

How Good Was Napoleon? (2007) - diodorus
http://www.historytoday.com/jonathon-riley/how-good-was-napoleon

======
alricb
> Jonathon Riley served in Bosnia and Iraq, where he was the general officer
> commanding British forces.

A British officer who doesn't think highly of Napoleon? This is my surprised
face.

> This is implicit in Karl von Clausewitz’s celebrated but often misquoted
> (and still more often misunderstood) remark that ‘war is simply a
> continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means.’

Can this guy read German? Because that seems like an over-translation of the
simple „Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln“
(title of section 24, chapter 1, book I of Vom Kriege).

I would also note that Napoleon failed in the end, but that he did quite well
in the meanwhile. He continued the Revolutionary Wars, and so was doomed to
face the forces of reaction, who would never ally with him with any kind of
sincerity. It's possible that his military successes blinded him to the
possibility of stability through diplomacy, but could he really have allied
with the Habsburgs?

He also had to contend with an ascendant Britain, willing to exploit her
insular position to its full advantage through her renewed Navy and her
economic strength. But just a few years before the French Revolution, Britain
had come close to losing it all; with no allies on the continent to distract
France, she might have lost not just her colonies, but her dominant naval
position, which was so essential in Napoleon's defeat.

~~~
cmdkeen
Napoleon had many of the same advantages as with the War of Independence, once
France and Spain were allied he had a naval numerical advantage and at many
points an isolated Britain. Even the revolutionary French and Spanish Navies
had shown a marked lack of interest in the kind of daring fighting that marked
British admirals (partially due to the esprit de corps created after Byng's
shooting). Nelson's breaking the line was not a new tactical invention, it was
just something that most shied away from.

Perhaps we British officers (I'm RN) appreciate our heroes a little more
because they fought outnumbered yet achieved crushing victories, and they
achieved their ultimate strategic objectives. Despite being aristocrats
dealing with men who were often "scum" seemed to care far more their lives
than the supposedly revolutionary Napoleon. Wellington was not only a great
general but fought peace as a diplomat in Paris, and later as a Prime
Minister. Wellington even sought out Napoleon's former mistresses and seduced
them in Paris.

~~~
qwertyuiop1234
I can never understand why Wellington would call soldiers 'scum of the earth'.
Soldiers don't get anything whether 'His Majesty' wins the war or not. No
wonder Scotland wants independence. They sent soldiers to Wellington's
expedition. Scots Grays were the ones who charged French line and batteries at
Waterloo which avoid disaster. And yet they are 'nothing but beggars and
scoundrel' to Wellington.

History is written by winners. Had Napoleon not gone to Russia, European
feudal system would have fallen much earlier, and we'd be writing this in
French.

Napoleon's contribution to history is not military feat. It's the civil code,
education, equal opportunity, emancipation of jews, tearing down of ancien
régime and giving birth to idea of nation states.

~~~
arethuza
A longer quote rather puts the "scum of the Earth" thing in context:

 _A French army is composed very differently from ours. The conscription calls
out a share of every class — no matter whether your son or my son — all must
march; but our friends — I may say it in this room — are the very scum of the
earth. People talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling — all
stuff — no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got bastard children
— some for minor offences — many more for drink; but you can hardly conceive
such a set brought together, and it really is wonderful that we should have
made them the fine fellows they are._

~~~
qwertyuiop1234
He said that many times throughout the war. At a formal settings obvious he'll
say it a little nicer. British soldiers get paid only one shilling per day and
are constantly short on supply and had to plunder to survive. There is even a
book on why soldiers are not 'scum of the Earth'

[http://www.amazon.com/All-Kings-Shilling-Wellington-
Commande...](http://www.amazon.com/All-Kings-Shilling-Wellington-
Commanders/dp/0806141050)

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
Much less so than the french who lived of the land - which means you cannot as
easily concetrate force at the schwerpunkt (the key point of the battle field)

------
hooande
Napoleon was indeed a very good general, rightfully considered as one of the
greatest of all time. This very well written and insightful article takes his
legend down a peg or two, which is certainly justified. The invasion of Russia
was one of history's greatest follies, The Little Corporal was cavalier with
the lives of his men and his strategic brilliance was inconsistent at best.
But his strengths often made up for his short comings and he was better than
almost all of the comparable generals of his day.

His victory at Austerlitz stands as one of the great military achievements and
best executed battles in history. Literally a textbook example of movement,
timing and coordination. The common perception is that after Napoleon returned
from Elba he lost much of his strategic and tactical flair, throwing his men
into meat grinders. This is mostly true, but most of the opposing generals
also had very high casualty rates. Napoleonic warfare was dominated by the Fog
of War, they had no satellites or drones to help them plan and maneuver.
Napoleon had a sixth sense for visualizing a battle that unfortunately came
and went. On his good days he was better than many who have ever lived. On
most days, he was simply average. That's as much as most of us could ask for,
and it was enough to dominate a continent at the time.

History is filled with intelligent and technically capable generals, but only
a few who had a style that set them apart. Hannibal and Robert E. Lee come
easily to mind, along with others. Napoleon's genius of movement and logistics
were groundbreaking, and the lessons apply to more than warfare. He was the
original "Move fast and break things". He taught military history that being
faster and better organized was enough to build a seemingly unstoppable snow
ball effect of victories. His downfall instructs that even the best
preparation cannot defeat a dangerous and unpredictable shifting landscape.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
Napoleon is normaly considered one of the "great captains"

the gereral consensus is that the great captains are Ceaser, Hannibal
Alexander, Churcill (John not Winston) Wellington and Napoleon.

~~~
demallien
Yeah, that list rather sucks. At a minimum you need to add in Robert Lee and
Ulysses Grant. Also Genghis Khan was no slouch on the battlefield, and most
people feel like Sun Tzu knew a thing or two about fighting battles...

~~~
lsc
huh. If we're talking about the "general consensus" You are perhaps the only
person I've heard of who would put both lee and grant on the list.

Some would add Lee (though personally, I think that is for political/tribal
reasons more than anything else... but I do acknowledge than many have a high
opinion of the man, especially when it came to cavalry.) - but even those of
us who sympathize with the north generally don't rate Grant much above
'competent enough' \- he got the job done, but nobody is going to compare him
to Caesar or Napoleon.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
yep as important to America as the ACW is it was only a single short war.

~~~
kazagistar
It was short because the north had massive manpower and industrial production
advantages. AFAIK the northern leadership made it much harder then it should
have been, if anything (or Lee made it harder, or both).

------
VieElm
From a literary perspective, Tolstoy's War and Peace has volumes of text
dedicated to examining Napoleon and the impact of "great men" on history. He
also doesn't create a very flattering portrayal, it's a great read. Of course
there's more to that book than just war. Dumas, who named a chapter "The
Corsican Ogre" after Napoleon in The Count of Monte Cristo is also not very
kind to his legacy. Napoleon's lasting impact beyond just the destruction and
desecration of monarchies across Europe probably includes the Napoleonic
Code[1] which has probably influenced laws everywhere.

Another great read is Rifleman Dodd, also known as Death to the French, the
story of a single British rifleman causing havoc to french forces in Spain[2].
It gives you an interesting perspective how much the french were hated outside
of France.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_the_French](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_the_French)

~~~
cageface
If you enjoy this period of history you should also read Conan Doyle's
"Brigadier Gerard":

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier_Gerard](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigadier_Gerard)

It's the fictional accounts of a dashing and arrogant cavalry officer in
Napoleon's army. You can tell Doyle enjoys lampooning some French military
stereotypes but there's also some great adventures along the way. I think it
would make a great movie with the right director and cast.

------
nl
Criticising Napoleon without mentioning Austerlitz[1] is.. pretty stupid.
Probably only Cannae is as famous as a textbook example of brilliant command.

Even if there are some decent points made it will take a lot more than that to
argue that he wasn't one of the great battlefield commanders.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz)

------
Animats
This is from a real general. You can tell. He talks about logistics before he
talks about battles. Napoleon's military funded the development of the tin
can. That wasn't enough to get his army to Moscow. Here's a view of that
logistic disaster:
[http://www.indiana.edu/~psource/PDF/Archive%20Articles/Sprin...](http://www.indiana.edu/~psource/PDF/Archive%20Articles/Spring2011/LynchBennettArticle.pdf)

As is usual with the conquer-the-world types, not knowing when to stop was
Napoleon's downfall. Hitler made the same mistake - taking on both Britain and
Russia at the same time.

~~~
pm90
Its an oft repeated point that Hitler made the same mistake as Napoleon, but
the situations were actually very different. In particular, there was the
actual threat of Stalinist Russia getting completely industrialized and then
attacking Germany first. And so its often debated among historians whether the
German invasion was inevitable.

------
natosaichek
At the end of this article, he starts to touch on some of the things that
William Lind has been writing about for years - how state actors can fight
against non-state actors.

He talks a lot about the different levels of war (strategic, operational,
tactical) but more, talks about how war evolved over time. In particular how
maneuver doctrine is superior to firepower doctrine is superior to manpower
doctrine. These all are, to a certain extent, trumped by guerrilla warfare by
non-state forces. Lind calls this fourth generation warfare.

Here's an archive of some of his essays (chronological from the bottom up):

[http://www.dnipogo.org/lind/lind_archive.htm](http://www.dnipogo.org/lind/lind_archive.htm)

------
ArkyBeagle
I suppose we should estimate Napoleon's greatness by the size of the mess he
left behind. Considering that a Napoleon III intervened to disaster in ...
Mexico, that's quite a mess.

Napoleon was sufficient to resuscitate the Spanish Inquisition. It is a
Napoleon-sized mess in itself, but "Goya's Ghosts" at least brushes onto this
- complete with a demonstration of the use of the garotte.

But at least we had... Bismarck...

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
Not sure germanys experiance of rule by a millatery oligarchcy was on balance
a good thing :-)

Its a pity that Kaiser wilhelm did not take after his father who wanted a
consitutional democarcy closer to the UK's system.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
Indeed - but Bismarck casts a long shadow. Wilhelm hisownself was far too
self-aggrandizing for that.

------
gadders
Short answer: Not as good as Wellington, clearly.

~~~
qwertyuiop1234
Blücher's Prussian army arrived to save Wellington's ass despite Wellington
not saving theirs at Battle of Ligny. Can we please give Germans some credit.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo)

~~~
gadders
They were very instrumental in the winning of the battle. They followed orders
very well ;-)

~~~
qwertyuiop1234
There is no 'order', only verbal agreement that they will come to each other's
aid in case they run into Napoleon's army. Wellington rode to Blücher and
promised to aid him at Ligny but he didn't which resulted in Prussian defeat
at Battle of Ligny. Blücher himself was incapacitated. Chief of Staff
Gneisenau didn't want to come to Wellington's aid because he didn't trust the
British. Had Blücher not insisted marching onto Waterloo, Wellington would be
crush like Alexander in Austerlitz.

~~~
dragop
Wellington couldn't come to Blücher's aid as Napoleon blocked him with his
left wing under Ney at Quatre Bras.

Your argument seems to be coming from the historical revisionism that
Hofschröer puts forward, about how Waterloo was somehow a German victory and
Wellington simply took the credit.

It was neither, it was a coalition victory by both Wellington and Blücher in
close cooperation. Close cooperation by the standards of the day that is, in
personal meetings and messages conveyed on horse-back.

Neither knew from which direction Napoleon would attack, and when he did he
took both Blücher and Wellington by surprise. Moving from the south-west he
defeated Blücher at Ligny, whilst pushing his left wing under Ney to block
Wellington to the north at Quatre Bras. Arguably Napoleon's biggest mistake
was not to make sure he had decisively beaten Blücher at Ligny.

Blücher withdrew to reorganise, and Wellington pulled back north along the
Brussels road to Waterloo. Crucially Blücher also withdrew northwards,
parallel to the French advance, and Wellington was well aware of this, the
French not.

The rest is history. Wellington's army held the field all day, the Prussians
arrived on the French right in the late afternoon, and with Napoleon's attacks
exhausted, the French army routed.

To quote Wellington himself written immediately after the battle _" I should
not do justice to my own feelings, or to Marshal Blücher and the Prussian
army, if I did not attribute the successful result of this arduous day to the
cordial and timely assistance I received from them"_

~~~
qwertyuiop1234
Whether or not Wellington promised to come to Blücher's aid at Ligny is
debatable. Hofschröer claims he did. You can't call it revisionism because he
was simply stating his view. Ask 10 people today who defeated Napoleon at
Waterloo, 9 wouldn't even know Prussians were there.

Wellington has always reserved the option to retreat from the sea. That's why
he left 10000+ reserve to cover the retreat path in case things go wrong at
Waterloo. From Prussian point of view 1) they just lost a battle badly at
Ligny 2) Wellington said he'd come but he didn't 3) Wellington could escape
from sea in which case Prussians will surely be crushed facing French alone.
Wellington does deserve credit but I would say Blücher's courage to trust his
teammate and meet Wellington at Waterloo is more respectable. It's not a
overstatement that it's a German victory.

Napoleon's biggest mistake is giving his marshals wrong tasks. He left his
best marshal Davout in Paris while hoping Grouchy who just got promoted
marshal to carry the weight to chase down Blücher. Grouchy is OK with carrying
out orders but not so great at reacting to situation. Despite Gérard repeated
asking to 'march to the sound of the guns', he decided to follow previous
order and chase Prussians in the wrong direction. Although he didn't have too
much of a choice, Davout is the only one whose loyalty is questionable. He
didn't want what happened at Fontainebleau to repeat so he had to keep Davout
at home. And then he used Soult for staff work who did a very sloppy job. The
lack of information and misinformation may have well cost the battle.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> Wellington said he'd come but he didn't

Wellington said he'd come _if he wasn 't attacked himself_, but he didn't
_because he was attacked_. That's rather different than what you said.

------
teach
SO much passive voice. Somebody needs to run that article through
Hemingway.[0]

[0] [http://www.hemingwayapp.com/](http://www.hemingwayapp.com/)

~~~
themartorana
That's like running Andrew Wyeth[1] through a Bob Ross app. [0] Writing is
art, it doesn't always need to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator
or bereft of its voice.

[0] I loved Bob Ross.

[1] I originally had "Picasso" but the styles were too disparate for the
point. Still, props to @krapp for the ERB link.

~~~
teach
I understand your point, but I strongly disagree. First, you're saying that
the author of this piece -- a military general and historian -- used hard-to-
read passive voice throughout because of his extreme demonstrated mastery of
the art of writing. He truly considered and wrestled with each sentence.

I don't believe that one bit.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that artisans should avoid learning the
fundamentals of their craft, or that doing so somehow robs the work of its
"voice".

It reminds me of a fourteen-year-old guitarist who doesn't see the need to
learn scales or music theory. "I'm not going to be some cookie-cutter
musician, man. My music is going to be original and unique!"

This article would be much better if it had gone through an editing phase or
two.

~~~
JetSetWilly
Why are there so many people who pick up poorly founded superstitions about
language and then insist and sneer how right they are? Folk don't go about
making hilariously arrogant and and ignorant claims about say, maths, but with
language all bets are off. Maybe they think that because they can speak
English they are an expert?

There was nothing wrong with the article as regards the "passive voice" and
like most people who moan about the passive voice you likely don't understand
what it is:
[http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922)

Mentioning that hilariously bad app Hemingway makes it worse. Running
Hemingway through hemingway is fun - it gets mutilated.

