Posted on 12/22/2005 6:41:00 AM PST by indcons
On August 26, 1805, a post chaise left the town of Mainz and rolled east toward the Rhine River. Inside the carriage sat a man, 6 English feet in height, with black corkscrew curls tumbling over his suit collar, dark flashing eyes and a black mustache. He had a handsome face, marred only by a scar on his lower jaw, the result of a bullet wound. In his hands he held a book by Marshal Charles Louis Auguste Fouquet, comte de Belle-Isle, describing the French campaign in Bohemia in 1742. On the man's passports was the name Colonel de Beaumont.
Moving rapidly, the carriage traveled to Frankfurt, then turned southeast toward Offenbach and Wurzburg. It proceeded to the town of Bamberg on the Regnitz River. Carefully skirting the border of the Austrian empire, it followed the course of the Regnitz southward to Nuremberg. Turning east again, it rolled to the Danube, tracing that river's course to Regensberg. There, it clattered across the Danube on the great stone bridge and continued to Passau. From there, the carriage turned west toward Munich, drove on to Ulm and through the Schwarzwald (Black Forest).
(Excerpt) Read more at historynet.com ...
Most French soldiers are dedicated, but serve a weak country, with notoriously bad leadership. The elite units detest their countries politics, and only desire to fight, luckily for them, they see a lot more action than many Americans are aware of.
"You're right....however, the "French" leader during that time was a Corsican. Your point about the efforts of the French rank and file is a very valid one though."
Corsica is part of France.
The "American" leader of the American Revolutionary Army was a Virginian.
Corsica has been French for only 210 years in its 3000-year history.....
Corsican culture is more similar to Italy than to France. In fact, when the French wanted to crush the Algerian FLN, they used the Foreign Legion and Corsican conscripts in the French Army rather than mainland Frenchmen.
Napoleon was born in Corsica when Corsica was part of France.
"French" is not a race, but a national identity. Napoleon, as a French man, was educated in French military academy and always served the French military.
What is your point? That Napoleon's being a Corsican means that he was not Emperor of the French, or French, or that the Grande Armee and its achievements and failures were not French?
What is the reason for taking that line?
It's very strange.
George Washington was not a native born American citizen. He was born a British subject. Indeed, every US President before John Tyler was born an Englishman on British soil, and was an Englishman until America shook off Britain and became independent, thereby naturalizing all of the native sons of America as English.
It would be a very strange thing, however, to call Washington, Adam, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, et al Englishmen or British, even though they were, technically, until independence anyway.
I don't understand the significance in Napoleon's birthplace being Corsica as opposed to, say, Normandy or Brittany, Alsace or Poitou or the Ile de France. What difference does it make? "French" is all of those things. When Napoleon was born, to be born in Quebec was also to be French. Nobody FRENCH disputed that. Certainly Napoleon did not need to obtain some sort of waiver from his King to attend French military academy, given that he was as French as anybody else.
Corsica has its regional peculiarities. So does every other region in France. The culture of the Val D'Aosta is very Italian, as is the culture of the Cote d'Azur near Italy. Marseilles is very different from Paris, and yet the national hymn is the Marseillaise, and not the Parisienne.
I fail to understand the regional significance of Napoleon's birthplace, other than as a point of color.
Any suggestions on a good general history of Napoleon's campaigns? I'm looking for the equivalent of Shelby Foote's The Civil War?
Thanks.
For others not interested in Foote style detail, a short, easy read that covers the basics is Alistair Horne's How Far from Austerlitz, which despite the title covers the period 1805 to 1815. No great ability to judge period military matters, but more political background and period color than you get from E&E, not biased, and runs you through the highlights quickly, with enough detail to have a sense why things happened as they did.
Yes, but remember that Napoleon lost 3, count 'em, THREE armies - one in Russia, one in Egypt and one at Waterloo.
That burned up a lot of testosterone producers in the French gene pool. I've often wondered if the stature of the French man is not noticeably smaller than average because of it.
I second JasonC's recommendations. I am a tad more inclined to the Chandler opus. JasonC seems to find Chandler overly predisposed to Napoleon,but some readers feel the opposite (read some of the Amazon reviews). I find him to be fairly even-handed, praising Napoleon's achievements, while pointing out the faults ( especially in the later campaigns). What I like (and this may be what makes Chandler seem adulatory to some) is that when Napoleon has done something extraordinary, he takes the time to point it out.
Chandler was a teacher at the British Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, and he was probably used to students who had a good grasp of military strategy, so that if he taught on one of the great Captains of history, their achievements would have been self-evident. However, Chandler seems to have understood that readers of The Campaigns of Napoleon would include non-historians, so I believe he punches up some of Napoelon's more brilliant strokes so that we can appreciate them in context.
The Exposito and Elting Atlas opus has stunning maps, and maps are crucial to studying campaigns. I find the text a tad dryer than Chandler's, but it is very informative. If you're really interested in the Age of Napoleon, I think you need both. I have a gazillion books on N and his Age, but I refer to these two the most.
After you get familiar with Napoleon and his campaigns, I highly recommend another book by John elting called Swords Around a Throne. This book covers the various components of the Grand Armee and its Marshals, and many of the more illustrious commanders. It is very anecdotal, and really brings the period alive (though in this book, Elting is IMO extraordinarily pre-disposed towards the French).
You may also want to read a basic biography of Napoleon. These military histories omit most details about Napoleon that do not involve his campaigns. Avoid Alan Schom's book (Elting said it was only useful for throwing at unruly cats!).
As for my problems with Chandler, it isn't just adulation though there is way too much of that. He has definite axes to grind on military tactics, unsound ones. He wants Wagram to be a defeat because it was a frontal attack, treats Eylau as a French victory, downplays the Leipzig, doesn't explain the logistic failure in Russia adequately, paints almost all of the Allied commanders as clueless, etc. There is just way too much cartoon drawing without a military basis.
He knows details you want to know. He is not a sound judge of the events he is discussing. Unless you are capable of independently judging period military assessments, that is quite a serious fault. If you are, it is merely annoying, because you have to debate the author every third page as you read the book. E&E on the other hand, when they give you a military judgement of a move or choice, and you dig in to check it, you will find it is right.
Since the guy was talking about Shelby Foote's Civil War series, I thought it apt to mention something that provided a little color and atmosphere in addition to a grand strategic overview. If you though I was recommending Swords Around a Throne as a treatise on Napoleonic strategy, then I must have given a false impression.
Thanks to both you and Jason C for some great recommendations. I'll check out both Esposito and Elsing and Chandler. I read Vincent Croonin's biography of Napoleon about eight years ago.
It's a strange bio in that, right around the time of the coronation, he abandons a linear time-frame, and does not get back on track until the Russian Campaign. I always felt it was as if he had cut some chapters.
Try to find some used copies of Elting/Esposito and Chandler. They are huge volumes, selling in the $60-$80 range (I think the Elting/Esposito Atlas is out of print).
I picked up a nice copy of The Campaigns of Napoleon in a used bookstore about 15 years ago for $35. I got the Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars used off Amazon.
After you check out the overview volumes, and get a good sense of what each campaign consisted of, you may want to pick up the best works on the individual campaigns for more detail. Happy reading!
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.