What happened at the battle of Leipzig ?

**Mr Tuna** · October 05, 2009, 09:41 AM

I've wrote a 38 page paper on Napoleon and i decided to translate the part about the battle of Leipzig and share It with you. I'll put up the first two parts today, the rest will follow shortly. Feel free to comment on sentence-building, grammar, facts etc etc.

Part I, Leipzig, the background story.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Leipzig, the background story

Napoleon was defeated in the battle of Leipzig by his united opponents. Leipzig followed not long after the campaign in Russia. First, i'll explain how events turned into the battle of Leipzig, then who battled for victory, followed by a description of the battle itself and I'll end with the aftermath of the battle.

1813 was a bad year for Napoleon, at the beginning of it, only a tenth of his army returned from the Russian steppes. Just before that, Prussia decided to side with Russia and start (together with England) a war against Napoleonic France. Marshall Bernadotte just turned into Crown Prince and leader of Sweden. As Crown Prince, he decided not to side with Napoleon but with the coalition (Prussia, Russia, England). An explanation for this could be that Napoleon and Bernadotte had an argument during the battle of Wagram, Napoleon took his command and sent Bernadotte, humiliated, back to Paris.

Napoleon formed a new army and won some small victories. The Austrian-Hungarian empire, a formal ally of France, decided to join the new coalition against Napoleon, a major setback for the French. The coalition-leaders came up with the idea to evade Napleon and to fight the troops of his marshalls. This had a lot more succes then fighting Napoleon itself. Eventually, an unexpected manouvre from Napoleon caught him and Prince Schwarzenberg (the commander of the allied forces, but mainly in name) on a battlefield near Dresden. However, Napoleon didn't win the decisive victory he needed. Bavaria turned away from France, to the coalition, in October. Napoleon knew that, now even more then ever, he needed to maintain the alliance with Saxony, his most important ally in Middle-Europe. Otherwise, the fighting might shift to French soil, this could seriously hurt the French morale and support for Napoleon. Napoleon left two of his Corps in Dresden and marched for Leipzig, the second city of Saxony, with the rest of his army.

Part II, Main characters of the battle - The Coalition

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

The main characters of the battle – The Coalition

The upper line is composed of the royal leaders of the coalition, except for Bernadotte, they didn't really have a command. From left to right: Francis I of Austria, Frederick-William III of Prussia, Alexander I of Russia and Crown Price Bernadotte of Sweden. The lower line is composed of the major commanders in the field. From left to right: Prince Schwarzenberg, Marshall Barclay de Tolly, Marshall Blucher and General Benningsen.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Prince Schwarzenberg was supreme commander of the Coalition's military forces but only in name, he wasn't much of a commander but he had the quality to form cohesion between the soldiers and commanders of so much different nationality's. The royals in place told their commanders to “do it their own way”, most of the time. Schwarzenberg's battle plan for Leipzig was considered so bad that the kings and emperors of the coalition united and decided not to take Schwarzenberg seriously. That's a different way of getting things done.

On the battlefield itself, Schwarzenberg commanded the army of Bohemia, short for the Southern wing of the army. The right part of this wing was commanded by the Russian Marshall Barclay de Tolly. De Tolly was German speaking, related to a Scottish family and born in Lithuania. He was one of the better Russian marshalls and came up with the tactic of scorsched earth, where Napoleon was lured deeper and deeper into Russia where everything in his path was burned, this took away the possibility to live from the land and contributed heavily to the weakening of Napoleons's army and his “loss” in Russia. He handled the Russian right wing at Borodino pretty good but couldn't rescue the battle, for it was lost. Blucher was a Marshall of Prussia and was known for his restless and attacking style of commanding. He wasnt always succesful but had a good contribution to the victory's of Leipzig and Waterloo. General Bennigsen was one of the older (67) commanders in the Russian army, he got his ass kicked in Friedland but had more succes against Napoleon's marshalls. At Leipzig he led the Polish-Russian army, he arrived late at the battle but took part in the last and decisive attacks. Other commanders who are worthy of naming: Grand-Duke Constantine, commander of the Russian guard, the Austrian Merveldt, commander of the army at the Pleisse river and Gyulai (also Austrian) who commanded the army at Lindenau in the west.

Part III, Main characters of the battle - The French

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

The main characters of the battle – The French

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

The supreme commander of the French army was ofcourse Emperor Napoleon I, the commander that was feared by the coalition most. Wellington once said that Napoleon made a 40.000 man difference on the battlefield. His army was divided into an Northern front under the command of Ney and Marmont and a southern front under Murat.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

In the upper line, from left to right, Marshall Murat, Marshall Berthier, Marshall Ney, Marshall Marmonta and Marshall Poniatovski. The lower line from left to right, Marshall Augereau, Marshall MacDonald, General Bertrand, Marshall Oudinot and Marshall Mortier.

Murat was maybe the best cavalry commander of his time and had Napoleon had full belief in him, although he wasnt always succesful, he was missed a great deal at Waterloo. The different Corps commanders under Murat are also worth naming, the young guard was under command of Marshalls Oudinot and Mortier, the XI Corps under general MacDonald, the Polish Corps under Prince Poniatovski, Marshall Bertrand was defending the village of Lindenau with his IV Corps. This was Napoleon's escaping route, in case things went wrong. Ney was one of Napoleon's better commanders on the tacticel level, however, he was a bit shaky when it came to commanding larger bodies of troops, for example a whole wing (Waterloo), Napoleon had to support and look after him a lot. However, he was one of the few that enlarged their reputation in Russia, Ney defended a weak rearguard with all his courage and capabilities. Marmont was a pretty capable Marshall, one that fought in many places but never really stood out positively, in Portugal and Spain, the French army's were under the command of him and Marshall Soult. Eventually he got defeated by Wellington at Salamanca, this and an argument with Soult made that he was transferred to Germany, where he took part in the battle of Leipzig. Augereau was a commander that had witnessed many successes in Italy but who was defeated repeadetly in Spain by Wellington, he was eventually transferred to Germany. His powerful defence at Leipzig regained him the belief of Napoleon. MacDonald was a trustworthy Marshal, one that got his title on the battlefield, he led the rearguard together with Prince Poniatovski.

At the end of the battle he had to swim across the river Elster to save his life. Prince Poniatovski was a brave commander, he would die on the field of battle. Mortier and Oudinot were his reliable commanders of the Young Guard, (the Old Guard was under direct order of Napoleon himself) both disinguishid themselves with decisive attacks (the Guard was often used for the decisive attack). Napoleon's Chief of Staff, Marshall Berthier was an important figure in Napoleon's military career. Berthier was responsible for putting Napoleon's sometimes confusing orders in clear language. Don't underestimate the importance of Berthier, when he wasn't around (Waterloo), Napoleon's performances were a lot less impressive.

Sources

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**Ratbag** · October 05, 2009, 10:41 AM

Looking forward to more mate.

**Juvenal** · October 05, 2009, 11:07 AM

Bernadotte actually became Crown prince of Sweden in 1810. Ironically, he had been elected by the pro-French faction in Sweden, who must have got a bit of a shock when he joined the Allies in 1813.

Nevertheless, I think joining the Allied Coalition was in Sweden's best interests, they certainly wouldn't have wanted to strangle their trade by signing up to Napoleon's Continental System.

Bernadotte's top priority was preserving his Swedish troops in order to be able to use them later against Denmark (a French Ally). This is why he kept his Swedish Corps out of harm's way while fighting only with his Russian and Prussian troops.

After Liepzig, Bernadotte went off at his own initiative to defeat the Danes, successfully acquiring Norway from them. His Russian and Prussian troops (under Winzingerode and Bulow) were taken away from him and played a vital part in preventing Napoleon from winning the campaign of 1814.

The Swedish Royal family is still of Bernadotte's dynasty.

**Mr Tuna** · October 05, 2009, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Juvenal

Bernadotte actually became Crown prince of Sweden in 1810. Ironically, he had been elected by the pro-French faction in Sweden, who must have got a bit of a shock when he joined the Allies in 1813.

Nevertheless, I think joining the Allied Coalition was in Sweden's best interests, they certainly wouldn't have wanted to strangle their trade by signing up to Napoleon's Continental System.

Bernadotte's top priority was preserving his Swedish troops in order to be able to use them later against Denmark (a French Ally). This is why he kept his Swedish Corps out of harm's way while fighting only with his Russian and Prussian troops.

After Liepzig, Bernadotte went off at his own initiative to defeat the Danes, successfully acquiring Norway from them. His Russian and Prussian troops (under Winzingerode and Bulow) were taken away from him and played a vital part in preventing Napoleon from winning the campaign of 1814.

The Swedish Royal family is still of Bernadotte's dynasty.

I never mentioned a date for Bernadotte turning Crown Prince, i did put it weir, writing about 1813 and then calling Bernadotte, "just turned Crown Prince", sry 'bout that.

BTW, Part Deux uploaded.

Part III edited in opening post

**Brewing In Brooklyn** · March 06, 2010, 01:28 AM

Very nice stuff indeed. Now that the game is out, is anyone else disappointed that the battle of leipzig is not included in the historic battles?

**Abendstern** · March 06, 2010, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by Brewing In Brooklyn

Now that the game is out, is anyone else disappointed that the battle of leipzig is not included in the historic battles?

Why would it be? Its not a British victory, is it? And everybody knows the Brits beat Napoleon.

Anyway the game cant possibly handle such a large battle so at best there would be an itzy-bitzy-small miniature re-creation where entire corps are made up of two units - one being the generals unit. What fun.

**CiviC** · March 06, 2010, 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by Abendstern

Why would it be? Its not a British victory, is it? And everybody knows the Brits beat Napoleon.

Actually I consider Leipzig the battle where Napoleon was decisively defeated and definitively turned the tide of Napoleonic Wars; Waterloo was a mere epilogue. Of course for people who have only a vague knowledge of history, "Brits saved Europe of Napoleon's tyrany at Waterloo".

**The Noble Lord** · March 06, 2010, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by CiviC

Actually I consider Leipzig the battle where Napoleon was decisively defeated and definitively turned the tide of Napoleonic Wars; Waterloo was a mere epilogue.

I concur, and for once I am going to agree with Civic

.

**Markas** · March 06, 2010, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by CiviC

Actually I consider Leipzig the battle where Napoleon was decisively defeated and definitively turned the tide of Napoleonic Wars; Waterloo was a mere epilogue. Of course for people who have only a vague knowledge of history, "Brits saved Europe of Napoleon's tyrany at Waterloo".

Because Waterloo is a better story. Why didn't the Russians fund a movie about Leipzig instead of funding the Waterloo movie? There were no Russians at Waterloo. It is simply a more dramatic story thanks to the hundred days and Napoleon's last throw of the dice. You can argue pro-British propaganda all you like but until you present evidence such claims are just leaves in the wind.

**Belisaire_** · March 06, 2010, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by CiviC

Actually I consider Leipzig the battle where Napoleon was decisively defeated and definitively turned the tide of Napoleonic Wars; Waterloo was a mere epilogue. Of course for people who have only a vague knowledge of history, "Brits saved Europe of Napoleon's tyrany at Waterloo".

At Leipzig Napoleon kept his positions until the end of the battle, he withdrew because he had no more munition not because he was defeated, for me Waterloo is the only true defeat suffered by Napoleon.

**Juvenal** · March 06, 2010, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by Abendstern

Why would it be? Its not a British victory, is it? And everybody knows the Brits beat Napoleon.

Ah, but Leipzig was a British Victory!

History of the Rocket

...However, the supreme triumph of the Rocket troop in Germany was at the ‘Battle of the Nations’ at Leipzig in October 1813. Congreve apparently accompanied the troop to Leipzig. The rockets fired at a column of French soldiers numbering some 2500 men, struck such terror within them that they lay down their arms. ‘Their effect [was] truly astonishing; and produced an impression upon the enemy of something supernatural….a solid square of infantry…after our fire delivered themselves up as if panic struck’.[2]
Wittgenstein, the Russian General remarked ‘They look as if they were made in hell, and surely are the devil’s own artillery [3].’ Tsar Alexander I was so impressed that he removed the order of St Anne from his own breast and pinned it on the Commander, Strangways.[1] [4]
On13 June 1814, Congreve gave a display of rocket artillery to the visiting Allied sovereigns, Tsar Alexander and King Frederick William of Prussia at Woolwich.

References
[1] Military Dictionary, Major James.
[2] The War in Germany and France in 1813 and ‘14, Lord Londonderry.
[3] Edinburgh Evening Courant, 20 January 1814.
[4] Strangways was only a Subaltern at this time and was not commanding the troop, but may have been commanding a detachment.

It looks like (as usual) the British were taking on the entire French Army single-handed... indeed according to N:TW those 2500 Frenchmen numbered almost as much as the entire French Army at Waterloo! (the only other major battle in the Napoleonic Wars, apart from Darth Wellington's glorious Peninsula Campaign).

However, I can't help suspecting that Tsar Alexander I was not so much impressed with the rockets as relieved that they hadn't turned around during their erratic flight and struck the Allies.

**Steve Holt** · March 06, 2010, 01:52 AM

Very good, I can't wait for the battle itself.

**Marie Louise von Preussen** · March 06, 2010, 10:18 AM

British propaganda as a device cannot be neglected. Since our history books are dominated by essentially anglophiliac and anglo-centric concepts, the part where the English have taken little to no role but was the DECISIVE match of the Napoleonic Wars, ergo the 1813-1814 campaigns leading to the Russian march in Paris, is conveniently neglected.

Fact is, the British were merely side-players. Like in every continental conflict of notice from 1450 to 1945, they could throw money and incentives on the sidelines while making one or two side engagements here and there (the Iberian campaign was of secondary importance to Napoleon), while the big players: Russia, Austria, Prussia and France slugged it out with capacities largely beyond those of the island nation. British historians hated to acknowledge this, "Britannia must rule", et all, but there has been no conflict in the history of Europe where Britain single-handedly stood and triumphed against another European power. Not even to enforce terms could they expect to do all by themselves, as exemplified by the Tzar's attitude when they once sided with France in the Vienna Conference: "We have 400.000 men lodged in Poland and Saxony, and you dare to take them out!"

.

**Markas** · March 06, 2010, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Louis XI

British propaganda as a device cannot be neglected. Since our history books are dominated by essentially anglophiliac and anglo-centric concepts, the part where the English have taken little to no role but was the DECISIVE match of the Napoleonic Wars, ergo the 1813-1814 campaigns leading to the Russian march in Paris, is conveniently neglected.

Well that's the thing, I always ask for this propaganda and I get (very regularly on this and other sites)- Sharpe, 'They are taught this at school' and books written more that a century ago. I point out the obvious but to no avail.

Fact is, the British were merely side-players. Like in every continental conflict of notice from 1450 to 1945, they could throw money and incentives on the sidelines while making one or two side engagements here and there (the Iberian campaign was of secondary importance to Napoleon), while the big players: Russia, Austria, Prussia and France slugged it out with capacities largely beyond those of the island nation. British historians hated to acknowledge this, "Britannia must rule", et all, but there has been no conflict in the history of Europe where Britain single-handedly stood and triumphed against another European power. Not even to enforce terms could they expect to do all by themselves, as exemplified by the Tzar's attitude when they once sided with France in the Vienna Conference: "We have 400.000 men lodged in Poland and Saxony, and you dare to take them out!"

.

Well I don't have any disagreements there really. We were a Naval power with a long-standing distrust of standing armies (at least since Cromwell's time). However the insistance of some that we didn't do any fighting in the Napoleonic wars tends to ignore the fact we were somewhat active at sea.

**Londinium** · March 06, 2010, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Louis XI

British propaganda as a device cannot be neglected. Since our history books are dominated by essentially anglophiliac and anglo-centric concepts, the part where the English have taken little to no role but was the DECISIVE match of the Napoleonic Wars, ergo the 1813-1814 campaigns leading to the Russian march in Paris, is conveniently neglected.

Fact is, the British were merely side-players. Like in every continental conflict of notice from 1450 to 1945, they could throw money and incentives on the sidelines while making one or two side engagements here and there (the Iberian campaign was of secondary importance to Napoleon), while the big players: Russia, Austria, Prussia and France slugged it out with capacities largely beyond those of the island nation. British historians hated to acknowledge this, "Britannia must rule", et all, but there has been no conflict in the history of Europe where Britain single-handedly stood and triumphed against another European power. Not even to enforce terms could they expect to do all by themselves, as exemplified by the Tzar's attitude when they once sided with France in the Vienna Conference: "We have 400.000 men lodged in Poland and Saxony, and you dare to take them out!"

.

Britain essentially funded the later coalitions, without British support they would not have been able to put together their armies. That was the whole British strategy right the way throughout the Napoleonic Wars, why fight land wars when you can pay someone else to do so for you?

**motiv-8** · March 06, 2010, 11:38 AM

Sad, what happened to Poniatowski at Leipzig. Not how he should have ended such a valiant life and career. Definitely my favorite character of the Napoleonic story.

**Juvenal** · March 06, 2010, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by motiv-8

Sad, what happened to Poniatowski at Leipzig. Not how he should have ended such a valiant life and career. Definitely my favorite character of the Napoleonic story.

Yes, 'Dave' Poniatowski was a vibrant and dashing figure, the only foreigner ever to be made a Marshal of France.

Unfortunately he missed out on the advantages of a British education (by about 150 years - see below), otherwise he might have survived Leipzig to sample the delights of Champagne in 1814.

Spoiler for Poniatowski's Error: