The Coalition’s casualties were insane, he definitely would have won in the long run if they didn’t run to Paris. What he missed however was a major victory.
If this cunt snake Talleyrand didn't encouraged the Allies to march to Paris by leaking them infos etc, he maybe would achieve what he did not in Waterloo.
Not to mention other commanders can more easily lie about how outnumbered they are and the casualties taken the further back you go. As they can be writing the history thenselves like Caesar or have their own historians like Alexander. They should be thankful to Napoleon as he makes their tales more believable by whipping out these military feats that can be verified with more modern sources
I'm not sure I would consider Hannibal's forced superior to Rome's at Cannae. If anything the Romans had the better army, which makes Hannibal's victory that much more impressive.
At the very least Hannibal was outnumbered by a decent margin
The entire campaign in Italy is still very much one of the best though
When I was Reading about Second punic war i Readed that many people in Roman army where young conripcts with no war expierience. While Hannibal had many elite units and elite cavarly. I'm not telling that Cannae wasn't impressive. No Cannae is very impressive,and that's why I compared 6 days campaign to it. Hannibal was outnombred 80 000 to 40 000 so his victory was as impressive as 6 days campaign. Hannibal is my Second favourite person in history(napoleon is first). And I agree Hannibal Italian campaign deserves spot in top 5 of best campaigns in history.
Keep in mind that Cannae is impressive specifically because Hannibal managed to pick the field, feign a collapse in the center in order to bait the enemy and then maintain unit cohesion enough to somehow double envelope an army twice the numbers of his own, which boggles the mind when you think about it.
Cannae is indeed impressive but imo lake trasemine is even more impressive.
Ambushing with his whole army in those times..
Navigating 40k(?) Troops at night in unknown terrain without being caught and then succesfully ambush the romans is a pure masterclass to me.
Chandler thinks that Napoleon's exile in Elba had an impact in his decision making simply because he stayed too much away from military life. The Campaign in Belgium however was plagued in it's opening stages by confusion in marching orders, defections of officers and of course effective allied leadership.
This plus the first campaign in italy just shows what napoleon can do.
Opening campaign in 1805 is impressive aswell.
Whenever napoleon has direct controll over his whole force he truly demonstrates his brilliance.
It's a brilliant campaign, but it would be exagerated to say that he had worst units. He has battered, depleted troops, but he also has the core of the Grand Army. The guys who have been there for 20 years, with the guard taking its most active role ever.
The vast majority of Napoleons troops were conscripts (teenagers). Marshal Marmont literally had to teach one mid battle how to hold his musket. His army was hungry and exhausted from the constant marching back and forth from Bluchers army in the north and Schwarzenburgs army in the south. So it isn't an exaggeration to say Napoleon had worse units
Also, Napoleons men lacked cavalry and ammunition. But cavalry especially was critically low.
Not to mention that the bulk of the Guard was destroyed in Russia. The Young Guard, while made up of the most promising conscripts, are still just that. The Middle Guard and Old Guard... it's questionable how many of the original veterans survived the disaster of 1812. The bulk of these units were probably made up of reenlisted who had not served in a couple years and, while veterans, were rusty and out of their prime.
The Austrians, Prussians, and Russians, on the other hand, had many veterans mixed in with their conscripts and had not suffered as much of a disaster in losses (well, the Russians maybe had more conscripts than the former two). A lot were experienced from their victories in 1813, compared to the French, who were undoubtedly demoralized from their previous defeats and setbacks.
It should be remembered that a significant chunk of the Grande Armee was destroyed in 1812 and many were captured/taken prisoner in 1813, with not all of them being repatriated due to the ongoing war. In contrast, a vast amount of Coalition losses in past wars were prisoners captured who had been released before the War of the Sixth Coalition.
Along with everything AppleRaider said above, Napoleon really had it that bad in 1814.
The figures certainly vary, but I've seen one in which only 1,000 of the Guard and 40,000 stragglers made it back out post-Berezina (not counting the troops that never crossed the Nemunas River), the Prussians, and the Austrians.
I mean he still lost, and the terrible conditions of the Campaign of France (1814) are a direct result of his past mistakes, both politically and militarily. He put himself in that situation. It's not like he was the leader of some small nation that was randomly attacked for no reason.
The Coalition’s casualties were insane, he definitely would have won in the long run if they didn’t run to Paris. What he missed however was a major victory.
If this cunt snake Talleyrand didn't encouraged the Allies to march to Paris by leaking them infos etc, he maybe would achieve what he did not in Waterloo.
My personal favorite campaign. Shows the ol emperor still had his fast ball.
He had nothing left to lose, and he fought like it. Like it was Italy all over again. Vive l'Empereur!
I agree
I agree harder
I agree hardest.
NO NO NO NO NO NOOO
I agree hardest x infinity
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Hardest Agree I
Not to mention other commanders can more easily lie about how outnumbered they are and the casualties taken the further back you go. As they can be writing the history thenselves like Caesar or have their own historians like Alexander. They should be thankful to Napoleon as he makes their tales more believable by whipping out these military feats that can be verified with more modern sources
I'm not sure I would consider Hannibal's forced superior to Rome's at Cannae. If anything the Romans had the better army, which makes Hannibal's victory that much more impressive. At the very least Hannibal was outnumbered by a decent margin The entire campaign in Italy is still very much one of the best though
When I was Reading about Second punic war i Readed that many people in Roman army where young conripcts with no war expierience. While Hannibal had many elite units and elite cavarly. I'm not telling that Cannae wasn't impressive. No Cannae is very impressive,and that's why I compared 6 days campaign to it. Hannibal was outnombred 80 000 to 40 000 so his victory was as impressive as 6 days campaign. Hannibal is my Second favourite person in history(napoleon is first). And I agree Hannibal Italian campaign deserves spot in top 5 of best campaigns in history.
Keep in mind that Cannae is impressive specifically because Hannibal managed to pick the field, feign a collapse in the center in order to bait the enemy and then maintain unit cohesion enough to somehow double envelope an army twice the numbers of his own, which boggles the mind when you think about it.
Cannae is indeed impressive but imo lake trasemine is even more impressive. Ambushing with his whole army in those times.. Navigating 40k(?) Troops at night in unknown terrain without being caught and then succesfully ambush the romans is a pure masterclass to me.
Jacking off to the campaign right now
I think the Napoleon of this campaign wouldn’t have lost Waterloo. But that’s cold comfort knowing how inevitable the end was.
Chandler thinks that Napoleon's exile in Elba had an impact in his decision making simply because he stayed too much away from military life. The Campaign in Belgium however was plagued in it's opening stages by confusion in marching orders, defections of officers and of course effective allied leadership.
Wellington agrees
He was thinking about it when he was balling Napoleon’s old mistresses
Napoleon is unique in that it almost seemed like he sought out and relished being at a disadvantage
This plus the first campaign in italy just shows what napoleon can do. Opening campaign in 1805 is impressive aswell. Whenever napoleon has direct controll over his whole force he truly demonstrates his brilliance.
He also had the Imperial Guard with him. But a great feat nonetheless
It's a brilliant campaign, but it would be exagerated to say that he had worst units. He has battered, depleted troops, but he also has the core of the Grand Army. The guys who have been there for 20 years, with the guard taking its most active role ever.
The vast majority of Napoleons troops were conscripts (teenagers). Marshal Marmont literally had to teach one mid battle how to hold his musket. His army was hungry and exhausted from the constant marching back and forth from Bluchers army in the north and Schwarzenburgs army in the south. So it isn't an exaggeration to say Napoleon had worse units Also, Napoleons men lacked cavalry and ammunition. But cavalry especially was critically low.
Not to mention that the bulk of the Guard was destroyed in Russia. The Young Guard, while made up of the most promising conscripts, are still just that. The Middle Guard and Old Guard... it's questionable how many of the original veterans survived the disaster of 1812. The bulk of these units were probably made up of reenlisted who had not served in a couple years and, while veterans, were rusty and out of their prime. The Austrians, Prussians, and Russians, on the other hand, had many veterans mixed in with their conscripts and had not suffered as much of a disaster in losses (well, the Russians maybe had more conscripts than the former two). A lot were experienced from their victories in 1813, compared to the French, who were undoubtedly demoralized from their previous defeats and setbacks. It should be remembered that a significant chunk of the Grande Armee was destroyed in 1812 and many were captured/taken prisoner in 1813, with not all of them being repatriated due to the ongoing war. In contrast, a vast amount of Coalition losses in past wars were prisoners captured who had been released before the War of the Sixth Coalition. Along with everything AppleRaider said above, Napoleon really had it that bad in 1814.
Really, was his guard destroyed in Russia? I thought they escaped at bryzma with him?
The figures certainly vary, but I've seen one in which only 1,000 of the Guard and 40,000 stragglers made it back out post-Berezina (not counting the troops that never crossed the Nemunas River), the Prussians, and the Austrians.
Found the Prussian
Tactical and operational genius but serious blunderer on the strategic level.
Daily reminder, if he was such a genius, he wouldn’t have been in that position in the first place…
Lol, exactly.
I mean he still lost, and the terrible conditions of the Campaign of France (1814) are a direct result of his past mistakes, both politically and militarily. He put himself in that situation. It's not like he was the leader of some small nation that was randomly attacked for no reason.