Which Country Contributed the Most in Defeating Napoleon

Which Country Did the Most to Defeat Napoleon

  • Austria

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • Russia

    Votes: 19 37.3%
  • Prussia

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Britain

    Votes: 23 45.1%
  • Another Country

    Votes: 5 9.8%

  • Total voters
    51
  • Poll closed .
Feb 2019
212
Serbia
#61
Russia did not destroy only 500,000 soldiers of Napoleon in 1812, but also 665 000 in 1813 in germany German Campaign of 1813 - Wikipedia
the battle of leipzig was the largest battle in history until the first world war, The French lost 300,000 men in six years in Spain, but they lost 1 million men in two years in Russia and Germany (1812 - 1813)

" The battle was the culmination of the German campaign of 1813 and involved 600,000 soldiers, 2,200 artillery pieces, the expenditure of 200,000 rounds of artillery ammunition and 127,000 casualties, making it the largest battle in Europe prior to World War I." Battle of Leipzig - Wikipedia

Not a single British soldier.

And Russia has liberated Prussia and other German states.

Without the invasion of Russia, Napoleon would still have a lot of men (More than 2 millions, with poles, bavarians, saxons ect), and the other states would not have moved
A similar argument can be made that there were no Russian soldiers in the Peninsular War and no Russian ships in the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic.

There is no denying Russia's significance and victories but this particular argument doesn't really work.

Of the whole Grand Armee that headed out to Russia in 1812... some 680,000 men, the best of the best and veterans hardened by years of conquering Europe... only 120,000 returned to Paris. He did rebuild the Armee, but from conscripts and scrubs, and it would never be Grand again. The UK played its role in hindering France ambitions and delivering the final knockout punch at Waterloo, but it was Russia who put Napoleon on his knees to make it possible.

As Pugsville already noted there were some veteran troops in the army during the invasion of Russia but many were conscripts from all over the French empire including Germans, Poles, Italians as well as some soldiers from Prussia, Austria and even Denmark.


While Britain didn't do most of the fighting on land I wouldn't call their naval campaigns and financing of coalitions as well as their campaigns in Spain as merely ''hindering French ambitions''. They didn't beat Napoleon by themselves, I don't think any country could've but saying that Britain just hindered French ambitions isn't very accurate and downplays the British involvement.
 
Feb 2016
4,226
Japan
#63
In terms of treasure GB.
In military blood ... Russia, Austria and GB all sacrifice similar numbers of lives.
311 000 Britons.
376 000 Austrians.
289 000 Russians (we can probably double this figure as it doesn’t include losses from disease, accidents, Shipwrecks etc).


Obviously Britain’s civillian population didn’t suffer. And no reliable civilian estimates exist. Spain may have lost over 200k military personal and upto 10 times as many civilians.

So I voted for GB, she was the glue that kept the struggle against him going, though Austria-Russia-GB-Spain all weigh in heavy in the military losses.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,144
Spain
#64
In terms of treasure GB.
In military blood ... Russia, Austria and GB all sacrifice similar numbers of lives.
311 000 Britons.
376 000 Austrians.
289 000 Russians (we can probably double this figure as it doesn’t include losses from disease, accidents, Shipwrecks etc).


Obviously Britain’s civillian population didn’t suffer. And no reliable civilian estimates exist. Spain may have lost over 200k military personal and upto 10 times as many civilians.

So I voted for GB, she was the glue that kept the struggle against him going, though Austria-Russia-GB-Spain all weigh in heavy in the military losses.
I agree. In first line: GB-Spain-Russia

In Sea and Money: GB

In Blood: First:Spain-then Russia-Aut-GB.

The War in Spain was the bloodiest war in 1792-1815 period. Remembre Swiis mercenaries lost 15.000 men in Spain and 12.000 in Russia (Although it is true.. in Spain in 6 years (1808-1814) in Russia in 1 year. As you know the Imperial casualties in Spain varied between 280.000 KIA (Memoires du Genéral Bigarre) we must add the dead by Illness etc to the 500.000 dead (Proudhon and Lamière), 473.195 dead (Imperial Army in Spain (included Portugal, of course) according to Captain Rocca or 334.829 KIA.... if we add the British casualties (around 15.000 dead), the Portuguese (around 100.000) and the Spanish (around 1.000.000, between them around 250.000 military dead)... it is clear what´s was the bloodiest War as Adolph Thiers wrote.

La Guerre d´Espagne cost around 1.500.000 lives. So, in Blood is clear who contributed more to the Imperial defeat. For example, in Siege of DanzIg Imperial causalites in 1807 were around 6.000 (KIA-WIA-Sick etc) and 10.000 dead in Second Saragossa and 3.500 casualties in First Saragossa; 14.000 French Casualties in Third Siege of Gerona etc etc.
 
Mar 2014
33
Paris (France)
#65
In terms of treasure GB.
In military blood ... Russia, Austria and GB all sacrifice similar numbers of lives.
311 000 Britons.
376 000 Austrians.
289 000 Russians (we can probably double this figure as it doesn’t include losses from disease, accidents, Shipwrecks etc).
Maybe there is an implicit time span about your figures, but for 1792-1815, I find them hard to believe. Only for the 1812 campaign, Russian military deaths are estimated from 210 000 (Bogdanovich - 1860) to 300 000 (Sokolov - 2012), so not counting the 1805, 1813 and 1814 campaigns. And the British ones are incredibly lower : I have 35 000 for the peninsula war, less than 10 000 for the Waterloo campaign, less than 5 000 for the Walcheren campaign. So even by giving a emphasized total of 100 000 it does not even approach Russian or Austrian numbers.
Is there something I am forgetting ?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,497
#66
Maybe there is an implicit time span about your figures, but for 1792-1815, I find them hard to believe. Only for the 1812 campaign, Russian military deaths are estimated from 210 000 (Bogdanovich - 1860) to 300 000 (Sokolov - 2012), so not counting the 1805, 1813 and 1814 campaigns. And the British ones are incredibly lower : I have 35 000 for the peninsula war, less than 10 000 for the Waterloo campaign, less than 5 000 for the Walcheren campaign. So even by giving a emphasized total of 100 000 it does not even approach Russian or Austrian numbers.
Is there something I am forgetting ?

Napoleonic Wars casualties - Wikipedia

wiki

Royal Navy, 1804–1815:"
  • killed in action: 6,663
  • shipwrecks, drownings, fire: 13,621
  • wounds, disease: 72,102
Total: 92,386.[14]

British Army, 1804–1815:
  • killed in action: 25,569
  • wounds, accidents, disease: 193,851"

It's the large amounts of British soliders dyying by deasea the fills out the Britihs causulties. I would would hazrd a guess it's the Caribbean, where losses dur to desease were quite large,
(of course assuming these wiki stats are acurate)


Another source Napoleonic series agrees with the surprising large British Army casualties,

The British Army in the Napoleonic Wars: Manpower Stretched to the Limits?
 
Last edited:
Mar 2014
33
Paris (France)
#67
It seems the article only count killed in major battles for the other allies (Russian, Austrian, Prussian) while counting everything for the British. Does someone has the wiki source (White, Matthew (2014), "Statistics of Wars, Oppressions and Atrocities of the Nineteenth Century (the 1800s)" ) to clear things up ?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,497
#68
It seems the article only count killed in major battles for the other allies (Russian, Austrian, Prussian) while counting everything for the British. Does someone has the wiki source (White, Matthew (2014), "Statistics of Wars, Oppressions and Atrocities of the Nineteenth Century (the 1800s)" ) to clear things up ?
Oh I agree the others figures generally seem low. Just the British figures suprised,
 
Likes: Henri Beyle

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,144
Spain
#69
Spain (and when I say Spain I want to say Peninsular War, included Portugal)... caused 46% French Casualties between 1804 to 1815.

En 1808, débute la ruineuse et désastreuse guerre d'Espagne qui dévorera les meilleurs éléments des armées napoléoniennes .
(In 1808, it begins the ruinous and disastrous Peninsular War that will devour the best elements of the Napoleonic armies )


elle est responsable de près de la moitié (environ 46%) des militaires disparus.

(That war caused around the half (46%) Imperial casualties)

Les pertes élevées des années 1809, en 1810 et 1811 s'inscrivent tout à fait dans les conséquences du "guêpier" espagnol.

(The high losses sustained by the Imperial Army in 1809, 1810 and 1811 are most of them consequences of the Spanish "wasps´ nest".

So, it is clear

Sea and funds: Great Britain

In Casualties: Spain-Russia

So, First Row: Spain-Russia-Great Britain

Second row: Austria-Prussia-


We wrote a lot about Aspern-Esling or Wagram... however in 1809.. French Army had more KILLED IN ACTION in Spain than in Austria!!!!.... and the war is a issue...how to say... it is an act of killing. I know the War in Spain was not so fashion as in Austria....not beautiful flags waiving the wind... not glorious and decisive cavalry charges....it was more sordid, darker, more cruel, more terrible ... it was what Josepth Bonaparte called "l´enfer espagnol".

On the other hand, the most unjust, most unnecessary and stupidest war that Napoleon provoked ...
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,497
#70