Strengths and Weaknesses of Napoleon Bonaparte as a Military Leader - Coursework Example

Napoleon Bonaparte: Strengths and Weaknesses as a Military Leader Introduction Napoleon Bonaparte is indubitably one of the most extraordinary military leaders to date, having brought about several victories during his command. As a shrewd, ambitious, and skillful military strategist, he quickly rose up the ranks and seized power through a military coup d’état in 1799 (Rothenberg, 23) after which he was able to conquer much of Europe in the early nineteenth century. However, he was eventually crushed and defeated, dying while in exile. Despite the great fascination his career continues to exert, Napoleon’s fall, just as his success, has always been attributed to himself. There is a volume of academic material on his military legacies that are studied as examples in military colleges (Abbott 23). The simple argument of Napoleon Bonaparte swirls feelings. He was indeed one of the ‘greatest army minds’ in the record of combat. The activities of his life have motivated the creativeness of researchers, fictional numbers, instructing authorities, filmmakers and learners as well. Both the limitless compliment and highly effective criticisms placed on such a famous determine have provided considerably to the development of the Napoleonic legend. The available historical material touching on the life of Napoleon Bonaparte reveals lack of consensus among historians concerning his qualities as a military leaver. While others commend him for his extraordinary skills as an organizer and a charismatic leader, on the other hand, others have argued that he was not a schemer and strategic thinker. This line of argument has it that Napoleon was over-dependent on the strategies of his predecessors, and only managed to improvise military strategies rather than effectively plan war schemes (Antonmarchi 34). Those who hold this line of thought further suggest that his eventual downfall can be directly attributed to his weakness, although those who disagree argue that it is his characteristics that propelled him to dominating much of Europe. This paper seeks to assess the strengths and characteristics of Napoleon Bonaparte that made him a successful military leader. The paper also draws on his weakness and failures, in order to come up with a balanced analysis of his military legacy. In doing the analysis, evidence from some of his expeditions will be used together with empirical evidence from scholarly materials. Strengths Rise to power, command and control Armed with an unending ambition and cunningness, Napoleon came into power in 1799 through a military coup d’état, and in 1804, he crowned himself emperor of France in a ceremony that was intended to highlight his power and control. The success of napoleon as a military leader is evident from the number of battles he has commanded and won, According to some historians, he was successfully commanded the French army through thirty-four battles, losing only six between 1792 until his downfall (Rothenberg, 90). The command and military success of Napoleon is also evident from the scope of his dominance, which stretched over large areas of Europe, from the Channel coast to the Russian border. Historians who have studied his military legacy have attributed his influence and dominance to various individual characteristics. Practical approach to war Napoleon was a highly pragmatic person who faced his enemies and struggles with a level of realism that enabled him mount an attack or counter-attack in a practical way. In some of his pronouncements regarding war, Napoleon declares his pragmatism by asserting the simplicity of the art of war, leaving everything else to how you execute your plan. His pragmatism contributed to his philosophy, which a number of historians believe was hinged on the idea of total destruction and crushing of enemy army. For that reason, Napoleon did not go to war to seize territories but with his primary objective was to destroy the opposing army. This philosophical belief that earned him numerous victories is well exemplified in the 1805 campaigns, when he set out to crush the Austrian forces, a victory that helped cement his power and led to the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and the creation of Confederation of the Rhine. Master of the Battlefield Napoleon’ military style of leadership was essentially personal, if not hands-on and centralized system of management. Although the headquarters of his empire later evolved into complex machinery, the army staff was operating under his own direct instructions. Many historians have lauded him as one of the world’s most diligent military leaders who never left anything to chance. Others remark his striking powers to work and his incredible memory, which enhanced his ability to oversee numerous complex battlefield operations. He was truly a master of the battlefield given his extraordinary capability at directing and coordinating the French forces during a period when communication undeveloped. Napoleon’s battlefield modes of operations greatly contributed to his success, whereby he sent out his army in formations of three battalions consisting of infantries, cavalries, and artilleries travelling in separate but parallel routes. The cavalries’ main role was intelligence gathering ahead of the other corps, while at the same time confusing the enemies of the ultimate intention of the army. When the central adversarial force had been located, the other central corps would try to restrain the enemy while the main army force had the chance to attack the enemy from the rear. This strategy would ultimately force the enemy into surrender, or continuing to engage in a losing battle without secure line of retreat. The effectiveness of this strategy of attack was well exemplified during when the Austrian forces admitted defeat to Napoleon’s forces at Ulm, where he strategically overwhelmed them at one point, punching a hole and completed the encirclement from the rear. Another strategy used by Napoleon that further demonstrated his skills and mastery of the battlefield was the central position whereby the main idea was dividing the opposing force into several parts. Napoleon would direct a part of his forces into engaging a section of the opposing forces while his main force would be engaging the other part and upon defeating their opponents, the main force would join the other portion of the army into finishing off the second section of enemy forces. A classic example of this strategy in use can be observed when Napoleon commanded his forces into separately dealing with the Austrian forces that attempted to relieve the siege of Mantua during the 1796 campaign. Although the strategies used by Napoleon were not unique to him since many of his predecessors, his ability to understand the fundamentals of a situation and effectively integrate all elements involved with speed, had used them and clarity clearly put him ahead of many contemporaries. This ability was mainly enabled by the intelligence gathering system that he had successfully built to help him monitor the movements of his enemies, and the importance he put on producing accurate and detailed maps. In addition, he was able to inspire and motivate his troops by staying close and interacting with them. For example, at the Battle of Lodi, Italy in May 1796, the military leader personally went to site some of the French guns. Other personality traits such as charisma and personal recognition of exemplary display by his troops through rewards also greatly contributed to his success as a military leader. A planner and an improviser While victory in war was something that he was always determined to get, his ability to plan again and face defeat is equally admirable. His flamboyance and will power allowed him to fight with brilliant strategies that led to the defeat of the British troops in Toulon. Later he was promoted to the designation of Brigadier General. The outstanding ability of Napoleon to think on his own terms contradicted with his belief in destiny: rather he believed in creating his own destiny through his intelligence and abilities. It is true that Napoleon gained more fame for initiating wars although he intended at the core of his heart to bring peace in France and stop all antagonism with other countries such as England (England Rejects the Hand of Peace 1805). One thing that Napoleon was aware of is how he represents himself and his success, to his individual glory. He had an excellent capability in propaganda, the art of getting the community and elite to comprehend and support what he preferred them to. He efficiently used self marketing such as claims, programs and letters to the government all published with his passions in thoughts. The positive characteristics of Napoleon as a military leader outshone his over ambition that has been often quoted by historians. Much that he had achieved throughout his life and the time for which he served as a military leader is arguably one of the best among the greatest leaders who have achieved similar status (Fremont-Barnes 27). However, while analyzing his skills and prowess as military leaders, caution should be taken to take into consideration the contributions of ‘luck’, assistance of able subordinates, and the mistakes and failings of his adversaries to his success. For example, it should be appreciated that Napoleon made a mistake and was only lucky when he had to order back his troops when he discovered that he had crossed the River Danube and left the enemies (Austrians) behind him. An instance where the help of his subordinates was demonstrated was when Napoleon miscalculated at the battle against the Prussians in 1806, and the situation was saved when Marshal Davout managed to overcome the opposing forces (Kirchenhoffer 18). The failings and mistakes of his adversaries that certainly presented him with opportunities for exploitation are exemplified by the failure of the Prussian army to bring out their numerically significant reserve during the Jena-Auerstadt campaign. As an innovator, Napoleon first won the trust in and commitment of his men; from the smallest knight to the biggest position common and wealthy. Indeed his biggest durability, he achieved this by appealing them success and wonder. A charming presenter with amazing appeal he was able to impact not only those that he led but also those that he did not cause. An excellent inspiration of the individuals he recognized that he had to finish the needs of the individuals first, to be able to stimulate them enough about the art of war. This was the only way that they would have the interest to finish being successful tasks (Napoleon’s Speech to His Troops in Egypt 1799). Weaknesses and failings as a Military leader Decline of the military empire The decline of Napoleons power, influence and unmatched success at the battlefield was, according to some historians, predictable in his final years as commander of the French forces. In a private reflection in 1805, Napoleon himself declared that he would only be active for another six years, after which he intended to give active military work a halt. It has also been noted that his health began to deteriorate, while the quality of his army was on a drastic decline (Lockhart 30). Despite the visible signs of the impending fall of the army general, he continued to engage in warfare, a decision that can be claimed to have significantly contributed to his ultimate downfall. His strategies in the sight of the community became crusades of good against wicked. He even went as far as commissioning performers and providing awards for images and statues enjoying key minutes in his profession (Tarbel 1897). Truly, as an expert manipulator, he tactically estimated an idealized picture of himself that he properly designed to match the reasons of his aspirations. Napoleon benefitted significantly from the advances in tactics and organization that had been introduced to the French army by his predecessors before he took over the command. Moreover, he took over a well experienced and established army that had successfully fought in battles during the revolutionary wars. He later introduced recruitment of troops on a large scale, which made available a large reservoir of troops. However, his willingness and readiness to accept high levels of casualties coupled with the commitment of large number of troops to battles led to the death, injury and/or incapacitation of large numbers of troops, thereby drastically reducing his reservoir. In order to compensate for the lost troops, Napoleon was forced to reintroduce conscription of less skilled men who were poor at tactics and less sophisticated, leading to further loss of lives. An example often quoted is the Battle of Wagram in 1809 where, although he gained success over the enemy, he had a high number of casualties. The subsequent loss of battles due to change in tactics and a dwindling troop number consequently led his defeat at the Battle of Leipzig in 1813, and the ultimate invasion by the French in 1814. Contribution to his own downfall Although it might seem from the above examples that his ultimate downfall was occasioned by purely military factors, the state of the empire and Napoleon’s personality during his final years at the high command had a role to play that cannot be ignored. The first thing that comes to mind in this regard is his insensitivity, which made him self-centered to a great extent. Thus, his egoism and over ambition reached to such an extent that he ignored the death of his vast forces. His downfall is often accounted for his selfishness and lust of power. In a bid to capture Europe, he set out in an indefinite path leading to his exile in St Helena, and it can be said that his infinite faith in attaining victory devastated him in the end. His passionate drive to conquer territories did not allow him to rest from battle for long. During his reign, he made several agreements with alliance partners, which were never meant to serve as harbingers of peace but were rather tailored to serve the interest of France and cement his dominance over Europe. This cunningness bred mistrust among his alliance partners who were slowly but internally seeking to have an opportunity to revenge. As a leader, Napoleon strongly believed in securing French interests and in the process generated powerful resistance from other powers which eventually posed a threat to the survival of his empire. He never believed in ceding ground or compromising, a factor that forced other European powers that the military leader did not intended to offer a lasting settlement that would bring about peace and an end to war. Given the rising skepticism over his intentions, the powers were able to reorganize and coalesce into a renewed war as the only course of action. His interest in restoring monarchy in France ignored the ideals of Revolution and proved his love to stay atop of others. The very idea that grandeur and beauty of France lay in its triumph in battles was defective in root and led to the formation of several systems that forced the commoners towards the battlefield more than anywhere else. While Napoleon was a fearless leader in his own terms, his will to succeed and shrewdness often made him brutal. During the Battle of Milan, Napoleon’s urged his soldiers to do more than they had already accomplished, revealing his egoism that he would never compromise even in the face of the worst opposition. It is true that such a stance would work wonders for winning battles, however, his pragmatism was not at play at certain moments given that the troops were obviously worn out. His non-acquittal temperament was one of his weaknesses as a military leader as he failed to realize that he was not the sole individual working towards a goal. Thus, several historians have viewed him as a figure, responsible for creating anarchy and mayhem in those parts of Europe that he ruled. A strict military leader of the caliber of Napoleon was a blessing and disguise for France in particular and Europe at large, although it became a bane for erstwhile Europe and France particularly when the countries were plagued with the after effects of the battles that he fought. Moreover, his splendor and pageantry were in fact symbolic of his exaggerating pride that he could no longer carry himself and expressed during his last days. The needless demise of millions of Europeans that occurred during his military expeditions, the bankruptcy of France, and the loss of the colonies of France further highlight the failure of Napoleon as a military leader. Final Downfall Towards the end of his kingdom however, Napoleons weak points became more obvious. His once iron will convert to conflict as he became enclosed in combat and territorial grabbing (London Times, Jan. 25, 1793). This pressing lust for energy triggered constant requirements on the sources of Italy. Soldiers were improved that they became complicated to advance and more fixed. The range of combat improved and the key aspect became firepower through the improving range of men and in particular artillery. The end outcome was that the “one time God of fights was overthrown by the dynamics of combat that he had revealed but did not comprehend” He discontinued the most crucial focus and devastation of military. Undervaluing his opponents, he set the direction for his pitfall (Volume II - Chapiter 9). After being exiled to Elba he experienced a lack of assurance and a devastation of his health. This deficiency of assurance had gradually been handed down to the military and led to war. Following withdrawal of the Russians from the Continental System in 1810, Napoleon retaliated by leading a large force into Russian territory in 1812 despite the fact that his forces were not well prepared for the battle. The mistake he made was commanding his troops deeper into Russia, who had adopted a strategy of retreat, and in the end, both sides suffered heavy casualties when they engaged at the battle of Borodino (Napoleon’s Speech to His Troops in Egypt 1799). The Russian army in their retreat set fires on fields as they moved away from the French troops in order to deprive them of food supplies. This scorched-earth policy coupled with the impending harsh winter conditions led to starvation and wastage of the Napoleons troops. He was forced to order them back amidst constant harassment and mistreatment from the Russian troops, and in the end, only a fraction of the troops who had initially set out made it safely back to France. As the troops were treating from Russia, another section of his army was engaged in another war with the Spanish and Portuguese, with significant help from the British, in what is known as the Peninsular War of 1808 to 1814 (The September Massacres, Sept. 10, 1792). The French army lost the war when they were eventually driven out of the Iberian Peninsula, and the loss was immediately followed with the Battle of Leipzig, where again Napoleon’s troops lost to a coalition of forces comprising Austria, Prussia, Russia and Sweden. This defeat was so devastating to the French army that Napoleon was forced to retreat to France, and the coalition forces captured Paris. The same year, Napoleon was forced to relinquish the throne, and was later forced into exile to Elba where he was given sovereignty over the island. However, after less than a year in exile, he marched back to the mainland with about one thousand supporters, forcing the new king to flee, and he began what was later to be known as the Hundred Days campaign (Napoleons Addresses: 1803 – 1805). The coalition forces comprising of Austrian, British, Prussian, and Russian armies launched plans for another war against Napoleon who they considered as a mortal enemy. Although Napoleon was initially able to defeat the forces one by one through preemptive attacks such as the invasion of Belgium in 1815 and the defeat of the Prussians the same, the combined British and Prussian forces finally crushed his forces at the Battle of Waterloo, forcing him to abdicate the throne once again. He was consequently forced into exile at Saint Helena Island which was under the control of the British Empire where he died aged 51. Some may claim that his primary weak point lay in the view that he did not know when to stop. His megalomaniac character would not allow him to evolve to the modifying form of war (Morning Chronicle, Sept. 8, 1792). As he became more highly effective there was an increasing mistrust of those around him. He started to believe in things which had no truth. Conclusion Napoleon Bonaparte was one of the most accomplished military leaders of his time, and his legacy is still a subject of study in military colleges to date. He took over control of the French empire through a military coup d’état, and commanded his forces through several battles that he successfully won. His strengths and prowess at the art of war can be demonstrated by the numerous battles he won, losing only a handful (Scott 27). He was a practical and pragmatic commander who faced every battle situation in consideration of the factors at play at each and every moment. He built a massive army of troops, with a significant well-skilled reservoir. Moreover, he was able to advance on the military tactics that he had benefitted from his predecessors. The military tactics he employed during the early 19th century when communication was at a rudimentary stage are a testimony to the level of skill and wit he possessed. Some of the personal qualities that made Napoleon Bonaparte a great leader include the ability to inspire and motivate troops, a burning ambition to succeed at war, an effective practical approach towards war, mastery of the battlefield, shrewdness and his emphasis on developing an effective system of intelligence gathering and detail at developing accurate and precise maps. It is true that Napoleon had earned the stature of a great General, but his fanaticism for engaging in battles left myriad bruises on the motherland that he intended to serve; in short, it resulted in more apathy than he could imagine and perhaps realized only during his last days (Richardson 28). In conclusion, it can be said that analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of Napoleon seems far more complicated and intricate than it is envisaged initially. The man of honor who rose to become the Emperor of France had more strength and power than his weak spots. He was not only a great military leader and became General of the Army at the age of twenty-six, but also a diplomat with multifarious qualities. He lived his life on his own terms and abandoned the frailties and vulnerabilities that fate unfolds for every individual. He believed in himself and his powers assisted him to rise to the elixir. However, his ambitions soared too high after winning the military expeditions and it counted towards his downfall. During the later years, he could not control his army with similar supremacy as he had done in his younger days and subsequently faced defeat. In general, it can be said that the shrewd, ambitious, charismatic, and skilled military strategist was extraordinarily successful at waging war against various coalition forces in Europe, and greatly expanded his empire (Richardson 28). However, following successive defeats at the hands of the coalition partners that were mainly occasioned by his own mistakes and failings, the he was exiled to Elba. Upon his return, he suffered another crushing defeat in the hands of the coalition forces, and was again forced to relinquish the throne and exiled to Saint Helena Island where he died aged 51. Napoleon, the passing of your energy and effort has not lowered the energy of his name. A millennium after his death, Napoleon continues to be the biggest army professional of todays globe. In the underworld terms of Napoleon, "Victory goes to the most persevering. The strict knowledge is a resolute dedication (Antommarchi 1825)." This was the mind-set of Napoleon Bonaparte, a revolutionist, an amazing army strategist and a courageous knight. Though many of his experts would explain him as a tyrant, an expert, a dictator, tricky, motivated man; to others "He basically embodied the dreams of 30 million Frenchmen.” Work Cited Abbott, John S. C. The History of Napoleon Bonaparte. New York: Harper & Bros., 1883. Print. Antonmarchi, François. The Last Days of the Emperor Napoleon. London: Printed for Henry Colburn, 1825. Print. Fremont-Barnes, Gregory, and Todd Fisher. The Napoleonic Wars: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. Oxford: Osprey, 2004. Print. Kirchenhoffer, H. The Book of Fate: Formerly in the Possession of Napoleon, Late Emperor of France. London: W. Gaskill, 1826. Print. "London Times, Jan. 25, 1793." London Times, Jan. 25, 1793. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. "Morning Chronicle, Sept. 8, 1792." Morning Chronicle, Sept. 8, 1792. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. Napoleon, and Ida M. Tarbell. Napoleons Addresses: Selections from the Proclamations, Speeches and Correspondence of Napoleon Bonaparte. Boston: J. Knight, 1897. Print. "NAPOLEON’S SPEECH TO HIS TROOPS IN EGYPT (1799)." NAPOLEON’S SPEECH TO HIS TROOPS IN EGYPT (1799). N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. "Napoleons Addresses: 1803 - 1805." Napoleons Addresses: 1803 - 1805. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. Richardson, Nicholas. "7. The Police State of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, 1851–1860. By Howard C. Payne.Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966. Pp. 262. 49s." The Historical Journal 11.01 (1968): 200. Print. Lockhart, J. G. The History of Napoleon Buonaparte. Memphis, TN: General, 2010. Print. Rothenberg, Gunther. The Napoleonic Wars. Cassell, 1999. Print Scott, Walter. Life of Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of the French: With a Preliminary View of the French Revolution. Vol. 3. Edinburgh: Ballanytyne and, for Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, & Green, And, Cadell, 1827. Print. " The September Massacres, Sept. 10, 1792." London Times, Sept. 10, 1792. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. "Volume II - Chapiter 9." Volume II - Chapiter 9. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014. Read More