Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 3rd, 2017, 11:32 PM   #51

PrinceofOrange's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 1,512

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuclearguy165 View Post
Blucher was irreplaceable precisely because of his energy, charisma, and ability to cooperate with others. Without him, it's unlikely the Army of Silesia would have gotten to Leipzig. As Pugsville already said, Blucher's stroke is arguably what saved Napoleon at Laon. Most conspicuously, Blucher, against the advice of his subordinates, pressed for supporting Wellington at Waterloo, therefore marching west rather than east. He made too important of a difference on a number of occasions to be replaceable by simply a more tactically skilled subordinate.
And Napoleon's illness is probably what saved Schwarzenberg after Dresden.
PrinceofOrange is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 4th, 2017, 12:28 AM   #52
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,440

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceofOrange View Post
And Napoleon's illness is probably what saved Schwarzenberg after Dresden.
Yet another of the great Napoleonic excuse Myths. Petre (Napoleon's last campaign in Germany 1813 page 248 dismisses this tale. It's not mentioned mentioned by several witness accounts and in fact the Emperor's disposition was remarks as being " the greatest tranquillity, and very cheerfully". And really he was so il he couldn't order a pursuit? struck mute was he?

Napoleon was at fault, fist he was sure thatch allies would renew the battle in the morning and was surprised by they disappearance on the morning, then within information he thought they retreated more westerly direction. Later he was distracted by the news of Oudinot's defeat.

Another Classic example of Napoleon misreading his opponents.
pugsville is online now  
Old January 4th, 2017, 12:48 AM   #53

PrinceofOrange's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 1,512

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Yet another of the great Napoleonic excuse Myths. Petre (Napoleon's last campaign in Germany 1813 page 248 dismisses this tale. It's not mentioned mentioned by several witness accounts and in fact the Emperor's disposition was remarks as being " the greatest tranquillity, and very cheerfully". And really he was so il he couldn't order a pursuit? struck mute was he?

Napoleon was at fault, fist he was sure thatch allies would renew the battle in the morning and was surprised by they disappearance on the morning, then within information he thought they retreated more westerly direction. Later he was distracted by the news of Oudinot's defeat.

Another Classic example of Napoleon misreading his opponents.
Nope he was ill. The vast majority of authors confirm this.

I guess illness and aging only works as an excuse when it concerns Napoleon's enemies.
PrinceofOrange is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 12:56 AM   #54
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,440

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceofOrange View Post
Nope he was ill. The vast majority of authors confirm this.

I guess illness and aging only works as an excuse when it concerns Napoleon's enemies.
Really vast majority of Authors., based on what? You have read them all. What sources is the claim based on.

Petre is pretty good, I trust him more than most. he examines it and says the evidence is against it. And he clearly outline the sequence of events, that Napoleon failed to anticipate the Allies retreat and thought they would return to battle the next day, and he missed orders on the assumption they had retreated in a more westerly direction. He was issuing orders through the day after the battle if he was well enough to issue those orders why couldn't have ordered a pursuit,

It's the Napoleonic excuse factory.
pugsville is online now  
Old January 4th, 2017, 12:57 AM   #55

PrinceofOrange's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 1,512

Zamoyski's Fall of Napoleon

'On the hour of victory Napoleon became terribly ill and suffered a series of vommit attacks, which forced him to retreat to Dresden. On the 30 of August he felt better again, but on that same day the news reached him of Oudinots defeat in the north at the hands of the Prussians, MacDonalds defeat at the Katzbach river at the hands of Blucher en Vandamme being cut and encircled and forced to surrender at Kulm.'

(Translated from Dutch)

Page 96
PrinceofOrange is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 12:58 AM   #56

PrinceofOrange's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 1,512

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Really vast majority of Authors., based on what? You have read them all. What sources is the claim based on.

Petre is pretty good, I trust him more than most. he examines it and says the evidence is against it. And he clearly outline the sequence of events, that Napoleon failed to anticipate the Allies retreat and thought they would return to battle the next day, and he missed orders on the assumption they had retreated in a more westerly direction. He was issuing orders through the day after the battle if he was well enough to issue those orders why couldn't have ordered a pursuit,

It's the Napoleonic excuse factory.
You trust him more based on what? Because he is highly anti-Napoleon?
PrinceofOrange is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 01:02 AM   #57

PrinceofOrange's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 1,512

Petre had a lot less acces to modern sources compared to some of todays authors.
PrinceofOrange is offline  
Old January 4th, 2017, 01:12 AM   #58
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,440

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceofOrange View Post
Zamoyski's Fall of Napoleon

'On the hour of victory Napoleon became terribly ill and suffered a series of vommit attacks, which forced him to retreat to Dresden. On the 30 of August he felt better again, but on that same day the news reached him of Oudinots defeat in the north at the hands of the Prussians, MacDonalds defeat at the Katzbach river at the hands of Blucher en Vandamme being cut and encircled and forced to surrender at Kulm.'

(Translated from Dutch)

Page 96
'what is the sources this claim is based on. What witness accounts does ehe give to support this claim.
pugsville is online now  
Old January 4th, 2017, 01:14 AM   #59
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,440

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceofOrange View Post
You trust him more based on what? Because he is highly anti-Napoleon?
Petre gives a detailed estimation numbers going into conflicting sources and estimates he discusses rathe than just presenting figures without reasoning.

Same for the case of Napoleon's 'illness' he gives the evidence he make the decision on. He just does not make an unsuppoprted claim.


I'd back Petre in. He's certainly a lot more objective than Roberts,
pugsville is online now  
Old January 4th, 2017, 01:17 AM   #60

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 17,172
Blog Entries: 18
General and politician


Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
This an easy out, a dismissal. While the changes of the campaign might have been immense and a positive result unlikely the level and scale of the disaster rests with Napoleon. His inability to be objective and get over his colossal ego killed many of his troops. Don't you think a prime requirement of being a great General is the ability to adapt to circumstances. Napoleon was unable to do so, unable to objectively analysis what was happening and respond. Under pressure he crumbled. It's appalling laspe.

Napoleon failed in his strategic understanding of the campaign - His strategic vision for the campaign was wrong, he failed to understand his opponents and despite real warnings of what they were do.

Napoleon failed in the operational organisation of the campaign, - it was not like things went wrong later, the logistical systems where failing from the start. He failed to anticipate just how huge a task it was, his organisation of the army failed badly. Bringing too many troops, concentrating a vast cavalry corps that was a massive logistical problem.

Napoleon failed in his man management. He never delegated well. But his appointments of men for roles was often wrong. Murat was incredibly poor corps commander and wasted men and horses. leaving Murat in charge when he left was just incredibly stupid.

Nap[oloen failed to adapt- when the plan went wrong, he just stuck to a fairly mindless plunge into Russia, without ever really coming up with a real plan B. Once his strategic vision failed he failed to adapt and refused to face basic reality.

These faults were systematic. At Leipzig, his failure to acknowledge he was beaten after the first day and plan a withdrawal cost him many more losses. in 1813 he repeated chose the wrong general for the wrong role.

This isn't small criticisms, Napoleon was poor at several key areas in Generalship, and repeatedly show up when the he was under pressure. His reputation rests of campaigns when he had most of the advantages.
Quite sharable, probably, being Italian, I can make a differentiation between Napoleon when he was more a general and Napoleon when he became also a politician. He got power ...

In Italy we say that power corrupts, in the case of Napoleon power has affected in a negative way his generalship. During his early campaigns he got remarkable results: the campaign of Italy was marvelous, overall considering the poor and unsuitable conditions of the Army that Paris gave him [in an other thread I have had occasion to remember the problem this caused with the Italian population, since the French soldier, in several occasions, had to plunder just to have something to eat!].
AlpinLuke is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
battles, close, fought, napoelon, pitched, terms



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Battles fought between 3 or more parties Darth Raidius War and Military History 32 January 12th, 2017 01:34 AM
before guns how many battles would be fought hand to hand mangatd War and Military History 23 September 5th, 2014 07:13 AM
General who won the most pitched battles? christos200 War and Military History 7 September 5th, 2013 08:01 AM
The importance of pitched battles Darth Roach War and Military History 11 December 27th, 2012 08:11 PM
How were night battles fought HistoryFreak1912 General History 10 February 14th, 2011 04:47 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.