Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Napoleon

In my view he didn't revolutionise warfare - he just did things well and took advantage of circumstances of the moment. This was on the back of a keen intelligence, a rigorous study of his profession (officers to note), a vaguely capable chief of staff and a willingness to take risks. His big advantage like Frederick the Great (whose achievements sit in the shadow of Napoleon because less is written about him) was the skill with which he was able to move his Army across Europe.
 
Ref R Holmes' book on Wellington & Napoleon: it's interesting to note how much they had in common - "outsiders" in that each came from the "fringes" of their respective societies, and were not wholly accepted, at least initially, by the respective "establishments"; Napoleon a Corsican gunner; Wellington a "sprig of minor Irish nobility", and a "Sepoy general".

Each had French military schooling, and each had unusually highly developed cultural & political sensibilities - notably, for example, both were distinctly lacking in the anti-semitism so common in Europe at the time. Each was ruthless and authoritative/ charismatic, but never authoritarian. Both were suspicious of the "herd", and disliked mindless adherence to tradition/ social convention. Wellington despised team games (the famous qoutation about the playing fields of Eton being generally misunderstood - far from supporting team games, Wellington was stating that it was his decision not to run with the herd that was later to prove so decisive!), and Napoleon never willingly played them, if at all.

They even had a lover in common! Little wonder that Wellington frequently remarked on how he felt he understood Napoleon very well!
 
Top