Thanks C19fan.
Posted on 04/29/2016 9:22:50 AM PDT by C19fan
Tim Blanning, Frederick the Great: King of Prussia (New York: Random House, 2016), 688 pp., $35.00. NAPOLEON SWIFTLY conquered Prussia in October 1806, inflicting crushing defeats at Jena and Auerstedt that humbled a realm long known for its military tradition. A bulletin announcing news of the two battles described them as expunging the fifty-year stain left by Frederick the Great’s victory over a French army at Rossbach in 1757. When he visited Frederick the Great’s tomb with a group of his generals, Napoleon purportedly instructed them, “hats off gentlemen, if he were alive we wouldn’t be here today.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
And the Prussians got their revenge at Waterloo in 1815.
The French aren't going to hold the Germans down for long.
“The French aren’t going to hold the Germans down for long.”
Remember, it took more than the Prussians . . . there were also the red squares of Wellington’s British, the Dutch, Russians and others.
Napoleon was not going to prevail in 1815, but the battle at a place called Waterloo was a near thing. Blucher was certainly welcomed by Wellington late in the afternoon.
With a father like he had, there was no choice in the matter.
Mr. niteowl77
Thanks C19fan.
Napoleon lost enough in his ill-considered Russian campaign that not even Wellington could louse it up.
Interesting article.
But he gave his dog a German name: Hasenfuss (rabbit's foot).
I visited his palace in Potsdam in 1972. At the time, Potsdam was in East Germany, and it was hard for an American to get there because we had no diplomatic relations with the Soviet Zone (I refuse to call it the GDR), but I was able to join a handful of Americans on a tour bus that departed from West Berlin. I was amazed as to how well it was preserved.
Let's give credit where it's due. Wellington -- with the belated assistance of the Prussians -- defeated Napoleon, once and for all. Whether through his own brilliant leadership or his opponent's poor is largely a matter of opinion.
Freddy was something, that's for sure. He did NOT, as unfairly quoted in Amadeus complain that Mozart's music had "too many notes", that was one of his ministers. Freddy had professional licks on flute and wouldn't have blanched at the sight of a black page (like I do - dammit, there are too many notes).
I'm trying to verify the story, but the legend is that he thought so little of the Hessian mercenaries that the Brits hired to send to America that he charged them passage through Prussia at cattle rates.
Great stuff, the book's on the way.
ahhhh....not so.
It was Blucher who won the battle of Waterloo in 2 ways:
1) His army when it withdrew from the defeat of Ligny drew off one Corp of Napoleon’s army, which was not present at Waterloo.
2) His very fast movement of the Prussian army allowed his army to be present at Waterloo, again while one of Napoleons corps was off chasing him in the wrong direction.
3) His fierce attack on the right flank of Napoleons army in the afternoon kept Napoleon from concentration on the British forces. Napoleon had to split his forces in the midst of two forces and was unable to mass the concentration he needed to defeat the British in detail. Had Blucher not been coming in on the right flank, that would not have been the case.
Wellington certainly held off Napoleon in the “same old way” but without Blucher the best he would have achieved was a draw, instead of the decisive defeat achieved by the allied armies.
So the combination of moving his army faster than the French thought possible and making a very effective flanking attack with forces coming off of a movement was what one the battle and made it famous.
Histories written since 1915 seem to have left most of this out, focusing instead on the valiant British stand at waterloo. I wonder why.......
Is it a coincidence that most of the ‘great’ people back in the day had one thing in common???
Vlad, Attila, Peter, Catherine, Richard, Frederick and a host of others had the same middle name???
THE
groan...
That was supposed to be Emperor Joseph II of Austria, not Frederick the Great of Prussia. Mozart lived in Vienna, not Berlin (unfortunately for the Berliners!).
Wellington -- with the belated assistance of the Prussians -- defeated Napoleon,
I specifically credited the Prussians.
Napoleon counted on Blucher not being able to make it to the battlefield in time to save Wellington. Even the latter had his doubts, and it undoubtedly would have gone ill for the English if Blucher had not shown up when he did, and immediately plunged into the fray.
I in no way discredit the contribution made by the Prussians. But SunkenCiv's implication that Wellington was a screw-up doesn't seem borne out. As you point out, it was the allied armies that won the day.
You are correct, of course. Fred the Great’s nephew was Mozart’s patron, not Freddy himself. Mea culpa.
Waiting for Napoleon to get his ass handed to him was a legit strategem. Napoleon’s invasion of Russia was just a boneheaded maneuver. Wellington’s snarky critiques of Napoleon are related to the fact that Wellington only is known in relationship to Napoleon. Obviously Napoleon was the greater general, and not by a little bit — he just wasn’t always right.
Casualties (both sides) at Borodino were 70,000; Napoleon lost 350,000 troops in the Russian campaign, mostly not due to battle, but rather to winter weather (there have been many attempts to revision that out of history, but it’s just a fact).
The Battle of Nations didn’t involve British troops, apart from some serving with the Swedes, yet involved about half as many troops as would later fight the huge Battle of the Somme in WWI (the difference being, the Somme lasted four months). That final campaign consisted of a series of battles, including some French victories, but after his defeat at Leipzig, Napoleon went into his first exile.
Waterloo was a fart in a hurricane by comparison with the Battle of Nations; French casualties at the earlier battle were roughly the entire combined casualty figures for Waterloo. After Leipzig, the piles of dead were everywhere.
Nappy had fewer troops by far, and there was still no recovery from the losses of veterans and command during the Russian campaign. He still maneuvered to beat Blucher; his idea appears to have been to keep the Prussians on the run and away from the battlefield, but ultimately that failed. He was forced to fight his adversaries simultaneously. Despite those disadvantages, he nearly pulled it off.
It’s mysterious to me that, given his interest in antiquity, Napoleon paid no attention to Herodotus’ account of the Persian army’s adventure chasing the Scythians around what is now the western Ukraine. They never were able to engage them, the Scythians would wait until they were in sight, then pack up everything, bug out, and ride off, putting multiple days’ march on the Persians’ to-do list. When winter started to come in, the Persians made their best time, marching as quick as could be to their bridge over the Danube, then to the Bosphorus bridge, and back to their empire.
The Germans in WWI might have learned something from that, and from Napoleon’s dabacle.
And Hitler, one would think, might have learned something from all three of those. Nothin’.
Wasn't that part of Hannibal's tactic in the Second Punic, to force the Romans to chase him into Iberia?
Robert E. Lee used it too, during the Seven Days chase down the Virginia countryside.
Wasn't that part of Hannibal's tactic in the Second Punic, to force the Romans to chase him into Iberia?
Robert E. Lee used it too, during the Seven Days chase down the Virginia countryside.
Hannibal forced Roman armies to attack him in his prepared positions, which was unusual in that he maintained the initiative for basically his entire 16 year campaign in Italy. He wasn’t able to take fortified towns, lived off the land where possible, and had a reliable line of communication, supply, reinforcement by sea, thanks to the Carthaginian navy. I believe his brother was the one who was run out of Spain after being chased around and finally beaten by, hmm, one of the Scipio family. The path to Africa and the Carthaginian homeland lay open after that, and the attack there sobered up the Carthaginian oligarchy in a big hurry. They’d been in favor of the Barca family staying on campaign outside of Carthage proper, because of family rivalries not that unlike those going on in Rome (especially late in the Republican period), but when the Romans started marching toward them, the Carthaginian regime never wanted anyone back home so fast. Carthage relied on mercenaries for both land and sea campaigns, officers were perhaps 50-50 native-foreign.
I’m not a Hannibal worshipper; his reputation appears to be based on Cannae for the most part. His approach in that battle relied on active cavalry support on the flanks, without which he’d probably have been beaten back and forced to beat a hasty retreat. It’s interesting that Pompey used cavalry in that fashion at Pharsalus, and Caesar anticipated it, and prepared a response relying on guile, surreptitious deployments, and audacity. Both were great generals, Pompey being just a few years Caesar’s senior. That time the flanking cavalry didn’t work, or rather, it worked, but against the ‘wrong’ side.
Alexander the Great not only used a flanking cavalry maneuver at Issus, he led the charge I believe, and shattered the entire Persian left flank, then rolled up the entire Persian line in a mass of terror and confusion. I think the portrayal of Issus is one of the screwups in that awful movie.
Somewhere (can’t find it) I read an anecdote — Hannibal was asked by Scipio Africanus how he would rate various historical generals. He ranked himself second to Alexander, explaining, “had I been victorious over Scipio, I’d rank myself above Alexander,” a profound compliment from one fighting man to another, as well as a paradox.
Lee vs McClellan, heh, matchup for the ages, eh? I’m surprised McClellan could make such good time with piss-soaked drawers. Lee was attacking a numerically superior and probably better-armed foe, and taking tremendous casualties all the way along. Also, he had the best corp commander of the war, Jackson, attacking on one flank. The tactic of maintaining a skeleton line to hide their much smaller numbers was successfully used, and again at Chancellorsville (which some people, including yours truly, regard as Stonewall’s masterpiece).
At Gettysburg, the Union commander Meade picked his ground, dug in, and let Lee attack, a classic counterpuncher approach. Had Jackson been alive at that time, I doubt that would have been the approach, he’d have talked Lee out of it. The afternoon skirmishes that preceded the ‘official’ first day of that battle helped lay out the set-pieces to come. Leaving their camp fires burning to simulate, what was left of the ANV slipped out under cover of darkness.
Meade’s failure to counterattack on what would have been day four (or five I guess) was prudent, and more within his comfort zone, and to do other than that was probably not feasible. They also couldn’t maneuver much. Mounting pursuit probably wouldn’t have worked, as the ANV had a big head start and was rolling light.
The Union analogue to Seven Days was not long after — Grant took over, crossed the river with a huge army, and met Lee’s regrouped forces day after day, slamming together, with both sides eating up ammo and manpower, and settling into almost 300 days of siege and combat. Full mobilization of the Union didn’t really arrive until 1864; by the time of Appomatox, there were fully reinforced, fully manned infantry and artillery units, there was a large navy, and a vast (compared with earlier times) telegraph and rail network. The overall strategy of the Union was able to be carried out everywhere for the first time, and it was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
