Napoleonic Battles

It's really a tough decision, but I don't think that any land battle, except perhaps for the broad campaign in Russia, could compete with Trafalgar, the Nile, or St. Vincent. St. Vincent especially is one of the most underrated battles of the wars, bordering on importance with the Nile and showing to a great extent the development of Nelson's tactics. Nelson was a great genius, but he wouldn't have been what he was without John Jervis.

Battle of Borodino was the most important. If Napoleon won decisevly maybe He could have a chance to overrun Russia.

Originally posted by gcle2003 Agree entirely with Timotheus. St Vincent (the battle) is kind of overlooked nowadays, but it was certainly recognised as a triumph at the time. � �

Its not part of the Napoleonic wars for one. It was 3 years before Napoleon even fought at Marengo which was kind of the close to the French Revolution and also not really part of the Napoleonic wars. The effects of Trafalgar are also over glorified. As a naval battle in history it is probably one of the top if not the top ever. Its effect on the war however can be argued.


Majkes I kind or wanted to put Borodino as well. Reason being it really hurt Napoleon alot as it was extremely too costly at that point in the campaign. Even had he eventually routed the russians in the battle the manpower loss was devastating and those who were wounded had little time before winter came on. It may have been the turning point battle in his career as it gave the allies the mindset that he and his army were beatable.
    
    

Edited by Gundamor - 01-Sep-2006 at 14:48

Originally posted by Paul I guess one measure would be what if the result was reversed? � I think the French could have recovered more easily from defeat at Austerlitz than Marengo or even Jena. Wargram after Apsern-Essling would have been difficult to recover from too. If the French lost Borodino they would have been anihilated in Russia, but they were anyway. Trafalgar would have been nice for them to win, but the RN was more than capable of recovering from a single defeat...... So I'll go for Marengo. � For the allies, defeat at Waterloo wouldn't have changed much with so many more troops on the way. Leipzig to was well within allied resources to absorb. If Prussia had won at Jena the Russians and Austrians would probably have declared war.... So I'll go for Jena for the allies.

    
The allies were not really allies. All sides had different views on how far they wanted to take things. Leipzig was a huge step. They couldnt just absorb losses. It may have resulted in some of them sueing for peace with the borders as original or with some aquired territory. Certainly not an overall defeat of Napoleon and a march on Paris. Napoleon fought Leipzig to open up ways to retreat not because he wanted too.

I assume you mean Auerstedt and not Jena. Jena was never going to be a Prussian victory and even Neys usual bumblings couldnt lose it. Russia was still at war with France and Austria had no army to declare war(results of Ulm and Austerlitz) at that time. Had Davout lost at Aurstedt, Napoleons main body and Bernadottes stray corps would of been well more then enough to smash what little was left of the Prussians to bits. After the battle the Prussian army was reduced to a rabble and would indicate that a Prussian win even wouldnt have changed the outcome of the campaign. Jena-Auerstedts major result was the reforms it put on the Prussian military which really never enabled it to face the French army up to that point.

Originally posted by Gundamor Originally posted by gcle2003 Agree entirely with Timotheus. St Vincent (the battle) is kind of overlooked nowadays, but it was certainly recognised as a triumph at the time.     Its not part of the Napoleonic wars for one. It was 3 years before Napoleon even fought at Marengo which was kind of the close to the French Revolution and also not really part of the Napoleonic wars.

Seems reasonable.

This may seem really obvious but surely the battle of Waterloo was the battle which fianlly ended Napoleon as a threat to europe especially when considering the closeness of the battle which indead suggest he was still a force to be reckoned with at that piont

the most descisive battles were Ulm, Baylen and Kulm.

Originally posted by Jonathan4290 Very interesting. Is there strong evidence that the casualties sustained were enough to affect the following campaigns?

Originally posted by Jonathan4290 I meant to ask that if the southern route had been taken the French casualties would've been much smaller? My numbers say only 25,000 French made it out of Russia with the northern route, how many do you guess could've made it out using the southern route?

OK, got it.  Honestly, that's very hard to say with any certainty.  However, in general terms there is good reason to believe that the effect would have been huge.  Aside from the few 'depots', the troops were forced to 'live off the land'.  That was almost impossible with the devastated northern route.  It was difficult to 'forage' for what little was left because the Russians were constantly 'harassing' the French all the way.  With the undevastated southern route (which Napoleon originally favoured for exact that reason) it would have been easier to obtain some supplies without having to disperse too far in order to forage.  Further, the pursuing Russians would have been worse off than the French in that they would have been pursuing in the 'wake' of a region that had just been 'foraged' by the French.  Historically the Russians suffered almost as much as the French as both were moving through an already devastated region.  The vast majority of the French losses sustained during the retreat were due to 'attrition'.  So it is reasonable to assume that many of those losses may have been saved.  As a 'guess' I would say perhaps 2 to 3 times as many troops may have gotten out, and those that did may have been in much better condition - still having more of their horses etc.