Could Napoleon have done more?

He may have been better off doing less; more pauses for consolidation, more political exploitation after the battle, some sign that peace with him was actually possible instead of the never ending treadmill of violence that actually happened. Oh, and stop giving his family jobs for which they were hopelessly unsuited.
most of them were, Louis-Napoleon did a darn fine job in the Netherlands though.

for a long time napoleon thought he couldn't father children (josephine de beauharnais made him think so), until after a while the truth came out when he knocked up a mistress.
however for quite a while he acted reckless simply because there wasn't an aspect of dynasty. What if he does become a father earlier, he might change his strategy somehow.
 

longsword14

Banned
@Mikestone8 Where do you get all that from my post. Napoleon had large man power reserves only he does not need them to be used in a large mass all at once (like it did happen).
Forming a defensive zone with depots in Poland is possible. How does this hypothetical Russian army get around to these extremely important regions? It cannot just waltz in.
Unlike retreating where it may force a French army to starve or fight on unfavourable terms here it will not do. The Russians will have to fight one way or another. This gives Napoleon a hell lot of options to consider for his operational strategy.
As I said, Napoleon cannot take the fight to the Russians by marching all over the place but Russia cannot as you said : have its reprisals on Poland expect not to have its field armies avoid battle. All this should have been done with previous consolidation, i.e. overtures to the Austrians so that they are not a nuisance for a sufficient amount of time and allied German states are in a good enough position to sit on Prussia if need be, keeping Berlin pacified.
 
@Mikestone8 Where do you get all that from my post. Napoleon had large man power reserves only he does not need them to be used in a large mass all at once (like it did happen).
Forming a defensive zone with depots in Poland is possible. How does this hypothetical Russian army get around to these extremely important regions? It cannot just waltz in.
Unlike retreating where it may force a French army to starve or fight on unfavourable terms here it will not do. The Russians will have to fight one way or another. This gives Napoleon a hell lot of options to consider for his operational strategy.
As I said, Napoleon cannot take the fight to the Russians by marching all over the place but Russia cannot as you said : have its reprisals on Poland expect not to have its field armies avoid battle. All this should have been done with previous consolidation, i.e. overtures to the Austrians so that they are not a nuisance for a sufficient amount of time and allied German states are in a good enough position to sit on Prussia if need be, keeping Berlin pacified.

This doesn't answer one important point, logistics. The Grand Army was already dying/deserting in droves long before they reached the Russian border. The French system of supply needed a complete overhaul in order to function in Eastern Europe. This would take time, which Napoleon didn't have if he wanted to take on Russia in 1812. While the losses wouldn't be as bad IOTL, the fact of the matter is that if Napoleon simply sits and waits, his army is going to take terrible losses thanks to the horrendous supply situation.
 

longsword14

Banned
This doesn't answer one important point, logistics. The Grand Army was already dying/deserting in droves long before they reached the Russian border. The French system of supply needed a complete overhaul in order to function in Eastern Europe. This would take time, which Napoleon didn't have if he wanted to take on Russia in 1812. While the losses wouldn't be as bad IOTL, the fact of the matter is that if Napoleon simply sits and waits, his army is going to take terrible losses thanks to the horrendous supply situation.
You are not understanding the scenario of which I write about. A logistical system in proximity to support a considerable amount of men (not as large as OTL) is definitely possible. With no need to occupy vast Russian spaces all of the available force need not be sent in one large push. The garrisons in Poland and army camps will be good enough to send in more men in a protracted camapaign. The logistical system can be capable enough of supporting field armies a lot lesser than in OTL. You wrote that he has to take Russia in 1812 while my scenario has Napoleon realising that Russia also has to challenge Napoleon else they stand to lose all territories in the west that they had gained in the last fifty years.
 
You are not understanding the scenario of which I write about. A logistical system in proximity to support a considerable amount of men (not as large as OTL) is definitely possible. With no need to occupy vast Russian spaces all of the available force need not be sent in one large push. The garrisons in Poland and army camps will be good enough to send in more men in a protracted camapaign. The logistical system can be capable enough of supporting field armies a lot lesser than in OTL. You wrote that he has to take Russia in 1812 while my scenario has Napoleon realising that Russia also has to challenge Napoleon else they stand to lose all territories in the west that they had gained in the last fifty years.

And how long does it take to build up these depots? They failed to do so completely IOTL, to horrible results along the retreat. Very few preparations were made in general and it was an incredibly shoddy campaign. As it has been pointed out as well, is Napoleon going to be away from Paris for a long time without fear of his regime being undermined? Is he going to remain in Poland as the Spanish situation crumbles? Russia can play the waiting game as well, even more so as the Tsar can keep the war going on and his focus on one front, Napoleon can't do the same.
 

longsword14

Banned
And how long does it take to build up these depots? They failed to do so completely IOTL, to horrible results along the retreat. Very few preparations were made in general and it was an incredibly shoddy campaign. As it has been pointed out as well, is Napoleon going to be away from Paris for a long time without fear of his regime being undermined? Is he going to remain in Poland as the Spanish situation crumbles? Russia can play the waiting game as well, even more so as the Tsar can keep the war going on and his focus on one front, Napoleon can't do the same.
A long campaign precludes shoring up supplies. Napoleon had known for some time about Russian intentions for Poland and the fraying alliance. It gives him quite enough time to strengthen his logistical situation for a campaign on the defense.
You estimate of Napoleon having to face a coup are overblown by a large extent (with none of the disasters as OTL). The ship for deposing Napoleon in France without force had sailed more than a decade earlier.
Yes, he has to seriously question his options on the Spanish Ulcer : retreat back to a small but consolidated region within Spain (basically Suchet's) or try to go the diplomatic way (not possible by the year 1812).
As the original post asks what could he have done better : consolidate his position in central Europe. Do not invade Iberia (implying that he asks people who understand how ineffective the Continental System was) for it burns political currency very hard. Give Austria a better deal for a longer peace. Go for a naval rebuild up program that lays the foundation for a navy.
All of this requires Napoleon to do considerate Empire building, so it amounts to him giving thought to long term scenarios.
 
A long campaign precludes shoring up supplies. Napoleon had known for some time about Russian intentions for Poland and the fraying alliance. It gives him quite enough time to strengthen his logistical situation for a campaign on the defense.
You estimate of Napoleon having to face a coup are overblown by a large extent (with none of the disasters as OTL). The ship for deposing Napoleon in France without force had sailed more than a decade earlier.
Yes, he has to seriously question his options on the Spanish Ulcer : retreat back to a small but consolidated region within Spain (basically Suchet's) or try to go the diplomatic way (not possible by the year 1812).
As the original post asks what could he have done better : consolidate his position in central Europe. Do not invade Iberia (implying that he asks people who understand how ineffective the Continental System was) for it burns political currency very hard. Give Austria a better deal for a longer peace. Go for a naval rebuild up program that lays the foundation for a navy.
All of this requires Napoleon to do considerate Empire building, so it amounts to him giving thought to long term scenarios.

Napoleon didn't think like that though, he honestly believed that he had to win victories in order to remain on top. The long term view would be best, but it wasn't one he often took. And how long is he going to give himself before launching his campaign? Long enough for Russia to strike first? He barely worked up the effort to give any real consideration to what he planned for Russia IOTL, what's the major change that actually makes him think about it this time? He's going to be away from Paris for a long time in this and the coup against him, while quickly collapsing, did show that his regime had weaknesses. Those options you list out are all good ones, but it requires a different temperament than Napoleon had.
 

longsword14

Banned
Napoleon didn't think like that though, he honestly believed that he had to win victories in order to remain on top. The long term view would be best, but it wasn't one he often took. And how long is he going to give himself before launching his campaign? Long enough for Russia to strike first? He barely worked up the effort to give any real consideration to what he planned for Russia IOTL, what's the major change that actually makes him think about it this time? He's going to be away from Paris for a long time in this and the coup against him, while quickly collapsing, did show that his regime had weaknesses. Those options you list out are all good ones, but it requires a different temperament than Napoleon had.
The original post is about his actions in general. Not about Russia or Spain in particular. As to the Russian situation : Any Russian incursion could easily have been beaten off with Napoleon at its head. It is not that the supplies did not exist but that they were all wasted or simply did not get where they were needed.
No he did consider shoring up supplies for the campaign, what he did wrong was to forget the constraints that it enforced marching in deep. He is quite capable of supporting his armies in and around Poland. Consolidation and consolidation was what he needed : the little splinters you speak of were never significant enough to challenge the order on their own ever.
The whole time period is Napoleon creating incredible opportunities and not following through diplomatically leading to more battles.
 
You are not understanding the scenario of which I write about. A logistical system in proximity to support a considerable amount of men (not as large as OTL) is definitely possible. With no need to occupy vast Russian spaces all of the available force need not be sent in one large push. The garrisons in Poland and army camps will be good enough to send in more men in a protracted camapaign. The logistical system can be capable enough of supporting field armies a lot lesser than in OTL. You wrote that he has to take Russia in 1812 while my scenario has Napoleon realising that Russia also has to challenge Napoleon else they stand to lose all territories in the west that they had gained in the last fifty years.

How exactly does Russia lose those territories?

They are a vast area - not as vast as Russia proper, but vast enough that Napoleon can't occupy them all at the same time. He can't divide his army since it would then be defeated in detail, and if he keeps it in one place he only controls the ground he is camped on.

Nor does he need to march on Moscow in order to ruin his army. According to Lieven, he had already lost most of his horses by the time he took Vilna, never mind Smolensk or points east. He was already in trouble long before he went deep into the interior.

Incidentally, what exactly does he want Poland for? His objective is to force Russia back into the Continental System, and restoring Poland does nothing to achieve that. If he wants a defensible frontier, the Niemen and Bug are probably better. There, at least, his flanks can be protected by the Carpathians on one side and the Baltic Sea on the other. Further east, he is obliged to defend a long, straggling line through a vast plain with few natural defences. Even if he could somehow occupy all of pre-1772 Poland, it would be an additional liability, not a gain.
 

longsword14

Banned
How exactly does Russia lose those territories?

They are a vast area - not as vast as Russia proper, but vast enough that Napoleon can't occupy them all at the same time. He can't divide his army since it would then be defeated in detail, and if he keeps it in one place he only controls the ground he is camped on.

Nor does he need to march on Moscow in order to ruin his army. According to Lieven, he had already lost most of his horses by the time he took Vilna, never mind Smolensk or points east. He was already in trouble long before he went deep into the interior.

Incidentally, what exactly does he want Poland for? His objective is to force Russia back into the Continental System, and restoring Poland does nothing to achieve that. If he wants a defensible frontier, the Niemen and Bug are probably better. There, at least, his flanks can be protected by the Carpathians on one side and the Baltic Sea on the other. Further east, he is obliged to defend a long, straggling line through a vast plain with few natural defences. Even if he could somehow occupy all of pre-1772 Poland, it would be an additional liability, not a gain.
How did Russia take those territories in the first place? Surely not by keeping large lumbering armies everyday of the year? No one is asking to occupy all of the territories at once nor to spread out and die deep inside Russia proper. The original poster asked what could be done, I am asking a longer campaign (something that should have been done) that keeps the home advantage and one which does not run into the winter (a season in which neither armies would operate).
All the above is kept in mind after the realisation that marching all the way across Europe to enforce a system that he could not monitor over any acceptable period was futile.
A buffer state is needed and taking away Poland which was one of the most important bits of the Russian empire deprives them of resources too.
It is a different campaign so using Lieven's arguments is meaningless.
 
Step 1.
Ditch the Continental System. Britain wants to trade? Go right ahead.

Step 2.
Keep the fleet safe. As long as the British are afraid of an invasion, their options are limited.

Step 3.
Leave Spain alone. So they're trading a bit with Britain. Big deal.

Step 4.
Dismantle Prussia. Split it up among its neighbors. Confiscate all large land holdings and distribute them among the peasants. French garrison in Berlin.

Step 5.
Dismantle Austria. Split it among its neighbors. Confiscate all large land holdings and distribute them among the peasants. Independent Hungary with a Bonaparte on the throne. French garrison in Vienna.

Step 6.
Kick the Ottomans out of the Balkans. Establish independent nation-states who help out France with men.

Step 7.
Establish Poland and Romania as buffer states to Russia, with French armies present in each to deter/repel aggression. DO NOT go deep into Russia.

Step 8.
Keep strong central reserve that can be quickly deployed wherever there's a crisis.

Step 9.
Keep industrializing.

Step 10.
Profit!!!
 

longsword14

Banned
Step 1.
Ditch the Continental System. Britain wants to trade? Go right ahead.
Napoleon should have taken someone else's advice when it came to the nut and bolts of the economy and industry. The system hurt France a lot.
Step 2.
Keep the fleet safe. As long as the British are afraid of an invasion, their options are limited.
The fleet should be kept safe but where to find safe waters for an extended period of time?The British had gained dominance in every sector of naval matters by then. They had hardly anything to deter them. Still, keeping those ships safe as a core for future training and further expansion was a good idea.
 
A buffer state is needed .


What use is a buffer state with straggling, indefensible borders? It would require more effort to defend than the existing border.


It is a different campaign so using Lieven's arguments is meaningless.

Different in what way? There is still no vital spot to take, and as soon as he thinks he's pacified one province, and moves on, the Russians move straight into the first province and unpacify it again. Whatever type of campaign he conducts, it still comes back to too much land and not enough men to occupy it.
 
Last edited:
The original post is about his actions in general. Not about Russia or Spain in particular. As to the Russian situation : Any Russian incursion could easily have been beaten off with Napoleon at its head. It is not that the supplies did not exist but that they were all wasted or simply did not get where they were needed.
No he did consider shoring up supplies for the campaign, what he did wrong was to forget the constraints that it enforced marching in deep. He is quite capable of supporting his armies in and around Poland. Consolidation and consolidation was what he needed : the little splinters you speak of were never significant enough to challenge the order on their own ever.
The whole time period is Napoleon creating incredible opportunities and not following through diplomatically leading to more battles.

And how does the supply situation change, what causes it? Napoleon wouldn't be content to fight a defensive war when time was on Russia's side. He wasn't capable of supplying his troops in Poland due to the lack of places to forage such a huge force with. Troops were starving in the opening months of the campaign, never mind the march into Russia. A total revamp of the logistics side of the military was needed in order to campaign in the region. The splinters can grow however, if the disasters continue to mount up as they did IOTL.
 
Top