Very interesting discussion on Napoleon's 'greatest' battles and some bold choices. I agree with another commentator that the 1814 campaign as a whole probably deserves some sort of look in but what about Friedland?
Less memorable than Eylau perhaps but an excellent example of the corps system in action. Lannes pinning Bennigsen in place allowing concentration of force, Napoleon arrives, surveys the scene, turns the Russian left and then Lannes and Mortier finish off a crushing victory by punching through the weakened centre. And not forgetting that in the aftermath the French gain the Ionian Islands, Russia joins the Continental System, Prussia is carved up, Napoleon creates Westphalia for his brother and the Duchy of Warsaw. Clobbering victory, big diplomatic pay-off. None of it lasts of course but then again... what does?
Finally, big battles are all well and good but what are the really interesting little battles where BIG things happen? I'm thinking of the river assault at Porto, Mortier being surprised by a Russian night attack on the Danube at Dürenstein, Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia being killed in single combat at Saalfeld, the British taking their first eagle at Barrosa (which incidentally inspired the naming of the Australian wine region Barossa – misspelled you'll note) and the KGL breaking two French squares at Garcia-Hernandez.
Any others?
Other just study Dupont - Pozzolo, or Haslach - Junginen in 1805 where he fights withn just one Division Mack's garrison - and yes Amstetten indeed, others of 1805 - Wertingen, Elchingen, Günzburg, Dürnstein, or 1806 - Bernadotte winning at Halle, well the list would be quite long, Baylen.
As one of Nabulieone's best campaigns, Spring of 1813 and one of his most brilliant battles (my view) - Bautzen.
Haslach-Junginen I didn't know about. A potential 'what-if?' battle - as in what if Mack had seized the opportunity to break out? An interesting proposition.
And I agree about 1813 too, up until Leipzig Napoleon was giving the allied armies a good going over, even if it was all, ultimately, rather hopeless.
@Rupert Millar
Yes Haslach Jungingen an interesting battle, Mack tried to brake out, but Dupont could just hold the ground by an aggressive defense.
About 1813, in the spring campaign, Nabulieone did very well, but then it started to fall apart, Dresden was a hollow victory and then endless defeats starting with Kulm , then Groß Beeren, Dennewitz, Katzbach, Wartenburg and so on, clearly Nabulione was at his wits end, just and even worse than in Russia 1812.
Yes, you're right, in 1813 the effects of 1812 really started to show and his shortage of men and horses were crippling. In the end the Coalition armies could afford to lose occasionally and then just grind him down throughout '13 and '14 with their numbers - and capable soldiers and commanders too to be fair.
Bautzen was one of Napoleon's best planned battles, but Ney was unfortunately given too many troops for his abilities and he, ineptly supported by his chief of staff Jomini, failed in the planned envelopment of the allies army.
Instead of the battle of annihilation Napoleon planned, he won only an 'ordinary' victory.
I need to go back and read my Nafziger books on 1813, it's been a while.
@Rupert Millar
Anyway it is strange than a battle like Bautzen stands in the shadow of say Großgörschen or as the French say Lützen.
@Rupert Millar I don’t know much about this, so I looked up on the Net. The curious thing - which Nafziger may talk about - is that Ney is accused of being too obsessed with the tactical issues around one village and so failed to close the trap “as the Emperor intended”. I wonder if this is another case of the mythology around the corps system, since Napoleon failed to reveal his overall strategic concept to the Marshals. Leaving them with just detailed tactical orders, he could then blame a Marshall if he wasn’t fully successful.
On the French side, there were two decisive actions at Friedland. The first was Lannes brilliant delaying action that 'forced' Bennigsen to the wrong side of the river, setting up Napoleon's battle.
The second was Senarmont's brilliant artillery action where he not only introduced new artillery tactics, but he destroyed the allied center with a grande battery at 120 yards.
The second was Senarmont's brilliant artillery action where he not only introduced new artillery tactics, but he destroyed the allied center with a grande battery at 120 yards.scourge of repetition again - is this a topic about Friedland?
Senarmont was part of a combined arms attack, where the excellent Division of Dupont played a key part, neither were his artillery tactics new.
over and out and be my guest
Friedland was mentioned in the OP.
And Senarmont advanced with his artillery on his own intiative and the advance evolved into an artillery attack on the Russian center.
Senarmont advanced beyond Dupont's division and Dupont became the supporting unit to that attack.
Apparently, I was too sharp in my critique of this nonsense about Friedland, so to avoid repetition of the same points, there are threads on TMP, which show the reality. http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=438340&page=2
It is worth noting that the only evidence ever produced for Senarmont getting up close is his own claim.
Indeed again Dave - you will find numerous threads, also in the old Napoleon series org.
As to - because Dupont is just following Senarmont and by that the is just supporting him, fails all logic.
Usually infantry had to be behind their guns - it was a combined attack in usual French fashion - seen on numerous occasions before with the exception of higher numbers of guns, who initially started in two wings.
you may also find this interesting
How Napoleon lost Paris 1814
At Laon in early March, Napoléon was outmaneuvered by Field Marshal Gebhard von Blücher's Allied Army, leaving the capital unprodected by Michael V. Legierre
article starts on page 26
nice illustrations and map
What is actually more interesting, especially from a tactical point of view are the three battles fought between Napoleon and Blucher in February 1814-Montmirail, Champeaubert, and Vauchamps. In those three battles, 10-14 February, Blucher's Army of Silesia was nearly destroyed by Napoleon.
Another interesting 1814 action was at Montereau (17 February) where Pajol distinguished himself by galloping the bridge and thereafter, being ably supported, cut up and dispersed an allied corps.
Evidence for Senarmont's artillery attack can be found in his own after-action report, the I Corps after-action report, and in a letter Senarmont wrote to his brother.
More material on Senarmont's action can be found in Yermelov's memoirs, 98-100:
'Around 6:00 pm Napoleon arrived and the entire French army too. With a forest concealing their movements, masses of French gathered against our left; a battery of 40 guns was deployed on the edge of the forest and a fierce cannonade began. Because of the range, the artillery fire was direct and our rearguard's cavalry greatly suffered from it. The rearguard was soon retreating as well. The army soon began withdrawing to the bridges. The only way to reach the main bridge was through the city itself. Chaos reigned in the narrow streets and this was further increased by the enemy artillery. Based on the direction of the enemy columns, it was obvious that they intended to cut us off at the crossing; to delay them, the Life Guard Izmailovsk and Pavlovsk Grenadier regiments made an attack, but that same ghastly battery halted their gallant assault and the regiments turned back.'
Mikhailovsky-Danilevski wrote that 'The Russian gunners were surprised by the sudden appearance of the French 36-gun battery.'
Other Russian material on Friedland can be found in Russian Eyewitness Accounts of the Campaign of 1807, compiled, edited, and translated by Alexander Mikaberidze.
Napoleon also witnessed the action, as did Mouton, who had actually been sent to Senarmont in order to 'restrain' Senarmont's aggressiveness. Senarmont told him bluntly to leave him and his artillerymen alone, and Mouton returned to Napoleon with Senarmont's reply and Napoleon told Mouton to then leave Senarmont alone.
An excellent reference for Senarmont is Grand Artilleurs by Girod de l'Ain.
Regarding Dupont at Friedland, he had advanced on his own supported by artillery under Captain Ricci. Senarmont, after securing permission from his corps commander, Victor, deployed the corps artillery into two fifteen gun batteries with six in reserve on either side of Dupont's division. Senarmont saw an opportunity and ordered the two batteries to advance and they outpaced and passed Dupont's division, then becoming the supported, vice the supporting, unit. Dupont supported Senarmont's attack, that attack wrecking the Russian center.
In the later letter to his brother, Senarmont mentioned the Russian casualties on the ground, having walked the ground and looking for himself at the carnage his artillery had caused. And it is undoubtedly easy to assess who or what killed people on the battlefield as artillery rounds, be they roundshot or canister, severely damage the human body, whereas musket fire leaves the body intact.
One Russian regiment, the Izmailovsk Life Guards, for example, its 1st Battalion losing 400 out of 520. That data is taken from the regimental history.
the topic in case I am not mistaken
Battles great and smallIndeed, I merely suggested Friedland in response to the recent podcast on the subject of Napoleon's 'greatest battles' – which led on to the 1813/14 campaign discussions.
I hadn't realised there was such controversy surrounding part of the Friedland battle however!
And any suggestions for small actions where significant things happened are still welcome...
@Rupert Millar The only controversy that I have seen over the years is doubt over the artillery action in the Russian center.
Halle - 1806 - Bernadotte's victory over the Prussians.
A good one, I was also thinking of a pure cavalry engagement such as Villagarcia or a clash like Liebertwolkwitz - where Murat was almost captured
Halle wasn't a small battle, though hardly a large one either. The numbers on each side were significant, as was Bernadotte's victory.
Bernadotte finally did something constructive in the 1806 campaign...after his absence from action on 14 October.
Bernadotte finally did something constructive in the 1806 campaign...after his absence from action on 14 October.scourge of repetition again
see
https://www.thenapoleonicwars.net/forum/general-discussions/in-re-bernadotte
and
https://www.thenapoleonicwars.net/forum/general-discussions/a-bernadotte-bibliography
scourge of repetition about Senarmont
https://www.thenapoleonicwars.net/forum/general-discussions/senarmont
Back to topic
The Prussian surprise cavalry attack at Haynau in 1813.
The rear guard action of Altenzaun in 1806 - Yorck keeps the advancing French under Soult at bay.
The cavalry clash at 18.9.1813 at Zeitz - Altenburg where those Allied "partizan" corps cause havoc.
The battle of La Fere Champenoise in the 1814 campaign in France where General Michel-Marie Pachthod's small national guard division conducted an 'epic fight' against overwhelming numbers of allied cavalry and artillery.
They were caught in the open by the allies and formed square, fought off the cavalry, and continued to move and repeated the exercise for six hours until they ran out of ammunition and couldn't get away, though some of them reached woods and swamps where the allied horsemen couldn't follow.
Pachthod surrendered the battered remnants in order to save their lives. Both the Tsar and the King of Prussia witnessed the action and refused to take Pachthod's sword.
There was a similar national guard action at Compiegne, where they were defending their own homes and town. There, the national guardsmen were supported by a section of regular artillery as well as a few regular infantrymen and fighting against Cossacks and Prussian infantry and, fighting furiously their backs to the town, finally drove off the Prussians with heavy losses.