Napoleons best opponents

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Who do you guys think Napoleons best opponents was? I know everyone likes to bring up Wellington but who else would you add in that list? I always like bringing up Archduke Charles. He won Aspern-Essling against him and fought a bloody engagement against him at Wagram although he failed to follow up against Napoleon after Aspern-Essing. Fighting the revolutionary armies of France in the 1790s he seemed to have success there.

[conon394]

The Russian Winter and land mass (for providing room to trade space)

[Cyclops]

Karl was a very effective commander, handled extremely large formations well and enjoyed the confidence of his men. IIRC he also enacted substantial reforms prior to 1809 that stood the Reich in good stead tackling France in the field.

Of course no general is the total package like Napoleon was, and Karl was not the head of state like Napoleon was so his effectiveness was limited in ways Napoleon's was not (and he was not challenged in ways that Napoleon was). None of these rivals really match Napoleon as a general and typically it took two or more to tackle him effectively.

The Napoleonic wars is largely a duel between France and Austria for continental hegemony. Yes Britain is involved to prevent France re-establishing a maritime empire, and is the most consistent opponent but the hot war was fought between the Eagles (with a pause from 1810-1812 where Austria was cowed into submission). They fielded by far the largest forces. I recall working on some Napoleonic games with a amte and we were repeatedly struck how Austria would field the lion's share of almost every coalition's forcepool.

From memory (and this was research two or three decadedes ago so happy to be corrected) Russia would trot out an expeditionary force of 80,000, at home they could scrape up 150,000 for an important battle: essentially they were victims of their strategic strength, the Tsar's realms swallowed his own armies like it did his opponents. The Tsars armies on paper were colossal but much of it was garrison/other local forces which simply could not be mobilised for manoeuvres and campaign.

Prussia had about 80,000 too, a really big British Army with allies might nudge that. By comparison the Kaiser would field a principle field army of around 80-100,000 men, plus a substantial force deployed to secondary fronts (Typically they campaigned in Italy and the Rhine simultaneously). This was on top of substantial local forces like the Insurrectio in Hungary. On top of this they Austrian army supplied their men in the field with the most developed logistics organisation in the world.

Really Wellington does not match up very well with Napoleon head to head. The one campaign they fought saw the British forces absolutely danced off their feet, and it was only a superb defensive at Belle Alliance that allowed Wellington to survive long enough for Blucher to win the battle. Typically Wellesley commanded smaller forces, and enjoyed defensive choices because of Britain's strategic position. He was a superb "medium sized" army commander, wonderful at positional warfare both on the attack and defence. His battles were excellent set pieces, but he doesn't have an Austerlitz to his name: his defeated opponents were second tier or superannuated marshals.

Very few commanders could actually command large armies effectively. Schwarzenberg's (somewhat nominal) overall command at Leipzig was actually quite a good effort given the unwieldy organisation: if we look at generals capable of commanding more than 100,000 men in the field (and make it work) its Napoleon, Karl, Schwarzenberg and maybe De Tolly. Guys like Wellington, Blucher, Bagration and Kutusov, while very effective as generals in many circumstances, are not on Napoleon's level when it comes to Grand Army actions.

Really Karl is the only general in remote proximity to Napoleon in his role as C-in-C of vast imperial forces.

[The Noble Lord]

I can not honestly believe that nobody mentioned Marshal Suvorov who was one of the few military comanders in history who have never lost a battle!

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Karl was a very effective commander, handled extremely large formations well and enjoyed the confidence of his men. IIRC he also enacted substantial reforms prior to 1809 that stood the Reich in good stead tackling France in the field.

Of course no general is the total package like Napoleon was, and Karl was not the head of state like Napoleon was so his effectiveness was limited in ways Napoleon's was not (and he was not challenged in ways that Napoleon was). None of these rivals really match Napoleon as a general and typically it took two or more to tackle him effectively.

The Napoleonic wars is largely a duel between France and Austria for continental hegemony. Yes Britain is involved to prevent France re-establishing a maritime empire, and is the most consistent opponent but the hot war was fought between the Eagles (with a pause from 1810-1812 where Austria was cowed into submission). They fielded by far the largest forces. I recall working on some Napoleonic games with a amte and we were repeatedly struck how Austria would field the lion's share of almost every coalition's forcepool.

From memory (and this was research two or three decadedes ago so happy to be corrected) Russia would trot out an expeditionary force of 80,000, at home they could scrape up 150,000 for an important battle: essentially they were victims of their strategic strength, the Tsar's realms swallowed his own armies like it did his opponents. The Tsars armies on paper were colossal but much of it was garrison/other local forces which simply could not be mobilised for manoeuvres and campaign.

Prussia had about 80,000 too, a really big British Army with allies might nudge that. By comparison the Kaiser would field a principle field army of around 80-100,000 men, plus a substantial force deployed to secondary fronts (Typically they campaigned in Italy and the Rhine simultaneously). This was on top of substantial local forces like the Insurrectio in Hungary. On top of this they Austrian army supplied their men in the field with the most developed logistics organisation in the world.

Really Wellington does not match up very well with Napoleon head to head. The one campaign they fought saw the British forces absolutely danced off their feet, and it was only a superb defensive at Belle Alliance that allowed Wellington to survive long enough for Blucher to win the battle. Typically Wellesley commanded smaller forces, and enjoyed defensive choices because of Britain's strategic position. He was a superb "medium sized" army commander, wonderful at positional warfare both on the attack and defence. His battles were excellent set pieces, but he doesn't have an Austerlitz to his name: his defeated opponents were second tier or superannuated marshals.

Very few commanders could actually command large armies effectively. Schwarzenberg's (somewhat nominal) overall command at Leipzig was actually quite a good effort given the unwieldy organisation: if we look at generals capable of commanding more than 100,000 men in the field (and make it work) its Napoleon, Karl, Schwarzenberg and maybe De Tolly. Guys like Wellington, Blucher, Bagration and Kutusov, while very effective as generals in many circumstances, are not on Napoleon's level when it comes to Grand Army actions.

Really Karl is the only general in remote proximity to Napoleon in his role as C-in-C of vast imperial forces.

Nice write up buddy! You summed it up better then I could have. I never realized either until I was 16 that Austria fielded such a large force. It is easy to think that it was solely the British and Russians who did the work when their was others who contributed to.

I can not honestly believe that nobody mentioned Marshal Suvorov who was one of the few military comanders in history who have never lost a battle!

I was thinking about him but couldn't think of his name though! Thanks for remaining me of his name. I wonder what would have happened if he lived a few years longer.

[Morifea]

Good point about the Austrians. I would say the Prussians and the British had just a better press.

Is there literature about the great logistics of the Habsburgians?

[Flinn]

My bad if I'm making a step aside from the OP, but I guess this can be asked here rather than making a new thread

I was watching a history show a couple of weeks ago and there were two historians discussing the military skills of Napoleon; one of the two insisted that the he showed his best skills in the use of artillery and that in fact he changed the warfare, and that he was defeated only after his rivals learnt to effectively use the artillery as he did.

Thoughts? I'm not an expert at all about Napoleon

[Cookiegod]

My bad if I'm making a step aside from the OP, but I guess this can be asked here rather than making a new thread

I was watching a history show a couple of weeks ago and there were two historians discussing the military skills of Napoleon; one of the two insisted that the he showed his best skills in the use of artillery and that in fact he changed the warfare, and that he was defeated only after his rivals learnt to effectively use the artillery as he did.

Thoughts? I'm not an expert at all about Napoleon

It is very much true that Napoleon owed much of his success his very effective Artillery, yes, but not just that.

He was very skilled in maneuver warfare, and that in my opinion was far more significant, as it meant that he got to choose most of his battles on his own terms, or, in the case of Ulm, he won simply by marching.

In his Italy campaign, Napoleon was outnumbered strategically, but he defeated smaller armies one by one.

The ones where he either couldn't or didn't want to choose his battles, like at Borodino or Waterloo, the battles did not go nearly as well for him.

Conversely, the main reason his enemies won more and more was that they learned to choose when to fight and when not to fight.

Furthermore, a big reason often cited as to why he didn't recover from his 1812 march into Russia (which btw. he didn't lose simply to space and winter, but to a capable enemy that destroyed his supply lines and chose his battles wisely), is that he lost his horses. He was no longer able to press the advantages.

Also if we look at infantry, just to round up all three major types of troops, we'll see major innovations there as well.

[Abdülmecid I]

I think a bit more nuance is needed. French artillery was the best in the Napoleonic wars and played a crucial role in French victories. Besides the logistics and the professionalism of the crews, there were also tactical innovations, most famous of which is the Grand Battery, where all artillery pieces provided concentrated firepower against a specific segment of the enemy forces. Napoleon was part of a system, though. The French artillery has been improving since the Bourbons and under the reforms of Gribeauval. Also, talented officers took some risks, even Napoleon was hesitant to follow, like in the case of Sénarmont in Friedland. The irony is that Napoleon is often criticised for losing his imagination and relying too much on Grand Batteries to overwhelm his enemies in the later campaigns.

As for why he was defeated, besides his strategic and diplomatic blunders, it's mainly a question of resources and imitation. His opponents copied the French innovations and, although they never reached the quality of the imperial troops, their forces became much more efficient. Artillery was also copied, but, in my opinion, the reforms in army organisation were much more important. The massive mobilisation and conscription of the Prussian and Austrian armies allowed them to drown the French in numbers. Their qualitative advantage had shrunk, as a result of imitation and casualties suffered, so the attrition warfare ultimately favoured the coalition. Don't get me wrong, Napoleon should be credited for recognizing the increasing role of artillery in the battlefield, but he was not a pioneer on this regard and the reformed artillery of his enemies was one (and definitely not the most important) of the factors in his downfall. I would argue that even the schism between the Emperor and the upper classes of France was a larger contributor. On the other hand, the Krupp cannons of the Prussian Kingdom were indeed instrumental in the collapse of the Second Empire (albeit still not the only factor).

[conon394]

The artillery advantage should be a warning to say the Pentagon. Like other technological or doctrinal jumps. It can win you battles. But your enemies are not fools and they will respond in one way or the other. You have to never forget war is politics by other means and you better have a political solution that works before your momentary technological advantage is canceled or bested.

[Cookiegod]

I think a bit more nuance is needed. French artillery was the best in the Napoleonic wars and played a crucial role in French victories. Besides the logistics and the professionalism of the crews, there were also tactical innovations, most famous of which is the Grand Battery, where all artillery pieces provided concentrated firepower against a specific segment of the enemy forces. Napoleon was part of a system, though. The French artillery has been improving since the Bourbons and under the reforms of Gribeauval. Also, talented officers took some risks, even Napoleon was hesitant to follow, like in the case of Sénarmont in Friedland. The irony is that Napoleon is often criticised for losing his imagination and relying too much on Grand Batteries to overwhelm his enemies in the later campaigns.

As for why he was defeated, besides his strategic and diplomatic blunders, it's mainly a question of resources and imitation. His opponents copied the French innovations and, although they never reached the quality of the imperial troops, their forces became much more efficient. Artillery was also copied, but, in my opinion, the reforms in army organisation were much more important. The massive mobilisation and conscription of the Prussian and Austrian armies allowed them to drown the French in numbers. Their qualitative advantage had shrunk, as a result of imitation and casualties suffered, so the attrition warfare ultimately favoured the coalition. Don't get me wrong, Napoleon should be credited for recognizing the increasing role of artillery in the battlefield, but he was not a pioneer on this regard and the reformed artillery of his enemies was one (and definitely not the most important) of the factors in his downfall. I would argue that even the schism between the Emperor and the upper classes of France was a larger contributor. On the other hand, the Krupp cannons of the Prussian Kingdom were indeed instrumental in the collapse of the Second Empire (albeit still not the only factor).

Really this. The personal achievement by Napoleon was really his operational prowess.

Napoleons success in the Italian campaign wasn't so much achieved by quality but rather by local numerical superiority. Through quick and decisive operations he was able to defeat his enemies, that had larger forces overall, piecemeal.

Suvorov's Italian campaign however and even more impressive battles in the very same Italian theater, such as the battle of the Trebbia, where the French were well-rested, and prepared in a good defensive position behind a river and got mauled by a small part of an Austro-Russian army that went straight into attack after having marched a long distance very quickly.

The non-answer to the question of the OP is in my answer thus Alexander Suvorov. Had Napoleon not been busy in Egypt at the time, the campaign of Suvorov could have been very interesting.

[Cyclops]

Really this. The personal achievement by Napoleon was really his operational prowess.

Napoleons success in the Italian campaign wasn't so much achieved by quality but rather by local numerical superiority. Through quick and decisive operations he was able to defeat his enemies, that had larger forces overall, piecemeal.

Suvorov's Italian campaign however and even more impressive battles in the very same Italian theater, such as the battle of the Trebbia, where the French were well-rested, and prepared in a good defensive position behind a river and got mauled by a small part of an Austro-Russian army that went straight into attack after having marched a long distance very quickly.

The non-answer to the question of the OP is in my answer thus Alexander Suvorov. Had Napoleon not been busy in Egypt at the time, the campaign of Suvorov could have been very interesting.

Indeed, Suvorov was an extremely aggressive commander, and rated by the Russian and Soviet military as their GOAT general IIRC (rated 12/12 in most areas of assessment except "coolness i battle" 9/12 as he tended to get hot under the collar, but it didn't seem to affect his ability to win). Given the Russian forces impressive morale (French opponents were impressed to find large portions of Russian units lying in rows where they had died under fire without breaking, demonstrated again and again eg at Eylau and Borodino) and Suvorov's aggression and near legendary ability to motivate his men suggest it would have been a hell of a fight.

Blucher (while not in Napoleon's or even Suvorov's class) had some of the same qualities as the Russian: "vorwarts!", motivated men with a competent suite of tactical options and decent morale mad him a difficult foe for the French.

Interesting point about Napoleon's prowess: he enjoyed a stellar line up of supporting generals and aide-de-camp: for me the names here are Berthier, Davout and Murat. Guys like Massena, Ney and Soult were extremely capable and would feature in any countries all-star list, yet they are just his subordinates. However he had the score on the board in Italy and Egypt with a lesser known entourage (Ney and Davout were actually from Moreau's Army of the Rhine, while also defeated the Austrians in 1799 to end that phase of the war), and displayed his archetypical qualities: manoeuvre (often incredibly aggressive) , hard hitting well sited artillery and motivated men.

As great as his many aides were its perhaps Berthier who was most important, his brilliant staff work allowing napoleon's genius to scale up to enormous force sizes. His absence in 1815 seems pretty apparent.

I recall trying to express in game terms what Napoleon's key features were as a commander. In Italy (and again in 1814) he was a superbly agile commander, and your point about manoeuvre stands out again and again. He had an eye for terrain like few commanders ever had, seizing key hills, finding lines of approach etc at the strategic and tactical level. The few times he runs into terrain difficulties in this area (eg Aspern Essling and Waterloo, against extremely capable opponents with strength in that area) stick out: so if you were creating a game system to express his ability the ability to move his forces quickly to the right places would be number 1. This scaled up to Grand Army sized forces where huge fractions of available forces were made to dance across the map. The defeat of the Third Coalition culminating in Austerlitz is the masterpiece here but his strike on Spain in 1808, as well as the lightning strike against Prussia in 1806 and the scrambling response to Austria in 1809 when initially they were completely pantsed also bear study.

It was only when he attempted to drag half a million men into Russia that Napoleon's forces show sluggishness (his flanks drag somewhat) but even then the schwerpunkt of 150,000 men striking at Moscow move with deadly suppleness. Napoleon repeatedly displays battlefield grasp of terrain and tactical options as good as the absolute masters of that game (such as Frederick and Prinz Eugen) with the swarming aggression reminiscent of the Mongols. France did not have the most cavalry in Europe of their era IIRC (Austria and Russia boasted more mounts, and i think the Prussians brought more horses to play in 1808) but French light cavalry dominated the strategic space blinding their enemies patrols and giving napoleon huge intel advantages, and on the field his heavy cavalry were a thunderbolt ranking with the Russian guard cavalry.

My mate with whom I mucked around tinkering with other people's gamers systems (and making our own) was more of a numbers man and pointed the role of artillery in his battles was greater than most. In some ways the Napoleonic wars tactically is an arms race with doctrines like column attack, massed vs distributed artillery, and politicised recruiting key areas of development. France took the arty lead with Gribeauval's reforms (actually undertaken before the revolution), using France's well educated officer class (many of whom survived and even joined the revolution as unlike the cavalry it was a decidedly unglamorous branch of the military) and wealth to provide a strong set of of options.

Even allowing for France's well developed and brilliantly organised artillery arm we felt Napoleon was the supreme artillerist of his age, using his guns aggressively (as a Wagram), at times massing into Grand Batteries of terrifying power. So while we rated him very highly for activity, we gave him bonus artillery damage.

Morale is the final area where Napoleon shines. He used a mix of fondness and cynical political exploitation to endear his men to him and bond them into "instruments of his will" (to quote some US author or other). Napoleon's army loved him until 1814, and even in 1815 defected en masse as he returned from exile: he may be the most loved leader of an army, extraordinary as he created many unnecessary wars to keep himself seated in power. His army's will only cracked at the very end, when his gunners deserted their pieces at Waterloo mid afternoon (quite unheard of up until then for French gunners to flee like that) and finally the Middle Guard were thrown back. Only the Old Guard stood unbroken at the end, and died.

Napoleon has equals in many areas, but almost no superiors, and he was a very complete package as a soldier. I agree he's brilliant as a manoeuvre general, his eye for terrain is unsurpassed, and he mixed aggression and motivation as well as anyone ever and used his artillery advantage to crushing effect. Like Alexander he was handed the pieces of a successful military system and made the most of it, bonding his men to him with success and propaganda. He lived in an age of military ferment, with many truly talented enemies who can match some of his attributes, but none of them match all of his attributes.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

What is with Scharnhorst or Gneisenau?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_von_Scharnhorst

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August..._von_Gneisenau

[Cyclops]

Neither commanded an army opposed to Napoleon. Both were IIRC important in the military (and projected social) reforms that reanimated Prussia after the apocalypse at Jena and Auerstadt.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Gneisenau at Ligny partially?

Battle of Ligny - Wikipedia