Why should I take my time to read anything of the Napoleon era? (1 Viewer)

Currahee Chris

Currahee Chris

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,776
So, I guess this is a fun place to pose this question- i consume Military History. Yet, for all my interest, there is nothing about the Age of Napoleon or say 1550-1800 that even remotely piques my interest to learn more (the only exception is the American Revolution).

So I am going to give you Napoleonic fans out there a chance to win me over. Give me some good reasons and maybe you'll win me over.
 
Currahee Chris said:
So, I guess this is a fun place to pose this question ...

So I am going to give you Napoleonic fans out there a chance to win me over. Give me some good reasons and maybe you'll win me over.
Click to expand...


Hi Chris

RON is the NAPOLEON here ... but he's away. Wellington & KV help. I will have to skirmish first before the main force arrives.

Before the French Revolution, the Republic & Napoleon, much of Europe was still monarchy ... where a man's worth weighed more by the color of his blood.

Then America, an ocean away ... the new world was about the only place that lived the meaning of Liberty, Equality & Fraternity.

When the French Revolution broke out ... the whole of monarchy Europe rose up in arms to stamp out this beachhead of change. Napoleon is the classic example of an individual rising to heights, based on his own capabilities on the military field and in politics.

The battles raged over all of Europe, off and on for more than 20 years. The armies were large, diversed & colorful. It was also an age that saw the last meaningful participation of cavalry ... in that its proper use still had the ability to effect the outcome of a battle.

It was almost the last times when armies could still march up and form up in front of each other and commence engagement 100 - 300 paces apart. The introduction of the rifled musket/artillery put an end to that kind of ranges.

It also saw the rise of the modern military command system ... with the development of the division/corp and army systems. The battles at sea are another whole area of study.

The many beautiful images of the uniforms, cavalry charges and the ships of that period remain some of the most romantic (military wise) of recorded history.

There you go ... contact made, first shorts fired. :D

OldDragon
 
Napoleon Was a military genius,munch of what he did to reform his army is still used and studied to this day.

He reorganizied his army into corps that could function as independant smaller armies of around 30,000 men in the feild of battle that would stay within a days march of each other or the main army and could hold off munch larger forces and also come to the aid of each other and with this tactic napoleon was able to divide munch larger armies then his own with these holding actions and defeat one army with his larger force while his smaller force held off a munch larger enemy force and then he would come to the aid of the smaller corps and win that battle also and defeat 2 armies of larger size then his own. He used this tactic many times to win many of his battles.

He was a master of organizing his troops and keeping them moving fast and light by not being tied down by large baggage trains and having his troops live off the land. He was the first to use the blitz tactics of lightning fast war. He would surprize his enemies and always keep them guessing.

In 1814 the allies that united to defeat him realized that the best method to defeat him was to not fight him but to do battle with his marshalls instead and would break contact with his main force and draw him away from his other corps and do battle with his smaller corps under his marshalls and just keep repeating this tactic to wear his forces down.

He reorganized he artillary to create large massed artillary batteries that would pound and weaken holes in the enemy lines that he then take advantage of.

The tactics of the time saw huge massed formations of infantry, cavalry,artillary in colorful uniforms in an age of gunpowder when it was one shot then hand to hand fighting with bayonet and sword. These armies were huge and many battles had over 100,000 men per side in many battles.

I find this era very interesting!!!

Whats so great about the napoleonic era????
I don,t know? Whats so great about WWII???
Whats so great about WWI?
Whats so great about the civil war?
Whats so great about any war????

If it interests you, read about it, collect it, ect... I love the napoleonic era and the battle field stories from the troops who fought it and the stories of hand to hand face to face battles they fought with all the gory detail of the tactics of the day and stories of life on campaign in this era and hardships they went through on the march.

WE all have different interests and you may not like the napoleonic era but I find it very interesting and so have many others.
Napoleon is the most written about person in history so I guess I,m not alone.
 
Hi CurraheeChris,

As a student of military history I have often heard many others state something similar to what you ask. The previous answers are well thought out and really sum up my position as well. If you are at all interested in the Tactics of Fire and Maneuver and the way they were developed over the years you need to take a close look at how Wellington and Napoleons Marshalls faced off in The Peninsula Campaign. The Campaign was one of attrition and conservation of valuable supplies of men and material much like the one waged by a general you have probably heard of, George Washington. You might be surprised to see many striking paralles between the ARW campaigns and the campaigns conducted in their wake not all that long after.

Napoleon was a wizard at moving his giant army along multiple routes to have them come together at the point of contact and bring the armies of many other nations to their knees with crushing massed fires and the weight of a cavalry attack en masse!

Take sometime and look at these battles/campaigns look at the journals of the men who fought it and of course look at the stories published by the commanders who fought for and against Napoleon. I think if you take a look at the Battle of Austerlitz or Borodino and the Campaign of Spain you will find direct links to battles in WWI and WWII. Take some time to look at these fights and I think you will be sold. The maneuver and mass of the Grande Armee will probably surprise you.

If you want some book recommendations let us know but I would say read the MHQuarterly and Military History that should be available on the local news stand.

All the best

Dave
 
Chris, I will give you two reasons. John O'Brien and Bernard Cornwell.

Authors of the Master and Commander series and Sharpes' Rifle series.

Surf or Turf you have your choice.
 
Hi KV,

Ive read every book Cornwell has done on Sharpe and nearly all of his other series as well. I am still working through O'Brians works in the beginning of the Yellow Admiral pretty good so far.

All the best

Dave
 
DMNamiot said:
Hi KV,

Ive read every book Cornwell has done on Sharpe and nearly all of his other series as well. I am still working through O'Brians works in the beginning of the Yellow Admiral pretty good so far.

All the best

Dave
Click to expand...


Fun stuff is it not?
 
Gotta say I am impressed with all the responses- a tremendous STANDS ALONE to all you Nap fans out there!!! Nice answers- here are some of my comments-

Why WW2, ACW, etc?? Fair question- my interests started with WW2- mostly as a kid living in Germany for 3 years and listening to my grandfather talk about his experiences in the ETO. Then, 10 years later my grandmother hands me an old B&W picture of my great grandfather behind a .30 cal in France in 1917. Not tooting my own horn but it has to be one of the best preserved photos from the war- it looks as if someone took the picture with a B&W digital camera :D .

I have actually read the articles in MHQ. What a fantastic pub!! No way I am going to let a word of that material escape my eyes.

It's not so much Nap's era as it is just the whole musket and line fire for effect. I have read a lot of material dealing with ancients, Romans, Medieval and the age of the Samurai- just captures my imagination more I guess- seemed way more personal back then.

I guess my opinions on Nap and that era and that style of warfare are tainted. I had the privilege of listening to Colonel Hackworth discuss his thoughts on Clausewitz versus Sun Tzu- really didn't have much good to say about Clausewitz. Then again, I have spoken to several general officers who echo many of the same sentiments as you gentlemen do here.

Points well taken. I have read an immense volume of books on warfare through the ages- I do not pretend to be an expert in any of the "Traditions" but I know enough to hold my own across the ages- it would be unwise of me to be so utterly misinformed about this time period as well.

Thank you again gentlement and STANDS ALONE!
CC
 
Chris
I would like to hear an informed opinion on this. I read a recent article in our local paper about criticims of the officer cadre in the current American armed forces. It came from a senior serving general so is considered controversial but also quite on the button. He claims that the lessons of the last 100 years have not been learned. The military went into Iraq to win a conventionla war which largely evaporated before their eyes. The concept of a geurilla campaign seems to be foreign to most officers. I have some experienc of this in my neck of the woods. We were continually given body counts and told about insurgent bases that had been wiped out in both Rhodesia and SWA yet the undelying problems were never addressed. It seems to me that staff colleges should throw out a lot of military history and focus on the true classics such as the works of Mao and Che etc as these are the conflicts most likely to be fought in the future. In fact the Battle of the Bulge is a bit of an historical curiosity in terms of teh whole modern history of warfare.
Regards
Damian
 
damian said:
Chris
I would like to hear an informed opinion on this. I read a recent article in our local paper about criticims of the officer cadre in the current American armed forces. It came from a senior serving general so is considered controversial but also quite on the button. He claims that the lessons of the last 100 years have not been learned. The military went into Iraq to win a conventionla war which largely evaporated before their eyes. The concept of a geurilla campaign seems to be foreign to most officers.
Click to expand...

Hello Damian:

Hack was always a firestorm and everyone had their opinions on him. And well, we know the classic saying on opinions. I just went out to his website- he used to put several articles on there discussing Sun Tzu and the AoW against Clausewitz- his basic premise echos what you relay above- that American commanders are still stuck in the Fire and Manuever phase (as espoused by Clausewitz) when we need to revert to more of Sun Tzu's methods of subterfuge and deception- "Out G the G" was his favorite mantra.

In Iraq- I agree the war evaporated but so did any clear sense of direction. Whose fault is that? I don't think we can look at the junior officers out there and hold them accountable. 9-11 hit us all from out of left field. We are now learning very valuable lessons about how to fight war in the 21st century that will serve us quite well going into the future. I think we- the US- still rely a little too much on our technology to fight a war- a double edged sword as a lot of that tech saves peoples lives but becomes the fall guy when it fails. We need to address the shortcomings of the technology and possibly look at a vast reorganization of our OOB to better respond to the battlefield of the future- I think pitched, fire and manuever battles will be a thing of the past- we need to train all levels of command into thinking like a guerilla enemy.
 
ISBN 0-85368-434-0

VJ Esposito and JR Elting for West Point 1963

A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars.

Chris, great post, in the foreword of this book they referred to over 250,000 books written on the subject - in 1963. Why?

Just for starters,,,,If you look at the war in Spain, or the retreat from Russia, what price Afghanistan or Iraq on some of the principles.....

Concentration of force, fire and maneuver, the effect of feeding the army, politics, logistics (touch of the Rommel here - someone else's job...), my main interest in all of this is the decision making. Who, why, how? This period is no different to any other - 'attitude' to the enemy, including overconfidence (George and Tony) - 'bottle' and luck. Also, strategically the man was terrific.

On the other post, I loved Hackworth's books but also some of the Vietnam books. Most if not all the key lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan have been learned.........Why does the US not seem to read it's history, or ignore it?:confused:

Thanks for posting some of the pics BTW, Just wish I could do WW2 and Naps figures......
 
panda1gen said:
Chris, great post, in the foreword of this book they referred to over 250,000 books written on the subject - in 1963. Why?

Just for starters,,,,If you look at the war in Spain, or the retreat from Russia, what price Afghanistan or Iraq on some of the principles.....

Concentration of force, fire and maneuver, the effect of feeding the army, politics, logistics (touch of the Rommel here - someone else's job...), my main interest in all of this is the decision making. Who, why, how? This period is no different to any other - 'attitude' to the enemy, including overconfidence (George and Tony) - 'bottle' and luck. Also, strategically the man was terrific.

On the other post, I loved Hackworth's books but also some of the Vietnam books. Most if not all the key lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan have been learned.........Why does the US not seem to read it's history, or ignore it?:confused:
Click to expand...

Thank you for the compliments. 250,000??? was there really that much??? I am assuming that is a global total. Well, he did get a head start on the WW2 generation:)

The one thing that caught my eye was the year- 1963- and of course this is just one book but just a short 2 years after the publishing of that book, we got involved in Viet Nam and we began to face a new enemy- the NVA and VC there and now the terrorists. These guys don't operate in the traditional rank and file like we are being trained in our schools of command be it any ROTC program or the War College here in Carlisle.

I do believe we have learned some of our lessons as a country though- allow me to explain:

In regards to WW1 and 2- we were a nation guided by "non-interference" policy until deft political manuevering brought us into Flanders and the Japanese brought us into WW2. At both critical junctures, we were woefully underprepared to get involved- it took the guts and courage of the American citizen to make it happen and we persevered.

Then came Korea, Viet Nam and the Cold War- we took a proactive stance for the Cold War and these areas do highlight that (Korea being the exception as we were withdrawing and the NK's bidded their time and struck when we were gone). However, we became proactive rather than reactive and as such the body counts were far less staggering and the hour wasn't as desperate where we were fighting to help ensure the world didn't sink into oblivion.

Today in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we have executed the same game plan- yes, the terrorists did strike first but we have gone out and toppled one of the regimes that was supporting the terrorists. The problem is that we have sunk into a morass and the situation in Iraq has unfortunately sunk into near total chaos. I though am confident that things will turn around over there. I believe the tougher fight was Iran and Bush may have had an easier sell going into that one- at least his public opinion wouldn't be any worse than it is now.

Nonetheless, I digress- easy to do at 5 am:) I do need to start getting myself a little more up to speed with the Napoleon era and the "age of gunpowder"- as it stands now, I have a tendency to stop after Agincourt and then pick up again during WW1 (I do read some American Rev stuff) but the political landscape in Europe had changed all over the place during that 4-500year period. Believe it or not- some of what keeps me from reading material from those eras are the names- I just have a heck of a time telling the guys apart with their names. Sometimes, things are that simple. :eek:

Take Care,
CC
 
I recently started collecting the John Jenkins figures from the French-Indian War. That peaked my interest in what is one of the least well-known wars in relationship to its importance. Among other things, it was one of the first world wars, involved many important historical personalities like George Washington, and for those of us who live in PA - much of it was fought right here. There is a lot of discussion on the John Jenkins link regarding books, figures, places to visit etc So I won't rehash any of that except to recommend it to new collectors or anyone interested in a lesser known era of military history. BTW: The "Death of Wolfe" set produced by Jenkins is my favorite release in many years.
 
Chris:

NAPOLEON HAS RETURNED !

:eek: :eek: :eek:

But, When I am ready to take the field - I find that all my Marshals have conquered.............:D

Excellent Job Gentlemen - Excellent Job - I have nothing to say accept APPLAUSE for the Emperuer.

You have read some of the best reasons why anyone should join our Napoleonic Club.

Ron
 
Good to see the big Blue Font again.In fact if you put those words together 'Bluefont' sounds like a fictional French General!;)

Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top