Napoleon was also able to incorporate new tactics into his army; this was another aspect of his brilliant generalship. He successfully incorporated Guibert’s ‘mixed order’ tactics brilliantly. This was a mixture of columns and lines of soldiers, which made his troops less vulnerable and predictable. It assisted in been mobile, flexible and fast in the battlefield. Although this was not his own tactic, he incorporated into his brilliantly and used it to great effect. Napoleon also incorporated his own tactic of ‘living off the land’ successfully. This meant his soldiers would carry a limited supply of resources and find food as they marched. This allowed his men to be more mobile and cover between 12 and 15 miles a day, as there were no supply wagons to slow them down.
Through Napoleons reorganisation of the army and incorporation of new tactics, he was able to improvise or be opportunistic. He was a quick thinker on the battlefield and could improvise to take advantage of enemy errors. The mobility of his army allowed him to do this well. For example, at Ulm in 1805, having made a mistake, he improvised by making a quick decision to send marshal Murat in pursuit of the Austrians, which reduced their numbers from 70,000 to 27,000 and was key to his success there. Another aspect of his great generalship was that he played to his strengths. Napoleon never fought naval battles, as it wasn’t his thing and he’d had a weak navy.
Evidently Napoleon had many aspects to his generalship, which had huge impacts on his military successes up to 1807. Now it is important to look at another reason to why he was successful. The strength of the French army he inherited is another reason to why Napoleon was so successful.
Napoleon was able to change the nature of warfare to ‘levee on masse’, since due to conscription (introduced in 1793 before Napoleon came to power) he had a huge army, which consisted of 600,000 by 1805. This was significantly larger than any other army in Europe, and was an obvious advantage for Napoleon. Napoleon could deliver huge casualties to his enemies and not have to worry about losing similar numbers himself. He could also use his superior numbers to surround smaller armies. He did this at the twin battle Jena-Austerlitz to great effect. The French surrounded the Prussians and forced them to face the wrong way when the battle began, they lost 45,000 men. This was crucial in Napoleon’s success here. Napoleon inherited experienced veterans from the Grande Armee; these men were crucial in his successes.
So it can be seen that the French army, which he inherited, is another reason for his military successes up to 1807. However it can also be seen although he inherited such an advantage, it was Napoleon who used it to his advantage and capitalised upon the circumstances to which he came to power.
Another reason for Napoleon’s military successes up to 1807 is the weakness of the opposition he faced. First of all it is important to see that many of the armies Napoleon faced had much smaller armies, so obviously this assisted him in his military successes. Opposition armies also had old-fashioned tactics which assisted Napoleon in his victories. They were often slow, immobile and outdated tactics, and they could not adopt new fighting techniques against Napoleon. They were unable to adapt to Napoleons quick and mobile tactics. The importance of Napoleon’s opposition having poor tactics can be seen from looking at his downfall. After 1807 his enemies were able to adopt new tactics similar to Napoleons, they had also learnt how to stop him. Once they did this they were able to defeat him. As well as having poor tactics, the opposition also had a poor mindset. They went into battle with no confidence as they saw Napoleon as infallible.
Another aspect of the weakness of Napoleons opposition was there inability to form a successful coalition against him. They failed to join together and match his numbers as they often had political fallouts. If they were able to form a successful one where they all wanted the same thing out of it, then they would have had a chance of defeating Napoleon. There failure to create a successful coalition can be seen with the Second Coalition of 1799 between Britain, Russia, Austria and the Ottoman Empire. The problem with it was that every country wanted something different from the coalition and it consisted of a series of separate alliances. It broke down as Britain and Russia fell out over Malta. However Napoleon must take some credit from the failures of coalitions due to his intervention through his policy of ‘divide and rule’. This consisted of Napoleon trying to break down coalitions by dealing with each member separately. Once Britain and Russia had fallen out in the Second Coalition, it allowed Napoleon to intervene and get Russia on side. He was then able to bully Austria into signing the Peace of Luneville. So clearly the weakness of the opposition assisted Napoleon in his successes, although it must be seen that he capitalised on them brilliantly.
It must be seen that the most important factor was Napoleons generalship. Although factors such as the army he inherited, and other peoples tactics assisted him. Without the weaknesses of the opposition, the army would have not enjoyed so many military successes. It was Napoleons leadership of the army that brought all the factors together and allowed him to be so successful.
