|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jul 9, 2016 2:51:35 GMT
Maybe something like a United States of Europe before Egypt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jul 9, 2016 11:53:55 GMT
Davout was an ardent supporter of Polish Independence. This, and the fact that he had a lot of land given to him by Napoleon in Poland, made his opponents spread rumors that he wanted to be King of an independent Poland.
This being a historical thread about Davout, I ask you this:
What if Davout had actually wanted to become King of Poland?
What if Napoleon actually made him King when somehow the Russian Expedition was successful with Davout and the Poles playing a huge part?
Would like to hear your opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jul 9, 2016 15:11:48 GMT
Well, Davout was not a kingly character. Military life suited his strict personality and high demands from men. As king, unless he expected the people to do too much too fast, he would probably stay on the throne, but not as a beloved ruler
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jul 9, 2016 15:18:33 GMT
And he would be unpopular at court. In the Napoleonic Wars popularity in court mattered more than actual skill. I think Davout would be something like a behind-the-scenes king, running Poland when someone else like Poniatowski became the figurehead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jul 9, 2016 15:20:41 GMT
And he would be unpopular at court. In the Napoleonic Wars popularity in court mattered more than actual skill. I think Davout would be something like a behind-the-scenes king, running Poland when someone else like Poniatowski became the figurehead. Exactly! Davout could never become king, but he could control whoever did (Poniatowski is my best bet) |
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jul 9, 2016 15:25:10 GMT
And then Poland can into space.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jul 9, 2016 15:26:30 GMT
With all its neighbors humiliated as they were, Poland could become a power, which means that eventually Poland can into space
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jul 9, 2016 15:32:38 GMT
Interesting. Might add more Davout scenarios. For now, what if Davout had faced Bernadotte in the Leipzig Campaign?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jul 9, 2016 15:38:41 GMT
I believe they did face each other at the time of Leipzig, but further North
|
|
|
|
Post by Suvorov on Jul 9, 2016 16:30:37 GMT
And he would be unpopular at court. In the Napoleonic Wars popularity in court mattered more than actual skill. I think Davout would be something like a behind-the-scenes king, running Poland when someone else like Poniatowski became the figurehead. Exactly! Davout could never become king, but he could control whoever did (Poniatowski is my best bet) Indeed, and not doing this was quite dumb. Recently, there has been argued (for example, Adam Zamoyski) that Napoleon wanted a kind of 'polite' war without ruining Russia completely. Napoleon saw the expedition as more of a 'punitive expedition' to make sure Russia would re-enter the Continental System. Therefore, he refused to call out Polish independence, which would have caused a massive rebellion in the Ukraine (which was not a country back then), seriously obstructing Tormasovs operational abilities. Also, he kept refusing to raise Polands status from Grand Duchy to kingdom. This is why Napoleon didn't want anyone, Davout nor Poniatowski, to become king of Poland. But given Poniatowskis popularity and capabilities, he's my best bet. |
|
|
|
Post by Suvorov on Jul 9, 2016 17:33:01 GMT
1) According to Vauban (17th century siege expert) any fortress/place could be taken by a month, if the besieger had 60.000 troops, 132 heavy cannon with 16.000 cannonballs. The Coalition certainly had more than that. Davout held out at Hamburg for nearly a year (one day short). So maybe a few months if the Coalition had deployed their full strength. Maybe longer if not. 2) Suchet served at the Alpine Front. Why didn't Napoleon use suchet and soult in Waterloo? Here are my 2 cents, though the answer of Laurent de Gouvion is also in essence quite a correct one: Napoleon used the marshals he trusted the least, but who were still able to command. Let's put this in the historical context: With France surrounded from the South, West and North, Napoleon could not count on certain marshals. Oudinot was awaiting the evolving situations in his estate in Montmorency, Masséna and Augerau were no longer available, Berthier fell out of a window 2 weeks earlier, but his best marshals, Davout (never defeated) and Suchet (the best marshal in the Peninsula Campaign against Wellington), were available. Why didn't he use them in his Belgium campaign? Political reasons played an important role in this one and practically every decision he made concerning appointing marshals. This campaign with his Armée du Nord needed to be succesful due to Napoleon to ensure political stability and trustworthiness. Also, to reinforce his authority a total victory entirely due to him was needed. Concerning the appointment of the marshals who did participate in the Belgium campaign: Ney and Soult were not to be trusted. Ney was crazy and Soult was a royalist. Napoleon must have known that it was better to keep an eye on them in his army than in Paris. About Davout: After Berthier had died, another organizationally brilliant person was needed. Also, this person had to ensure stability in the politically not so stable Paris. This person became Davout, who was excellent in practically every aspect of the army. He also had the command over 20.000 soldiers for Paris alone, due to which a revolution was impossible. Grouchy’s appointment still is the most controversial one. In April, Napoleon had appointed Grouchy as the head of the cavalry of the Armée du Nord. Immediately, Davout protested. Certainly, he had proven himself to be loyal and he even had become wounded in several battles, but Davout realized that Grouchy did not have the skills to function as an independent marshal in an important campaign as this one. |
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Jul 9, 2016 18:35:11 GMT
And he would be unpopular at court. In the Napoleonic Wars popularity in court mattered more than actual skill. I think Davout would be something like a behind-the-scenes king, running Poland when someone else like Poniatowski became the figurehead. My historical self was quite vain, but somewhat liked in courts (specifically by Coalition members, the French king kicked out by Napoleon was actually staying in my personal palace in occupied Poland.) Davout was definitely shrewd enough, and Poniatowski smart enough, to have Poniatowski be a more of a figurehead/general-statesman while Davout ran the somewhat more monotonous, mundane, and underhanded side. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jul 9, 2016 19:36:00 GMT
And he would be unpopular at court. In the Napoleonic Wars popularity in court mattered more than actual skill. I think Davout would be something like a behind-the-scenes king, running Poland when someone else like Poniatowski became the figurehead. My historical self was quite vain, but somewhat liked in courts (specifically by Coalition members, the French king kicked out by Napoleon was actually staying in my personal palace in occupied Poland.) Davout was definitely shrewd enough, and Poniatowski smart enough, to have Poniatowski be a more of a figurehead/general-statesman while Davout ran the somewhat more monotonous, mundane, and underhanded side. Yes. Davout would be something like a modern-day political "fixer" |
|
|
|
Post by junius on Dec 26, 2016 19:22:28 GMT
A question: if Ney and Grouchy switched places in the Waterloo Campaign, would Napoleon have won? Grouchy was a better tactician than Ney (Ney lost Quatre-Bras while Grouchy won Wavre) and Ney would probably march to the sound of guns (he had a record of ermm.. independent will? Jena is an example). Not necessarily. Sure, Ney lost Quatre Bras, but this was against a general who had earned a reputation of being a great defensive tactician. Ney's service in the Peninsular War made him justifiably wary of any seeming weakness in the British lines- these points generally being heavily manned with hidden skirmishers or artillery. Ney did well to fight the Iron Duke to a draw, but a victory would have likely seen Wellington retire to Waterloo at even greater speed, changing nothing. Similarly, Wavre was a consolation battle. Grouchy had hitherto only commanded cavalry (although he was one of France's finest cavalrymen) and had already shown his skill by not marching to the sound of the guns. His orders were to interpose himself between Wellington and Blucher, not specifically to take Wavre. While probably not treasonous, Grouchy's conduct did not inspire faith in his abilities- his own subordinates (I remember Vandamme among them) pleaded with him to let them march on Waterloo, but he would have none of it. This was the same error Bernadotte made at Auerstadt in 1806, but fortunately for him Davout was able to carry the day on his own. Regarding Ney's impetuosity, I would point out Bautzen, where Ney was too slow to seal the deal. However, regardless of his faults, Ney was still a talented commander, especially when Napoleon was at hand to guide him. |
|
|
|
Post by junius on Dec 26, 2016 19:28:03 GMT
Davout was an ardent supporter of Polish Independence. This, and the fact that he had a lot of land given to him by Napoleon in Poland, made his opponents spread rumors that he wanted to be King of an independent Poland. This being a historical thread about Davout, I ask you this: What if Davout had actually wanted to become King of Poland? What if Napoleon actually made him King when somehow the Russian Expedition was successful with Davout and the Poles playing a huge part? Would like to hear your opinion. Poland would have become a second Spain. The last thing they wanted was another foreign king, and Poniatowski was both loyal and capable enough to rule on his own and too headstrong to accept being Davout's puppet. This would have likely happened had Napoleon been able to punish the Russians. |
|
