truce of Poischwitz

Originally posted by Temujin Ok, this is a complicated case, some argue this, some argue that. the main problem is that Austria joined the coalition during the armistice, thats what made the truce look dumb now. the problem is, the truce would have favorued Napoleon more than the Russo-Prussians. as it was, no side could gain victory without serious reinforcements, and the reinforcements would have favoured napoleon, this is why the coalition sought the support of Austria, which would have tipped the balance greatly in favour of the coalition. and this is what happened. so in hindsight it was a dumb move of Napoleon. but it was no way certain that Austria would really rise again after all the defeats suffered at Napoleons hand in particular. considdering that the combined alliance was already considderably defeated in the first major battle after the truce, it made the Austrians look dumb for sure, if Vandamme had been lucky to catch the fleeing Austro-Russian corpses at Kulm and destroy them rather than being stopped by the Russian guards and in turn being accidentaly encircled by a retreating prussian corps and annihilated himself in the process....

Originally posted by Temujin the truce favoured Napoleon because he had more reinforcements at hand than Russia, Marie-Louises but most importantly new cavalry, be it aristocratic youth or dragoons withdrawn from Spain. neither Prussia nor Rusisa could hope for reinforcements so considdering they were defeated twice earleir that year Napoleon could have finally fought descisive battles and defeat them.

Simply not true.  As per my previous post, not Russia and certainly not Prussia had been subjected to the 'strain' of repeated campaigns over the years that France had.  Further, Napoleon had already taxed the available resources in France to rebuild his army at the beginning of the 1813 campaign, after the disaster in Russia.  There simply were not 'a lot' more sources for reinforcements for the French.  Withdrawing additional forces from Spain simply accelerates the collapse there.  Note that during the 1814 campaign, France was being invaded from the southwest.  So that 'pressure' on the sourthern border may have started much earlier if Spain had been further denuded in 1813 (i.e. more than it already had been).  If you want to argue that Napoleon could have 'drafted' more, even younger 'children', and thereby fielded more additional 'soldiers' than Prussia / Russia combined, I will simply say that Napoleon pretty much already went about as far as he could down that path.  France simply didn't have 'more' additional resources available than Russia and Prussia, so there is no reason to believe that the armistice would have worked out to Napoleon's advantage, even if Austria had remained neutral.  There is a discernible difference between having a justifiable expectation that it would be to his advantage and simply 'hoping' that it would.  Napoleon was clearly in the second category.

Originally posted by Temujin about Austria. well, the Prussians were not the only ones trying to bring Austria to their side. also Metternich was in paris and Napoleon threatened to march on Vienna and raze it to the ground in case Austria would dare to join the coalition. there you have it. but as i said, even with Austria on their side he could have still defeated them all, which suceeded at Dresden but ended in complete failure at Kulm.

Again, Napoleon simply misread the Austrians, as he had the Russians the year before.  It was a huge error in judgment.   As long as Austria existed it would never accept French 'control' of Italy and Germany.  So Austria would always join in against the French, as soon as they saw it as the best time to do so.  They badly miscalculated in 1809, and that was what Napoleon was 'hoping' would be the deciding factor.  However, Napoleon 'tied down' in Spain in 1809 but fighting no one else on the continent is one thing, fighting Prussia and Russia after having lost practically his entire army in Russia, and being in an even worse position in Spain in 1813 was something very different.  Again, 'reasonable expectation' vs. 'hoping'.

Originally posted by Temujin yeah but what does outnumbered mean? if a 130.000 army faces a 150.000 army, in my book thats roughly equal numbers. outnumbering begins at a ratio of 1:1,5 at least. napoleon was outnumbered in 1805 (Austria + Russia) and 1806 (Prussia + Russia) he also won the 1813 spring camapign against Prussia + Russia again. he also won 1807 against Britian + Spain + Portugal. against Austria in 1809 while still engaged in Spain.

First, Hannibal was heavily outnumbered, at Cannae for example, by about your 3:2 ratio  or more (~56,000 vs. ~87,000).  Furthermore, if one considers the entire resources of the Romans in the Italian peninsula vs. what Hannibal had, then the odds were even more against him.  Further note that part of Napoleon's 'genius' in the field was to concentrate the bulk of his army against only a portion of his opponents' and thereby gain more favourable odds.  So rarely did Napoleon face such long odds on a battlefield.  When he did (e.g. the latter stages of Leipzig) he lost, so there was an upper limit to what even Napoleon could achieve. 

Originally posted by Temujin i can't follow you, i already mentioned some of the meassures taken by Napoleon to enlarge his army. yes France was drained, but remember it was France who won most wars, unlike Austria for example, which was therefore much shorter on ressources than France. France was not a reactionary government, none of the other states could increase their army the way Napoleon could. and he basically already abandoned Spain, so it doesn't really matter anyways if Soult & Suchet had more or less troops, defeat was inevitable. but this theater didn't immediately threatened napoleon & France as much as the eastern enemies so it was negligible. Prussia was completely denuded after the peace of tilsit, the cavalry horses were absorbed by the French and it had to buy the worst horses available by then from all over europe. Prussia was significantly circumcised and lost a lot of manpower by losing half of poland. what Prussia fielded in 1813 was all it could possibly field at all. Russia wasn't off better, unlike the Prussian landwehr, the only effective milita in the Nap Wars at all, its own opolchenye was basically worthless and was only used to screen French fortresses. contrary to popular believe, the Russian army also suffered greatly to attrition in 1812 and unlike France couldn't replace it as easily as napoleon due to serfdom and other factors.

The point that I'm making is pretty straightforward, so I'm not sure there is much more I can say to explain it further.  First, let's keep in mind how this particular 'thread' of discussion started.  You claimed that Napoleon might be expected to gain advantage by agreeing to the armistice during the 1813 campaign, in spite of the fact that he had the Russians and Prussians 'on the ropes' at the time.  The basis of your claim was that France had the greater potential to gain reinforcments.  However, the fact is that France was drained from years of campaigning.  Their later campaigns in Spain and Rusia in particular had cost them heavily and gained them nothing.  Further, Napoleon had pretty much used up what resources were available in order to rebuild his army earlier in 1813, after the debacle in Russia.  So it's not as if there were alot more resources available to France at the point of the armistice.  Furthermore, Napoleon could not afford to strip Spain of additional forces and still have that front not remain a 'threat' to France.  As I pointed out there was a substantial invasion of France from the southwest in 1814, which factored into the campaign.  If Napoleon had stripped Spain of French forces, that invasion would have been taking place in 1813, while Napoleon was fighting in Germany.  Regarding Prussia and Russia, they were both much better off than France in this regard.  Prussia had not fought since 1807 (again, discounting their nominal participation in the invasion of Russia).  Due to the restrictions imposed on them, much of their forces were half-trained 'militia'.  However, that supports my position, not yours.  The only difference between the Landwehr and regular line units was training and experience.  So Prussia had a large force that, although it was less efffective initial, had the potential to be 'upgraded' to full line unit status.  Further, as the Prussians entered the conflict and regained their previously lost territory, they gained additional resources (i.e. populations) from which to draw on.

Originally posted by Temujin ok i can't think of a battle where Napoleon was significantly outnumbered but that was part of his genius as you said. as i said Carthage was allied to macedonia, so he wasn't really outnumbered, only if we compare barcid Empire vs Rome alone, he was significantly outnumbered strategically. Napoleon was always strategically outnumbered.

Originally posted by Temujin do you not read what i write? Napoleon could draw from ressoruces that were untapped all along, for example the young aristocracy that formed the legion d'Honneur. for his cavalry he used horses that were supposed to be used to create Lithuanian cavalry units in 1812, for comparison, Prussia was stripped of its fine horses and had to buy new ones from all over europe, like Portugal for example. he also drew from his German allies heavily plus he had before formed regiments from PoWs, which was quite common. he also mentioned that in regards of the Portuguese Legion: "it's not that this soldiers are particularly efficient, its not even that i want them at all, i created this legion to take away those sodliers from the enemy." as i said, due to the reactionary nature of the governments of Napoleons opponents, there was only that much they could do and the Prussian & Russian armies of 1813 was all they could possibly field, i have the Warrior books from osprey, there was no further magical source of manpower that they could draw from. look in particular how the Cossacks, which appeared in numbers in Rusian service completely unpreceeded got politically tied to the Czar personally and given further privileges to nullify any possible revolt as seen previously in the Pugachev etc rebellions. also i clearly said Spain was lost, napoleon knew it and withdraw much needed cavalry from there. its not that he didn't saw the realities, he just had to make some sacrifices. the troops removed from Spain would not have made any difference there. also considdering Napoleon won both battles and pushed back the allied advance, we can only but say that the truce favoured napoleon.

Yes, I read what you wrote.  It is simply wrong, that's all.  Napoleon did not have access to 'untapped' resources that you keep alluding to, he had already utilized them to rebuild what army he had in the pre-armistice phase of the 1813 campaign.  It was the French who were scrambling for horses for their cavalry, not the Prussians.  The Prussians had been 'stripped' of their horse after their final defeat in 1807.  We are talking about 6 years later.  The Prussians and Russians were in no worse a position than the French to benefit from the armistice.  Napoleon himself admitted after the fact that agreeing to it had been a serious mistake on his part, that his opponents had much more to gain from it than he did himself.  You simply do not know what you're talking about. 

Regarding Spain, again you miss the point.  It wasn't just about losing Spain - the British and Spanish had no intention of stopping at the border.  The complete lose of Spain was followed by the invasion of southwestern France.  So whether the French forces there are in Spain or in southwestern France hardly matters, either way they are not available for the fighting in Germany. 

Originally posted by deadkenny Yes, I read what you wrote.  It is simply wrong, that's all.  Napoleon did not have access to 'untapped' resources that you keep alluding to, he had already utilized them to rebuild what army he had in the pre-armistice phase of the 1813 campaign.  It was the French who were scrambling for horses for their cavalry, not the Prussians.  The Prussians had been 'stripped' of their horse after their final defeat in 1807.  We are talking about 6 years later.  The Prussians and Russians were in no worse a position than the French to benefit from the armistice.  Napoleon himself admitted after the fact that agreeing to it had been a serious mistake on his part, that his opponents had much more to gain from it than he did himself.  You simply do not know what you're talking about.  Regarding Spain, again you miss the point.  It wasn't just about losing Spain - the British and Spanish had no intention of stopping at the border.  The complete lose of Spain was followed by the invasion of southwestern France.  So whether the French forces there are in Spain or in southwestern France hardly matters, either way they are not available for the fighting in Germany.

finally throw your Chandler out the window.... please explain me how Napoleon got the horses and manpower to raise two new Cavalry divisions if France was oh so drained of war? i hope you ever heard of the Gardes d'Honneur and the Eclaireurs of the Imperial Guard. of course according to you they were paper soldiers riding on paper horses and not young aristocrats on Lithuanian mounts... oh and of course Prussia raised innumeral more units during the truce, thats why it had 3 Cuirassier regiments, much more than the original 13 it had in 1806, and they were mounted with the finest east Prussian Trakehner breed and not crappy Portuguese breeds because Napoleon did not steal them in 1807 and gave them to his own French Cuirassiers...

come on, your theory about France being war-drained and Prussia not being at war between 1807-1812 sounds nice and convincable. unfortunately it doesn't survive the reality check.

Regarding Austria - the problem is simply that you continue to deny the obvious truth.  The armistice made Napoleon appear weak and gave the Austrians time to prepare for their entry.  They did in fact historically join the fight against Napoleon after the armistice.  What else is there to say?  Yes, Austria participated, along with Prussia, in the invasion of Russia in 1812 as a 'nominal ally'  of France.  But they didn't exactly have much choice in the matter while Napoleon had a huge army and dominated central Europe.  As soon as Napoleon got into trouble in Russia the Austrians and Prussians 'dropped out'  of their 'alliance of convenience' with Napoleon, both becoming 'neutral'.  Prussia soon joined the fight against Napoleon.  The Austrians were a bit more cautious and wanted to see which way things were going before they committed themselves.  However, the key point here is that there was never any serious prospect of the Austrians becoming French allies.  When it appeared 'safe' for them to do so they joined the fight against Napoleon.  The only other possible outcome was that they might have continued to remain 'neutral' for longer.  But as they had clearly shown over and over again, since 1797, they would always fight again against Napoleon to try to regain their positions in Germany and Italy.

no they didn't. they didn't reclaimed ANY of the territories in Germany taken by either Napoleon or his allies. in fact France & Austria where at good terms (comparably) after the marriage with Marie-Louise. the only thing they did was taking Venice, which was actually initially given to them by Napoleon himself. so it is obvious Vienna basically confirmed most deals made with France pre-1809 (loss of Belgium, Vorder�sterreich). since the Prussian-Russian alliance lost both major battles that was obviously not Austrias motivation to join the fray. there are two explanations why Austria joined the war: 1. Scharnhorsts sacrifice or 2. Napoleons threat. during the truce both sides tried to win Austrias favour but since Talleyrand was gone Napoleon botched it all because he didn't wanted to make concessions and eventually threatened to march on Vienna (Metternich himself was in Paris, that is proove enough Austria wasn't anti-French by nature).

The fact that they ultimately failed to completely reestablish their old position in Germany is irrelevant, as they were obviously attempting to do so, or at least get as much as they could.  The outcome of the peace conference had much to do with rivalries between the various powers, Prussia and Austria in particular.  Originally, Russia wanted to keep rather more of Poland and Prussia had wanted rather more of Germany, but neither of them got exactly or everything they had wanted at the peace conference either.  However, that point does not in the least refute my point that Austria was heavily motivated by their desire to regain Germany and Italy when they were considering their possible (re)entry into the fight against Napoleon in 1813.  You also ignore entirely their (significant) campaign in Italy which tied down large French forces and ultimately defeated them.

what are you talking? Prussia got all German territories they wanted and Russia got all Polish territories they wanted (remember most of Poland was Prussian before the war).
italian theater significant? both France and Austria had comparably insignificant forces there, and the camapign as a whole was even less important that the Spanish theater (see Eugene of Savoy above). neither force risked anything and there was only one major battle ever whose outcome didn't achieved anything. compared to that Augereaus campaign with the Army of Lyon was more significant as it forced Schwarzenberg to direct massive troops (=idiot) to the south.

Originally posted by Temujin finally throw your Chandler out the window.... please explain me how Napoleon got the horses and manpower to raise two new Cavalry divisions if France was oh so drained of war? i hope you ever heard of the Gardes d'Honneur and the Eclaireurs of the Imperial Guard. of course according to you they were paper soldiers riding on paper horses and not young aristocrats on Lithuanian mounts... oh and of course Prussia raised innumeral more units during the truce, thats why it had 3 Cuirassier regiments, much more than the original 13 it had in 1806, and they were mounted with the finest east Prussian Trakehner breed and not crappy Portuguese breeds because Napoleon did not steal them in 1807 and gave them to his own French Cuirassiers... come on, your theory about France being war-drained and Prussia not being at war between 1807-1812 sounds nice and convincable. unfortunately it doesn't survive the reality check.

Why would I throw Chandler 'out the window' when he is a renowned and authoritative source on the topic?  If anything, you should throw your officers' memoirs in German out the window.  I never said that Napoleon was unable to improve his forces at all during the armistice.  You were the one who claimed that he had more capacity to gain by it than the Russians and Prussians, which you have failed to back up.  After the truce, the French were still at a great disadvantage in the cavalry arm.  The only 'reality check' that you have delivered is in your own mind. 

Originally posted by Temujin also i never claimed the british would stop at the pyrenees, however the Spanish did. the point is, the British army could not threaten Paris from the south. even when Eugene of Savoy penetrated the Vauban chain of fortresses and marched on Toulouse he eventually retreated because he couldn't do anything.

No, the Spanish did not 'stop' at the border.  Wellington 'sent them packing' after they had crossed into France.  If he had 'needed' them, i.e. if the British forces had been unable to 'handle' the French forces facing them, then the Spanish would no doubt have stayed, their lack of discipline notwithstanding.  The Vendee region was in constant 'rebellion' against Napoleon's rule, remaining quite 'pro-Monarchist'.  If unopposed the British would have found support in that region, as well as Atlantic ports to provide an easier supply route and reinforcements.  The French simply could not allow the British to operate completely unopposed - it could easily have developed into a threat to Paris from the west.

Originally posted by Temujin no they didn't. they didn't reclaimed ANY of the territories in Germany taken by either Napoleon or his allies. in fact France & Austria where at good terms (comparably) after the marriage with Marie-Louise. the only thing they did was taking Venice, which was actually initially given to them by Napoleon himself. so it is obvious Vienna basically confirmed most deals made with France pre-1809 (loss of Belgium, Vorder�sterreich). since the Prussian-Russian alliance lost both major battles that was obviously not Austrias motivation to join the fray. there are two explanations why Austria joined the war: 1. Scharnhorsts sacrifice or 2. Napoleons threat. during the truce both sides tried to win Austrias favour but since Talleyrand was gone Napoleon botched it all because he didn't wanted to make concessions and eventually threatened to march on Vienna (Metternich himself was in Paris, that is proove enough Austria wasn't anti-French by nature).

No, that's simply not true.  The Austrians 'sold off' Marie Louise after their defeat in 1809 in order to avoid an even more punative 'peace' treaty from Napoleon.  Further the Austrians gained far more than just Venice, they also wanted and gained other territories taken from them (e.g. Illyria, Dalmatia, Tyrol).  Although the Austrians did not regain territory in Germany, it doesn't mean that they didn't desire it.  They had to be content with the 'presidency' of the Germany Confederacy as a substitute for their former position as Emperor of the HRE (an 'organization' that no one particularly wanted to resurrect), as well as regaining territory in Italy and elsewhere.  Your interpretation of the diplomacy during the armistice is laughable.  The Austrians 'demanded' a settlement that amounted to 'surrender' by Napoleon.  Essentially it amounted to giving up all of the territory he had won since 1805.  There was no 'diplomacy' for Napoleon to 'botch up', he was never in the running.  He was faced with 'surrender' or having to fight Austria again.   

Originally posted by Temujin what are you talking? Prussia got all German territories they wanted and Russia got all Polish territories they wanted (remember most of Poland was Prussian before the war). italian theater significant? both France and Austria had comparably insignificant forces there, and the camapign as a whole was even less important that the Spanish theater (see Eugene of Savoy above). neither force risked anything and there was only one major battle ever whose outcome didn't achieved anything. compared to that Augereaus campaign with the Army of Lyon was more significant as it forced Schwarzenberg to direct massive troops (=idiot) to the south.

What I am 'taking about' are facts that you are apparently ignorant of.  Prussia 'wanted' all of Saxony, Russia wanted the entire 'Grand Duchy of Warsaw'.  As it was Prussia was 'forced' to settle for only a portion of Saxony, and in compensation got part of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, i.e. specifically the Posen region.  After the armistice, Napoleon had 400,000 infantry and 40,000 cavalry on the 'main' front in Germany.  There were a further 250,000 troops defending the Italian and Alpine fronts against Austria.  That's not exactly insignificant now, is it?

Originally posted by Temujin this is getting ridiculous, why should i dismiss contemporary German primary sources and believe a british lunatic that never bothered to read up German sources. if you look into the napoleonic "subculture", you will find out Chandler is easily dismissed for his oversimplifications and generalizations. the information in question (horses) is in Napoleons own correspondence (i found it online, you can too) as well as Scharnhorst (iirc). in his correspondence Napoleon clearly states that before the armistice he lacked cavalry and artillery. after the armistice he claimed he was still lacking in artillery but not cavalry. in his memoirs, Napoleon said: "if i had 1000 shells at Austerlitz, i would be master of the world now". both the warrior book by Hofschr�er and the other on the Russian infantry make it clear that Russia and Prussia both had recruited all their available forces. we can see that the only new Prussian troops came from the German dominions of Napoleon, same goes for Austria. Russia didn't raised any new troops after 1812 at all.

What on earth would contemporary German source know about the resources available to Napoleon? Or to the Tsar for that matter? As for a Napoleonic 'subculture' rejecting Chandler, I suppose that might be true if you define the 'subculture' as consisting of yourself. Of course it is a rather strange 'subculture' that seems ignorant of such basic facts as all of the battles that the Old Guard fought in between 1800 and 1815. Or ignorant of such basic information as the demands of Prussia and Russia at the Congress of Vienna. Once again, it's not a matter of Napoleon 'lacked' cavalry, but whether he had improved his position relative to his opponents. Obviously he did not. Napoleon himself realized this in retrospect. Only you appear to be arguing that Napoleon was better off due to the armistice. I have no idea what your Austerlitz quote has to do with the situation, or how it supports your argument. Your claim that Russia and Austria didn't raise any new troops after 1812 is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Temujin well can't you finally realize defeat in Spain was already reality? the coalition forces on the peninsula weren't particularly strong in cavalry themselves so he could easily afford stripping it off its cavalry. the defeat was certain, with or without cavalry. Wellington had over 100.000 troops, Soult had 60.000 and Suchet 25.000.

Can't you finally realize the ridiculous position you're defending? I am making a very straightforward point, which you continue to dodge, because you have no answer. Stripping the 'Spanish front' wasn't an option � it would have lead directly to a much earlier invasion of S.W. France from Spain. Again, you've painted yourself into an indefensible corner, but simply refuse to admit you're wrong.

Originally posted by Temujin Illyria, Dalmatia and Tyrolia were all taken in 1809, hence i said "pre-1809"....Austrians only started to make such demands AFTER they joined the coalition, before they joined the colation the best they could do to ask the reinstallation of their borders pre-1809. Austria was absolutely in no position to ask for anything during the armistice. your idea on the other hand that they demanded something from Napoleon is highly laughable.

No, once again you are simply wrong. Austria made such 'demands' in the negotiations during the armistice. The rejections of this 'offer' led directly to the end of the armistice and the entry of Austria against France. Once again you've clearly demonstrated your ignorance of Austrian diplomacy during the period in question.

Originally posted by Temujin it was completely unrealistic to ask for all of Saxony, it was an old established principality. Poznan had significant German population, so it was not given to Russia. Russia didn't even got all of Poland, they only got Congress-Poland in personal-union. Cracow remained as free city. as for your funny numbers. Viceory Eugene had 50.000 troops in 1814 under his command, Bellegarde had 75.000...i wonder where did the other 200.000 troops went to?

Whether or not it was 'unrealistic' for Prussia to demand all of Saxony is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that Prussia did just that, and you were apparently unaware of that fact (you now appear to admit your error). Similarly, the composition of the local population in the Posen region is irrelevant, the fact is that Russia initially demanded that territory, along with the rest of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, but agreed to Prussia getting Posen as compensation for settling for less of Saxony, again which you previously denied. I never said that Russia 'got' all of Poland, I said that they demanded all of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. That they got less than they initially demanded supports what I said previously and contradicts what you said. At least it appears that you've now looked up the information which you were previously unaware of.

The figure of 250,000 which I gave was the combined total of forces in Italy and Bavaria, defending against the Austrians in 1813 immediately following the armistice. How on earth do you believe the figure you give for Italy only in 1814 somehow refutes what I said? Gee, what happened between 1813 and 1814? Could it be that there were losses from fighting? Desertions? Perhaps the defeat at Leipzig which left France itself vulnerable to invasion meant that some forces needed to be taken to help defend the Rhine front?

 

Originally posted by Temujin you seriously start to piss me off. why don't you start to back up your claims? you failed to post details about those battles the Old Guard supposedly fought, just refering to vague quotes by Chandler. you failed to explain where all the trained horsemen and horses came from that were rode by the Gardes d'Honneur and the Eclaireurs. you failed to explain why Prussia had so much less cavalry than before. and tell em which new untis were raised by Russia, Prussia and Austria after 1812 that were NOT from newly conquered territories (Germany, Italy) or PoWs....

First, regarding the Old Guard fighting in battles between 1800 and 1815, I provided 3 sources which were consistent with each other. Two were 'narratives' which explicitly mentioned the Old Guard engaged in fighting in a number of battles from the retreat from Russia in 1812, through the 1813 campaign and into the 1814 invasion of France itself. The quotes from Chandler were not 'vague' at all, they were quite clear about the Old Guard engaging in battle. Contrast that with your claims that you could find no reference to the Old Guard fighting in your 'Prussian' sources. I put my trust in the ability of established historians to find evidence of what actually happened over anything you claim.

Your claim (I remind you yet again) was that Napoleon improved his position more than his enemies during the armistice, and thereby gained more by it. Here is yet another quote, this time from Alan Schom in his book �Napoleon Bonaparte�

�... the Armistice of Pleiswitz began on June 4 and extended ultimately until August 10. It was another great lack of judgment on Napoleon's part, for not only were more Prussian and Russian troops advancing westward to meet him, but England was in the process of joining the coalition along with Austria.� Alan Schom, Napoleon Bonaparte

In addition to Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon I also reference Blundering to Glory: Napoleon's Military Campaigns by Owen Connelly.

All of the sources are consistent in this regard. I did not say that Napoleon did not improve his position, or increase his forces, at all during the armistice. Obviously he did. However, the key point, the point which you have consistently failed to address, is that he opponents gained even more by it. Therefore it was a mistake on Napoleon's part. He no doubt had reasons for believing it was a good idea at the time, however, in retrospect even Napoleon himself recognized that the armistice had not been to his advantage and was therefore a mistake.

It appears that, contrary to your previous position, the Prussians and Russians did in fact raise more troops, but the sources were newly conquered (liberated) territories or freed PoW's. Why should those sources be excluded? All sources should be considered when analyzing who gained, and how much, during the armistice. Prussia had been under strict limits on their military since the defeat in 1807. Although they had found ways around it, the fact is after joining the fight against Napoleon they were freed from any restrictions. Furthermore, you appear not to appreciate the significant impact that English subsidies had on the ability of Prussia and Russia to raise and maintain forces.

Originally posted by Temujin btw, i was using "my german officers memoirs" for Prussia, not france. i made it clear above that i used Napoleon hismelf as reference for his manpower situation. if you can't "find" the correspondence, i will help you with that, because it totally supports me...

The quote you gave by Napoleon in no way supported your claim. You are arguing the wrong point in any case. Of course Napoleon believed, at the time, that he had benefited from the armistice. However he realized himself, after the fact, that his opponents had in fact gained more and therefore that the armistice had been a mistake.

Originally posted by Temujin LOL? indefensible position? i already explained that losing spain wasn't an immediate threat, Wellington was in so position to threaten Paris without risking his lines of communications cut off. he had just one army in hostile territory, remember that some "guerillias" also supported regulars in 1814 battles. hence my comparison with eugene. the only one in an indefendable position is you, because you cannot proove any of the above.

I'm not sure what to say, other than you don't know what you're talking about. You didn't realize initially that Spanish forces had participated in the invasion of France. We're not talking about 'some guerrillas', in addition to the British forces, Spanish and Portuguese 'regulars' participated in the invasion of France. What is equally obvious to anyone with the slightest appreciation of the strategic situation, the French could not afford to allow Wellington's army to operate unopposed in SW France.

Originally posted by Temujin no way this did not happen. give me the original sources of the diplomacy in french and german. if you have them that is.

Why do I need to provide French or German sources? Check Chandler, Connelly or Schom to name a few. All agree that the demands I mentioned were presented to Napoleon, he categorically refused them and that led to the end of the truce and the entry of Austria into the fight against France. Once again you have clearly demonstrated a huge gap in your knowledge of the history of the period.

Originally posted by Temujin i was aware of saxony but i didn't remembered it that moment.

Lol. All I can say to that is it appears that you have 'forgotten' much important information at one moment or another.

Originally posted by Temujin on the other hand. what i've also forgotten to adress in my last post was the Vendee. that was never a royalist rebellion as you inaccurately claimed. the rebellions in the Vendee were entirely religiously motivated, due to the anti-clerical policy of the revolutionary government & later napoleon. also the british early in the rev wars supported this uprising with Emigree troups, this expedition however ended in total disaster, so it is quite urnealistic toa ssume Vendee was a weak spot for Napoleon that could eb exploited by foreign powers. you didn't knew that, eh?

First, I didn't address the source of the unrest in the Vendee, or why they were opposed to Napoleon's regime. There were numerous reasons for the unrest in the region and it was much more complicated than you have made it appear. However, even if I accept your claim at face value, the key point is that the region was hostile to Napoleon's regime. Your point about the failure of the (much) earlier attempt at intervention is (yet again) irrelevant. The fact that the Vendee remained loyal to the restored Bourbon monarchy during the Hundred Days clearly shows that the attitude in the region was still anti-Napoleon late in the war.

Originally posted by Temujin it is ridiculous to say the bavarians had close to 200,000 forces, not even Italy & bavaria combined. where should all those troops come from? now you ultimately ridicule yourself with such an astronomic figure...there was no major battle on this theatre, 200,000 troops do not simply go away by desertion and there where no italian forces fighting with Napoleon.

All you've demonstrated with this 'argument' is that you are woefully ignorant of the strategic attrition rates in Napoleonic campaigns. I quoted a combined figure of 250,000 men for the Alpine and Italian fronts combined as of the end of the armistice in 1813. You quoted a figure for Italy only in 1814. You assuming that the French had 50,000 troops in Italy in 1813, and still had 50,000 in 1814 simply demonstrates your complete lack of comprehension of the issues.

Oh and by the way the Allies had far more to gain than did Napoleon by the truce. They needed to get themselves soundly organised and that is not just about manpower, but all the organisational requirements for conducting a war.

 

Originally posted by Temujin no, not at all, most of those engagements were fought by the Young Guard, those who were fougth by the Old Guard i gave exact numbers of Old Guard troops involved (company, batallion). Chandler gave nothing of the sort. other than cavalry i somewhat fancy the Young Guard therefore i know about that, be sure. and btw i didn't used "Prussian" sources, i used regimental histories and be sure they would write if they would eb defeated by the Old Guard...

No, we've been over all this before. Chandler et al make it absolutely crystal clear that it was the Old Guard (variously described as such, or as 'these veterans of 10 campaigns' for instance). If Chandler and other actual historians say they did fight, and you say no it was only the Young Guard not the Old Guard, well I know which claim I believe (hint: it's not yours). Your 'methodology' (and I use the term loosely) is laughable. Your argument is that you didn't find any mention of the Old Guard fighting in your 'Prussian' sources, and you assume any action by the Old Guard 'must have been recorded' in your sources if it happened, so therefore you believe it didn't happen. Well, unfortunately for you, that just doesn't work (well, other than inside your head perhaps). The sources that need to be referenced in order to determine where the Old Guard did or didn't fight are (not surprizingly, except perhaps to you) FRENCH sources. The FRENCH sources will specify where and when the Old Guard engaged in fighting. Chandler, and others, have referenced those sources, you have not. Done. It's over. Slam dunk.

Originally posted by Temujin that was not my claim, i said Napoleon would have gained more if it was not for the Austrians. i was merely comparing France to Russia & prussia.

Yes, and you falsely claimed that Russia and Austria did not raise any more troops after 1812. You also (pathetically) tried to claim afterwards that additional troops raised from territories newly (re)conquered by Prussia, or from liberated PoW's shouldn't count (for some reason). As per Chandler (which is a source infinitely above the crap you have offered on the topic), the actual fact is that Prussia and Russia did also make gains during the armistice, which you have tried to contradict by nothing by your own unsubstantiated claim (which is worth just about nothing).

�By mid-August the Allies had almost completed their preparations and plans. The pause had enabled them to swell the ranks of their armies to truly formidable proportions. Russia had no less than 184,000 men under arms by this juncture; Prussia was mobilizing a vast number of Landwehr which would in due course reach a total strength of over 160,000�

Originally posted by Temujin what kind of crappy reference is this? England was already part of the Coalition for much longer than even Russia. Prussians & Russians already outnubmered him before that.

It is a reference from an actual historian who has researched and written a book on the topic - which puts it several orders of magnitude above the 'crap' that you have offered so far. Earlier 'coalitions' had collapsed when the continental powers (Austria, Prussia, Russia) had quit the fight. Although Britain was continuously at war with France, that does not mean that they were part of the same formal 'coalition' during the entire period. It was during that armistice that formal arrangements were made, with English subsidies for Prussia and Russia and offered to Austria if they joined the coalition.

Originally posted by Temujin anti-napoleonic book, what you expect? not considdered a valid reference.

You pathetically claim that a book is not a 'valid' reference because you deem it to be 'anti-Napoleon'? Well, in fact Schom's work is also rather 'anti-Napoleon', whereas Chandler's work is far more favourable in tone. Yet they all agree on the facts as I have stated them. Yet you continue to deny the truth based on nothing but your 'say so'.

Originally posted by Temujin i was never disagreeing with that, i said "in hidnsight it was a bad idea but at the time fo the truce Napoleon benefitet much more from it". thats from where we went off. besides i am familiar that Napoleon later said the truce was a big mistake, however he could only know that in hindsight. at the time he concluded the treaty it was a good idea to do, that's what i've been arguing all along. i was arguing the mistake Napoleon made was not the truce itself, but his shitty diplomacy with Austria which made them join the coalition. you seem to argue the truce itself was makign Austria join the colaition which is of course not true.

You are contradicting yourself. How can Napoleon have benefited more from the armistice at the time, but it was a 'bad idea' in retrospect? Clearly it 'appeared' to Napoleon to be a 'good idea' at the time, but in fact it was not (at the time or later). Perhaps Napoleon couldn't have know that at the time, or perhaps he could have. Either way, that's not the point being debated. Once again you clearly demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge regarding the 'diplomacy' going on during the armistice. The only 'mistake' Napoleon made was in refusing the terms offered. Austria was willing to take what they (and Prussia and Russia) wanted without having to fight for it, if Napoleon accepted the terms. Otherwise, they were going to fight for it.

Originally posted by Temujin because those sources were only made available AFTER napoleon was driven from Germany. we discussed who would gain more form the armistice and i accurately claimed Napoleon was able to raise new troops durign the armistice (particularly much needed cavalry) while his opponents were not able to raise new troops. therefore i excluded them because they could not be accessed during the armistice. remember, we are ONLY talkign about the situation at the time of the armistice, not what happened after.

No, you've said that the Prussians and Russians didn't raise any new troops, you haven't 'proven' anything at all. Since you've now demonstrated repeatedly that you have no idea what you are talking about, your unsubstantiated word has just about zero credibility at this point.

Originally posted by Temujin don't jump on conclusions yet again, i was never saying that there were not some Spanish elements with wellington, however none of the Spanish armies made it to france, so what i said was completely valid. besides Wellingtons army was not unopposed, there was still Soult and Suchet.

Right, you said the Spanish didn't cross the border into France, and that is completely false � which demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about. There were Spanish and Portuguese contingents with Wellington at the Battle of Toulouse. Last time I checked Toulouse was well inside France. Of course there were French forces defending. The origin of this entire thread of argument was that you claimed Napoleon had additional forces he could have accessed, from Spain for example, by simply 'giving up' the lost cause in Spain. I stated that Napoleon had already taken what he could afford to from Spain, and simply retreating out of Spain was not a 'solution' because the British / Spanish forces could have / would have / did historically invade SW France.

Originally posted by Temujin why you need to provide sources? because Chandler et al are all generalizing. only the actual documents are facts. i never said Austria eventually didn't asked for the pre-1792 borders, but not durign the armistice, this is what we are talking about. you seem to be constantly avoiding the topic.

I never said that the Austrian demands / offer during the armistice consisted of the pre-1792 borders. I said they wanted Illyria, and for the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and Confederation of the Rhine to be dissolved, along with return of territory to Prussia. Yes, that demand / offer was made during the armistice, as per sources previously provided. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Temujin sicne you avoided adressing it, you apparently agree with me and my Lithuanian and Portuguese horses...talking about gaps here...

At this point you have no credibility whatsoever, so I don't accept anything you claim at face value. However, that was simply part of your misguided argument that Napoleon raised additional forces, particularly cavalry (which I never denied) and that Prussia didn't (which you have not demonstrated). What does this in particular have to do with my statement that you don't know what you're talking about because of your apparent ignorance of the facts regarding Prussian and Russian demands at the Congress of Vienna, or the Spanish front and the invasion of France from Spain?

Originally posted by Temujin you never said that, you clearly said in your last post "royalist" so don't start lying facts! also the earlier invasion is completely relevant because it was an utter failure which makes a second try rather unlikely to happen. or why didn't the Entente charged Gallipoli yet again in 1918?

You wanna talk about 'lying', for instance your pathetic lame claim that you momentarily 'forgot' that Prussia had initially demanded all of Saxony but had to settle for only part of it. Or that Russia originally demanded all of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and had to settle for only part of it. I said that the Vendee supported the (Bourbon) monarchy and was therefore hostile to Napoleon's regime, so if the British had advanced into the region they would have met with local support rather than resistance. The situation with the British advancing into SW France overland from Spain was totally different from the (much) earlier intervention. Gallipoli is just (yet another) totally irrelevant tangent.

Originally posted by Temujin Ok than tell me which corps made up those 250,000 troops in 1813. note that corps will suffice. as i said there was no major battle and neither the italian nor the Bavarian army exceeded corps level. even with additional French troops you get nowhere near 250.000 soldiers. here are some interesting links as to what number of troops opposed the French in italy: 1813: http://home.arcor.de/hemmann/zf/oob/1813-08-OOB-Austria-Italy.html ~35,000 1814: http://home.arcor.de/hemmann/zf/oob/1813-08-OOB-Austria-Italy.html ~70,000 yeah sure, 250.000 troops vs 35.000 Austrians....

Hmmm, before YOU stated that the Austrians had 75,000 men. Now you claim they only had 35,000? Those links you posted are a good example of total crap. Really completely useless and irrelevant. I originally stated the number of troops that France had facing the Austrians other than on the 'main' front in 'central' Germany. The French had 100,000 in Italy and 150,000 in the (Bavarian) Alps immediately following the armistice in 1813. Your claim that the French had 50,000 in Italy in 1814 does not refute my claim (based on actual historians, not random internet pages). Your crappy links provided above giving the claimed Austrian strength does not refute my claim. If you cannot understand that simple fact then I'm afraid I cannot help you and further.