The Battle Of Leipzig : Napoleon Bonaparte

Although his armies enjoyed unprecedented successes and expanded the French Empire from Spain to the steppes of Russia, the Napoleonic way of war was fraught with deficiencies. Due to the Napoleon's genius and mastery of this period of military manoeuvres, he was able to forestall the affects of the inherent limitations of his system until the war of the Sixth Coalition (1813) and eventually the fateful battle of Waterloo (1815). One the most significant, intrinsic flaws in Napoleon's system was related to issues of command. During the beginnings of Napoleon's career, he commanded armies of sizes up to 60 000 troops. In Italy in 1796, he commanded a force of just 38 000. With the increasing sizes of forces in the later empire, due to concepts such as levee en masse and recruitment legislation of 1792, the inability of a single commander to control such vast forces was becoming apparent. The sheer immensity of the forces now mustered was unprecedented. In 1812 the Grande Armee, consisted of a staggering 611 000 soldiers. Much to the hindrance of the later empire, few, if any officers in the Grande Armee, besides Napoleon himself, could command forces

A truly dramatic moment in history occurred on April 20, 1814, as Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France and would-be ruler of Europe said goodbye to the Old Guard after his failed invasion of Russia and defeat by the Allies.

When we think of Alexander the Great, we think of an outstanding war hero. When we think of Napoleon Bonaparte, we think, again, of an outstanding war hero. If a random person were asked who either of these rulers was, their first response would be a fact about war. Alexander and Napoleon share similarities in their warfare, and how they used it to conquer and establish new lands. Alexander the Great’s strong perseverance and incredible battle strategies led to increase his power over his empire. Napoleon used his intelligence and skill of manipulation to earn respect and support from the French people, which gained him great power. Both men had similar qualities attaining leadership but their strategies to reach this were very

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.

In 1796 as a young officer of 27 years old, Napoleon was given command of the French army in Italy. In his proclamation to his troops, Napoleon said, 'The two armies which but recently attacked you with audacity are fleeing before you in terror; the wicked men who laughed at your misery and rejoiced at the thought of the triumphs of your enemies are confounded and trembling.' Acts like this display the strong personality that Napoleon possessed and how his endearing nature captivated his troops. The control and support of the army was effective in enabling Bonaparte to eventually seize power.

Having proposed that military history has been failing in its duty, Keegan then continues to demonstrate how it should be done. The battles of Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme are the main interests of the book; these battles took place centuries apart and all involved British armies. He examines, in detail, which aspects of war changed or remain constant between the three battles. Keegan brilliantly and

Napoleon Bonaparte will remain in the heart of many French nationals as one of the greatest military leaders that the nation has had when it comes to warfare history. In 1799, Napoleon launched a series of wars, which historian call, “Napoleonic wars” in a bid to extend the territory of France in Europe. Many historians argue that the Napoleonic wars were a continuation of the earlier war under the tag, French revolution in 1789. The French revolution in itself had so many influences in Europe, especially with the armies who felt the greatest impact of the revolution. The revolution brought with it many changes, especially in the production of modern mass weapons with the conscription in place. The new improvements in weaponry made Napoleon seek hegemony in the entire Europe sparking his quest to expand and increase the revolutionary and territorial borders of France. Napoleon, Corsican aristocrat, who was a minor, rose to the position of emperor in France because of the revolution and his idea was to sweep the entire Europe with the reforms brought about by the revolution (Dwyer 32). The idea was to liberate the continent so that all citizens had a chance to take the helm of leadership and do away with the issue of kinship rule. Napoleon was a symbol of change, and although at some point, he comes out as a dictator, he was progressive and created rationalization of governance and all the social

Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the world’s greatest military strategists, led the French at the Battle of Waterloo. During his time as a General, even in defeat, his tactics in the way he used artillery were beyond reproach. His successes and errors made throughout the Battle of Waterloo had a direct effect on how we use artillery today.

Dying horses littered the roads and the advanced guard found little forage as Russians everywhere abandoned their homes. Napoleon knew that he needed to fight. At Smolensk, he set up for a battle and waited but the Russians, afraid of a trap steadily withdrew their troops from Smolensk and continued to retreat deeper into Russia. The only major battle in the Russian campaign proved that something was definitely lacking in Napoleon's judgment.

Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Russia was a major factor in his downfall. In 1812, Napoleon, whose alliance with Alexander I had disintegrated, launched an invasion into Russia that ended in a disastrous retreat from Moscow. Thereafter, all of Europe, including his own allies, Austria and Prussia, united against him. Although he continued to fight, the odds he faced were impossible. In April 1814, Napoleon’s own marshals refused to continue the struggle and stepped down from their positions. During the actual Russian campaign, there were many key factors that greatly impacted his downfall.

“Napoleon practiced extreme centralization of authority. The Emperor was his own operations officer and made all decisions” (Rothenberg, 66-67). Clausewitz pronounced Napoleon as the ‘god of war’ and his tactical and operational successes, particularly between 1805-1807, are described as that of a military genius (Clausewitz, 583, 648). The command and control system he had in place was adequate when he was present, but “when his armies operated in widely separated theaters of war, or over an extended front, his attempts to maintain strategic control failed” (Rothenberg, 67). The strategic overreach of the Grand Army coupled with an increasing inability to trust his senior army and naval flag officers during decisive battles exploited the weakness of his system of centralized command and control. This manifested itself in 1812 when the Grand Army was fighting on two fronts at opposite ends of the continent, as evidenced by unsuccessful operational outcomes and significant battlefield

First off, it is crucial to recognize the significance of this battle. The Battle of

Napoleon reached power through rising during a wartime because of his military successes. During a time of war promotions are made frequently and Napoleon became a general at a young age. Napoleon was able to move his troops much faster than any other country was able to move their troops. Napoleon’s troops were also much larger than any of the others. These advantages led to Napoleon becoming one of the greatest military leaders ever.

Everyone knows that Napoleon was a great leader and commander but it is not as cut and dry as popular history makes it out to be. His great victory at Austerlitz cemented him as one of the greatest commanders in history. This battle is was a tactical masterpiece up there with Gaugamela and Cannae. However, there is more to analyze here than just the battle itself. Many aspects of war include mobilization, supply, training, moral, army structure etc. and all play a part in Napoleon’s victories and the creation of the French Empire. Another variable to consider is the quality of the armies led by Tsar Alexander I of Russia and the Holy Roman Emperor, Francis II of Austria. The focus here is to look at how these aspects played a role in

He depended on speed, mass, and maneuverability in his battles and it served him well, during the course of his career these tactics were used to form a great empire lead by a genius leader. Napoleon studied the strategies of past great generals and read the campaigns of Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Gustavus, Turenne, and Fredrick the Great, each assessing the mistakes they did and the disadvantages and advantages of their position in each hour of war, from then he went on and created strategies that militaries learnt from. The majority of Napoleon’s campaigns began, not on the battlefield but first, he collected all the information he could on his potential enemy and studied every aspect of his opponent’s country, history, and military forces. His tactics came from a shotgun mirage of revolutionary