Napoleon was decisive and always grasped the initiative if possible. His conquests are self-evidently important due to both their extent and the fact that there had not been a European conquerer of his scale since Karl der Grosse. There would not be another until Hitler or Stalin.
Was Naopleon's brilliance the result of his own abilities only?
Absolutely not. Napoleon was brilliant, of that there can be no question. His tactical skill is evidenced from his incredible articluation (reminiscent of Hannibal) to his mastery of the three arms of the military.
His articulation and army organiation is attributable to French military theorists who wrote just prior to the Revolution. I won't go into details but suffice to say that they gave Napoleon the clay with which he would be able to establish an Empire, not to mention the incredible staff he was blessed to have. His personal bravey is without question-look at Arcola, for example. Still, keep in mind that he had a ton of help getting France to the zenith of power, lots of help. Davoult seems to me to be one of the greatest Marshals of all time-simply incredible all around commander. And there were a host of others.
In terms of his rule itself-we ned to remember that essentially, in spite of his superior military strategic intelligence, he was basically from a backward backwater. He was not meant to be an enlightened ruler, he was at heart a tyrant, but with some ameliorating influences around him. Regardless, one of the greatest contradictions of the first empire was that a tyrant autocrat followed the peoples' revolution od 1789. This is vastly more interesting to me than his tactical skill which I would suggest is less historically important than why he was allowed to rule.
Is it because people are just more comfortable with a tyrant as their leader because he neither wants other people to make/inform political decisions (democracy) nor make informed decisions (enlightened despot) himself. Perhaps it is simpler this way, as people have decision making taken out of their hands. They are fed, thus they are happily ignorant (does this sound reminiscent of a particular US president?).
Keep in mind bereattrca that Napoleon actually repealed some property rights of women and their ability to divorce! Not very enlightened hmm? Perhaps, this sounds familiar? Like Russia after the revolution of 1917 and Stalin, or China and Mao, etc. History, as the saying goes, certainly does appear to repeat itself.
Still in the long view of things, his victory at Austerlitz, for example, is likely without comparison in terms of military history. Austerlitz is unique. To actually give your opponents (Russians/Austrians?) the advantage of high gound and then still proceed to smash them is the height of both supreme arrogance and self-assured skill.
As others have pointed out he did face many generals who retained outmoded tactics, but that should not diminish the scope of his accomplishments in terms of miltary thinking.
I'm not sure how peaceful his rest was Napoleon.
Its been recently suggested that he may have been poisoned. Be that as it may, he was not even allowed to ride his horse without an escort during his final exile. That must have been eternally galling for the once Emperor of all of continental Europe. Think of being reduced to living on a lump of rock in the middle of the Atlantic, this is an inauspicious and counter-climactic ending for a life so superficially sensationalistic. I think his isolated existence would have caused him many aggravations and self-questioning, the incessant "what ifs". Stil, in the end he was simply the son of a poor, uneducated Corsican farmer, so maybe it wasn't as distastful as we would envision?
One of my favourite quotes of his that has, strangley enough, nothing to do with warfare is his characterization of Tallyrand, his foreign minister. He called him,
"a silk-stocking full of shit"
That one always evokes a smile.
Chargez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Pathetic Historical Characters
Originally Posted by ||Lz3||
Reply With Quote
, at least he and lead his troops in battle (wich eventually got him killed , oh well...)
Re: Pathetic Historical Characters
) given Erwin's situation when Hitler uncovered the plot he was involved with, I believe he made the right choice. He knew the game was up before everyone anyway. He knew the Atlantic wall wouldn't hold forever. And when Goering's massive air assault in the huge Battle of Britain failed to destroy fighter command... the war was lost.
Re: Pathetic Historical Characters
Bookmarks