Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Napoleon's most important defeat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Napoleon's most important defeat

    Waterloo springs first to mind, but Leipzig in 1813 destroyed a much bigger French army and led to the liberation of Germany from French rule.

    Laon probably sealed Napoleon's fate in 1814.

    Aspern-Essling in 1809 dimmed the aura of Napoleon's invincibility.

    You could argue that Borodino in 1812 was a defeat, as Napoleon lost his last chance to defeat the Russian army-in-being. Or was Maloyaroslavyets more fatal?

    Or was Napoleon's worst defeat suffered on a battlefield where he was not even present? In that case, a number of Iberian battlefields might qualify, e.g. Bailen, or Fuentes de Onoro.

  • #2
    Yes, CR, to me Borodino represented the limit of Napoleon's expansion ... if nothing else, the enormous loss of horses in the 1812 campaign affected the French cavalry for the next three years.

    And Leipzig was the beginning of the end ... Nap couldn't win a campaign after that one ...

    Comment


    • #3
      Napoleon's most important defeat?

      Easy ..... the Battle of Austerlitz


      Never before, such crushing victory had sown the seed of future defeat so decisively as did Austerlitz

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by xerxes View Post
        Easy ..... the Battle of Austerlitz


        Never before, such crushing victory had sown the seed of future defeat so decisively as did Austerlitz
        Despite Frank Mclynn's views, there's a ten year gap between Austerlitz and Waterloo, Xerxes, studded with huge victories at Jena-Auerstedt, Friedland, Wagram and Dresden ...
        Last edited by clackers; 06 Oct 08,, 06:48.

        Comment


        • #5
          My view is that, if Napoleon's ultimate aim was Europe at his feet, it was not Waterloo or the invasion of Russia/Spain that took it away. Rather, it was the resolute determination of Austria, Russia and Prussia, to weather humilation after humiliation to fight another day.

          That resolute determination was born in Austrians, Russians and Prussians at Austerlitz and Jena.

          Napoleon was trying to change the very fundementals of that balance of power that has kept various European powers at check. It was only his military genuis, the strength of France as a nation and the incompetence of his rivals that allowed his empire to continue unchecked, in a form of Napoleonic empire for a decade or so. Therefore, IMO it was not Waterloo or invasion of Russia/Spain that shatter his precious dreams, but it was the dream itself that was too ambitious to materlize in that region of the world in that time.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'll argue Trafalgar. If Britain had been defeated at sea and forced to come to terms, I don't think Czar Alexander would have had the reason or means to break the continental system.

            Comment


            • #7
              Good point about Trafalgar, especially since it was Napoleon who pushed Villeneuve to risk the fleet. It was pretty silly of me not to list it in the OP.

              Off-topic: On the other hand, could the Spanish fleet have rightly been regarded by Napoleon as a wasting asset, since Spain was to say the least a unreliable ally?

              Comment


              • #8
                Spanish fleet was more like the French fleet based at Mer-el-Kabir during World War Two.

                In a way that it was an asset, perhapes not due to its immense size or its technological superiority, but because of the fact that its possession by foreign power (ex: UK) significantly changed the balance of power against the Italians/Germans (in World War Two) and Napoleon during the Napoleonic wars.

                The Brits managed to wipe out both of these questionable toxic assets. One at Trafalgar (while in French possession), the other at Mer-el-Kabir.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by xerxes View Post
                  Therefore, IMO it was not Waterloo or invasion of Russia/Spain that shatter his precious dreams, but it was the dream itself that was too ambitious to materlize in that region of the world in that time.
                  I think you're now saying it wasn't any particular battle, let alone Austerlitz.

                  Trying to paint one of the great all-time military achievements as a failure was always going to be hard, Xerxes.

                  Nor did it fit your contention about the consistent determination of the coalition that eventually defeated Napoleon.

                  Prussia wasn't at Austerlitz, and King William was in fact rewarded by Bonaparte with Austrian territory afterwards.

                  Neither was England ... and Austerlitz's outcome may have contributed to the death of its Francophobe Prime Minister, William Pitt.

                  Nor Sweden, Spain or Portugal.

                  As for Russia, Czar Paul had gotten along well with Napoleon, and Czar Alexander did at one stage too, as they discussed the possibility of attacking Britain together.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    I'll argue Trafalgar. If Britain had been defeated at sea and forced to come to terms, I don't think Czar Alexander would have had the reason or means to break the continental system.
                    Perhaps Napoleon's decision to pursue the Continental System was itself the disaster ... that required control of the European coast including [gulp!] Spain, Portugal and Russia ... these dictators always seem unable to be content with what they've got, Zraver!

                    Trafalgar occurred after the invasion of Britain had been abandoned, anyway. The invasion units - nearly a quarter of a million men - slipped away from the English Channel coast undetected and turned up to defeat Mack at Ulm and then Archduke Charles at Austerlitz.
                    Last edited by clackers; 08 Oct 08,, 05:38.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by xerxes View Post

                      The Brits managed to wipe out both of these questionable toxic assets. One at Trafalgar (while in French possession), the other at Mer-el-Kabir.
                      You can add in the Danish fleet at Copenhagen in 1801, Xerxes ... an act so preemptive it will have you wondering who the Good Guys really were... Nelson again, of course!
                      Last edited by clackers; 07 Oct 08,, 14:45.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Napoleon should have stopped after Wagram. European powers were coyed and the Czar could have been accomodated. But like all geniuses with an ego problem he didn't know when to stop.

                        His most important defeat IMHO is Leipzig, he lost all his allies in one battle and its the birth certificate of German nationalism.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by clackers View Post
                          I think you're now saying it wasn't any particular battle, let alone Austerlitz.

                          Trying to paint one of the great all-time military achievements as a failure was always going to be hard, Xerxes.

                          Nor did it fit your contention about the consistent determination of the coalition that eventually defeated Napoleon.

                          Prussia wasn't at Austerlitz, and King William was in fact rewarded by Bonaparte with Austrian territory afterwards.

                          Neither was England ... and Austerlitz's outcome may have contributed to the death of its Francophobe Prime Minister, William Pitt.

                          Nor Sweden, Spain or Portugal.

                          As for Russia, Czar Paul had gotten along well with Napoleon, and Czar Alexander did at one stage too, as they discussed the possibility of attacking Britain together.

                          My apologies good sir,

                          I did checked and realised some inconsistencies between my past two posts. I do have nasty habit of writing as I think ... and that <== did not sounded too well either.

                          My view was/is that whatever Napoleon's long term ambitions were, it was not going to work in the long run in that period of time and place, no matter how many armies he smashed and how many capitals he captured.

                          His greatest years (1804-06) and his crowning achievements at Auterlitz and Jena during that time, only achieved in uniting his adversaries in their hatred of him in the long run. IMHO. Ofcourse the British gold fueled the fire that raged against him. The only example that I can give are the return of the Austrian wars after the spectacular crushing French victory at Austerlitz against the Austrians. Later on after Wagram, Francis declared war against his own son-in-law!!!

                          Another example would be that of Bulow's deep hatred of Napoleon because of the humiliation that Napoleon bestowed upon his proud nation. These were not going to go away with Napoleon throwing some Austrian lands to Berlin, instead the Prussian rebuilt their warmachine in secret and waited.

                          I see it this way, had Napoleon succeded at deflecting various challenges thrown at him again and again, and had he died in peace, his successors would have presided over a collapsing empire being preyed by France's so-called allies (Francis, Alexander etc.). If Napoleon was the glue that held the empire together through his relentless energy and genuis, his death (through old age or otherwise) would have been the end of his empire.
                          That is why I have said in my previous post that:

                          "It was only his military genuis, the strength of France as a nation and the incompetence of his rivals that allowed his empire to continue unchecked, in a form of Napoleonic empire for a decade or so."

                          That is why I do NOT think, in my very humble civilian opinion, that any particular single battle (or a particular mistake made by him) was the cause of his fall. He was just at a wrong time in history with the wrong platform and wrong vision.

                          While, his platform (revolutionary France) did give him vast support through mass conscription, (to be followed by non-French Imperial troops), it was just not going to be enough to carry his wild dreams and defend his throne against all those whom he pissed off, humiliated and betrayed.

                          The European balance of power severely punishes those who try to upset it, and like a elastic it bounces back real hard against those who stretch it too much.

                          Hope this post helps a bit more,
                          If it still confusing, just ignore me :))
                          Last edited by xerxes; 08 Oct 08,, 02:17.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by xerxes View Post
                            Spanish fleet was more like the French fleet based at Mer-el-Kabir during World War Two.

                            In a way that it was an asset, perhapes not due to its immense size or its technological superiority, but because of the fact that its possession by foreign power (ex: UK) significantly changed the balance of power against the Italians/Germans (in World War Two) and Napoleon during the Napoleonic wars.

                            The Brits managed to wipe out both of these questionable toxic assets. One at Trafalgar (while in French possession), the other at Mer-el-Kabir.

                            My question about Spain's fleet being a "wasting asset" concerned whether Napoleon could have justly regarded it as a throw-away. Whatever the Spanish fleet could achieve on his behalf was all to his gain, and if it got destroyed, as it did, it wasn't much loss to him.

                            With Spain being an unreliable ally, having the Spanish navy as a long-term "fleet-in-being" may have seemed from Napoleon's perspective to be a less attractive strategy than gambling on a sortie.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by cape_royds View Post
                              Waterloo springs first to mind, but Leipzig in 1813 destroyed a much bigger French army and led to the liberation of Germany from French rule.

                              Laon probably sealed Napoleon's fate in 1814.

                              Aspern-Essling in 1809 dimmed the aura of Napoleon's invincibility.

                              You could argue that Borodino in 1812 was a defeat, as Napoleon lost his last chance to defeat the Russian army-in-being. Or was Maloyaroslavyets more fatal?

                              Or was Napoleon's worst defeat suffered on a battlefield where he was not even present? In that case, a number of Iberian battlefields might qualify, e.g. Bailen, or Fuentes de Onoro.

                              The most important defeat was the entire Russian campaign. He lost over 500,000 men that would have ensured victory at Leipzig the following year. Borodino was not a defeat, it was a draw. But the entire campaign was a disaster, for logistical reasons. Most of Napoleon's soldiers died of the cold and hunger. The entire idea was madness in an age before railways had been developed. The huge Napoleonic army could not be supplied by horse carts on the awful Russian roads, and the terrible weather and scorched earth policy of the Russians ensured that the Grande Armée could not live off the land. The horses also died in their thousands because of weather conditions and lack of food, so the whole supply structure broke down disastrously. It was a colossal waste of human life and wealth.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X