|
|
Post by andremassena on Jul 11, 2016 17:34:35 GMT
When Napoleon began his invasion of Russia, and many of his top marshals and generals warned of an impending failure, was it simply because his ego was so massive that he disregarded all such warnings?
And why didn't Napoleon make greater use of marshal Soult in the Waterloo campaign as Soult had experience fighting Sit Arthur Wellesley in the Iberian peninsula. Was this also a matter of napoleon's inflated ego?
|
|
|
|
Post by Conrad von Hotzendorf on Jul 12, 2016 23:19:04 GMT
For the first one.
Napoleon's ego had nothing to do with it. Russia had constantly been a thorn in France's side throughout all the wars in Europe, napoleon had to invade to (attempt) to put Russia in it's place
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington on Jul 13, 2016 7:30:44 GMT
Well Napoleon was overambitious ocassionally
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jul 13, 2016 10:57:21 GMT
1) Knowing Napoleon, it's perfectly logical for him to keep on. Remeber, we have the man who despite all odds (not actually being French, post to the Army of Italy was technically an exile, fought against the whole of Europe) became Emperor. Russia was a huge problem, as it was a flaw in an otherwise flawless Continental System.
2) Napoleon put Soult in the greatest use possible in the Waterloo Campaign, making him chief of staff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Suvorov on Jul 13, 2016 11:19:41 GMT
1) Knowing Napoleon, it's perfectly logical for him to keep on. Remeber, we have the man who despite all odds (not actually being French, post to the Army of Italy was technically an exile, fought against the whole of Europe) became Emperor. Russia was a huge problem, as it was a flaw in an otherwise flawless Continental System. 2) Napoleon put Soult in the greatest use possible in the Waterloo Campaign, making him chief of staff. I fully agree with your, as always, correct anwers. I only want to say that Soult had also been made chief of staff because he had proven himself to be incompetent on the battlefield, while being better at a strategical level. Also, Soult and Ney weren't the best friends and keeping them seperated (by giving Ney the command over a corps and Soult the position of chief of staff) was probably a wise decision. |
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jul 13, 2016 11:28:50 GMT
The Hundred Days Campaign was a period where Napoleon had to make good with what he had. The Maréchals he had were not the best (except Davout, who became Minister of War anyway). The good and important ones refused to serve (Berthier, St. Cyr) or put in control of their own fronts (Suchet). He went to the Waterloo Campaign with what he thought were the best choice under the circumstances(under Napoleon's guidance, Ney did well. Friedland comes to mind, where he and Davout outflanked the Russians) P.S. Suvorov we could have a PM about the Battle of Novi. |
|
Jean Lannes
Staff Sergeant
"Oh mothers wipe your tears.
Your sons will rest a million years."
Posts: 13 
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Jul 14, 2016 9:26:07 GMT
"Why did Napoleon invade Russia, just thinking about it makes you question the whole." Anybody who says this is incorrect. France had beaten Russia 4 times already. Once in Switzerland Suvorov had to retreat to avoid complete destruction by Masséna. One more in the Low Countries when the Anglo-Russian forces under the Duke of York were destroyed by Guillame Brune. Another time in the 3rd Coalition and a last time in the 4th Coalition. From 1809-1812 Napoléon's (forced) "friends" learned many of his tactics such as the Corps d'Armée System which had a decisive impact in 1813. Napoleon had an ego I suppose, but it would never be on the level of invading a country knowing he'd get defeated. In France's eyes Russia had betrayed them. After Lannes' death Napoleon wrote to one of his generals about how the Russians and Prussians are just waiting to strike and that was in 1809. The invasion's goal was never conquering Russia, Napoleon could've done that at Tilsit in 1807 but instead he gave the Russians room to expand into. Russia had betrayed Napoleon by starting trade with the UK and Napoleon wanted to put a stop to this. Thus his first target was Vilnius where the Emperor was but that failed and Napoleon wasn't able to convince the Emperor Alexander back into the Continental System. About Waterloo, first of all the battle has been overexaggerated. Napoleon's victory would've just nothing to the outcome. 167,000 Russians were already in Germany, the Austrians were about to attack La Suffel and Naples was getting rekt. The fighting that happened at Mont St. Jean had no impact on the outcome of the war as even in 1814 Napoleon's situation was better. |
|
|
|
Post by andremassena on Jul 14, 2016 14:42:21 GMT
"Why did Napoleon invade Russia, just thinking about it makes you question the whole." Anybody who says this is incorrect. France had beaten Russia 4 times already. Once in Switzerland Suvorov had to retreat to avoid complete destruction by Masséna. One more in the Low Countries when the Anglo-Russian forces under the Duke of York were destroyed by Guillame Brune. Another time in the 3rd Coalition and a last time in the 4th Coalition. From 1809-1812 Napoléon's (forced) "friends" learned many of his tactics such as the Corps d'Armée System which had a decisive impact in 1813. Napoleon had an ego I suppose, but it would never be on the level of invading a country knowing he'd get defeated. In France's eyes Russia had betrayed them. After Lannes' death Napoleon wrote to one of his generals about how the Russians and Prussians are just waiting to strike and that was in 1809. The invasion's goal was never conquering Russia, Napoleon could've done that at Tilsit in 1807 but instead he gave the Russians room to expand into. Russia had betrayed Napoleon by starting trade with the UK and Napoleon wanted to put a stop to this. Thus his first target was Vilnius where the Emperor was but that failed and Napoleon wasn't able to convince the Emperor Alexander back into the Continental System. About Waterloo, first of all the battle has been overexaggerated. Napoleon's victory would've just nothing to the outcome. 167,000 Russians were already in Germany, the Austrians were about to attack La Suffel and Naples was getting rekt. The fighting that happened at Mont St. Jean had no impact on the outcome of the war as even in 1814 Napoleon's situation was better. Understand that I know why he invaded Russia. My original question was more of minor adjustments in his plans. Many people advised other things that he disregarded such as the retreat. Napoleon giving command to Murat instead of someone like davout seems illogical to me |
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Jul 14, 2016 14:53:14 GMT
Understand that I know why he invaded Russia. My original question was more of minor adjustments in his plans. Many people advised other things that he disregarded such as the retreat. Napoleon giving command to Murat instead of someone like davout seems illogical to me Nepotism. The Peninsular War is an example. Murat was Napoleon's brother-in-law, so he was the obvious Bonaparte family choice. Davout had ties with Bonaparte too, but not as close as Murat. Even when Murat left, Eugene (Napoleon's son-in-law) took command. Though to be fair Eugene did well in the retreat. |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Jul 14, 2016 19:11:36 GMT
"Why did Napoleon invade Russia, just thinking about it makes you question the whole." Anybody who says this is incorrect. France had beaten Russia 4 times already. Once in Switzerland Suvorov had to retreat to avoid complete destruction by Masséna. One more in the Low Countries when the Anglo-Russian forces under the Duke of York were destroyed by Guillame Brune. Another time in the 3rd Coalition and a last time in the 4th Coalition. Actually I assume Napoleon wasn't that stupid to compare all those fightings against Russian empire and direct invasion to core Russian territories. Speaking about Your examples.. 1) Suvorov was betrayed by the Austrians, so it is clear he was to retreat as there was no any reason to fight for the Austrians interests in case they do not want to do that. 2) Low Countries. That wasn't a Russian Imperial Army just an expeditionary forces as well as in Italy/Switzerland 3) 3rd Coalition. Austrians were defeated before Kutuzov with Russian forces arrived to the seat of war. 4) 4th Coalition. That was an extremely diffcult campaigh for Napoleon. I mean after the defeat of the Prussia when Russian Imperial Army entered the conflict in December. There were a lot of fightings with main Russian forces and Napoleon fully understood that Russia is an extremely dangerous foe. I've read several monographies regarding that issue and I would surmise that it was more about Napolean and Alexander personal relations and confidence between them. I think Napoleon understood that Alexander won't be the person to support his politics in Europe willingly (free-will). So that was inevitable for Napoleon. He needed Russia to bow in order to rule the Europe. Russian Empire could not be a lesser partner without victorious war. So originally that was an ego - he wanted to be the ruler of Europe. And Continental System was just a justificatory ground. Both Emperors understood that it is a matter of time. Otherwise Napoleon would NEVER reconstruct Poland as a Duchy of Warsaw. He fully understood that Polish question was extremely sensitive for Russia. And that country was established as a bridgehead for the future war with Russia. Just imagine that was a country with the budget where 70% was focused on war expenditures. So there is no any doubt Napoleon was preparing for the future war as well as Alexander. |
|
Jean Lannes
Staff Sergeant
"Oh mothers wipe your tears.
Your sons will rest a million years."
Posts: 13
|
Napoleon
Jul 14, 2016 19:53:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by Jean Lannes on Jul 14, 2016 19:53:00 GMT
"Why did Napoleon invade Russia, just thinking about it makes you question the whole." Anybody who says this is incorrect. France had beaten Russia 4 times already. Once in Switzerland Suvorov had to retreat to avoid complete destruction by Masséna. One more in the Low Countries when the Anglo-Russian forces under the Duke of York were destroyed by Guillame Brune. Another time in the 3rd Coalition and a last time in the 4th Coalition. Actually I assume Napoleon wasn't that stupid to compare all those fightings against Russian empire and direct invasion to core Russian territories. Speaking about Your examples.. 1) Suvorov was betrayed by the Austrians, so it is clear he was to retreat as there was no any reason to fight for the Austrians interests in case they do not want to do that. 2) Low Countries. That wasn't a Russian Imperial Army just an expeditionary forces as well as in Italy/Switzerland 3) 3rd Coalition. Austrians were defeated before Kutuzov with Russian forces arrived to the seat of war. 4) 4th Coalition. That was an extremely diffcult campaigh for Napoleon. I mean after the defeat of the Prussia when Russian Imperial Army entered the conflict in December. There were a lot of fightings with main Russian forces and Napoleon fully understood that Russia is an extremely dangerous foe. I've read several monographies regarding that issue and I would surmise that it was more about Napolean and Alexander personal relations and confidence between them. I think Napoleon understood that Alexander won't be the person to support his politics in Europe willingly (free-will). So that was inevitable for Napoleon. He needed Russia to bow in order to rule the Europe. Russian Empire could not be a lesser partner without victorious war. So originally that was an ego - he wanted to be the ruler of Europe. And Continental System was just a justificatory ground. Both Emperors understood that it is a matter of time. Otherwise Napoleon would NEVER reconstruct Poland as a Duchy of Warsaw. He fully understood that Polish question was extremely sensitive for Russia. And that country was established as a bridgehead for the future war with Russia. Just imagine that was a country with the budget where 70% was focused on war expenditures. So there is no any doubt Napoleon was preparing for the future war as well as Alexander. I'd still consider Switzerland and the Anglo-Russian Expedition a military defeat as both made France more powerful and Russia leaving the war. In the 3rd Coalition the Russians had been fighting at battles such as Amstettin but the primary example is Austerlitz where the main army was Russian with von Liechtenstein commanding a few Austrian units. The 4th Coalition had Prussia surrender after 19 days but some parts of the amry fighting in Eastern Prussia. After the Battle of Friedland both sides were tired and simply couldn't continue. So they made peace, probably because Napoleon liked a Franco-Russian alliance possibly damaging Britain he left Russia to do what it wanted with Sweden and against Muslim empires. Napoleon's goal was only to restore an alliance and bring Russia back into the Continental System as it was essentially the main casus belli Napoleon could and would use |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Jul 14, 2016 20:31:04 GMT
In the 3rd Coalition the Russians had been fighting at battles such as Amstettin but the primary example is Austerlitz where the main army was Russian with von Liechtenstein commanding a few Austrian units. The 4th Coalition had Prussia surrender after 19 days but some parts of the amry fighting in Eastern Prussia. After the Battle of Friedland both sides were tired and simply couldn't continue. So they made peace, probably because Napoleon liked a Franco-Russian alliance possibly damaging Britain he left Russia to do what it wanted with Sweden and against Muslim empires. Napoleon's goal was only to restore an alliance and bring Russia back into the Continental System as it was essentially the main casus belli Napoleon could and would use Russia left 2nd coalition because of the France's victories in Switzerland and Netherlands? Are You serious? Then You should go deeper into the politics of Russian Emperor Pavel I. Austerlitz. Yes, that was a defeat. But I haven't heard that Russia signed anything after Austerlitz. So it is only about 4th Coalition war, which was interesting because there was no decisive victory against Russia before Russian forces were partially called for war with Ottoman Empire. So, consequently Friedland. And, yes Napoleon wanted Russian Emperor as an ally, but that was a situational alliance. I don't believe Napoleon didn't understand that. |
|
Jean Lannes
Staff Sergeant
"Oh mothers wipe your tears.
Your sons will rest a million years."
Posts: 13
|
Napoleon
Jul 14, 2016 22:15:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by Jean Lannes on Jul 14, 2016 22:15:53 GMT
In the 3rd Coalition the Russians had been fighting at battles such as Amstettin but the primary example is Austerlitz where the main army was Russian with von Liechtenstein commanding a few Austrian units. The 4th Coalition had Prussia surrender after 19 days but some parts of the amry fighting in Eastern Prussia. After the Battle of Friedland both sides were tired and simply couldn't continue. So they made peace, probably because Napoleon liked a Franco-Russian alliance possibly damaging Britain he left Russia to do what it wanted with Sweden and against Muslim empires. Napoleon's goal was only to restore an alliance and bring Russia back into the Continental System as it was essentially the main casus belli Napoleon could and would use Russia left 2nd coalition because of the France's victories in Switzerland and Netherlands? Are You serious? Then You should go deeper into the politics of Russian Emperor Pavel I. Austerlitz. Yes, that was a defeat. But I haven't heard that Russia signed anything after Austerlitz. So it is only about 4th Coalition war, which was interesting because there was no decisive victory against Russia before Russian forces were partially called for war with Ottoman Empire. So, consequently Friedland. And, yes Napoleon wanted Russian Emperor as an ally, but that was a situational alliance. I don't believe Napoleon didn't understand that. What I meant is that Russia leaving the war after multiple defeats by France makes that a French victory. Not that Russia left the war for that reason. Austerlitz was practically setting an end to the 3rd Coalition with a French victory. Yes the Russians didn't sign anything but they were badly beaten and lost their major ally. The 4th Coalition had two major battles in the East. Eylau which was a tactical pyrrhic French victory and Friedland which was a decisive French victory. Napoleon didn't intended Russia as ally forever but he saw Russia as a good ally to control Prussia and Austria in return for having them expand into the Caucasus and Finland. |
|
.jpg)
