Napoleon. Greatest tactician to ever live?

[KingDave]

Discuss.

[TSD]

how about adding some reasoning behind that.

He may be among the best, this is something that is hard to slap a label "best" on.

maybe the best of his time. difficult to compare, with different era's where the tools of the trade differ thus tactics differ.

[Juvenal]

Napoleon was not a great tactician. He thought at a higher level than that. He concerned himself with strategic manoeuvre, arranging to have the preponderance of force at a time and place of his choosing.

Napoleon's battle system was not particularly complicated. He was an artilleryman by trade, and favoured the concentration of cannon to weaken the enemy line. A pinning force would hold the enemy battle line in place, a flanking force would draw off the enemy reserves, and finally his own reserve would break the enemy line at its weakest point, usually the hinge between their original line and their reserves facing his flanking force.

I think that Napoleon's defining characteristic was dynamism. He always marched his armies hard, he usually fought battles on the offensive, and after a victory would pursue vigorously to convert victory into the destruction of the defeated enemy. The French revolutionary practice of sustaining their armies through forage (i.e. stealing) and Napoleon's reform of the artillery for high mobility conspired to enable Napoleon's armies to run rings around their opponents. The Corps system enabled mini-armies of all arms to subsist via forage, and be able to fight long enough to be joined by other Corps marching on parallel lines.

Wellington was better tactically than Napoleon, exercising personal control of each division and choosing his ground carefully to maximise the advantages of the British tactical system and superior musketry. But this is no slur on Napoleon. He was a big-picture man and relied on his marshals to perform the micro-management that Wellington was so fond of.

[Valantine]

No, he lost

Even with all great tacticians prepared and equipped for war with a brilliantly laid out plan and the men to follow it through - there is always a certain element that is out of their hands - that being the element of luck.

Without pitting them against each other on an equal standing it is impossible to say which tactician in history is the best - would Rommel have been as brilliant if he was a Roman General? probably not. Would Wellington done as good if he was a WW1 General? Probably not.

Tacticians are both victims and heroes of circumstance and luck.

But for a "personal" view I think the most influencial tactician in my eyes would be Werner Mölders, his experiences in creating the finger four formation and other teamwork based fighter tactics influenced the vast majority of aviation tactics from 1936 to today.
V

[Boyar Son]

No, he lost

Scipio>hannibal.

[CiviC]

One thing is for sure, he revolutionised warfare in Europe and this is why he is considered a military genius.

[Valantine]

One thing is for sure, he revolutionised warfare in Europe and this is why he is considered a military genius.

Hum, interesting that his crushing defeats in the Patriotic War (Invasion of Russia) and complete inedptitude in ensuring logistical support for his armies do not count against that "military genius" reputation.

He was intelligent and a good tactician, but not a genius - or else he would not have lost in Russia, nor would he have lost the Peninsula war etc.
V

[CiviC]

Hum, interesting that his crushing defeats in the Patriotic War (Invasion of Russia) and complete inedptitude in ensuring logistical support for his armies do not count against that "military genius" reputation.

He was intelligent and a good tactician, but not a genius - or else he would not have lost in Russia, nor would he have lost the Peninsula war etc.
V

It took Napoleon a few months to conquer Spain, it took several years to British, Portugal and Spanish to reconquer it in Napoleon's absence.

About the invasion of Russia, he still got to Moscow (not even Hitler managed that).

About his "complete inedptitude in ensuring logistical support" this shows you have a very limited and bised knowledge about Napoleon (influenced maybe by the historigraphy that boast only his defeats).

All historians agree he was a master of logistics, otherwise he couldn't managed to make so ample and fast campaigns. See his brilliant campaign in Italy in 1796-97 (no French general before him could conquer so fast and decisively Italy); or his Austerlitz Campaign when from his camp at Boulogne (prepared to invade Great Britain) he advanced in a blitzkrieg campaign against Austria; or his campaign again Prussia and Russia in 1806-1807 that ended with complete defeat for Prussia and with the French at the Western borders of Russia.

P.S. "Military genius" is not equal with "invincible". Nobody is invincible.

[Valantine]

About the invasion of Russia, he still got to Moscow (not even Hitler managed that).

About his "complete inedptitude in ensuring logistical support" this shows you have a very limited and bised knowledge about Napoleon (influenced maybe by the historigraphy that boast only his defeats).

I'm not trying to say he wasn't a good general, however I am saying he isnt the "best tactician to ever live". He may have taken Moscow and Hitler did not, however the situations were quite different, Hitler managed to get to within 19 miles of the Kremlin whilst Moscow was the Capital of Russia - during Napoleon's invasion the capital was St Petersburg and as such Moscow was not as heavily defended as it was in later history.

As for his logistical ineptitude, with regards to the Invasion of Russia, yes, it was a terribly thought out excersice, and just as Hitler followed up later in history with the same mistake, he over extended himself and "blitzkrieged" too far, and as such both of these invaders met the cold reality of Russian winters without adequate supplies.

In short, he was a good general with great knowledge and tactical prowess, however he was not the "Greatest tactician to ever live".
V

[CiviC]

In short, he was a good general with great knowledge and tactical prowess, however he was not the "Greatest tactician to ever live".
V

I agree he wasn't the greatest tactician to ever lived, because you can't simply say that anyone was. Each historical period had its great generals but it's hard to compare them as they fought in very different contexts (you can't compare Subutai with Wellington for example).

But if you take the specific timeframe of gunpowder age, Napoleon is the greatest general and military leader.

[Juvenal]

Hum, interesting that his crushing defeats in the Patriotic War (Invasion of Russia) and complete inedptitude in ensuring logistical support for his armies do not count against that "military genius" reputation.

He was intelligent and a good tactician, but not a genius - or else he would not have lost in Russia, nor would he have lost the Peninsula war etc.
V

Oddly Napoleon wasn't crushingly defeated by the Russians, despite losing almost his entire army! He was actually successful in most of the battles (Smolensk, Borodino, Berezina) although losing the skirmish at Malo-Yaroslavets.

Russia was a gigantic error of judgement for Napoleon. He had prepared an extensive system of logistics, huge numbers of wagons and enormous depots. But in his eagerness to achieve the battle of annihilation, he outran the wagons and marched his army to death. On the eve of Borodino, Napoleon's main force of 400,000 was reduced to 160,000 by the summer marches!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Napoleon took possession of Moscow gambling that Alexander would offer terms. When Moscow burned down with no peace being offered, he found himself without the means to feed and shelter his army. He then suffered a rare failure of nerve at Malo-Yaroslavets, allowing himself to be sheparded back to the devastated corridor through which the French had advanced to Moscow in the autumn.

Also, Napoleon did not lose in Spain, he let his marshals do that for him! Of course he didn't help them, refusing to appoint anyone to overall command and failing to take steps to pacify the Spanish population. This shows a weakness in Napoleon, that he couldn't allow anyone a truly independent command, so Spain experienced a kind of vacuum of indecision.

I think that my main objection to Napoleon as "military genius" was his disregard for casualties. He often wasted the lives of his soldiers to achieve quick results. Despite this though, the French still seem to worship him even to this day.

If you want to see Napoleon himself defeated, you have to wait until Leipzig in 1813.

[pannonian]

Oddly Napoleon wasn't crushingly defeated by the Russians, despite losing almost his entire army! He was actually successful in most of the battles (Smolensk, Borodino, Berezina) although losing the skirmish at Malo-Yaroslavets.

Russia was a gigantic error of judgement for Napoleon. He had prepared an extensive system of logistics, huge numbers of wagons and enormous depots. But in his eagerness to achieve the battle of annihilation, he outran the wagons and marched his army to death. On the eve of Borodino, Napoleon's main force of 400,000 was reduced to 160,000 by the summer marches!

There's another argument, possibly from Clausewitz, that Napoleon wasted his army by concentrating it on the march. The argument being that, by concentrating it during travel, it ate everything along its path, and ensured there would be no sustenance on the return journey, necessitating a different return route, which the Russians harassed all the way back to the border.

[hindov]

First of all he was a great strategist. Even his methods were not entirely original - except their speed of execution and relentless application - for more than a decade he had no equal. Basically, he employed two strategic methods. The first one was used when he was facing a numerically superior opponent and is known as the manoever of the central position (the last time he used it in Waterloo campaign). The aim was to take the initiative, to inflict a striking blow to the opponents and to divide them. Then by reinforcing each wing of his army in turn with his reserve, Napoleon created a local superiority against each enemy force. Following this method he was able to defeat all his opponents one after another.

The second was the famous manoeuvre sur les derrieres used mainly in a situation of superiority (the best example is 1805 campaign) and the basic principle was the envelopment of the enemy. A part of his army was used to attract the enemy's attention than the rest of the army rushed by forced marches along circuitous routes to intercept the enemy's line of communications, severing his link with his bases. When the foe tried to force his way out of the trap, he would find the French in a strong preselected battle position. In case of defeat the opponent army had nowhere to retire upon and had no other way than to choose between annihilation and surrender.

He was also one of the best tacticians for sure and the battle of Austerlitz is a unique masterpiece. I don't know any other general who conceded a great position to lure the enemy into a trap



Sometimes the luck was by his side (at Marengo for instance), sometimes he made significant errors (for instance in 1806 he thought that at Jena was the main Prussian army though it was only the rearguard) but I think that all the great generals made mistakes. Using the flexibility afforded by the Army Corps (innovation due to him) he wedded grand tactics to strategic movement to a marked degree. Using the advance guard to pin the eneny, he reinforced it progresively with neighbouring corps to attract the enemy forces into a frontal battle. Meanwhile, depending on intelligence information, he would often move a part of his forces toward one of the flanks of the enemy. This manoeuvre was followed by a renewed pressure along the front and the enemy had no other option than to used all his reserves. When this occured, Napoleon reserve of heavy cavalry, massed artillery and the Imperial Guard was unleashed against the enemy weakest spot.
This tactic was not infallible but it did bring many victories.

[Opressor]

He sure did scare the crap out of the Brits (and most Europeans for that matter). Not many people know that the term 'boogeyman' was originally derived from Napoleon's reputation. So much so that little kids are still scared by it today! No Sun Tzu was not the best you fan boys. Guderian in WWII basically rewrote the armour warfare book

[Dr. Oza]

simple answer...

do we all speak french or english?

-----

wasting his army at moscow disqualifies him in my opinion

[CiviC]

simple answer...

do we all speak french or english?

-----

wasting his army at moscow disqualifies him in my opinion

Not simple but simplistic answer.

Also the fact the world speaks mostly English today is mainly because of United States political and cultural dominance after WWII then to the British. I don't speak English because Great Britain conquered Europe, or because Canada or Australia or half of Africa speak it, but because US won WWII and Cold War.

[My Favorite Martian]

wasting his army at moscow disqualifies him in my opinion

It disqualifies his policy of peace as he occupied Moscow to force Alexander I to start peace negotiations with him what later did not. It does not really disqualify his tactical experience and skill.

[Killerbee]

simple answer...

do we all speak french or english?

None of those languages actually

But i think it's hard to compare strategists , who lived in different eras , and experienced different situations .. But it hink i'd say Alexander would be the best commander ever

I'm no historical dude , but those are just my 2 cents

[ivan_the_terrible]

I think, in search of the greatest tactician ever (if it's even possible to identify one), you should start with those commanders who have never lost a battle.

There are only a handful of those in history.

[Tiberius Tosi]

I think, in search of the greatest tactician ever (if it's even possible to identify one), you should start with those commanders who have never lost a battle.

To find the best tactician ever you can't use a win/lose record to judge it. Too many factors play into a battle and luck plays too big a role to use the amount of wins as a measure of a generals skill. Moreso one has to more looks at what they went up against and how well they did, which is why everyone tends to like the losing generals who fought against all odds and almost (or did) win as some of the best, and even as that is a flawed way of measuring how good of a tactician one is, it is still better than using the win/loss record.

As to answer the OP, it is too hard to tell. I definitely think he was the best of his day, now question about that, but to say he was the greatest to ever live is too hard to answer. For example, for all we know Alexander could have been a terrible commander during the gunpowder era, the skills required in each time period differ so you cannot give an answer for all of history.