Best French army of the Napoleonic wars

Which battle of the Napoleonic Wars had the best example of the French army and Leadership of the entire Napoleonic wars at its best or had the potential to be its best ?

I think possibly Battle of Waterloo is the battle with the most potential since most of the best French officers of Napoleonic wars were in the battle

  • Battle of Waterloo
  • Battle of Borodino
  • Battle of Leipzig
  • Battle of Austerlitz
  • Battle of Wagram
  • Battle of Marengo
  • Battle of Eylau
  • Battle of Aspern-Essling
  • Battle of Salamanca
  • Battle of Friedland
  • Battle of Ligny
  • Battle of Brienne


 
Last edited:
Which battle of the Napoleonic Wars had the best French army and Leadership of the entire napoleonic wars?
This is actually really hard to evaluate. Though in terms of performance, I'd say the Six-Days campaign demonstrated Napoleon's brilliance as he kept winning battle after battle. Though this scared the Coalition so they deliberately avoided Napoleon which proved to be a much wiser strategy.
 
This is actually really hard to evaluate. Though in terms of performance, I'd say the Six-Days campaign demonstrated Napoleon's brilliance as he kept winning battle after battle. Though this scared the Coalition so they deliberately avoided Napoleon which proved to be a much wiser strategy.
Napoleon's army of 1814 was made up of conscripts and a handful of veterans. Hardly his best army.
 
Last edited:
Of your list I have to go with Austerlitz, but not for the obvious reasons. I would actually go for the army of the1806 Campaign as the best. The army of the 1805 Campaign had been training for 3 years in the Camp at Boulogne. It was capable of the most complex maneuvers, on both the tactical, and strategic level. The artillery arm was weaker in numbers of guns, and weight of shot then in the later campaigns, but the tactical finesse of the infantry was at it's highest level, and needed less direct support. The cavalry performed it's roles more effectively then in any other campaign in the Imperial Period. Later when bigger Prussian Horses were available the shock value of the heavy cavalry increased, but the overall efficiency of the cavalry arm was never higher. The army of 1806 was the war machine of 1805 seasoned by combat experience. It's similar to comparing the German Army of 1940 & 1941. The 1941 army had the advantage of lessons of 1940.

I agree the army of 1815 was actually better then the armies of the last few campaigns, but it suffered from some sever deficits. First off Napoleon himself was off his best game, having been in noticeable decline since at least 1809. His marshals were not at their best. Nay was no longer mentally up to a field command, and was emotionally unstable. Grouchy was a competent cavalry commander, but a unproven infantry leader. The Corps commanders showed poor tactical judgment, and allowed the battles of Hougoumont, and La Haye Sainte to get completely out of control. The staff work was poor, causing the loss of time, and opportunities. Road discipline was also poor. Artillery was badly employed on the field of Waterloo.

On the plus side the junior officers performed well, and led from the front, and most of the young soldiers had high moral. The failures of the artillery was caused by the failure of Nay to employ combined arms tactics until it was almost too late. The artillery was well trained, and led. The Cavalry was also the best in years, but were destroyed by the stupidity of Nay. The Imperial Guard Corps was up to it's high standards, and could still overawe it's opponents. The Old Guard fought like lions at Ligny, but was deployed too late at Waterloo. The Young Guard did the best that anyone could do, acting as a fire brigade, against heavy odds. In short I would say the army of 1815 was a high quality Napoleonic Army, that was well capable of defeating their opponents, but it was failed by it senior leadership, starting with Napoleon himself.
 
Top