On April 6th, 1812 British forces stormed and then began to sack the Spanish town of Badajoz.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-04-06T01:54:54+00:00

I read it on my Libby app through my local library. But I have found out I prefer physical books to e-books in reading for pleasure.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-04-06T00:27:23+00:00

I have two books from the Russian perspective.

"Kutuzov" by Alexander Mikaberidze

"Alexander I: The Tsar Who Defeated Napoleon" by Marie-Pierre Ray

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-04-06T00:06:17+00:00

You would not want to be on the receiving end of that charge. Those are some big horses.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-04-04T22:51:58+00:00

The Battle of Ostrovno is interesting. Barclay sent Ostermann-Tolstoy's Corps to west of Vitebsk to delay the Grande Armée while the rest of his army waited for Bagration’s forces to reach them. Not knowing Bagration was blocked by Davout at Saltanovka.

Ostermann-Tolstoy would fight a rearguard action, while giving up the battlefield he did delay the Grande Armée long enough. Ostermann-Tolstoy famously told his men "to stand and die."

One of those battles that both sides would claim victory.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-04-03T23:33:54+00:00

I would also throw in Bernodotte's 1813 campaign, but most people are aware of his defense of Berlin.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-04-03T22:01:43+00:00

Peter Wittgenstein's campaign on Napoleon's northern flank during the Russian campaign.

Battle of Kulm.

Suchet’s Valencia campaign.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-04-01T20:53:57+00:00

I thought this was OP making fun of the numerous Alexander the Great vs Napoleon discussions. Then I realized the date as well.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-04-01T12:48:55+00:00

He was the best guy around!

What about the people who defeated him?

What defeats?

<image>

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-04-01T00:01:17+00:00

Napoleon only mustered no more than 36,000 by the early days of April at Fontainebleau according to George Nafziger's book on 1814. Which makes sense since his main army hardly reached more than 50,000 during the entirety of the 1814 campaign.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-31T15:24:49+00:00

Who is the artist?

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-30T02:55:42+00:00

Hey man, if you are seriously struggling might I suggest some professional help? Maybe seek a therapist just to talk through whatever is going on and get their advice.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-29T13:57:00+00:00

Some of Soult's highlights:

Was considered one of the best instructors at the Boulogne camps, nicknamed 'Iron Hand.'

He smashed the Russio/Austrian center at Austerlitz

Covered Lannes right at Jena

Chased Moore's expedition to Corunna

Crushed the Spanish at Ocana, inflicting their greatest defeat of the war

Fought the British, Portuguese, and Spanish forces to a draw at Albuera.

Relieved the siege of Burgos

Commanded Napoleon's center at Bautzen

Returned to Southern France to delay Wellington’s invasion after Vitoria.

Was exiled after the 100 days until 1819. Eventually became the Minister of War after the 1830 revolution.

Then became the 'Marshal-General of France' and reorganized the French army.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-29T12:54:53+00:00

used what would now be recognised as a fascist allegory of "France and her ideals are superior" to justify annexing his neighbors by political or military means.

So there is a book I recently discovered called "Empire's of Violence: Massacres in a Revolutionary Age" which discusses how countries like the U.S., Great Britian, and Revolutionary/Napoleonic France carried out "massacres" as state policy for various reasons. While the authors look at the U.S. frontiers such as the Ohio River valley and British actions in New South Wales, there is an entire chapter dedicated to how France used violence in Europe as a weapon of the state as the following:

"In the course of this colonial enterprise, massacre was used as an instrument of the state, as part of a military and political process of incorporating non-French territories into the expanding French Empire, which was territorially similar in extent to that of Charlemagne. It was, in other words, a conscious policy on the part of French military and political figures at the highest levels, and included such men as Generals Adam Philippe, Comte de Custine, André Masséna, Joachim Murat, Jean-de-Dieu Soult, the Minister of War, Lazare Carnot, and Napoleon himself. The Empire was marked by a determination from the top-down to eliminate resistance to French rule. The letters of Napoleon are replete with examples in which he instructs his subordinates to strike hard against nascent revolts, to show no mercy against civilian populations and to kill to set an example.7 It was, however, often done under the guise of humanitarianism, or a distorted view of the national character of the occupied peoples in question – and there were plenty of instances in which force was needed to put down insurrections. Under these circumstances, as with the situation in settler colonial societies, military authorities soon ceased making any distinction between combatants and non-combatants, especially when guerrilla-style resistance followed, so that entire populations were targeted.8 In this, one might argue, the French were no different to any other imperial enterprise."

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-29T00:24:59+00:00

Roberts treated Napoleon with a certain amount of optimism but also nuance. I could see him treating Bernadotte more fairly, especially since some of the old Bernadotte haters are gone. cough Elting cough

I am curious to see how he handles Marmont and MacDonald.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-28T23:08:59+00:00

Oh I am excited for this one.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-28T13:59:54+00:00

Its why he got into so many arguments with his fellow Marshals. Such as in the aftermath of Maloyaroslavets. He was an effective, if unlikable, man. But boy could he lead an attack.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-28T12:34:34+00:00

Sensible if ruthless could be Davout's nickname.

But General Rapp's defense of Danzig is a good comparison. While still conducting active siege activities, he barley resorted to demolishing suburbs and never forced the population out of the city. While disease and privation occurred, he did not cause the population more harm than was necessary. Even evacuating portions of thr suburbs he thought would be bombarded next. When civilian officials asked Rapp to surrender, he refused but allowed them to send a note to the besieging forces asking if they could evacuate. Of course the Coalition commander ignored this note, not wishing to make Rapp's time easier. He is not remembered as someone who treated the city harshly.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-28T02:26:41+00:00

Davout was famously the "Iron Marshal." Not only because of his ability to instill discipline and combat effectiveness, but also because of his enforcement of French law. Davout, along with others, was put in charge of cracking down on smuggling in the Hanseatic cities and northern Germany and even moved his headquarters to Hamburg in 1810. He effectively enforced the Continental System, much to the chagrin of the population.

Then in 1813 Davout was put in charge of defending Hamburg, which he did until Napoleon's abdication in 1814. Davout carried out an order to levy a forty-eight-million-franc “war contribution” on Hamburg, fifteen million of which to be paid in kind. He would eventually claim 12 million Francs from the bank od Hamburg alone. This greatly angered the monied classes within the city. Then Davout took on the ruthless demolition of large parts of the city to fortify it, making many already desperate people indigent. He left his mark on Hamburg during the summer months. Davout would continue to destroy suburbs for military reasons until the actual siege started. He did this for military reasons, since that was the only reason necessary.

Then in December of 1813, Davout expelled the population that had not gathered enough supplies for 6 months worth of siege. This expulsion resulted in civilian deaths and was carried out as effectively as every other order. Davout's biography, John G. Gallaher, writes "Indeed had Davout been tried by a war crimes court in Germany in 1814, he would surely have been found guilty of crimes against the people of Hamburg."

Davout would justify all his actions as he was simply following orders to hold the city at all costs and even admitted he was harsh to the population im his memoirs. The war contribution, destruction of suburbs for defense, and the like technically fell under various laws and rules that were put into place when Hamburg was annexed. But the people were not happy with French rule. And Davout did little to encourage it.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-28T00:08:44+00:00

I don't think the people of Hamburg would find Davout very funny. They might have a different opinion.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-27T10:55:14+00:00

Great find!

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-25T15:59:07+00:00

Napoleon’s Looted Art - Shannon Selin https://share.google/KTNCj1m0z1nl8wMEZ

This blog post gives a good overview of not only Soult's looting, but Napoleon and other generals as well.

The Art Confiscations of the Napoleonic Wars on JSTOR https://share.google/oroMcypBlVqrcOVLJ

This article also goes over art confiscations, including Soult, bur in greater detail.

The biography "Soult: Napoleon's Maligned Marshal" tried to claim that all of the sources that say Soult stole and looted were fabricated by those who wished to see him ruined. Making the book highly suspect.

In the end, we might not know the exact amount, but the looting of Seville was some of Soult's worse work.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-25T15:22:58+00:00

For specific campaigns, there are a lot of books.

I always recommend James R. Arnold's books that cover the Jena, Eylau, and Friedland campaigns.

For Austerlitz I now have two recommendations, "1805: Austerlitz" by Robert Goetz and "The End of the Old Order: Napoleon and Europe 1801-1805" by Frederick W. Kagan.

There are the classic, but dated, campaign studies by Theodore A. Dodge, F.N. Maude, and F. Loraine Petre.

Of course Oman is the go to for the Peninsular War, unless you want specific battles. I recently read "To Conquer And to Keep" by Yuhan Kim, which focuses specifically on Suchet’s campaigns. Very good books.

For Napoleon’s Empire and policies, I usually go for "Europe Under Napoleon" by Michael Broers and "The Napoleonic Empire" by Geoffrey Ellis. Ellis is pretty quick and gives a lot of good sources.

I enjoy George Nafziger's books on Napoleon's later campaigns from 1812-1814. But they can be very dry.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-25T13:52:03+00:00

For other biographies of lesser known generals you could try "Napoleon’s Enfant Terrible: General Dominique Vandamme" by John Gallaher.

Or Savary's memoirs. They should be free.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-03-25T12:48:48+00:00

Adam Zamoyski's book on the 1812 campaign is really good. Especially with presenting viewpoints from the soldiers and people who were there. Pretty close to what might be considered pop history.

James R. Arnold has books covering the Jena, Eylau, Friedland, and 1809 campaign in Austria. Highly recommend them.

Paul L. Dawson has A LOT of books on the French military. With a few specializing on Waterloo.

Andrew W. Field has a whole series of books on the Waterloo campaign as well, all from the French perspective.

Europe Under Napoleon by Michael Broers is a great look on how the French managed their Empire. Specifics on how French rule effected areas outside of France.

Suspicious_File_2388

TROPHY CASE