Quote:
Originally Posted by Honey Badger
Napoleon at times showed brilliance as a military leader that would make him on paper GOAT worthy, but I think anyone deserving of the title or even the top ten designation would not have the numerous failures he had.
Napoleon marched into Egypt in 1798 with his army in an attempt to conquer Egypt and thus cut British trading routes to the Middle-East and India and give the French naval dominance in the Mediterranean. Napoleon easily took over Egypt but as he was conquering Egypt, the British fleet, commanded by Lord Nelson, destroyed the French fleet and left Napoleon and his army stranded.
Although militarily the Egyptian campaign accomplished very little, the French presence in Egypt had great significance in other areas particularly Napoleon's popularity. Napoleon took with him many experts to Egypt to study the artistic and literary treasures of the country. Their most significant find was the Rosetta Stone, the key to understanding ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. Because of his failure to accomplish his goals for Egypt, Napoleon returned to France with only a small portion of his soldiers. To his luck, the French people had not heard of his defeat in Egypt and had been falsely told that it had been a great success because of the cultural achievements. This gave him immense support from the French people. Had the French people known of his miltary failure when he arrived back in France, there would have been little chance of him ever reaching anywhere near as high as he eventually did.
Napoleon Bonaparte ineffective leadership during the invasion of Russia of 1812 also resulted in campaign failure which calls in to question if other early success of his career make him a GOAT candidate. I say no. The invasion of Russia in 1812 was a clear turning point for Napoleon military career. The aftermath this failed invasion shattered his reputation as a tactical genius and severely questions his ability as a great military leader. The total number of Napoleon's Army (Grande Armee) outnumbered the Russian 2 to 1. Napoleon's relying on methods from prior campaign to make logistical preparation was a huge blunder. Napoleon had always lived off the land in his campaigns in order to forestall a supply problem. The Russian utilized scorch earth tactics to destroy any supplies they had so it prevent Napoleon's army from using it. The Grande Armee could not live off the land as they did prior campaigns because of weather and the harsh terrain of Russia. When he reached Moscow in September, he found it burning. There was nothing there which could feed and house his troops for the winter so he was forced to turn back toward home just as winter was setting in. His Grand Army ran out of supplies, and soldiers died of disease and the bitter cold of the Russian winter. They were equipped only in summer uniforms. Russian troops and people continually attacked them as they trudged along home. Only about 40,000 survived the march.
Contrast that with someone like Cesar who faced a quality opponent like Pompeii and was out numbered in his decisive battle. Napoleon's Army (Grande Armee) outnumbered the Russian 2 to 1. Cesar accomplished this after winning many impressive battles against lesser foes of various strength. Cesar had the boldness of Napoleon, the tactical genius, better administrative skills, won his major battles, and beat highly skilled opponents. A far better GOAT candidate if you ask me. Cesar is just one example and not even my GOAT even though he is a clear Top 10 selection.
Napoleon showed innovation a young commander, and reformed his army very much like Marius who was mentioned earlier in the thread. Sure Napoleon did not expect the scorch earth tactics and figured if he took Moscow Russia would fall, but a true GOAT candidate should have been prepared unexpected possibilities. Napoleon actually fought the type of war in Moscow (attrition) that he himself was brilliant against in earlier complains. This one failure alone calls in to question his GOAT status.
As many of you know Napoleon was not completely defeated by the disaster in Russia. The following year he raised an army of around 300,000 French troops supported by a quarter of a million French allied troops to contest control of Germany in an another very large campaign. Despite being outnumbered, he won a large victory at the Battle of Dresden. It was not until the decisive Battle of Nations that he was finally defeated and afterwards no longer had the troops to stop the Coalition's invasion of France. Napoleon did still manage to inflict a series of losses and a series of minor military victories on the far larger Allied armies as they drove towards Paris, though they captured the city and forced him out of power 1814.
I have not even brought up the train wreck of Waterloo or the one country that Napoleon could never influence or invade, Great Britain. Having experienced that he could not defeat the British because of its superior navy, Napoleon established the Continental System, a French-imposed blockade of Europe against British goods. He figured if he couldn't beat Great Britain with warfare, he would do it with economic warfare. This strategy of course was ineffective so Napoleon lost both economically as well as militarily to England also knocking him out of consideration for my top 25 GOAT list of military greats.
Two quick things. First, I'll try err on the brief side of things in my response for manageability's sake, but I did read this post a few times and appreciate the points you make. Second, most of my impressions and opinions about Napoleon were influenced by/derive from the Napoleon podcast with Cameron Reilly & David Markham, both of whom are fervidly pro-Napoleon.
On Egypt -- It wasn't a success, but it wasn't a disaster. If anything, it fulfilled his objective of killing time on some conquest to maintain his popularity in France (achieved, as you say, not by results but by propaganda). Napoleon seemingly never understood naval matters, but I don't know what he could have done about Nelson in 1798. Also, he was still dealing with the Directory at this point; did he have as free a hand in Egypt as he had later on as Emperor? Probably not. I suppose the French forces suffering an outbreak of the plague by the end of the campaign is normal variance, but it's something to note.
On Caesar & Russia -- Let me begin by asking this, if Napoleon was struck dead by lightning in late 1811 or early 1812 (not quite in as dominant a position as he was between 1806 and 1809, but still pretty dominant), would we not all
immediately put him in the top 3? Napoleon's career from 1795 to 1811 is shockingly amazing. He took on and defeated, over and over again, the best armies of Europe. His tactics and reforms
defined warfare for decades after his exile and death.
I would strongly disagree that Caesar faced better opponents. Caesar's main military achievements were the conquest of Gaul and defeating Pompey. It's hard to compare the conquest of Gaul to anything that a modern military commander had to do, and for all the hardships and Caesar's clever innovations, he was never facing quality professional armies. Pompey was indeed a giant, but the way the civil war unfolded, Pompey & the senate were caught with their pants down; they had to flee and regroup. Pompey's best legions were in Spain I believe, and Pompey & the senate were in Greece. Pompey's current army was composed of inferior troops to Caesar's hardened Gallic legions. Still, at Dyrrhachium, Pompey screwed up very very badly, having broken through Caesar's fortifications and then ordered a halt to the pursuit of a defeated Caesar (a mistake Napoleon sometimes made himself). At Pharsalus, Pompey again screwed up very badly, having a bunch of advantages in troop numbers and positioning, which he failed to convert.
And that's just about it for Caesar. Had he not been assassinated and managed to destroy Parthia in 44/43 BC, I think his resume would be significantly improved. As it stands, I would put the military resumes of Marius and Sulla and Scipio and Constantine and (oddly enough, for all of his other conquests) Pompey above Caesar's. Of course, Caesar's political savvy exceeds all of these men combined (or even multiplied).
Back to Napoleon. Not much I can say about Russia other than that it was completely and utterly horrendous for Napoleon. I'd love to read Napoleon's own thoughts about why the Russian campaign got away from him as badly as it did, like, what did he foresee and what caught him by surprise? The basic idea was that he did not intend to stay there long, that he wanted one decisive battle against Alexander, win, and then sue for peace. As it became clearer that this wasn't going to happen, should he have known to get the **** out of there? Maybe, but what GOAT is remembered for retreating with the greatest army ever assembled?
The question with Russia more broadly is how much that failure takes away from his other accomplishments and GOAT status. I see it as a huge failure, but a failure that actually makes it possible to have an interesting GOAT debate, because without that failure, I think Napoleon is the GOAT ainec. Think about what he did; he, not of noble birth, was at war with dynasties, global empires, and the best European armies for 20 years, and he defeated everybody for about 16 of those years.
Quick point about Waterloo -- There's no way Napoleon was going to survive the war even if he had won at Waterloo. And the major errors of Waterloo were Ney's inept charge and Grouchy not being on Blucher's ass (march to the sound of the guns). I don't think Napoleon deserves a lot of blame for that.
