney just could not afford to loose any more men.

As to the Guard artillery, of course the usual propaganda, they were on the brink to be taken by Bavarian light horse cavalry – but then the French cavalry saved them.

Drouots ADC notes :
The Emperor gave order to the General Drouot to gather thirty or forty cannon of the Guard, to silence the enemy artillery (nota bene – counter battery fire – which so some world famous artillery expert never existed) (…) Never the less the General Drouot reached it and took position on edge of the forests with a marvelous speed; a quarter of an hours was enough for him to extinguish the enemy fire (nota bene – counter battery fire with effect). But then the prince Wrède made a charge on our batteries, which were supported by no infantry (nota bene – lack of support troops were noted); the general Drouot loaded his guns with canister shot and waited till the cavalry charge was nearly upon him till he fired … the enemy horsemen who followed, arrived almost on our guns it was a critical moment; he general Drouot who was on foot, had drawn his sword, gunners had armed themselves with ram rods and with trail spikes (nota bene – the effect of canister was not enough to stop the Bavarian cavalry and the French gunners readied themselves for hand to hand combat).
Fortunately the General Nansouty had cleared the wood behind us and emerged on our right; overturning everything which was in his way.(so the French cavalry had the credit to save the artillery)"
(Vie de la Planta, cited in Dawson : Les Brutal The Guard Foot Artillery 1797 to 1815, p.197 / 198

Wrede used up an enormous amount of artillery munitions against Wurzburg, hence the shortage at Hanau.

What has been said repeatedly regarding counterbattery fire is that generally speaking, it was a waste of ammunition, and the French and British dsicouraged it in their training and doctrine. The only time that it was encouraged was when the enemy's artillery was hurting your infantry more than you were hurting theirs, or there were no other targets to shoot at that would damage the enemy.

It was also considered best by the French to use the lighter caliber field pieces, 4-, 6-, or 8--pounders, as they had a higher sustained rate of fire than 12-pounders.

The trick when engaging in counterbattery fire was to concentrate on one enemy piece at a time, put that piece out of action, and then move to the next one.

See Duteil's Usage, the French doctrinal publication above the battery/company level, among other references.

The reverse also holds true. You don't have to be rooting for the Allies in the latter part of the Napoleonic Wars to be rooting against Napoleon.

Why does one have to root for and against anyone? It's just continually odd to see people have such a personal opinion against Napoleon. As a military history enthusiast, I only really root for the best military operations.

In any case, the OP was making a clear and strong bias against Napoleon, which gives me the impression he believes the allies are the "good guys" and they aren't. I dont need to rail against them but what does a modern day (presumably) democratic person have in common with 19th century monarchs?

Thus, I think you are misunderstanding the comment and taking it out of context. It's also a matter of frequency. I mean he is free to do it but when repeated with such passion it makes me wonder what's going on.

Napoleon is dead, everyone who fought those wars are dead, it's just odd to worry about it as if one has a personal stake in it.

Everybody is entitled to a view; ignore those that don't suit.
It's not worth debating here frankly, I can see that many are interested in their own history. Germany is entitled to see the conqueror of Central Europe differently to the expansionist Revolution of the French.

Coming from little ol' isolated NZ I could see the culture of fear and loathing in some [French] to other Europeans was palpable to me. But then, I hadn't lived with the threat of nuclear war for decades right next door!

You and me are indulging in a hobby with tangible roots in generations of people. While having lunch with friends in Paris [back in '84] one Sunday I listened to the talk of their grandparents lament of the invasion of Paris in 1870- not so much about the 20th centuries World Wars at all!
~d

Everybody is entitled to a view;

What you might actually mean is that everyone is entitled to insert their own emotional propaganda, isnt that closer to what's going on? Does it apply to everyone's "view".

ignore those that don't suit.

Why should i ignore comments that dont suit? Are you suggesting I should only interact with comments that do suit?

Further, are you suggesting that the OP made the comment not to give their feelings away or wind people up but merely as a way not to forget their own spin on Napoleon?

You and me are indulging in a hobby with tangible roots in generations of people. While having lunch with friends in Paris [back in '84] one Sunday I listened to the talk of their grandparents lament of the invasion of Paris in 1870- not so much about the 20th centuries World Wars at all!
~d

There is something to that but it seems to underline one of my points. When I discuss General Lee, I dont always add some smirk about him being a traitor, a slave owner or a general who unnecessarily got his own men butchered. I dont think that you shouldnt or cannot add a comment like that but when you do it almost every single time, it just seems odd.

And you dont see people on any other board making chronic comments about anyone, any nation or any army like a handful do here about Napoleon. I suppose theyre free to do so but I should be free to ask why theyre doing so.

It's not worth debating here frankly, I can see that many are interested in their own history. Germany is entitled to see the conqueror of Central Europe differently to the expansionist Revolution of the French.

Well said, for the Yanks it is the American Revolution for me the American War of Independence.

A more approptiate, and correct, title is the War of the Revolution as it was a subset of the American Revolution that began in 1763 and ended in 1789 with the adoption and implementation of the US Constitution. The war itself was only part of the Revolution.

Why does one have to root for and against anyone? It's just continually odd to see people have such a personal opinion against Napoleon.

I suppose it would be tacky to point out your comment "You dont have to root for Napoleon but who would root for the other side?" I am surprised that you are surprised Napoleon generates feelings, for, against and (like me) mixed. Napoleon played a huge role in France, in Europe and on the world stage from 1796 to 1815. He wasn't simply a military commander, but also a head of state. He affected the destiny of places he never set foot in. His legacy carried his nephew to the Imperial throne a generation later. When I was in college my French history professor devoted at least a day just on the question of whether Napoleon betrayed the French Revolution.

@ von Winterfeldt. Growing up we just called it the Revolutionary War.

I always call it the War of American Independence, on the basis that it was the independence that was American, not the war. If the war only involved Americans it would have been a civil war.

As a matter of interest, when did Americans start calling themselves that, or being called that? In terms of their citizenship, prior to the WAI Americans and Canadians were of course British.