An Historiography Review of Napoleon failed invasion of Russia using Clausewitz and Theodore Evault Dodge books
THESIS:
Napoleon Bonaparte, an unparalleled military commander who conquered most of Europe around the early 1800’s, invaded Russia in 1812, who was under the rule of Tsar Alexander at the time, lost three quarters of his Grande Armee which was composed of soldiers from all over Europe totaling 600,000 soldiers. This part of history is the most talked about and studied military campaign even today by scholars and military school alike. Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 was a extraordinary expedition that shocked the French Empire to its foundation and led to its eventual collapse just a year later. This Historiographic comparative
…show more content…
However, both authors argue that Napoleon could have saved the lives of his troops if he wasn’t over confident about his chances. The logistics during a war is one of the most or is the most important part of going into battle because without a properly establish logistics organizing large armies would be impossible. Napoleon failed in this aspect in many different occasion during the invasion. As explained by Theodore Dodge napoleon could have destroyed the Russians quicker than they did which would have let them return home earlier and saved thousands of lives. Clausewitz argued also how logistics played a big role in Napoleons campaign in a way that was negatively impacted Napoleons chances of victory throughout his campaign. However, this failure in logistic wasn’t caused by lack of loyalty but by napoleons tirades where he would humiliate his officers in front of their men when they report to him that his troops were lacking food and supplies. Theodore disagreed with how napoleon treated his officers during this campaign. The officers didn’t want to be the center of Napoleons arrogance, so they would lie about their reports to napoleon. Being punished for telling the truth was what the officer wasn’t able to cope with. So the easiest way for them not to get punished was to lie about their food supply amount. Theodore argued that if Napoleon fix the problem of …show more content…
Theodore argued that Napoleon sickness helped in a negative way throughout the campaign such that Napoleon wasn’t able lift the morale of his troops during the campaign. Throughout Napoleons campaign on the European front he has always was able to interact and make speeches in front of the whole of his army which helped bring the troops morale exponentially. However, during the campaign in Russia Napoleon was sick with an unknown disease that rendered him unable to interact for very long. Communication is the most important aspect in the war because without communication an army cannot be organized. An army’s morale also is very high at the beginning of the war but it will constantly fall as the war goes on, so a morale booster such as speeches and better accommodations would have helped the troop’s morale. Reiterating here that Napoleon should have brought more doctors which would have his army survive longer than it
From this announcement, Napoleon competes for equivalent rights to keep the general population cheerful and not revolt. He instructs strategies to a solid tenet to his sibling. Napoleon, himself more likely than not utilized these strategies effectively before showing them to his sibling. Depicting him as force hungry is
One last mistake that most people could call Napoleon’s greatest, would be his invasion of Russia. When Czar Alexander I stopped complying with Napoleon’s demands with the Continental System, putting heavy taxes on French luxury products, and refusing to let Napoleon marry a sister of his, Napoleon thought that it was time to put Russia back in his place. With this idea in place, Napoleon gathered a huge amount of troops from all around Europe, which first entered Russia on June 24, 1812. A quote from Sutherland states that “It was the most diverse European army since the Crusades”. History experts expect that at least 450,000 Grand Armée soldiers and maybe even 650,000 ended up crossing the Niemen River to fight the Russians on the other side (approx. 200,000).
To illustrate, according to Churchill, it indicates the worst side of World War I as how it was the most damaging and cruel war of humanity because it was global and wounded most people. Moreover, it confused the thought of how the war started, who was responsible for the war, and how it ended up, and no one still got a right answer, but the previous war was not cruel that kill most of the people around the world. It was well known who started the war and whose fault it was. Also, Generals in WWI were not participating directly with their soldiers and were sitting far from the wars with having information through telephones. Therefore, they had less effects on their soldiers, and the armies did not get encouragement from their Generals as in the previous wars had, such as the physical battle of Hannibal and Caesar, Turenne and Marlborough, Frederick and Napoleon. Another point of view in the essay is that Generals as Napoleon have hard work to do in order to attack a place. For instance, they should organize their armies, have better tactics and plans, know how to defeat themselves, know the right time of attacking, and make big decisions. Hence, it is the deal of thousands of men’ life including the General himself in the previous wars, but the World War I was only the armies and citizens as well were the victims, so Generals were disappearing. That’s why
...y, and more indirectly, the world. Napoleon’s greed got the best of him in the end, tough. It was Napoleon’s boldness to advance and try to take the Russian empire that led to his downfall. No man had ever even considered to bother the sleeping bear that was the Russians. Upon provoking the Russians, his troops were massacred and he was sent into exile. France was set back to its normal borders and the leaders of the conquered states were reseated in power. Yet, Napoleon’s exile did not hold him back. He returned and tried to reclaim his power from the powers that had unseated him. He challenged the authority that had been merciful upon him and sent him into exile. Upon his return, he tried to throw a coup and seize his government once again. It was unsuccessful and he was sent to permanent exile in St. Helena. He later died there, leaving the world forever changed.
...ets of Success or Seeds of Failure?” History Today. History Today Ltd., 2012. Web. 20 March 2014. http://www.historytoday.com/graham-goodlad/napoleon-war-secrets-success-or-seeds-failure
Napoleon was an outstanding military commander and enjoyed many successful campaigns. Napoleon maintained the Revolutionary syst...
...ilitary, he also had success working his way up the military ranks and spreading France's rule into Italy helping to launch his political career. In the military Napoleon also uses his knowledge of war and strategies to defeat nations like Russia and make treaties with Austria for peace. Even though Napoleon was skilled in the military, one of his biggest mistakes would happen during war in Moscow. He was overly confident and did not prepare for a battle that would last longer than he expected. When he arrives in Moscow he finds it burnt to the ground leaving his troops no shelter or food.
French Revolution brought a great number of great ideas, but ideas are not beneficial unless they are realized and stabilized. The man to stabilize the concepts of French Revolution was Napoleon Bonaparte. He started out as an Italian general and ended up being one of the greatest historical figures. First, Directors requested Napoleon's support while organizing a coup d'etat. Then, Bonaparte fought Britain in order to benefit France. Lastly, he was called to help creating a new constitution and ended up as the First Consul of France. At home, he ruled using flattery, but also he strongly resisted the opposition. Napoleon is a pro-revolutionist because he denied all the privileges of the aristocracy, created a new constitution, and also established the Napoleonic Code.
One of Napoleon’s first areas of concern was in the strengthening of the French government. He created a strong centralized government and pretty much got rid of the hundreds of localized law codes that had existed during under the control of the monarchy. He also created an army of government officials. He had the entire country linked under a rational administration. He also was able to get an easy supply of taxes and soldiers under his new and improved French government. Before he could get very far, however, he had to gain public favor and shape the public opinion. To do this he used reforms of propaganda and thus caused people to think that they were getting the better end of the deal, but were actually, subconsciously giving Napoleon their approval for his actions. Among some of the methods he used for propaganda included getting all of the printers and book sellers to swear an oath to Napoleon and all newspapers fell under state control, so Napoleon gained access to almost everything that the citizens of France were able to read. Many of the gains from the French Revolution were kept, such as equality before the law, and careers open to talent. Some anti-revolution actions that Napoleon took included repressing liberty, restoring absolutism, and ending political liberty. He believed that allowing political freedom would end with a state of anarchy. He believed that he could solve these problems by acting in favor of the people’s interests as an enlightened desp...
Misused intelligence and underestimated opponents were at the heart of Napoleon?s downfall. This was clearly shown at Moscow when the Russians outwitted him by using their scorched earth policy and not meeting him in battle as they agreed. With careful planning, the Russian invasion could have gone a lot better and maybe not have led to Napoleon?s downfall.
With all the glory and the splendour that some countries may have experienced, never has history seen how only only one man, Napoleon, brought up his country, France, from its most tormented status, to the very pinnacle of its height in just a few years time. He was a military hero who won splendid land-based battles, which allowed him to dominate most of the European continent. He was a man with ambition, great self-control and calculation, a great strategist, a genius; whatever it was, he was simply the best. But, even though how great this person was, something about how he governed France still floats among people's minds. Did he abuse his power? Did Napoleon defeat the purpose of the ideals of the French Revolution? After all of his success in his military campaigns, did he gratify the people's needs regarding their ideals on the French Revolution? This is one of the many controversies that we have to deal with when studying Napoleon and the French Revolution. In this essay, I will discuss my opinion on whether or not was he a destroyer of the ideals of the French Revolution.
· One Admiral at that time exclaimed, "If he had an obtained an interview with His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, in half an hour they would have been the best friends in England! " · His contemporaries had no doubt about the charismatic quality of leadership. His great adversary Wellington said to him that the moral effect of his presence in the field and worth an additional force of 40,000 men to the French army. This he ascribed to Napoleon's dual position as both head of state and commander-in-chief, which gave him unparalleled control over events, but also to his great personal popularity with the army. · One of Napoleon's own generals explained this popularity by saying that it "was by familiarities that the Emperor made his soldiers adore him, but it was a means available to only to a commander whom frequent victories had made illustrious; any other general would have injured his reputation by it".
Napoleon had to retrieve from Russia under attacks by Russian peasants and horsemen on those who fell behind. His army also suffered from cold and hunger, since the Russians destroyed all food supplies. The takeover of Moscow by Napoleon proved to be useless, and in the long run, destroyed a large part of his army. Alongside these historical events, Tolstoy describes the different classes of Russian society in terms of their participation in the war and what kind of an impact war had on their lives. In the beginning of the novel, the Russian aristocratic class, which was in the czar’s circle, wanted Russia to participate in the war.
The Campaign of 1812 should have been a another crusade for Napoleon, but he now faced 2 new policies that he had never faced before, the severe Russian winter and the notorious scorched-earth policy. On June 23, 1812 Napoleon's Grande Armee, over 500,000 men strong, poured over the Russian border. An equal amount of Russian forces awaited them. The result of the campaign was a surprise. Two authors, General carl von Clausewitz and Brett James, show similarities in reasons why Napoleon had lost this campaign to Russia.
Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the famous figures in French history by the importance of his internal reforms. However, he remains primarily in global memory as one of the greatest military commanders in history. Indeed, Napoleon Bonaparte delivered more battles than Alexander the Great, Hannibal, or Caesar. His campaigns covered all Europe from Spain to Russia, without forgetting the East with Egypt and Syria. The French Emperor entered in the prestigious capitals of Europe, Milan, Vienna (twice), Berlin, Madrid and Moscow. Napoleon has greatly influenced the Western way of war, not only by the new organization of armies, but also by the optimization of different capabilities and the combination between leadership and creativity in the battlefields.