I knew little of Napoleon's battle skills before reading this article. Thoroughly enjoyed the dissection of military tactics and now have a lot more respect for the French Leader.
"This elucidates a fairly straightforward principle of warfare: make your plans before you assume an aggressive posture and march your main field army out into the open country"
Was thinking the same. I think the west hadn’t thought everything through. But they had the simple assumption that Russia could be defeated by the discrimate method (aiming at civilians) of sanctions. Hubris all over.
Amazing analysis, I knew intimately well the history of Bonaparte, but never have I read this detailed an account of his strategic genius, greatly appreciated
I have read biographies of Napoleon (including at least one outstanding one) with descriptions of battle, yet this is the first account which has made clear to me just how Napoleon's battle thinking worked. Excellent work, thank you. Your early point that it is very difficult to compare earlier and later commanders is very well made, too. Great work.
For all of Napoleon's genius at set piece battles, however, it is not stressed enough that he failed to realize that even winning every battle could result in ultimately losing the wars. Even a modicum of analysis would have shown him that the combined populations of the rest of Europe, plus Russia, plus Britain was greater than the ratio of casualties in Napoleon's favor in said set piece battles.
It doesn't matter if you inflict 1.5 or 2 to 1 casualties if your opponent outnumbers you 5 to 1.
Very interesting look at Napoleon's generalship and the French Army in general, although it is even more interesting that the picture chosen for the formation 'square' is that of the British squares at Waterloo. It's perhaps noteworthy in that context that D'Erlon did not manage to form his columns into squares when the British cavalry attacked to devastating effect. Someone who did have some experience fighting the French and beat them again and again said after that Battle at Waterloo that: “They came on in the same old way (in columns) and we defeated them in the same old way" (with the line).
I can understand that Napoleon still throws a long shadow over European military thinking, given the decades of warfare he inflicted on the continent, that thus his military genius is taken as indisputable.
However, a study of the Peninsular war might be of interest, given that the leader of said war ultimately beat Napoleon, the Prussian help under Bluecher notwithstanding.
Wellington was a coward who immediately left Paris after escape of Napoleon the Great from island. Wellington was waiting for Prussian help which arrived late so he escaped on hearing news of Napoleon escaping from alba.
English pirate race has never produced any fighter or warrior worth naming. Pirates yes - warrior no.
Well, the Peninsular war would not imho be the best example to support defeating Napoleon; he made but a short appearance before dashing off in 1809 to fight the Austrians.
The Peninsular war French armies were commanded by his Marshals. Wellington can lay claim to thrashing that bunch well enough.
Waterloo saw a Napoleon and his gift for combat already dimming. Soult was his chief of staff, while Davout (the greatest Napoleonic Marshal after Napoleon) stayed in Paris because there was no one else Napoleon trusted to keep his back safe (remember, it was the Marshals who encouraged Napoleon to abdicate. Davout was holding off allied armies in Northern Germany att).
Still, this invites a counterfactual; what if Grouchy, instead of following the Prussian retreat, had either (A) more forcefully pressed/attacked the Prussians before and at Wavre; or (B) taken instead the series of secondary/tertiary roads (along the Cour St Etienne-Seroulx-St. Lambert line), and how could that have impacted the final battle?
The former choice presents the chance that maybe such an attack could have dissuaded Blucher from marching to support his ally, or at least catching some of these reinforcements along their left flank as they marched to the sound of the guns. Had Grouchy more forcefully pursued the Prussians, He could have had his corps in position to do this. Now, whether such a development would have been enough to prevent Blucher from reinforcing Wellington is debatable, especially when one considers his indomitable nature.
The latter possibility, for Grouchy to have pursued not along a direct (Cour St. Etienne-Wavre) line (thus allowing Blucher to both defend at Wavre while "sliding to his right" to march towards Mont St. Jean), but instead would have placed Grouchy in a semi-parallel pursuit that would have blocked any Prussian movement towards Wellington. Blucher would have had to go through Grouchy before getting to Wellington. More critically, Grouchy would have been closer to Mont St Jean, and could then have reached the Anglo-Allied left flank with force. This would have been a battle development much more suited to Grouchy's capabilities as a Cavalry commander. He would have instinctively known that decisive attack against that flank would have very likely lead to the defeat, perhaps the destruction of Wellington and the Anglo-Allied contingent.
Thank you. Thoroughly enjoyed the article. The only thing I knew about Napoleon: short.
It’s said that we never been taught this part of napoleon, we focused on Waterloo and ofc he was the only bad guy in the room.
But when reading I get the strong sense the more I know, the less I actually know. Kind of frustrating ☹️, also because I don’t have a photographic memory
Napoleon needed to chill out after 1807. The British couldn't keep blockading him for 30 years. The Continental system was a mess. Nearly all the boots Napoleon marched into Russia with in 1812 were smuggled in past the continental system.
P.S. I highly recommend the podcast "Age of Napoleon" if you want to learn more.
This YouTube channel also has some good Napoleon content.
"it is a testament to his [Napoleon's] reasonableness that his enemies left most of his reforms in place after his defeat"
This lies at the root of Russia's tragic history of the last two centuries: by not having been conquered, and reformed, by Napoleon, Russia continued to be ruled by ever more authoritarian and inept dictators and failed to develop civil institutions that allowed its citizens to flourish.
Extraordinary article, as one can always expect from Big Serge Thought.
Not annihilating English pirate turned shopkeepers race in 1895 and instead pursuing the Austrians costed world two centuries of exploitation and despondency.
england is harbouring an ambition of proxy empire(with american help_If it could do on its own then it owuld not have cared for america). tHAT ABITION OF enGLAND MUST BE CRUSHED.
eUROPE SHOULD DEMAND NOT ONLY MONEY BACK ABUT IF POSSIBLE SHOULD KICK ENGLAND OUT OF E.U.
eNGLAND IS ENNEMY OF NOT ONLY EUROPE BUT ALOS THE ALL OF THIRLD WORLD AND EVEN AMEIRCA. LOOK HOW RUBBISH ENGLISH PLUMBERS AND FOOTBALERSLAND UP SUSHY JOB IN HOLLYWOOD WHILE THE REST OF WORLD HAS TO GET VISA TO ENTER AMERICA AND WHILE MOST OF AMERICANS(WHO ARE NOT DESCENENDETS OF ANGLOSAXONS) HAVE TO FACE DISCRIMINATION.).
tHE SOONER THE WORLD REALIZE THIS AXIS OF EVIL(ENGLAND AND ANGLOSAXONS RACE) THAT SOONER IT CAN THWART THE EVIL DESIGN OF THIS ENGLISH-PIRATE TURNED SHOPKEEPRES TURNES PLUMBERS RACE).
Not annihilating English pirate turned shopkeepers race in 1895 and instead pursuing the Austrians costed world two centuries of exploitation and despondency.
england is harbouring an ambition of proxy empire(with american help_If it could do on its own then it owuld not have cared for america). tHAT ABITION OF enGLAND MUST BE CRUSHED.
eUROPE SHOULD DEMAND NOT ONLY MONEY BACK ABUT IF POSSIBLE SHOULD KICK ENGLAND OUT OF E.U.
eNGLAND IS ENNEMY OF NOT ONLY EUROPE BUT ALOS THE ALL OF THIRLD WORLD AND EVEN AMEIRCA. LOOK HOW RUBBISH ENGLISH PLUMBERS AND FOOTBALERSLAND UP SUSHY JOB IN HOLLYWOOD WHILE THE REST OF WORLD HAS TO GET VISA TO ENTER AMERICA AND WHILE MOST OF AMERICANS(WHO ARE NOT DESCENENDETS OF ANGLOSAXONS) HAVE TO FACE DISCRIMINATION.).
tHE SOONER THE WORLD REALIZE THIS AXIS OF EVIL(ENGLAND AND ANGLOSAXONS RACE) THAT SOONER IT CAN THWART THE EVIL DESIGN OF THIS ENGLISH-PIRATE TURNED SHOPKEEPRES TURNES PLUMBERS RACE).
I knew little of Napoleon's battle skills before reading this article. Thoroughly enjoyed the dissection of military tactics and now have a lot more respect for the French Leader.
"This elucidates a fairly straightforward principle of warfare: make your plans before you assume an aggressive posture and march your main field army out into the open country"
Is this a comment on the SMO?
Was thinking the same. I think the west hadn’t thought everything through. But they had the simple assumption that Russia could be defeated by the discrimate method (aiming at civilians) of sanctions. Hubris all over.
Should be
Being a general in the US military has become mainly an apprenticeship program for defense industry lobbyists.
thank you for this - it made me finally understand how napoleon worked. nice reading.
Amazing analysis, I knew intimately well the history of Bonaparte, but never have I read this detailed an account of his strategic genius, greatly appreciated
I have read biographies of Napoleon (including at least one outstanding one) with descriptions of battle, yet this is the first account which has made clear to me just how Napoleon's battle thinking worked. Excellent work, thank you. Your early point that it is very difficult to compare earlier and later commanders is very well made, too. Great work.
Thank you for an excellent writeup.
For all of Napoleon's genius at set piece battles, however, it is not stressed enough that he failed to realize that even winning every battle could result in ultimately losing the wars. Even a modicum of analysis would have shown him that the combined populations of the rest of Europe, plus Russia, plus Britain was greater than the ratio of casualties in Napoleon's favor in said set piece battles.
It doesn't matter if you inflict 1.5 or 2 to 1 casualties if your opponent outnumbers you 5 to 1.
Scintillating analysis.
An engaging read.
Thanks for the writeup.
Rokosovsky actually did commando scout stuff during ww1, and participated in cavalry charges in the Russian civil war.
Very interesting look at Napoleon's generalship and the French Army in general, although it is even more interesting that the picture chosen for the formation 'square' is that of the British squares at Waterloo. It's perhaps noteworthy in that context that D'Erlon did not manage to form his columns into squares when the British cavalry attacked to devastating effect. Someone who did have some experience fighting the French and beat them again and again said after that Battle at Waterloo that: “They came on in the same old way (in columns) and we defeated them in the same old way" (with the line).
I can understand that Napoleon still throws a long shadow over European military thinking, given the decades of warfare he inflicted on the continent, that thus his military genius is taken as indisputable.
However, a study of the Peninsular war might be of interest, given that the leader of said war ultimately beat Napoleon, the Prussian help under Bluecher notwithstanding.
Wellington was a coward who immediately left Paris after escape of Napoleon the Great from island. Wellington was waiting for Prussian help which arrived late so he escaped on hearing news of Napoleon escaping from alba.
English pirate race has never produced any fighter or warrior worth naming. Pirates yes - warrior no.
Well, the Peninsular war would not imho be the best example to support defeating Napoleon; he made but a short appearance before dashing off in 1809 to fight the Austrians.
The Peninsular war French armies were commanded by his Marshals. Wellington can lay claim to thrashing that bunch well enough.
Waterloo saw a Napoleon and his gift for combat already dimming. Soult was his chief of staff, while Davout (the greatest Napoleonic Marshal after Napoleon) stayed in Paris because there was no one else Napoleon trusted to keep his back safe (remember, it was the Marshals who encouraged Napoleon to abdicate. Davout was holding off allied armies in Northern Germany att).
Still, this invites a counterfactual; what if Grouchy, instead of following the Prussian retreat, had either (A) more forcefully pressed/attacked the Prussians before and at Wavre; or (B) taken instead the series of secondary/tertiary roads (along the Cour St Etienne-Seroulx-St. Lambert line), and how could that have impacted the final battle?
The former choice presents the chance that maybe such an attack could have dissuaded Blucher from marching to support his ally, or at least catching some of these reinforcements along their left flank as they marched to the sound of the guns. Had Grouchy more forcefully pursued the Prussians, He could have had his corps in position to do this. Now, whether such a development would have been enough to prevent Blucher from reinforcing Wellington is debatable, especially when one considers his indomitable nature.
The latter possibility, for Grouchy to have pursued not along a direct (Cour St. Etienne-Wavre) line (thus allowing Blucher to both defend at Wavre while "sliding to his right" to march towards Mont St. Jean), but instead would have placed Grouchy in a semi-parallel pursuit that would have blocked any Prussian movement towards Wellington. Blucher would have had to go through Grouchy before getting to Wellington. More critically, Grouchy would have been closer to Mont St Jean, and could then have reached the Anglo-Allied left flank with force. This would have been a battle development much more suited to Grouchy's capabilities as a Cavalry commander. He would have instinctively known that decisive attack against that flank would have very likely lead to the defeat, perhaps the destruction of Wellington and the Anglo-Allied contingent.
CGVet58
I, too, ask out dear guest a new article on British defeat of him.
Excellent point you raise - I am planning to discuss the Peninsular War later on when we talk about irregular and guerilla warfare.
Thank you. Thoroughly enjoyed the article. The only thing I knew about Napoleon: short.
It’s said that we never been taught this part of napoleon, we focused on Waterloo and ofc he was the only bad guy in the room.
But when reading I get the strong sense the more I know, the less I actually know. Kind of frustrating ☹️, also because I don’t have a photographic memory
Napoleon needed to chill out after 1807. The British couldn't keep blockading him for 30 years. The Continental system was a mess. Nearly all the boots Napoleon marched into Russia with in 1812 were smuggled in past the continental system.
P.S. I highly recommend the podcast "Age of Napoleon" if you want to learn more.
This YouTube channel also has some good Napoleon content.
https://www.youtube.com/@OldBritannia/videos
"it is a testament to his [Napoleon's] reasonableness that his enemies left most of his reforms in place after his defeat"
This lies at the root of Russia's tragic history of the last two centuries: by not having been conquered, and reformed, by Napoleon, Russia continued to be ruled by ever more authoritarian and inept dictators and failed to develop civil institutions that allowed its citizens to flourish.
Extraordinary article, as one can always expect from Big Serge Thought.
Apparently Russia is doing exactly opposite to what any sensible General do. Probably Russia never learns
Not annihilating English pirate turned shopkeepers race in 1895 and instead pursuing the Austrians costed world two centuries of exploitation and despondency.
england is harbouring an ambition of proxy empire(with american help_If it could do on its own then it owuld not have cared for america). tHAT ABITION OF enGLAND MUST BE CRUSHED.
eUROPE SHOULD DEMAND NOT ONLY MONEY BACK ABUT IF POSSIBLE SHOULD KICK ENGLAND OUT OF E.U.
eNGLAND IS ENNEMY OF NOT ONLY EUROPE BUT ALOS THE ALL OF THIRLD WORLD AND EVEN AMEIRCA. LOOK HOW RUBBISH ENGLISH PLUMBERS AND FOOTBALERSLAND UP SUSHY JOB IN HOLLYWOOD WHILE THE REST OF WORLD HAS TO GET VISA TO ENTER AMERICA AND WHILE MOST OF AMERICANS(WHO ARE NOT DESCENENDETS OF ANGLOSAXONS) HAVE TO FACE DISCRIMINATION.).
tHE SOONER THE WORLD REALIZE THIS AXIS OF EVIL(ENGLAND AND ANGLOSAXONS RACE) THAT SOONER IT CAN THWART THE EVIL DESIGN OF THIS ENGLISH-PIRATE TURNED SHOPKEEPRES TURNES PLUMBERS RACE).
Not annihilating English pirate turned shopkeepers race in 1895 and instead pursuing the Austrians costed world two centuries of exploitation and despondency.
england is harbouring an ambition of proxy empire(with american help_If it could do on its own then it owuld not have cared for america). tHAT ABITION OF enGLAND MUST BE CRUSHED.
eUROPE SHOULD DEMAND NOT ONLY MONEY BACK ABUT IF POSSIBLE SHOULD KICK ENGLAND OUT OF E.U.
eNGLAND IS ENNEMY OF NOT ONLY EUROPE BUT ALOS THE ALL OF THIRLD WORLD AND EVEN AMEIRCA. LOOK HOW RUBBISH ENGLISH PLUMBERS AND FOOTBALERSLAND UP SUSHY JOB IN HOLLYWOOD WHILE THE REST OF WORLD HAS TO GET VISA TO ENTER AMERICA AND WHILE MOST OF AMERICANS(WHO ARE NOT DESCENENDETS OF ANGLOSAXONS) HAVE TO FACE DISCRIMINATION.).
tHE SOONER THE WORLD REALIZE THIS AXIS OF EVIL(ENGLAND AND ANGLOSAXONS RACE) THAT SOONER IT CAN THWART THE EVIL DESIGN OF THIS ENGLISH-PIRATE TURNED SHOPKEEPRES TURNES PLUMBERS RACE).