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
French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte is remembered as one of the greatest minds in military history. His revolutionary approach to warfare changed the course of history and the principles which governed his style of leadership are still valued today. Although he had an illustrious career of over 25 years and expanded the French Empire from Portugal to Russia, his reign came to end at the hands' of his enemies. The Battle of Waterloo was Napoleon's last stand as a military commander and will be examined for his use of the principles of the operations process. Napoleon failed to implement these activities effectively and is ultimately responsible for the loss of the battle. Napoleon was able to lead his men, but was unable to overcome his failures. He failed to understand the operational environment which affected his subordinates ability share an understanding of the environment. He failed to direct his forces and functions which lead to the loss of initiative and lacked in violence of action. Finally, Napoleon failed to assess the battle continuously and accurately which kept him from adapting when necessary. After a hard fought battle at Waterloo, Napoleon was defeated.
In Document 3, a French artist by the name of Jacques-Louis David depicts Napoleon riding into battle. This says that Napoleon was a leader even on the battlefield. The artist shows biased as coming from the place where Napoleon ruled, he would have a different perspective on Napoleon than an artist from England. In Document 1, Napoleon addresses the Army about the French government and what they do for France and that they could give nothing in return for their service. But, he does say that he will lead them into the most fertile plains in the world and that he plans for them to conquer great cities. In Document 2, Napoleon writes about the division of authority. Napoleon wrote this when he first became first consul. He said that the citizens will recognize him as a soldier of liberty who is devoted to the Republic. He is saying that he is going to improve the nation under his
Napoleon Bonaparte’s attitude towards the French Revolution is one that has often raised questions. That the revolution had an influence on Bonaparte’s regime cannot be denied – but to what extent? When one looks at France after Napoleon’s reign it is clear that he had brought much longed for order and stability. He had also established institutions that embodied the main principles of the revolution. However, it is also evident that many of his policies directly contradict those same principles. Was Napoleon betraying the same revolution that gave him power, or was he merely a pragmatist, who recognised that to consolidate the achievements of the revolution he needed to sacrifice some of those principles?
Crashing cannon balls, firing muskets, Calvary charging with blades of cold steel. These are the images that are presented to people when contemplating, which many people in our society do very often, the Napoleonic wars. The reality is quite the contrary, to some extent this image is true. The reality is the Napoleonic wars were ones of attrition. The goal of army’s were to have enough troops to sustain the ability to fight in the next battle. The British government had this attrition as one of the principal complications with their army and Navy do to their constant involvement in war no matter where public opinion stood.
...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.
Kreis, Steven. “Europe and the Superior Being: Napoleon.” The History Guide: Lectures on Modern European Intellectual History. 13 May. 2004. 6 Dec. 2004.
Napoleon was an outstanding military commander and enjoyed many successful campaigns. Napoleon maintained the Revolutionary syst...
What I found interesting in this research is that Napoleon only won one Battle and he lost most of his Grand Army in Russia, and he is still considered to be one of the best military leaders in history. One subject that surprised me in the reading was that the U.S, actually had allies even though most countries hated us. Another subject that surprised me in the research was how Napoleon lost more than ⅔ of his army. The last topic that surprised me was that Trotsky was not over the Bolshevik’s even though he was second in line, because he lossed out to Stalin. Word count: 106
Kirchberger, Joe H. The French Revolution and Napoleon. New York: Facts on File inc, 1989.
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
Given his significance throughout the late 1700s and the early 1800’s, Napoleon Bonaparte has been deemed a controversial figure by many historians. Born Napoleone di Buonaparte, he was a French military leader and a political figure who was feared by many and hailed as a military genius by others. Notwithstanding the praise, Napoleon disguised policies of his own interests as reforms that served the needs of the state. An analysis of the Napoleonic Code, Napoleon Bonaparte’s excessive use of military force and his reintroduction of Catholicism through the Concordat of 1801, provides a balanced overview of Napoleon as a corrupt leader.
The purpose of this paper is to analysis the Battle of Waterloo Napoleon's defeat and describe how an alternate outcome for Napoleon could have brought him victory.
Clausewitz replies by saying, " Napoleon was unable to grasp the fact that Alexander would not, could not negotiate. The Tsar knew well that he would be disposed and assassinated if he tried so." pg 256, The Campaign of 1812 in Russia
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.
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.