Austerlitz: Napoleon's Masterstroke (Long article but an excellent read)

Military History Magazine ^ | December 2005 | James W. Shosenberg

[ansel12]

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.

[Vicomte13]

"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.

[indcons]

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.

[Vicomte13]

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.

[hc87]

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.

[JasonC]

The best single source is Esposito and Elsing's Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars. Good maps, reasonable narrative, no real bias, sound professional military men when it comes to assessments and opinions. The standard longer source, more in the Shelby Foote genre, is David Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon. Much longer text, far more detail. But also definite bias and a definite thesis being peddled ("a giant surrounded by pygmies" being the thesis), and at points the amateur admirer fails to assess the situation objectively. E&E is superior on that basis, but Chandler is worth reading.

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.

[JasonC]

Tell the Harkis. The French left them.

[nightdriver]

"It is hard ti imagine that the very recent decendants of these Frenchman are afriad of some muslim youth torching his car."

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.

[Sans-Culotte]

I do not think there is a Napoleonic source written in the style of Foote (i.e. Foote was a novelist, and his Civil War trilogy reads more like a novel than a history). Most Napoleonic histories are kind of on the "dry" side.

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!).

[JasonC]

I have Swords around the throne but it did not impress me very much. If you want cover to cover period color, want to know how they dressed and what they ate, and who brought the potatos, you can wade through it. The discussion of actual tactics is incredibly thin, you get more from a few lines of Keegan in Face of Battle.

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.

[JasonC]

One politician, not plural. A general. And by the end, the French army was blasting the pied noir (French) quarter with dive bombers and tanks, to deal with the OAS. The ones who fought hard until the end were the Harkis, the loyalist Muslims. Until the French disarmed them and handed them over to the FLN. There is no way that war can be portrayed as reflecting any honor on French arms.

[Sans-Culotte]

Actually, I was recommending Swords Around a Throne simply for its period color and stories of individuals involved. I've got lots of books on strategy and tactics, but I also want to know what it was like to be a mere cog in the machine of the Grand Armee. I also like David Johnson's books on Napoleonic cavalry for the same reason.

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.

[JasonC]

I just think it is a relatively boring book. I read it through, but did not get much out of it. I guess I just don't understand what others see in such things, it does little for me. As for just imagining what it was like, I can do that myself with little prompting.

[hc87]

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.

[Sans-Culotte]

Vincent Cronin is a good place to start. Over-all, a bit too chummy with his subject, but he really humanized the Emperor. I always recommend Cronin as a starting point.

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!