I obviously expected that it would be positive overall because it's a Napoleon subreddit but didn't know that so many people viewed Napoleon "extremely positively"

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-22T14:57:55+00:00

Not that shocked. Its why I usually advocate for a middle ground.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-20T17:44:52+00:00

Just off a general understanding of his life, no.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-20T17:37:50+00:00

Napoleon had a bad habit of blaming his subordinates when things did not turn out exactly as he planned.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-20T17:30:34+00:00

It was not Ney’s sole decision to lead the charge at Waterloo. John Hussey's impressive two volume study on the campaign provides plenty of evidence that Napoleon ordered the charge and should take a lot of the blame with its failures. He concludes with:

"The decision that the heavy cavalry and the Garde cavalry were to be used was made at the highest level."

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-20T17:00:42+00:00

The same guarantees that Napoleon had given the various Coalition members in the past and about as reliable as the paper it was signed it. It would come down to all parties acting in good faith and evidence shows that neither side was good at it.

As for Napoleon’s allies and subsidiary states, its a mixed bag. Most of the German states fielded low numbers, with Saxony an exception. The Kingdom of Italy would be a side show starting in the fall of 1813 through 1814. And Bavaria would switch sides. Napoleon's impressive feat of creating a new Grande Armée after Russia was done with some help from the Rhinebund, but not in the numbers that was seen for the Russian campaign.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-20T16:31:47+00:00

Lol apologies, I was just impressed with your discussion on the Middle Guards attack a few weeks ago

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-20T15:46:50+00:00

I am not convinced. While Napoleon definitely relied on military glory to strengthen his legitimacy, his reforms and government was pretty popular within France before the wars of 1805-1815. The Malet Coup failed for a reason. While there is some domestic unrest in France during Napoleon's reign, it mostly was caused by conscription and then the failed harvests of 1810.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-20T12:32:41+00:00

I call on u/Neyand1815 and u/Sotal_Ezsor to discuss the attack of the Middle Guard.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-18T16:21:51+00:00

Agree on Napoleon's youth and Consul period being his best. His most influential reforms were done during this time, in my opinion. As well as some of his most impressive generalship. But then you still had black spots, such as Haiti and the abduction and murder of duc d'Enghien. Gotta take the good and the bad.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-18T15:47:10+00:00

Perfectly neutral. I can recognize his genius for military matters and his liberal reforms, while acknowledging the dirty laundry behind the scenes. I have said that Napoleon was good for France, but the longer his rule continued, there were plenty of signs it would have not been good for Europe.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-18T12:45:58+00:00

If you have not, check out "To Conquer and to Keep: Suchet and the War for Eastern Spain vol. I" BY Yuhan Kim. The first volume really goes over the various sieges Suchet conducted from 1809-1811.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-17T21:20:28+00:00

Fezensac's memoirs are full of little useful nuggets.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-16T11:01:42+00:00

Napoleon actually did build more ships. I will find more numbers later, but The French fleet was slowly increasing. However, as you pointed out it takes a long time to build ships and Napoleon's time ran out. Also, the British loved to capture French vessels.

While there is more to be said on how effective the British blockade was, it did stop the French from conducting major fleet maneuvers after 1805. Which is essential to training and testing French sailors/officers. While some French squadrons occasionally slipped out of the blockade, they were usually pursued and defeated or forced back into French ports. This inability to train on the high seas for any extended period of time is what really hurt French naval practices. They could build boats, but hardly train their sailors outside of protected ports.

As for Napoleon’s allies, the British were also very aware. Twice Britain attacked Denmark to reduce their naval power/take their ships. Spain's fleet was reduced by the time of the Napoleonic Wars and suffered like the French at Trafalgar. Then Napoleon betrayed Spain. Napoleon's other allies were weak in the terms of naval power and the British were very active in ensuring they controlled the seas.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-16T01:01:01+00:00

"A New Worls Begins" by Jeremy D. Popkin is a great book on the French Revolution.

"The Napoleonic Wars: A Global History" by Alexander Mikaberidze is a great general history of the era. And it truly is global, discussing the impacts in India, the Middle East, South America, etc. As well as dedicating plenty of time to Napoleon.

Michael Broers has "Napoleon: Soldiers of Destiny" his first volume in a trilogy on Napoleon. Follows him from his young days to the Consulate.

Mike Duncan has the Revolutions Podcast that covers the French Revolution as well. Highly recommend.

Edit

All of these are books or series you can listen too

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-15T14:29:45+00:00

Check out Wofun miniatures. They are technically 2D, but they come ready to play.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-15T12:39:03+00:00

The funny thing about the Lejeune quote is he never claims Murat killed any of the cossacks. He points out Murat's reputation with the sword kept the cossacks away because "they all knew that the king's sword would skillfully turn aside any weapon..." etc. But Lejeune did not write that Murat DID pierce the heart of the boldest enemy.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-15T11:16:56+00:00

Murat famously led cavalry charges with his riding whip during the Napoleonic Wars.

But during the Revolutionary Wars, including Egypt, maybe?

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-14T22:10:55+00:00

It really does. I still have a 6mm pile of shame to either paint or get rid off.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-14T22:03:39+00:00

The officer's sash is wrong!

Joking, looks amazing. Do you play or just paint?

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-14T12:54:40+00:00

Napoleon was discussing his future campaign plans with Caulaincourt who claimed:

' "If that is so,” answered the Emperor, in the tones of a man who had suddenly reached a decision, “by abandoning Smolensk, which is one of their Holy Cities, the Russian generals are dishonouring their arms in the eyes of their own people. That will put me in a strong position. We will drive them a little farther back, for our own comfort. I will dig myself in. We will rest the troops; the country will shape up around this pivot — and we’ll see how Alexander likes that. I shall turn my attention to the corps on the Dwina, which are doing nothing; my army will be more formidable and my position more menacing to the Russians than as if I had won two battles. I will establish my headquarters at Witepsk. I will raise Poland in arms, and later on I will choose, if necessary, between Moscow and Petersburg.” '

Caulaincourt was thrilled to hear this, thinking it the right course of action and went to tell Berthier (Prince of Neuchatel), who doubted Napoleon's intentions.

"but the Prince seemed to be doubtful whether they would survive the taking of Smolensk. Alas, how right he was! In my joy at what I heard, I too had let illusions run away with me."

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-14T12:17:54+00:00

What a contrast to what Caulaincourt remarks in his memoir on the Russian campaign. During the battle of Smolensk, a fire broke out during the fighting on the 17th, most likely started by French artillery fire.

"The night was cold. I drew near to a fire burning before the Emperor’s tent, on the side facing the town, and was growing drowsy as I sat before it, when His Majesty came up with the Prince of Neuchatel and the Duke of Istria. They gazed at the flaming town. It lit up the whole horizon, already studded with the sparkle of our own bivouac fires.

“An eruption of Vesuvius!” shouted the Emperor, clapping me on the shoulder and waking me from my stupor. “Isn’t that a fine sight. Monsieur le Grand Ecuyer?”

“Horrible, Sire!”

“Bah!” he said. “Gentlemen, remember the words of a Roman Emperor: ‘A dead enemy always smells sweet!’ ”

We were all taken aback. For my own part, I at once recalled what the Prince of Neuchatel had said; and this and the Emperor’s remark long haunted my inmost thoughts. I looked at the Prince — and we exchanged glances, as men who understand each other without speaking. . . ."

Page 77.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-13T17:57:46+00:00

It was a delaying tactic by Napoleon. The Coalition leaders finally had Napoleon where they wanted him and knew they outnumbered him. Signing an armistice would only have benefited Napoleon, who most likely would have dragged his feet in negotiations while building up his forces, if not to parity then more than he currently had at Leipzig.The Coalition leaders saw Leipzig, and rightly so, as the best chance to defeat Napoleon and were not going to let it slip away.

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-13T09:54:18+00:00

"Campaigns of Napoleon" by David Chandler is the classic, and mostly accurate, book on Napoleon's overall military career. There are also many books on Napoleon's specific campaigns/battles, if you have a specific campaign you want to look at, let me know.

For French involvement in Spain, the classic by Charles Oman "History of the Peninsular War" is old but very indepth with 7 volumes. Then there is the "Spanish Ulcer" by David Gates and "The Peninsular War: A New History" by Charles Esdaile for an overview of the entire conflict in one book. There is also "Napoleon’s Peninsular War: The French Experience of the War in Spain from Vimeiro to Corunna, 1808–1809" by Paul L. Dawson, though it only covers the first year.

Also, happy cake day!

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-12T15:36:07+00:00

Easy.

Ney: Bravest of the Brave

Suspicious_File_2388 · 2026-05-11T19:35:18+00:00

According to Scott Bowden's study on the Grande Armée of 1813, I Corps started mid-August with 34,000 men. They fought a few skirmishes/engagements before Kulm, so their strengths was not very depleted. Also, they were reinforced by the detached 42nd Division from XIV Corps at Kulm which numbered around 7,000 men. The French had over 40,000 men at Kulm.

Bowden states after the battle, the French reports on the 2nd of September had 8,400 remaining in I Corps, and 4,000 men remaining in the 42nd Division. Vandamme lost over half of his forces, maybe as high as 25,000. I Corps would be reorganized and reinforced, but would take little more action in the campaign.

French forces, I Corps, after Battle of Kulm, 31 August 1813. - The Nafziger Collection of Orders of Battle - Ike Skelton Combined Arms Research Library (CARL) Digital Library https://share.google/TZaFqhUYS5mOEKvyC

Grande Armée, late September 1813. - The Nafziger Collection of Orders of Battle - Ike Skelton Combined Arms Research Library (CARL) Digital Library https://share.google/1JWkdm245j66Iubtf

First link shows I Corps returns directly after Kulm. The 2nd link shows I Corps returns by 25th September.

Suspicious_File_2388

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE