"Here’s to the Losers…" Topic

YouTube link

Now that Frank has set the mood, who is your favorite Napoleonic "loser" and why?

Mine is the Prussian Army of 1806. Bicornes, tight-cut tunics,, the flags and legacy of Frederick the Great, all to be shortly smashed into shambles. Yes, we know they were well-trained, really not quite the martinet-driven automatons as portrayed, and yet, for some reason, and despite all of efforts by Peter Hofschroer to convince us to the contrary, the entire Prussian military-industrial complex was destroyed faster than you can say "France, 1940".

Tony Barton's figures are sublime in their beauty, a joy to paint, but for some reason I have yet to find a rule set which treats them fairly, and allows them to shine the way we all know they would have if only…

So what is yours?

Cheers,
Dave

The Prussian army of 1813-15. Unable to win a battle without either an ally on the field or superior numbers, often not even then, and dressed in uniforms that made them look like they were homeless. For years I thought Landwehr was the German word for "tramp".

sounds like the Prussians were the all round losers of the period then sadly – i didnt think much of their uniforms in the past either, but i have come round to their look more now and become more fond of units like Luetzows Freikorps and their Black Hussars

Austrians it's quite amazing they managed to have an empire that last so long as they seem to have spent a lot of history being spanked by someone. But they look so cool. Honestly for me Austrian infantry all in white with the Helmet are the best looking soldiers of the whole Napoleonic period.

1808 Spanish for me. Like the 1806 Prussians, trained, brave, loyal--but really not ready for Napoleonic warfare. Like the 1806 Prussians, you can eke out a victory sometimes, if you're a little lucky and very careful, but you need to know exactly what you're doing.

Got to be Napoleon, so much ego, so many wasted lives, end achievement NOTHING!

my go to army is 1806 Prussians, and I have won or come close to winning battles. The problem is not that they can't hold their own against the French, it's their archaic command and control. Which has to be shown, lack of coordination between Divisions, no cavalry reserve or artillery reserve, their light infantry sent to hold their flanks. The were a linear Army like the British. Their brigade battalion guns were formed together to form another battery. Read up more on their battles of 1806 & 1807. I use General de Brigade rules, read up the refight of Auerstadt using GdB in Wargames Illustrated #158. It was a near won thing, the same as what actually happened in 1806.They did hold their own against Davout at Eylau in 1807.

The British at Walcheren in 1809, the most incompetent operation of the Napoleonic Wars and the greatest waste of resources.

Code Napoleon, canned food, the end of the Holy roman empire, were just some of the long lasting achievments of Napoleon. Just not what he intended. ;)

The British Army of 1793 – 1795, great looking uniforms, but what a disastrous campaign for them.

Otherwise yes Spanish of 1808 and Prussians of 1806 are close as well.

@GeorgBuchner

Who told you that the Prussians were all round loosers, they held their ground in 1792 – 1795, captured two eagles in 1807 (showed what they could do when properly lead), and then 3 victorious campaigns in a row, 1813 – 1815, and battle wins as like Großbeeren, Dennewitz, Katzbach, Wartenburg to name a few, not to forget their vital part at Belle Alliance 1815.

For me the Austrians – the Timex Watch of the Napoleonic Wars – took a lickin', keep on ticking – beaten over and over but always came back for more – and in 1815 the two most iconic figures in Paris were Cossack horsemen and Hungarian grenadiers

Ottoman Turks.

An honourable mention for the Most Serene Republic of Venice.

Spain. A massive number of different uniforms to paint combined with troops that may run when the first shot is fired. By either side.

Having a whole army of 1813 Prussians don't think them, though 1806 definitely. Spain would be my pick.

and in 1815 the two most iconic figures in Paris were Cossack horsemen and Hungarian grenadiers

totally agree for the first seen as a very unusual exotic presence
but not sure about the second, for Paris I think it would be rather the British hereditary enemies usually presented as aristocratic effeminate people, as being only occupiers in northwestern France with Dutch-Belgian
contrary to the small british contingent gathering only less than c.10% of the strenght among 1 200 000 soldiers invaders occupiers, the Austrian Army was the first main coalised force occupying the largest part of the French territory, Paris not being in the Austrian sector, the Austrian was the iconic occupier in all the main rest of France than Paris, despite often confused with "cossacks" this last one becoming a general term for all foreign invaders occupiers soldiers because for the French people of that time Hungarians Hussars and Croatians Grenzers look like such exotic cossacks coming from East they had heard, and given their army rabble soldiery behaviour, Internet wikipedia and TV nor TMP didn't exist yet to explain such military and national distinctions

Lilian: They may have been only 10% of the occupiers, but had done at least 40% of the hard fighting and had bank rolled the other 90%!

Aristocratic and effeminate, possibly, in the eyes of the others, but they sure gave Boney and his marshals a good licking!

The Austrians may have occupied the largest part of France, but in 1815 had been given a beating by two old soldiers and half a dozen teenagers. 'Iconic'? Iconic losers perhaps. In Paris in 1815 because others had beaten the French.

40% of the hard fighting…it is the inflation coming from the War in Ukraine reaching Western Europe and TMP…
the minor british military commitment in Europe doesn't justify a such disproportionate % in comparison to the massive military mobilisation suffered in Austria throughout the Coalition Wars against France between 1792 and 1815 to not mention Russia and Prussia
if there were 'iconic losers' such term would be more justified to the british totally unables to fight France whithout majors powers and coalitions and repeating their most known usual strategy landing troops to rembark them soon as possible fleeing the continental battlefield and leaving their beaten allies, claiming that these last ones didn't worth definitively nothing in comparison to their so-called greater contribution as the most greatest adversaries of all the times winning all the wars

Yikes…not so sure about the British there Lilian, hard not to give them big time credit for spending all that money and the Peninsula campaign, which was a major drag on French resources.

And the British did win the publishing wars later on and created a mighty industry writing over and over about themselves and Waterloo, with Leipzig apparently but a scratch for Napoleon and almost never mentioned.

Surely the Prussians of 1815 were not losers either. And their uniforms seem pretty sensible compared to British "shoot me, I'm over here" red. The Austrians no doubt spent a fortune in time and money on pipe clay and laundry with those white uniforms, making them the slowest army in Europe fighting in the pre-Tide/Persil era. They arrived two months too late for Waterloo, but they fought Napoleon in every period. And even with him once, sort of, in 1812.

Well Delort, I would have to give the Austrians a lot more credit for hard fighting by the numbers than you do. I believe Napoleon thought that Wagram was one of the toughest and closest battles he ever fought, this after losing at Aspern-Essling. And Archduke Charles was no slouch. This was a far larger fight than Waterloo.
What about the sheer scope and scale of the European battles through most of the period compared to Britain's battles in Spain or Waterloo? These were huge affairs involving hundreds of thousands of troops. Over half a million soldiers at Leipzig. But no British. Before Russia, Napoleon and his great commanders were still near the peak of their powers in many cases, and his armies mostly composed of seasoned veterans.

But Napoleon could not have been defeated without British funds. And the Peninsula was a vital campaign that weakened France.

And maybe most of all, the Royal Navy and Nelson, won spectacular victories and control of the seas for the Allies throughout.

Add up how much of the 12 years between 1803 and 1815 the various "opponents" of Bonaparte were actually in the field and it is frankly embarrassing.

Austria: September – December 1805; April to July 1809; October 1813 to April 1814. A feeble 12 months, or 8% of the time. And in 1812 they actually fought with the Corsican against the Russians for six months. I'm going to deduct that, plus the capitulards handed over a 15-year-old Hapsburg duchess to be the Corsican sex criminal's paramour, which attracts a 2% penalty (what were they thinking?) This gives a net 2% of the time opposed to the Italian parvenu. Oh, and contribution to the naval war against Bonaparte: nil.

Prussia: September 1806 to July 1807; December 1812 to April 1814; April 1815 to June 1815. A spectacular 31 months out of 144, but we subtract 6 months for the embarrassing campaign of 1812 on the wrong side and we get a feeble net 25 months or just 17% of the time opposed to the Italian parvenu. Oh, and contribution to the naval war against Bonaparte: nil.

Russia: September 1805 to July 1807; July 1812 to April 1814. Yep, that was it – 43 months out of 144. Russia didn't actually assault any of her former allies while she was allied to France so no penalty there hence 30% engagement. Once again though, contribution to the naval war against Bonaparte: nil.

Spain: well, this is tricky. Fought actively on the wrong side till 1808, but not so's you'd notice, then on the right side till 1814. So Spain scores 50%, minus whatever penalty is appropriate for being pro-Corsican-arriviste until then. Contribution to the naval war against Bonaparte: worse than nil, negative, as they fought with the French against the forces of light at Trafalgar (and got roundly pwned for their pains. 4-decker 130-gun Santissima Trinidad my bottom! Who ended up with her in the end?) Say -10% for the two mis-steps.

Portugal: neutral till invaded in 1807 then fought till 1814 on the right side. Score 58% and no embarrassing naval misjudgements.

Britain: what can you say? Engaged on land somewhere against France or her stooges almost continuously including Italy, Egypt, south America, Mauritius, both sets of Indies, Denmark, the Netherlands, Leipzig and let's not forget the 80-month Spanish campaign. 100% score, plus another 100% for being the only nation to take the fight to the usurper at sea, plus another 100% for funding, arming and uniforming the various mainland European melts, blowhards, shirkers and surrender monkeys to actually fight for their dignity, sovereignty and self-respect.

So to recap, effort scores from the bottom to the top:

Austria – 2%
Prussia – 17%
Russia – 30%
Spain – 40%
Portugal – 58%
Britain – 300%

So there you go. Britain's contribution was 5 times that of the second-biggest contributor to the ogre's demise, and the second-biggest didn't even speak German, except to tourists.

You've been a wonderful audience, I'm here all week unlike the Austrian army.

what should represent such fanciful % who seem coming from a north african or middle eastern bazaar marketplace given the touristic presence of the British Army sending few thousands of redcoats on continental coastal raids between 1792 and 1814 in comparison with a country like Austria who had to gather a mass levy of half-million of men facing France

that is from the link posted sometimes ago destined to impress us about the so-called greater british contribution in the Coalitions Wars agaisnt France

Toulon 1793 only 2,000 British
Flanders, 1793–1795 : ~15 000
after that we didn't see the colors of the redcoats before the Anglo-Russian Helder Expedition 1799 with a similar number

while Austria had 'only' 300 000 to half-million of men against France, Britain was never able to send more than 3 to 5% of this Austrian strenght

then came the Napoleonic period

Hanover 1805 15,000 men
Naples 1805 7,000 then military occupation of Sicily
Walcheren 1809 ~40 000
Peninsular War the Mother of All Battles Napoleon's so called prostate ulcer hemorrhoids appendicitis Vietnam Afghanistan Ukraine Tartarus Hades's Kingdom Hell of the Hells and others Circles of Inferno
1808 30 000 then 8500
1809 8500 to 29 000
1810 at the very best 32 000
1811 ~35 000
1812 ~38 000
1813 until 48 000

…waou…very impressive indeed, in those years again for only 1809 Austria had to mobilise until 630 000
again Britain was unable to oppose to France at the very best more than ~7,5% of such strenght!

so not a surprise that among the four powers in 1815 despite the english memorial hold-up Austria was the largest contingent occupying France and the largest part of the French territory under its occupation something like a symbolic recognition of the major military role played by Austria throughout these 23 years of Coalition Wars against France in comparison with those minor peripheric british contributions

Francis II receives from the English the blood money of his subjects
"Let me have dinner and go fight for me against these rabid Frenchmen"
(not being able to increase our population let us decrease that of the continent)

Tortorella: I understood Lilian was speaking of 1815, hence my 40% based solely on that campaign. Perhaps I misunderstood the point. Quite happy to give the Austrians credit for getting beaten and then going back for another dose, and another, etc. They certainly didn't cover themselves in glory in 1815.

4th Cuirassier: tick, VG!

They certainly didn't cover themselves in glory in 1815.

To be fair, they didn't do too badly, either. The war against Murat was smartly done, and the tricky Jura campaign was handled as well as it could have been.

A few tweaks to 4th C.'s work:

Austria: Declared war on France August 1813, not October – add a couple of months.

Prussia: Yorck neutralised his Corps in December 1812, but Prussia didn't actually declare war until March 1813 – deduct 3 months.

Russia: Actually attacked Austria in 1809 as a French Ally, so penalise a couple of months. Then there's the 5-year platonic 'war' with Britain, which is tricky as it leaves Russia longer at war with Britain than with Bonaparte.

During the time of the 'Truce of Plaswitz', Wellington took Pamplona, stormed San Sebastian and trounced Soult in the Battle of the Pyrenees. Seems a little unfair to Britain, Portugal and Spain to allow Prussia and Russia to claim the Truce time as fighting time. Deduct two months from each.

Interesting math 4th Cuirassier. Can I play?

Britain was at war with France/Napoleon for roughly 136 months, so 136 is 100%. During the period from October 1805 until August 1814 Sweden was at war with Napoleon or his allies for 68 months, or 50%. However during this time Sweden was also at war with Russia from February 1808 to September 1809, so add 14.7%. Sweden was allied with Russia from the time Napoleon invaded in June 1812 until Sweden declared war in 1813. As a passive ally they get 50% credit for this time, or an additional 3%, giving Sweden a grand total of 64.7%. That puts Sweden in the number 2 spot.

Unless we consider Ferdinand of Sicily. The British and Russians landed in Naples in November 1805. I don't believe Ferdinand ever recognized Murat as king of Naples, meaning a state of war continued to exist between Sicily and a Napoleonic ally until Naples was defeated in 1815, giving Ferdinand a whopping 83%.

More : United States until 12 millions of soldiers major power against Germany and Japan in the 20th century, or Soviet Russia, British Empire??
what a joke
actually they should be replaced by Costa Rica Montenegro and Andorra
Montenegro was at war 102 years against Japan
Andorra 44 years against Germany and Costa Rica 27 years

Aha! 4th C, I don't think I have ever heard of this kind thinking to assess the great battles of the era. You are saying it was the passage of time and some serious money for surrender monkeys rather than the big battles that really mattered. I probably don't understand. However…

I am going to award Austria an additional 100% for 1809, where every week that spring felt like a year to them, and Wagram was an especially long day equal to at least a year in Spain for everybody involved. Plus the white uniforms later took months of washing to get those stains out.

Meanwhile, I am deducting 100% from Britain for provoking a needless 3 year war against America, being repeatedly beaten at sea in frigate battles, then losing a battle after the war was over. Anything for a few extra weeks apparently. No credit for burning the White House, as this foolishly took only a few hours and no monkeys.

So Britain wins on penalty kicks, a near run thing.

The French. No matter how many battles they won they simply lost in the end.

@ Tortorella

Re the USA, if you're going to deduct points for frigate defeats, you have to add them back for victories, notably including capture of the fleet flagship. Also, USS President should count as two, as she struck, changed her mind, sailed off and was captured again anyway.

My point, kidding aside, is that any fool can put x,000 men in the field for a whole 4 months. But put x,000 men in the field for 136 continuous months (thanks Bill) while you are the only army actually fighting the enemy anywhere (1807-1809, 1809 – 1812), and win the war at sea single-handed, and fund everyone else's army to some extent, and then compare that to other countries' efforts. Suddenly Austria's record between 1805 and 1813 doesn't look so great.

Tortorella

Do please go back and recheck your history, Re The War of 1812. The only kicks was the US being kicked out of Canada and her Ships being battered to a hulk when the better British frigates appeared and the US Navy being kicked back in to their ports, never to venture out until the fighting war was over.

The taking of sailors were British deserters. And the boarding of US ships had ended months before the US invaded Canada anyway!

Lilian

Britain fought the French on land and sea from 1793 to the end of the Nappy era. Britain also had about 250,000 troops at sea and on land and fought on mainland Europe for six years, kicking **** out of the Frogs in all the major engagements. And if it wasn't for the British domination of the Sea, Nappy would have died of cancer of the guts, on the throne undefeated. Britain's strategy and policy destroyed the 'Littleforwardcombingfat****er' whether you like it or not!

Re the War of 1812 the interesting thing is that under maritime law of the day belligerents were allowed to search neutrals for contraband and enemies. If they found deserters in so doing they were fair game too. The issue was that nobody at that time recognised the idea that you could change your nationality. The USA unilaterally claimed that people had become US citizens but nobody else agreed, so a deserter on an American ship was still just a British, French or Danish subject who'd deserted.

It's interesting that after WW2 Iva D'Aquino, better known as Tokyo Rose, was convicted of treason even though she wasn't American by ancestry and had never, for example, travelled on US documents. She just happened to be born in America and left without a passport. She found herself in Japan when war broke out, couldn't return, figured she was Japanese anyway and later married a Portuguese, thereby becoming Portuguese after the fact.

The USA didn't agree that any of this made her non-American. If she was still American, then by the same thought process, the British deserters to whose removal the US objected in 1812 were certainly still British.

Ha! I admit to stretching a point or three in a vain effort to stop the British from taking all the credit and then making us read all those Waterloo books.

But I take exception to the "any fool" remark, which Charles clearly was not. He built the 1809 army and was an above average leader. He was saddled with wooden headed subordinates and his strategic sense of geography was flawed in some ways, but he could fight and he gave the French a serious challenge.

Most would count Aspern-Essling as Nappy's first major battlefield defeat and Wagram was not the usual resounding victory. Charles withdrew in good order, argued with his brother about making peace in order to keep his army and the monarchy intact, fought another battle at Znaim, made terms to save the army, he believed, then resigned, never to be heard from again.

But Napoleon had lost a lot of men, many veterans, in a bloody, costly campaign. Lannes was gone, arguably his finest commander, perhaps even a friend in some ways. Things were not going to be the same.

That said, the Austrians lost a lot battles from 1796 on. They were surely the slowest moving army in Europe. Leadership other than Charles ranged from barely competent to terrible. But they fought.

dibble
I think you wasted your money on that "Tact and Diplomacy" course.

I wonder if part of the reason the British – and to some extent the French – army was so tactically effective was exactly that both were more or less continuously at war. In the British case, the army also stayed a fairly constant size and never got wiped out and wholesale reconstituted, nor massively, rapidly expanded. The quality, experience and availability of junior leaders was therefore high.

You can't really say this for anyone else. Apart from four months in 1809, Austria didn't fight France for 13 years between 1800 and 1813. Prussia in 1813 likewise had fought France in small numbers for just 8 or 9 months in the last 19 years. These armies would have been seriously short of officers who'd recently heard a shot fired in anger, especially when you consider that those who had were a fixed number in rapidly-expanding armies.

Of course, both had assisted Bonaparte with his attack on Russia, which I suppose does convey some campaign experience. But it was experience gained fighting the Russians, not the French – and it was they who you had to be good at fighting. When it came to dethroning the Corsican parvenu usurper, fighting the Russians only gets you so far.

Yikes… Austerlitz? Marengo, a last minute win for Nappy, gave him his career, nearest run thing you ever saw.

Charles at Caldiero. in 1805? Perhaps a draw, but nicely done.

1805 was the year it became apparent that Austrian troops, stopping to do laundry constantly, were the slowest marchers in Europe. However, Mack inexplicably jumped the gun ahead of his Russian allies. Napoleon defeated the hapless Austrians in a series of sharp engagements culminating at Ulm. This campaign, a basis for the Schlieffen Plan of envelopment, is still taught in military academies today.
Of course I could have some of this wrong.
The masterpiece at Austerlitz we all know. Perhaps it is known in parts of Britain as the Battle of Not Waterloo!!

The Russian assist was about as half hearted as it gets.

"To some extent the French". Hmmm……

Sorry but Austria did fight in 1805 & Luneville wasn't signed until February 1801.
Chandler's On the Napoleonic Wars has a nice schematic on page 43 showing how long countries participated against France in the Revolutionary & Napoleonic wars.
He concludes- Sweden 3.5 years, Spain 3.5 years, Russia 5.5 years, Prussia 5.5 years, Gb 21.5 years and Austria 13.5 years!

Spain 3.5 years in the Revolutionary War…before they changed sides. Seems a little odd not to credit them with an additional 6 years for the Peninsular War, though – after all, they were the main Host Nation.

Fair comment about 1805 – Austria was busy in Italy albeit their effort in Germany was largely about getting rounded up at Ulm.

though I respect Chandler, Russia – 1799 – also 1805 – 1807 and then 1812 to 1815 – 8 years

Have relooked at the schematic – clearly a printing (editorial error) – Spain should read 8 1/2 years!

Russia was a major player in Napoleon's defeat. It does not get the credit it deserves. Russia Against Napoleon by Dominic Lieven provides a perspective we do not often get on the quality of Russian's military then.

ConnaughtRanger

dibble
I think you wasted your money on that "Tact and Diplomacy" course.

I don't do courses. But it seems, some do. Especially in the world of Historical, odorous, bovine waste-matter.

The problem with these kind of threads is that they are looking at the Napoleonic Wars via skewed or insufficient data.

While it seems fair to say that the French Army generally fought competently throughout the period and the British fought well in the Peninsular, outside that theatre its combat record was pretty poor. The perception of these two armies' success is also derived from the fact that most people's information is coming from British and French sources.

People wax lyrical about Napoleon's campaign in Italy and rightly so but they also forget Charles' campaign in the same year which drove the main French Army from Bavaria to the Rhine.

How many books have been written including the defeat of the Middle Guard at Waterloo compared to books that mention the defeat of the Middle Guard by the Spanish at Sepúlveda in 1808?

Mack's surrender at Ulm is well known but how well-known is it that more French soldiers surrendered to the Austrians at Dresden in November 1813?

Comparisons on limited data are going to be limited. Fortunately in 2023 it's much easier to reach and translate the information available in other nation's archives.

There was no Middle Guard at Waterloo.

You know precisely which battalions I'm referring to so that's a technicality.

People wax lyrical about Napoleon's campaign in Italy and rightly so but they also forget Charles' campaign in the same year which drove the main French Army from Bavaria to the Rhine.

Spot on, in 1796 in Germany, the Austrians fought back two different French Armies, that of Jourdan and of Moreau – both about 80,000 high quality French troops. In case I remember correctly it was under the leadership of Karl, Boney's campaign in Italy pales to his achievment.

Well, it's not. It goes to the whole point. If we are going to argue that it wasn't the Old Guard but the non-existent Middle Guard that was defeated, we can also decide that the Middle Guard was defeated not by the Foot Guards but by a kindergarten class of three-year-olds. It's the identical liberty with the facts.

It doesn't really go to the whole point anymore than you forgetting Austerlitz, 4th C. And it's all good anyway. You have plenty of expertise as do others.

My dream is for a professional, rational historian to write a good narrative account of Leipzig. I have enjoyed some Waterloo books, my favorites are Barbero's (he's not British) The Battle, and Simm's The Longest Afternoon. I still have almost no idea of how the French or the Germans look at this battle today.

There were about 800, 000 Austrians, Russians, Bavarians, etc. ready to deal with Napoleon if Blucher and Wellington had lost or drawn the Waterloo battles.

Russia was the beginning of the end for Napoleon and Leipzig was a tremendous event, the largest battle in Europe until WW1,. Where are the books about this incredible clash?

Napoleon had no real overall chance in 1815. Overwhelmingly outnumbered, so many veterans and commanders no longer there, a nation that was exhausted. Waterloo was the one last gasp, a dramatic and bloody battle, well fought by Wellington and Blucher. But no more important than Leipzig,IMO.