Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Napoleonic Battles
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994 		  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Napoleonic Battles
    Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 00:51
I don't disagree with your assessment of the Battle of Kulm as you've stated it, but just with claims that the Allied Army of Bohemia might have been destroyed and / or Austria knocked out of the war by a French victory at Kulm.  From my perspective, French victories at Katzbach and Dennewitz would have allowed Napoleon the freedom to reinforce the pursuit of the Army of Bohemia, even in spite of the set back suffered at Kulm.  However, even a 'victory' at Kulm, which simply would have resulted in the continued retreat of the Allies, Vandamme not being strong enough to inflict a 'decisive' defeat on them IMHO, would have been undermined by the losses at at Katzbach and Dennewitz.  Ultimately it was the result of all three battles, not just Kulm, that produced the loss of the advantage gained at Dresden and led to the 'convergence' of the Allied armies at Leipzig.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2008 at 19:52
yes sure, all three were important somewhat. if Oudinot had captured Berlin, which was actually pretty realistic given that the Crownprince of Sweden wanted to continue retreating behind the limits of Berlin, it would have perhaps had a big impact. however the Berlin offensive was later renewed under Ney and met a similar fate. but MacDonalds thrust at Blcher in Silesia was really just a diversion, there was nothing to be gained from it, cosniddering that Bennigsen and the Reserve Army of Poland was further in his back. neither the Army of the North nor the Army of Silesia were defeated in combat and ona  route, so Vandamme with his fresh corps of 40.000 ucnomitted troops had a good chance pursuing the AoB particulalry with Murat, marmont and Gouvion St. Cyr some miles behind as support. those four corps combined could have brought about the defeat of the Army of Bohemia, while Napoleon directed his plans probably to the North, where another sucessfull exploit was the most likely.
but overall, if we have to pick a single event or battle, it must be the battle of Kulm.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994 		  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 00:57
Again, I don't really disagree with your overall assessment as stated above.  If one had to assign 'relative importance' in terms of losing the advantge gained at Dresden, I could 'buy' 40% / 30% / 30% respectively for Kulm, Katzbach and Dennewitz.  I agree that there was little to gain by MacDonald's attack on Blucher.  However, there was much to lose by being defeated - which is why Napoleon was so displeased.  MacDonald only needed to 'hold off' Blucher and allow Napoleon to 'concentrate on' the Army of Bohemia. 
 
From my perspective though, Katzbach, Kulm and Dennewitz only set Napoleon back to square one after the victory at Dresden.  The problem was at that point, the Allies could recover from defeats, but Napoleon could not afford to suffer a defeat.  The morale of the French as well as the 'loyalty' of the remaining German allies depended on Napoleon's reputation for being 'unbeatable' on the battlefield.  With the defeat at Leipzig, the reputation was lost, French morale was damaged and the German allies bailed.  Napoleon was also forced to abandon the considerable forces tied up in garrison further east.  That fact compounded the French defeat and is why I still point to Leipzig as 'the' decisive battle.  Before Leipzig, there was always the possiblity of Napoleon managing another 'Dresden'.  Afterwards there was no possiblity of another such victory on 'German' soil.
 
 
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 19:30
i don't think so, the forces of Reynier and MacDonald were only routed, but Kulm meant the loss of 40.000 troops in oen battle and losing the advantage. Leipzig was different from Dresden because Napoleon was threatened form at least 2 sides and he had 2 armies against him instead of just one. also, other than the Saxons and the Bavarians who changed sides even before Leipzig (!) the Germans remained faithfull allies but were nevertheless removed from the important sections and in case of Spain even disarmed. the supposed disloyalty of the German allies was a post-war myth that was created by the Napoleon-friendly German states in face of revengefull Prussians & Austrians...
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994 		  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 19:42

The figure of 40,000 sounds quite high to me for French losses at Kulm.  I believe that the 'usual' figure is less than half of that.  I agree that given the developments leading up to Leipzig, there was no chance of a victory for the French there on the order of Dresden.  However, they may well have 'avoided' the battle entirely, or 'escaped' with far fewer losses and without it being generally seen as a decisive defeat.   The problem with the 3 defeats I mentioned wasn't that any one of them was in itself 'decisive', but the combination of all three led to the convergence of Allied armies which limited Napoleon's ability to concentrate on any one of them (which is what he needed to do to win, and what he effectively succeeded in doing at Dresden).  It also led to the Battle of Nations at Leipzig.  But that was the combination of 3, the effect of any one defeat would have been far less.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 20:03
40.000 was the strenght of Vandammes Corps, and only the cavalry Briagde could escape. as i mentioned before, the I Corps was strenghtened and reinforced by another division, so the corps had 4 instead of 3 divisions.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994 		  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 20:14
Perhaps only the cav brigade escaped 'intact', but there were others that escaped as well.  Do you have a source for 40,000 casualties for the French at Kulm?  As I mentioned, I've read more than one source (yes, including Chandler ;) ) that say much less.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221 		  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2008 at 20:20
i re-read and it says all artillery was captured, 8000 PoW and 15.000 dead. its safe to say that well over 50% of the Corps were lost, not to mention the wounded which means that at best 10.000 soldiers remained for Napoleon.

I also read, the battles of Grobeeren, Katzbach and Kulm combined costed Napoleon 80.000 men.


Edited by Temujin - 18-Mar-2008 at 20:23
Back to Top
mini View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 15-Apr-2008
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote mini Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 18:17
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. 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.
    
    
 
Argued! how can they be argued they knocked the remainder of the French and spanish navy's out the war giving the Allies especially Britian unrivalled acess to the sea.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.091 seconds.