British Guards (2 Viewers)

[DCN1898]

Thank you very much Matt! First Legion is becoming the primary line in my collection. Your product is awesome!

 

[Spitfrnd]

...The Russians were probably Napoleon's most consistent antagonist on the battlefield and our new Russians, though ostensibly for Borodin, allow for many battles to be portrayed. Not just the ones in 1812, but also the titanic struggles of 1813 - Lutz en, Batten, Dresden, Leipzig being the big four, as well as the battles of the campaign in France in 1814. Of particular interest is the Battle of Craone which featured the Russians against a French Army made up nearly entirely of units of the Imperial Guard!
...

Let's see the French won all but one of those if I'm not mistaken. If one didn't know better they would suspect you of only wanting to portray the French wins. I think you did note the Waterloo was a some what begrudging checklist item (that of course was a near run thing). I can say though that even though they are Russians, with those out and coming, you certainly could make some beautiful battle reproductions.

 

[FirstLegion]

Let's see the French won all but one of those if I'm not mistaken. If one didn't know better they would suspect you of only wanting to portray the French wins. I think you did note the Waterloo was a some what begrudging checklist item (that of course was a near run thing). I can say though that even though they are Russians, with those out and coming, you certainly could make some beautiful battle reproductions.

Well........technically speaking we're currently portraying one French defeat (waterloo) and one french marginal victory (Borodino). Of course, as the French probably won 90%+ of the battles in which Napoleon was involved (note I said Napoleon involved!) it is difficult to find French defeats! So the fact that we've done waterloo means we're portraying a much higher percentage of french defeats proportionally speaking.

Of course, you are free to use the figures in the privacy of your own home to depict as many French defeats as you'd like in your beloved penninsula. Just make sure you keep Napoleon out of the displays.

Either way, you're correct - once our next 3 Napoleonic releases hit the market (not counting those due out this month), customers will finally have what they need to put together some fantastic battle displays using solely our figures for both Borodino and Waterloo in addition to all of the other battles that I mentioned. It will be a big Napoleonic summer and fall for sure!

Regards,

Matt

 

[Fusilier]

.....once our next 3 Napoleonic releases hit the market (not counting those due out this month), customers will finally have what they need to put together some fantastic battle displays using solely our figures for both Borodino and Waterloo in addition to all of the other battles that I mentioned. It will be a big Napoleonic summer and fall for sure!

Matt-
That is some great news. I check your site and this forum everyday in anticipation of what new items or preview pics you might have up. Of course, I am sure there are many others who do the same!

While I prefer the Waterloo releases, I would have to say that your work may just make me branch out of that comfort zone into some of these other armies (ie, the Russians). No matter what a collector's Napoleonic preference, you definatly have the best out there.

Also, bring on the French Cavalry! The British Guards are ready!

Noah

 

[damian]

Well........technically speaking we're currently portraying one French defeat (waterloo) and one french marginal victory (Borodino). Of course, as the French probably won 90%+ of the battles in which Napoleon was involved (note I said Napoleon involved!) it is difficult to find French defeats! So the fact that we've done waterloo means we're portraying a much higher percentage of french defeats proportionally speaking.

Of course, you are free to use the figures in the privacy of your own home to depict as many French defeats as you'd like in your beloved penninsula. Just make sure you keep Napoleon out of the displays.

Either way, you're correct - once our next 3 Napoleonic releases hit the market (not counting those due out this month), customers will finally have what they need to put together some fantastic battle displays using solely our figures for both Borodino and Waterloo in addition to all of the other battles that I mentioned. It will be a big Napoleonic summer and fall for sure!

Regards,

Matt

We need some Dragoons a Pied for all those campaigns Matt

 

[SteveDavid]

Did I not see some stunning Dragoons à Pied announced by another manufacturer?!

 

[Spitfrnd]

Well........technically speaking we're currently portraying one French defeat (waterloo) and one French marginal victory (Borodino). Of course, as the French probably won 90%+ of the battles in which Napoleon was involved (note I said Napoleon involved!) it is difficult to find French defeats! So the fact that we've done waterloo means we're portraying a much higher percentage of French defeats proportionally speaking.

Well actually it is difficult to find many French defeats in general against any one but the British. That is why some might suggest you seem inclined to avoid the place where most of those occurred. Yes as I have acknowledged, you have gracefully conceded to give us Waterloo, however painful that might be.

Of course, you are free to use the figures in the privacy of your own home to depict as many French defeats as you'd like in your beloved peninsula. Just make sure you keep Napoleon out of the displays.

Yes, well if British figures are used in Peninsula battle displays, French defeats is exactly what they would be depicting. For a Napoleonic defeat, we have Waterloo.

Either way, you're correct - once our next 3 Napoleonic releases hit the market (not counting those due out this month), customers will finally have what they need to put together some fantastic battle displays using solely our figures for both Borodino and Waterloo in addition to all of the other battles that I mentioned. It will be a big Napoleonic summer and fall for sure!

Looking forward to it, no doubt about that.

 

[FirstLegion]

Well actually it is difficult to find many French defeats in general against any one but the British. That is why some might suggest you seem inclined to avoid the place where most of those occurred.

Well, not necessarily true. In 1813 alone, the French were defeated at:

The Battle of Gross Bereen under Marshal Oudinot against the Prussians and Swedes
The Battle of Katzbach under Marshal Macdonald against Prussia and Russia
The Battle of Kulm under Vandamme against Russia, Prussia, and Austria
The Battle of Dennewitz under Marshal Ney against Prussia and Russia

How's that for a string of French defeats that you can use our figures to represent! So, yes, it's difficult to find French defeats when they're under the command of Napoleon, but not so difficult when Napoleon isn't present...which he wasn't in the Penninsula, hence so many French defeats!

Matt

 

[Spitfrnd]

Well, not necessarily true. In 1813 alone, the French were defeated at:

The Battle of Gross Bereen under Marshal Oudinot against the Prussians and Swedes
The Battle of Katzbach under Marshal Macdonald against Prussia and Russia
The Battle of Kulm under Vandamme against Russia, Prussia, and Austria
The Battle of Dennewitz under Marshal Ney against Prussia and Russia

How's that for a string of French defeats that you can use our figures to represent! So, yes, it's difficult to find French defeats when they're under the command of Napoleon, but not so difficult when Napoleon isn't present...which he wasn't in the Penninsula, hence so many French defeats!

Well those are French defeats without Napoleon in the field but with some interesting caveats I would say.

Grossbeeren could be attributed to Napoleon's mistake in underestimating Prussian strengh near Berlin and sending an outnumbered force of mostly raw recruits to secure the city, not his finest moment. To top it off it was fought in blinding rain.

Katzbach resulted from a chance encounter between McDonald and Blucher, also in the pouring rain and could have gone either way.

Kulm resulted from another mistake by Napoleon in sending a relatively small force to pursue the Austro-Russian army after the victory at Dresden. General Vandamme and 32,000 men found themselves outnumbered by a determined force of 44,000 and suddenly trapped from behind by 10,000 Prussians. Vandamme likely did well to save the bulk of his force and traded some 13,000 French in casualties and captuered for 11,000 allies. Not that bad really.

Dennewitz may be considered another close call caused by unfortunate events since the lack of French cavalry and reconnaissance allowed Ney to walk right into an established allied defense. Even then it would have likely been a French victory had not Ney, in the midst of the fighting, failed to realize that the allies were still a threat and mistakenly ordered a withdrawal that encouraged an allied counter attack

It is interesting that some Napoleonic battle lists don't event include any of these but Dennewitz but of course that is not consulation to those on both sides that died in the others. So yes these are French defeats, albeit not major, caused at least in part by chance, very nearly French victories and the defeats not without some contribution by Napoleon.

 

[FirstLegion]

Well those are French defeats without Napoleon in the field but with some interesting caveats I would say.

Grossbeeren could be attributed to Napoleon's mistake in underestimating Prussian strengh near Berlin and sending an outnumbered force of mostly raw recruits to secure the city, not his finest moment. To top it off it was fought in blinding rain

Katzbach resulted from a chance encounter between McDonald and Blucher, also in the pouring rain and could have gone either way.

Kulm resulted from another mistake by Napoleon in sending a relatively small force to pursue the Austro-Russian army after the victory at Dresden. General Vandamme and 32,000 men found themselves outnumbered by a determined force of 44,000 and suddenly trapped from behind by 10,000 Prussians. Vandamme likely did well to save the bulk of his force and traded some 13,000 French in casualties and captuered for 11,000 allies. Not that bad really.

Dennewitz may be considered another close call caused by unfortunate events since the lack of French cavalry and reconnaissance allowed Ney to walk right into an established allied defense. Even then it would have likely been a French victory had not Ney, in the midst of the fighting, failed to realize that the allies were still a threat and mistakenly ordered a withdrawal that encouraged an allied counter attack.

It is interesting that some Napoleonic battle lists don't event include any of these but Dennewitz but of course that is not consulation to those on both sides that died in the others. So yes these are French defeats, albeit not major, caused at least in part by chance, and not without some contribution by Napoleon.

GrossBereen - Yes, he was sent against Berlin by order of Napoleon, but as an army commander it's his responsibility of course to assess the situation and react accordingly. So again, this is Oudinot's error. The problem was, Napoleon had no way of knowing that the allies had decided not to engage him personally on the field but rather to engage his subordinates only. Thus he was forced to constantly pursue the allied armies and probably felt that they may have been weaker than he anticipated because they were always withdrawing before him. He would then leave a pursuing force, as he did in the case leading up to GrossBereen, and take off and rejoin another part of the army, at which point the pursued allied army would turn and give battle to the French subordinate in command. However, Oudinot was in command and had a significant force and Oudinot was defeated.

Katzbach - Macdonald clearly to blame. He was merely to screen the larger allied army which is very much a defensive role and he chose to divide his force and attack. Napoleon's basic strategy when facing superior numbers was almost always the same - prevent the larger force from massing, screen part of the divided larger force with a smaller force of his own, and then fight the other force on near even terms. Macdonald was a screening force and shouldn't have attacked, but should have conducted a fighting withdrawl to conserve his force.

Kulm - Well, this is debatable. Napoleon certainly plays some fault in sending Vandammes corp prior to the battle of Dresden on it's limited flanking mission, but Vandame chose to give battle to a retreating allied army far larger than his unsupported single corps. He gets himself captured in the process. Remember, Vandamme was sent on his mission prior to the battle if I remember correctly, not ordered to pursue after it. Yes, Napoleon bears some blame for this but again, Vandame certainly does as well.

Dennwitz - Agreed - Just another example of Ney being Ney and doing what he did at Waterloo. Getting too caught up in tactical situations and making mistakes on the grand tactical level.

So, while it can certainly be argued that Napoleon is in part to blame, the conduct of Oudinot, Macdonald, and Vandamme and their three defeats essentially erase Napoleon's victory at Dresden and goes a long way in compounding Napoleon's errors. So I do agree with your caveats in that Napoleon bears some responsibility, these are still all defeats and all without Napoleon present on the battlefield. The question you have to ask yourself, however, is would these battles have been defeats (or would they even had ocurred) had Napoleon been in direct command on the field and presented with the situation that each of these commanders found themselves in? We'll of course never know, but I would think that the answer is probably not. It would be interesting to ponder this about the many French defeats in the Penninsula as well...

I think this discussion highlights a few glaring issues that are particular to the 1813 campaign. The first, you've already pointed out - the lack of a French cavalry arm constantly hampered the french in 1813 from pre-battle reconaissance to post battle pursuit. In each case of the major victories of Lutzen, Bautzen, and Dresden it is the lack of French cavalry which prevents these decisive victories from being total routs. The second item particular to the 1813 Saxony campaign probably more than any other campaign is that it involved such massive armies that it was probbably beyond any one person to control and coordinate them effectively given the communication methods of the day - by the time hand written orders reach the far flung independent commands, they were often out of date. This brings up a related point which is at least equally important - that is that the French Army subordinates simply weren't very experienced with independent command (save perhaps for Eugene and Davout). Vandamme, Oudinot, Macdonald, and Ney were all Corps commanders and good ones at that, but they were out of their element and a bit over their heads in independent army command.

If you look at the list of battles in the 1813 campaign, it's clear to see that the allied strategy of avoiding Napoleon and engaging his subordinates was certainly the correct one.

1813 Battle Listings

Napoleon goes 5-1 with his only defeat at Leipzig and even this wouldn't have been a terrible defeat had the bridge not been blown up prematurely. He then gives Wrede and his Bavarian army a good solid slap in the mouth on his way back to France.

Conversely to this, his subordinates go an abysmal 4-12-1.

The 1813 Saxon Campaign is certainly one of the most interesting campaigns of all of the Napoleonic wars. George Nafziger's Trilogy on the campaign ("Lutzen and Bautzen", "Dresden", and "Leipzig") is an excellent resource as it gives extremely detailed coverage to not only the major battles, but all of the minor battles as well. They're particularly useful for wargamers as George is probably most well known for his research into various Orders of Battle and each of the battles above plus many more have battalion by battalion OOB's provided. His writing style is unfortunately a bit painful to read as he tends to list things out (i.e. the 3rd battalion 2nd French Line infantry, 2nd battalion 8th french line infantry blah blah blah launched an attack on so and so.) but once you get past that it's the most exhaustive coverage of the campaign that I'm aware of.

Just to bring the conversation full circle, you initially pointed out (in jest of course) that one might think we're portraying only french wins....well, given that 1812, 1813, and 1815 were all disastrous French defeats, one might also think very much the opposite!

Matt

 

[Panda]

Please Dont mention K&C Dragoons a Pied here my freind quality is not in the same league as FL figures different market altogether I would refer to them as ther cheap and cheerful alternative being polite.

FL are for those collectors who appreciate quality. Please read my comments on K&C Dragoons A Pied on the K&C Forum, they are in fact innacurately painted in any event

 

[Andanna]

Spitfrnd and Matt: Great exchange. Please continue. It makes a wonderful reading and hopefully, to Matt's advantage, increases interest in other armies than the French and British.

Can we consider the Bavarians (considering cost/benefits) the real victors of the Napoleonic Wars?

 

[Spitfrnd]

.... The question you have to ask yourself, however, is would these battles have been defeats (or would they even had occurred) had Napoleon been in direct command on the field and presented with the situation that each of these commanders found themselves in? We'll of course never know, but I would think that the answer is probably not. It would be interesting to ponder this about the many French defeats in the Peninsula as well...

Yes that is an interesting question and I am not so sure as you of the answer. I have not read to the same level about this part of the war as others yet but I am inclined to say Grossbereen and Kulm were not savable given the conditions and the other two perhaps were. Certainly you could ask the same question about the Peninsula and I am pretty sure of my answer. You could also ask the same question about Napoleon's wins on the Continent had he been facing Wellington and a proper British force. I'd better be careful here, this is giving me the urge to do something drastic, like war game. Of course, it is not clear to me how you appropriately factor in such intangibles as the amazing discipline and determination of the British regulars at places like Fuentes de Onoro.

I think this discussion highlights a few glaring issues that are particular to the 1813 campaign. The first, you've already pointed out - the lack of a French cavalry arm constantly hampered the French in 1813 from pre-battle reconnaissance to post battle pursuit. In each case of the major victories of Lutzen, Bautzen, and Dresden it is the lack of French cavalry which prevents these decisive victories from being total routs. The second item particular to the 1813 Saxony campaign probably more than any other campaign is that it involved such massive armies that it was probably beyond any one person to control and coordinate them effectively given the communication methods of the day - by the time hand written orders reach the far flung independent commands, they were often out of date. This brings up a related point which is at least equally important - that is that the French Army subordinates simply weren't very experienced with independent command (save perhaps for Eugene and Davout). Vandamme, Oudinot, Macdonald, and Ney were all Corps commanders and good ones at that, but they were out of their element and a bit over their heads in independent army command.

Perhaps that is true but the same could be said for both the allied and French armies could it not?

If you look at the list of battles in the 1813 campaign, it's clear to see that the allied strategy of avoiding Napoleon and engaging his subordinates was certainly the correct one.

That is interesting, how did they hope to achieve that with the limited intelligence and command and control resources of that time? How did they really know where Napoleon was or would be?

1813 Battle Listings

Napoleon goes 5-1 with his only defeat at Leipzig and even this wouldn't have been a terrible defeat had the bridge not been blown up prematurely. He then gives Wrede and his Bavarian army a good solid slap in the mouth on his way back to France.

Conversely to this, his subordinates go an abysmal 4-12-1.

I am not sure how you got to that number but your battle total for 1813 is larger than what I have found so far? I also don't find as many French losses. What resources do you suggest?

Just to bring the conversation full circle, you initially pointed out (in jest of course) that one might think we're portraying only French wins....well, given that 1812, 1813, and 1815 were all disastrous French defeats, one might also think very much the opposite!

Yes it is in jest but now I am a tad lost. You are doing Borodino and Waterloo, one win, one defeat. From your numbers you can do many French wins and as you note, several French defeats. With the Prussians you suggested are coming, could you not also do many more French wins? With some minor compromises and some missing allies (in many cases) you can also do (I hope) many more French defeats and some French wins.

 

[King's Man]

Matt and Spitfrnd,

Wonderful reading , these minor or side battles of the 1813 campaign have always held a special fascination for me. Because Napoleon was not present they are often overlooked or are only mentioned in passing. It’s only in the past few years that I have begun to see books getting these smaller battles their justly deserved attention. I think these smaller victories went a long way to boost the Allies’ morale.

Thank you for sharing your precise descriptions and clear cut outlines of these events.

King’s Man

 

[Spitfrnd]

This discussion and the ones that proceeded it have lead me to develop a Napoleonic battle spread sheet. So far I have the following win/loss results for the Napoleonic battles I have found referenced in various sources:

Non-Peninsula Battles
Napoleon 40 wins, 7 losses/ties (for simplicity I added the few ties to losses for all categories)
Other French 17 wins, 11 losses/ties

Peninsula Battles without the British
Napoleon 2 wins, 0 losses
Other French 12 wins, 7 losses

Peninsula Battles Against the British
Other French 22 losses, 2 wins

So while certainly Napoleon had the hot hand for most of the period, it seems that his other generals were not that bad without him (certainly a better record than the Orioles or Redskins for some time now), some better than others of course. As to the battles in 1813, while Napoleon did pull out some rabbits, the French army of 1813-14 was a shadow of the Grande Armee that entered Russia so while his generals may have lost more in that time frame, they also had a lot less to work with.

 

[FirstLegion]

You could also ask the same question about Napoleon's wins on the Continent had he been facing Wellington and a proper British force.

I'll certainly agree that battles between Napoleon and Wellington would have been much more interesting as Wellington was the superior to most, if not all, of the other generals of the period. One could argue as well that the British Troops and two rank line as well was superior on some levels. But the British simply didn't have a field army large enough to compete in the big games on the continent nor did they want to, much preferring to subsidize with money the combat operations of other nations. A lot of "Allies" in the Anglo-Allied Army at Waterloo had not long ago been serving under Napoleon. Thus it results that Napoleon and Wellington only meet in a single battle and this takes place not at the height of Napoleon's Empire, but rather against an older Napoleon in a desperate situation. Sort of like when Ali took on Larry Holmes. It must also be remembered, regardless of the general "myth" of Waterloo, that without the Prussian intervention, Wellington is probably routed at Waterloo. If Napoleon has all of Lobau's Corps and the entire Young and Old Guard at his disposal to attack the British and not trying to fend off the Prussians, the battle goes very differently as once La Hay Saint fell the coup de grace would have immediately been launched by Lobau's corps with it's two infantry and one cavalry division and the 14 battalions (if i remember correctly) of young guard. Of course, the flip side of this is that it is doubtful that Wellington would have made the decision to stand at Waterloo without the guarantee of Prussian support. He was no fool and I'm quite sure he realized as well that his army wasn't capable of holding off the French alone.

Now what would be really interesting would be if Wellington had been in command of the Russians at Borodino for example. If the French strategy remains the same, but Wellington had been in command and thus had been the one to set the dispositions of the Russian Army (his greatest strength perhaps), I dare say that the Russians would have easily been victorious.

I'd better be careful here, this is giving me the urge to do something drastic, like war game. Of course, it is not clear to me how you appropriately factor in such intangibles as the amazing discipline and determination of the British regulars at places like Fuentes de Onoro.

Ahh, wargames! Don't knock it until you try it. They may not be the most perfect simulation, but they go a long way in highlighting the strategic issues that the armies face and are excellent tools in education in that regards. Stick with board games though, miniatures, while pretty, aren't nearly as useful as simulations. I've wargamed Waterloo on many occasions and in many different formats and one thing is certain - no Prussians = British defeat. The British are totally outgunned 1 v 1 against the entire French army from the number and caliber of guns to the quality of the troops to the amount and quality of cavalry.

Perhaps that is true but the same could be said for both the allied and French armies could it not?

Not really I don't think. The reason being that Napoleon always believed in singularity of command. ("Better to have one bad general, than two good ones" or something to that effect he is quoted in saying). In the earlier and smaller campaigns it provided him a distinct advantage as he was able to have all resources working under a single command to a single goal while the allies and their multiple armies of multiple nationalities each had their own agendas, found it difficult to agree on a general strategy, and each often acted out of their own interests. In 1813, nothing really changes for the allies - each army acts on it's own accord for the most part within a generally agreed broader strategy while Napoleon tries to excercise singularity of command over a much greater force over greater distances. Further, the allied armies have many generals who were experienced with army level independent command, the French really didn't. So for the Allies it's business as usual with each army a truly independent command, the change is really for the French who system breaks down a bit. In size and scale, the french wings are really independent army commands, but they're operating under specific orders from Napoleon as the singular commander.

Of course, it is not clear to me how you appropriately factor in such intangibles as the amazing discipline and determination of the British regulars at places like Fuentes de Onoro.

The single greatest "intangible" of the Napoleonic wars was Napoleon's presence on the battlefield. Beyond his genius as a general, the fanatical loyalty and confidence and the subsequent massive boost to morale it inspired in his troops was probably a huge factor in his victories - remember, battles of the period were won and lost on morale more than anything else.

That is interesting, how did they hope to achieve that with the limited intelligence and command and control resources of that time? How did they really know where Napoleon was or would be?

Quite easily I think. Remember, the allies are operating on friendly ground with a friendly population for the most part. Further remember, the armies generally kept out significant light cavalry screening and reconnaince forces. Additionally, though it isn't much discussed, spies, deception, etc... played a major role in the Napoleonic wars as they do in all wars. In fact, Napoleon himself was a master in disinformation and such and many people feel his network of operatives went a long way in securing the victories of the early Empire. Finally, it wasn't difficult to know when Napoleon showed up somewhere, as at Dresden on the eve of the first day of the battle, as the French went nuts with their "Vive L'empereur." Finally, though not always 100% true, wherever the Imperial Guard was, Napoleon was. Much harder to hide 20-30k men than one man.

I am not sure how you got to that number but your battle total for 1813 is larger than what I have found so far? I also don't find as many French losses. What resources do you suggest?

Well, beyond the books I mentioned by Nafziger, check out the Napoleon's Series website link that I posted. The Napoleon Series is a site where I used to participate in these types of dicussions. It is frequented by many authors who take active roles in dicussions - Digby Smith, George Nafziger, Howie Muir, etc, etc, etc... so the level of discussion obviously runs extremely high. If you're really interested in reading and participating in good discussions, you should check it out. www.napoleon-series.org I just checked the forum there for the first time in years and the same folks are all still there with very active discussions going on. I did a search for myself in the 2003 archive and found that many of the discussions and my old posts are still there. I'll have to read them at some point if only to see if my thoughts have changed over time! Alas, such discussions take a lot of time and research, so I gave it up eventually. Regardless, I have a good level of confidence in the information posted there. So I took the count I gave you yesterday from the link that i provided you yesterday. Here it is again...

http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/listings/c_germany.html

Yes it is in jest but now I am a tad lost. You are doing Borodino and Waterloo, one win, one defeat. From your numbers you can do many French wins and as you note, several French defeats. With the Prussians you suggested are coming, could you not also do many more French wins? With some minor compromises and some missing allies (in many cases) you can also do (I hope) many more French defeats and some French wins.

Just remember, victories and defeats play absolutely no part whatsoever in the figures that we create. Interesting battles that allow for the correct historical usage of a variety of different nationalties and interesting figures in displays does. Hence Borodino and Waterloo. This is not to say that their aren't any other interesting battles and campaigns, but only that you have to start somewhere and between those two you get a pretty good flavor of everything (save the Austrians) - you get British and their Allies, Russians, French and their Allies, and Prussians as well. Once you have all of these figures, they can be applied to a whole series of other battles where those same troops were present. Who won or lost those other battles is irrelevant and there are certainly enough to choose from that the same figures can be used to show french victories as they can to show French defeats. That is up to the collector of course and what he/she wants to depict.

 

[FirstLegion]

This discussion and the ones that proceeded it have lead me to develop a Napoleonic battle spread sheet. So far I have the following win/loss results for the Napoleonic battles I have found referenced in various sources:

Non-Peninsula Battles
Napoleon 40 wins, 7 losses/ties (for simplicity I added the few ties to losses for all categories)
Other French 17 wins, 11 losses/ties

Peninsula Battles without the British
Napoleon 2 wins, 0 losses
Other French 12 wins, 7 losses

Peninsula Battles Against the British
Other French 22 losses, 2 wins

So while certainly Napoleon had the hot hand for most of the period, it seems that his other generals were not that bad without him (certainly a better record than the Orioles or Redskins for some time now), some better than others of course. As to the battles in 1813, while Napoleon did pull out some rabbits, the French army of 1813-14 was a shadow of the Grande Armee that entered Russia so while his generals may have lost more in that time frame, they also had a lot less to work with.

It seems that your data might only deal with the major actions and not the minor battles as well. For more data, may I suggest the following resources:

Free, Excellent Resource. Napoleon Series Battle Listings - pretty comprehensive. Please note, I've postd it here without the top navigation frame.
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/c_listings.html http://http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/c_listings.html

I'd be curiouse to see your completed spreadsheet after you plug in all of the battles listed at the Napoleon Series website.

Another one, that is even more comprehensive, is Digby Smith's Napoleonic Wars Data Book (Greenhill Publishing). It is exactly that, a MASSIVE set of lists of every battle and such fought during the period. Not really something that you read, but just a reference.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Greenhill-Napoleonic-Wars-Data-Book/dp/1853672769

 

[oberstoskar]

you guys are hardcore!

 

[FirstLegion]

you guys are hardcore!

It's a sickness....

 

[Spitfrnd]

you guys are hardcore!

It is indeed a sickness, just ask my wife. The funny thing is that it is communicable since I no doubt caught it from the First Legion figures.