Question about Napoleon's army.

[briantk]

I am currently reading about Napoleon's Hundred Day Reign, and question came to me. How well disciplined and organized was the French Army at height of Napoleon's power? Time period I am looking is before Russian invasion and after Austerlitz battle.

In books I read about French army at Napoleonic period suggest that while they may excel in battle, they are poorly disciplined off battle. In one book about Russian invasion, it mentioned that there was army of vagabond soldiers in France who are drifting around, not reporting for duty. In same book, during the retreat from Moscow, retreating units who arrived first at Smolensk (?) depot destroyed any supplies they cannot carry, which denies any relief to following units. Other sources also suggest logistic is nearly non-existant, as army encourage its soldiers to forage without compensation, as opposite of British counterpart do(at higher level of command). Can anyone explain me whether is view is accurate or not?

 

Thanks in advance,

Brian

Edited February 23, 2008 by briantk

[KingSargent]

It wasn't that Napoleon's army was so good, it was that his opponents were so lousy. And anybody with good soldiers had inferior leadership,* or were just too small to face the French masses.

 

It is true that the French Army had little organized logistical support while on campaign, or while garrisoning occupied territory. FTM, few armies did, unless at home within reach of depots.

 

And the "organization and discipline" of the British Army was more to organize the looting than to prevent it.

 

 

* Take Wellington out of the equation and who is left that could enable the British Army at the time to beat the French?

[Gregory]

It wasn't that Napoleon's army was so good, it was that his opponents were so lousy. And anybody with good soldiers had inferior leadership,* or were just too small to face the French masses.

 

It is true that the French Army had little organized logistical support while on campaign, or while garrisoning occupied territory. FTM, few armies did, unless at home within reach of depots.

"It is certainly astonishing that the enemy have been able to remain in this country so long; and it is an extraordinary instance of what a French army can do. ...They brought no provisions with them, and they have not received even a letter since they entered Portugal. With all our money, and having in our favour the good inclinations of the country, I assure you that I could not maintain one division in the district in which they have maintained not less than 60,000 men...for more than two months."

-Wellington

 

And the "organization and discipline" of the British Army was more to organize the looting than to prevent it.

* Take Wellington out of the equation and who is left that could enable the British Army at the time to beat the French?

Sir John Moore was considered fairly good. Good enough? Obviously we'll never know. But even without Wellington, Napoleon was all but doomed after loosing his army in Russia .

[BillB]

* Take Wellington out of the equation and who is left that could enable the British Army at the time to beat the French?

Obvious. Lieutenant/Captain/Major Richard Sharpe of the South Essex...

 

BillB

[Grant Whitley]

Obvious. Lieutenant/Captain/Major Richard Sharpe of the South Essex...

 

BillB

 

I could never get into the Sharpe movies after having seen Sean Bean in Ronin.

 

"What color is the boathouse at Hereford?"

 

"I just ambushed you in a f**kin' cup of coffee!"

[BillB]

I could never get into the Sharpe movies after having seen Sean Bean in Ronin.

 

"What color is the boathouse at Hereford?"

 

"I just ambushed you in a f**kin' cup of coffee!"

Careful son. Sharpie is the Napoleonic era's equivalent to Chuck Norris. Oh, and I think you'll find it is pronounced "Heeerford"...

 

BillB

[briantk]

I just finished reading One Hundred Days: Napoleon's Road to Waterloo by Alan Schom.

Impression I have from the book is that Napoleon and his family acted like mafia.

What is your impression of Bonaparte's family?

[67th Tigers]

I am currently reading about Napoleon's Hundred Day Reign, and question came to me. How well disciplined and organized was the French Army at height of Napoleon's power? Time period I am looking is before Russian invasion and after Austerlitz battle.

In books I read about French army at Napoleonic period suggest that while they may excel in battle, they are poorly disciplined off battle. In one book about Russian invasion, it mentioned that there was army of vagabond soldiers in France who are drifting around, not reporting for duty. In same book, during the retreat from Moscow, retreating units who arrived first at Smolensk (?) depot destroyed any supplies they cannot carry, which denies any relief to following units. Other sources also suggest logistic is nearly non-existant, as army encourage its soldiers to forage without compensation, as opposite of British counterpart do(at higher level of command). Can anyone explain me whether is view is accurate or not?

 

Thanks in advance,

Brian

 

Napoleon's Army was in a continual decline after 1807. It became increasingly reliant on its artillery arm and the infantry and cavalry became less capable. See http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1846032784 (and ignore the one star article, he obvious skipped the first page explaining the Platoon is the proper designation for a Company at the time, the Coy being a purely administrative body, containing a platoon and those troops detached from the platoon).

 

Strachen (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0415078636/ ) notes the logistics for Napoleon's armies were haphazard, and simply could cope with his movement against Russia in 1812.

[DesertFox]

When would people here call the "Genesis" for modern logistics?

[Jim Martin]

When would people here call the "Genesis" for modern logistics?

 

 

American Civil War, with widespread use of rail transport, and telegraph dispatch.

[KingSargent]

I just finished reading One Hundred Days: Napoleon's Road to Waterloo by Alan Schom.

Impression I have from the book is that Napoleon and his family acted like mafia.

What is your impression of Bonaparte's family?

His sister Pauline is one of my Favorite Sluts Of History. She decorated palaces with nude sculptures of herself (quite nice bod), and her stated ambition was to screw more men than her brother killed .

 

And we thought Brother Billy Carter was embarassing.....

[Tim the Tank Nut]

The French Army in Napoleon's time brought a lot of things that just didn't exist before. Divisions and Army Corps, Berthier's staff work, the whole enchilada was so far ahead of what the monarchy's armies could do. The problem was fighting everyone at once and continuously for 20 years. It wore the French down and ran the gov't out of money.

 

As far as how good were they?

 

Jena, Auerstadt and on to Potsdam in a few weeks. Look what they did to the Prussians!

 

By les cent jours la Patrie was used up. Napoleon was without his staff, the marshalate was through and while it was a valiant effort it wasn't going to work. There was hope in 1813, less in 1814 and by 1815 the French just weren't up to it any more.

 

Of course Napoleon the man brought law and order back to France along with religion (the Concordat). Many worthwhile things from that active mind.

[Xavier]

The French Army in Napoleon's time brought a lot of things that just didn't exist before. Divisions and Army Corps, Berthier's staff work, the whole enchilada was so far ahead of what the monarchy's armies could do. The problem was fighting everyone at once and continuously for 20 years. It wore the French down and ran the gov't out of money.

 

As far as how good were they?

 

Jena, Auerstadt and on to Potsdam in a few weeks. Look what they did to the Prussians!

 

By les cent jours la Patrie was used up. Napoleon was without his staff, the marshalate was through and while it was a valiant effort it wasn't going to work. There was hope in 1813, less in 1814 and by 1815 the French just weren't up to it any more.

 

Of course Napoleon the man brought law and order back to France along with religion (the Concordat). Many worthwhile things from that active mind.

his biggest problem probably was that he was just too good at beating others! Resulting in everyone else in Europe not trusting any peace with him around for fear that he would kick their asses the next time and in himself trying to get a bigger piece of the pie than even he could digest without an indigestion.

[KingSargent]

his biggest problem probably was that he was just too good at beating others! Resulting in everyone else in Europe not trusting any peace with him around for fear that he would kick their asses the next time and in himself trying to get a bigger piece of the pie than even he could digest without an indigestion.

Indigestion got him in the end, according to those who think he could have won Waterloo if he had been healthy.

 

IMHO he would have been better off in 1812 just heading for St. Petersburg and forgetting Moscow.

 

BTW, he didn't lose La Grande Armee on the RETREAT from Moscow in 1812, most of it melted away on the advance. Only about 10-20% of the force that went into Russia made it to Moscow.

[Yama]

his biggest problem probably was that he was just too good at beating others! Resulting in everyone else in Europe not trusting any peace with him around for fear that he would kick their asses the next time and in himself trying to get a bigger piece of the pie than even he could digest without an indigestion.

 

I think Napoleon did not realize that what had worked in time of Caesar and Genghis Khan was not going to work anymore. World (particularly Europe) had got smaller, there were many powerful nations which had much closer economic and political ties than before. A conqueror would have everyone worried and ganged up against him sooner or later.

[swerve]

...BTW, he didn't lose La Grande Armee on the RETREAT from Moscow in 1812, most of it melted away on the advance. Only about 10-20% of the force that went into Russia made it to Moscow.

 

But a large proportion of the force that marched across the border was in separate armies that aimed for secondary objectives, or to secure his flanks. Much of it was also meant to secure lines of communication & garrison the depots which were supposed to protect against the catastrophe that actually happened (but the Russians succeeded in destroying or capturing some depots, or forcing Napoleon away from them on the retreat, & some supplies were destroyed in the indiscipline when starving troops broke into the depots in Smolensk & Vilnius). Add them in, & I think you'll find that a majority of the army was still under arms when Napoleon took Moscow, & he had about 30-40% of his main army still with him.

 

He gathered up most of the depot garrisons, flank guards & LOC troops as he retreated, then lost them on the march. The Prussians & Austrians changed sides after he began retreating, contributing to the French losses - but not casualties - but even deducting those armies, I think there may have been more casualties on the retreat than the advance. Most of the prisoners (maybe 100K) were taken on the retreat.

 

I've often wondered how many died, & how many survived. I know the Russians took a lot of prisoners, & AFAIK treated them quite well, by the standards of the time, but I've never found good numbers for either prisoners or survivors. Nor have I found numbers for wounded sent home on the advance. The Russians counted a lot of bodies (IIRC there was a small reward for peasants for every body found, & a larger one for live prisoners), but far less than the difference between the initial & final strengths of the French army. The figures I've found for the survivors are ca 40K (including stragglers) who crossed the Niemen in December, ca 60K later assembled at Posen (Poznan) by Murat including stragglers & withdrawn garrisons (NB. includes the previous 40K), maybe half the prisoners returned in 1814 (the rest having died in captivity - many were sick or injured when captured, & didn't live long), & about 80K Austrians & Prussians in the flanking armies which switched sides.

 

It's been argued that typhus killed more than either the Russians or the weather. It's definitely been established that a typhus epidemic broke out in the army after it entered Russia.

Edited February 25, 2008 by swerve

[67th Tigers]

See the following, the pink line is the army in the advance to Moscow (thickness scales to size) and the black is the retreat. The "best statistical map ever drawn"

 

[swerve]

See the following, the pink line is the army in the advance to Moscow (thickness scales to size) and the black is the retreat. The "best statistical map ever drawn"

...

 

Indeed - but his superb graphical representation shouldn't be taken as the definitive guide, magnificent though it is. Not to detract from his achievement - archives are more accessible now than they were in the 1860s.

 

E.g., as I said above, more recent analysis of records suggests that almost 40000 men retreated across the Niemen, not the 10000 he gives. But I think that number took long research into counts of stragglers re-integrated into the army in Poland.

Edited February 25, 2008 by swerve

[Redbeard]

Already during the revolutionary wars observers commented on french armies appearing messy and disorganised on the march, but under fire acted both disciplined and valiantly. that was in contrast to most other armies of the time, where much effort was put into having the soldiers spit, polish and shut up, and cohesion in battle often was based on the men being more scared of their own ncos and officers than of the enemy.

 

at the zenith of the french army (appr. 1804-07) most regiments could perform complicated field manoeuvres like moving in column to deploy and assault in line under fire. by 1809 only crack units like 3rd ac under davout could do that on a large scale, and the enemy armies had gradually adopted the more flexible french tactics.

 

napoleon suceeded in rasing hundreds of thosands of men after 1812, and they fought surprisingly well. but of 100 recruits marched off from france most would never reach the battlefields in eastern germany. not because discipline was especially bad, but because the very young men did not have stamina to be marched across germany. on the retreat from leipzig, the french losses pr. day actually were bigger than in russia.

 

regards

 

steffen redbeard

 

nb sorry about the missing capitals, but i have only arm available these weeks (broke a wrist - in braces for five weeks).

[Tim the Tank Nut]

I spoke to a Frenchman at Waterloo that pointed out the lay of the land and said the wet gound really hurt Napoleon's artillery.

Another gentleman with him said that Waterloo was an example of Napoleon at his very worst, unhealty-tired-old and the Napoleon of 1800 would have won and won big in the same circumstances.

Lots of folks have written that the loss of Berthier was the decisive difference.

 

 

 

Davout's corps was "Crack" to the point of being Elite in its own right...

 

I sure would like to have seen the advance of the Guard cavalry at Austerlitz-it would make a fine movie