Why are the 1809 Napoleonic campaign against Austria and its Battle of Wagram often seen as not decisive?

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,759
After Wagram what would be the point to keep fighting ,
Austria was alone and other German states were howering like vultures , happy to pick her carcass
further fighting would have utterly destroyed the Army , an important state asset , for absolutely no purpose

One fight to win or to negotiate better terms , what were the chance of that ?
It's not a binary choice. Arch Duke Charles could have pounced on the isolated French forces, inflicted a short sharp victory to remind Napoloen , Austria was not beaten yet, and sought better terms than those currently on offer..
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,353
Sydney
Great strategy !!

Look I kicked the tiger in the balls !!! ........now I'm sure everything is going to be all right .

Napoleon greatest asset was his reputation as a winner ,
giving him a scratch would only make him want to make an example of what not to do
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,759
Great strategy !!

Look I kicked the tiger in the balls !!! ........now I'm sure everything is going to be all right .

Napoleon greatest asset was his reputation as a winner ,
giving him a scratch would only make him want to make an example of what not to do
So in war you should not try and defeat the enemy?

Reputation, It's only an asset if you let it be. Charles had betean as Aspern-Essling, And done alright at Wagram.

Just giving up and giving Napoloen everything is hardly a good bargaining strategy.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,353
Sydney
not so , an army in being is a powerful negotiating asset
a broken army and a vengeful victor not so much
 
Jun 2018
12
Santiago del Estero - Argentina
After Wagram what would be the point to keep fighting ,
Austria was alone and other German states were howering like vultures , happy to pick her carcass
further fighting would have utterly destroyed the Army , an important state asset , for absolutely no purpose

One fight to win or to negotiate better terms , what were the chance of that ?
Well that's kind of my point: After Wagram Austria lost all possibility of winning the war, even if she was still capable of keep fighting for many more months... Since it would be useless, however, they surrendered.
 

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,991
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Well that's kind of my point: After Wagram Austria lost all possibility of winning the war, even if she was still capable of keep fighting for many more months... Since it would be useless, however, they surrendered.
You have a strange definition of surrender. Asking for an armistice so that diplomats can negotiate peace terms is not exactly surrendering. Surrendering would be sending a message agreeing to accept any and all terms Napoleon offered without any discussion.n
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparky

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,759
You have a strange definition of surrender. Asking for an armistice so that diplomats can negotiate peace terms is not exactly surrendering. Surrendering would be sending a message agreeing to accept any and all terms Napoleon offered without any discussion.n
The Terms of the armstice were well beyond a simple truce, Napoleon got to continue to occpy large parts of the Austrian lands until the treaty was signed. (when he kept most of what he occupied but actually returned some lands to the Austrians that he had occupied during the terms of the armistice.)
 
Jun 2018
12
Santiago del Estero - Argentina
You have a strange definition of surrender. Asking for an armistice so that diplomats can negotiate peace terms is not exactly surrendering. Surrendering would be sending a message agreeing to accept any and all terms Napoleon offered without any discussion.n
I meant to say: "...Since it would be useless, however, they decided to abandon the war on terms which were clearly (and exclusively) favorable to the french." The peace treaty was also exclusively favorable to Napoleon. That's surrendering in my dictionary.