• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"Blundering to glory". How far is this an accurate description of the campaigns of Napoleon 1800-1809?

Extracts from this document...


"Blundering to glory". How far is this an accurate description of the campaigns of Napoleon 1800-1809? The term "Blundering to Glory" seems to imply that Napoleon achieved military success in his campaigns through sheer luck and the ineptitude of his opponents rather than through his own skills as a military leader. Barnett can be said to have been extremely anti-Napoleon in his views and although many of his points may be compelling, it is important to note that they may be exaggerated to be more in line with his biased view. Connelly on the other hand, can also be said to have been critical of Napoleon's military skills and points out what he sees as several flaws in the Guibertian approach implemented by the French "military genius". Both historians also have varied definitions on the term "Blundering to Victory". Barnett believed that the French side were just fortunate to have won those military campaigns, but that that luck was unsustainable and that it was only a matter of time before it would eventually fail the French side. Connelly, on the other hand had said that although potentially there was great risk for failure and that errors did occur within the "Grande Armee", in the end Napoleon could have been successful with this strategy i.e. the Guibertian system had its defects and could fail the army, unless those problems were sorted out. ...read more.


With no Russian reinforcements nearby, Mack surrendered his 27,000 men. Austria was effectively out of the war. However, as Correlli and Barnett have pointed out, it may have been an entirely different outcome had General Mack decided to break out as Melas had done at Marengo, or if the Russians had tried to help Mack rather than retreat. Bonaparte may have faced the possibility of fighting an enemy at two fronts and this could have resulted in the defeat of his army. It may have been seen as pure luck by Barnett that the Russians had decided to retreat instead of facing the "Grande Armee". Regarded as Napoleon's greatest victory, Austerlitz was an outstanding trap that destroyed the Austro-Russian army opposing him. It can be argued that Austerlitz was the finest example of Bonaparte's tactical strategy as, by tricking his opponents into thinking he was weaker than he actually was, and then calling in nearby reinforcements, Bonaparte initially met the combined Allied army of 85,400 men and with just 73,100 men. The French emperor deliberately abandoned a strong central position and left his right flank weak in order to lure the enemy to approach there. The Allies readily moved forward off the Pratzen Heights and this could be said to have been a fatal mistake as they had then weakened the centre of their army in order to try and defeat the French right. ...read more.


Archduke Charles made the mistake of believing that Bonaparte was really interested in peace with the Austrians - in fact, it was a ploy to build time for the French to build-up their strength and attack the Austrian force again. "You engage, and then you wait and see" - so Napoleon Bonaparte considered his ability of war. He was described as a scrambler who never had a plan, strategic or tactical, that did not break down or change of necessity in the field. He was so confident of his ability to improvise, cover his own mistakes, and capitalize on those of the enemies that he repeatedly plunged his armies into uncertain, seemingly desperate situations, only to emerge victorious, "blundering to glory". However, it can also be said that there were Allied errors made as well as errors made on the French side; and that as mistakes were made, the French had also learned from them (e.g. in the battle of Aspern-Essling). The biggest factor, especially from the viewpoint of Connelly, was the element of risk involved in Bonaparte's military campaign. If an enemy had adapted to his idea of Guibertian warfare or fought with a substantial military force, Bonaparte could have been forced to change his tactics and, could possibly have been defeated. Therefore, it may have been a combination of luck, through Allied mistakes, the strict discipline of the "Grande Armee" and the exceptional military command displayed by Bonaparte that helped in his campaigns during the "years of legend". SHAMIMA SHALLY 13ZB ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Napoleon Bonaparte.

    He had also planned on making a new territory for France. When the French arrived, they defeated the cavalry of the Turkish rulers of Egypt, but the English answered back quickly and destroyed the French fleet. He then went towards Palestine where he presented his opposing character: On the one hand he acted like a real leader.

  2. How far can the downfall of Napoleon be explained by the continuous opposition of ...

    With France unable to provide the resources needed to properly enforce the blockade it was dependent on its allies and satellite states to aid them and police their own ports.

  1. How far did Napoleon Bonaparte maintain the revolutionary ideals of liberty and equality in ...

    Also, the position of the Pope as head of the Catholic church was agreed and recognized. The clergy was obligated to obey the state and promised an oath to do so. The church would not attempt to regain lands that were confiscated by the revolution.

  2. "To what extent was French defeat at the battle of Waterloo due to Napoleons ...

    Another reason that Napoleons lack of judgement could've lead to defeat at the battle of waterloo is his blatant disregarding of his enemy. Having not personally fought the British for twenty-two years he talked to his entire general staff in a meeting on the morning of Sunday 18th June 1815 about the British army.

  1. How successful was Napoleon III?

    In December 1852 he was confident and strong enough to declare the end of the Second Republic and the establishment of the Second Empire which again was overwhelmingly approved in another plebiscite and so subsequently Louis Napoleon became Napoleon III.

  2. Why did the Franco-Prussian war happen and why were the Prussians able to defeat ...

    because there would have been no tactical and political gain in a war with France or no-one there who had the diplomatic intelligence to see any gains but because Bismarck wished to unite Germany he needed either French support, which he would never get with Napoleon III, or a French

  1. Napoleon Bonaparte is considered one of the greatest military leaders of all time. ...

    In 1795 he saved the revolutionary government by dispersing an insurgent mob in Paris. In 1796 he married Jos�phine de Beauharnais, the widow of an aristocrat guillotined in the Revolution and the mother of two children. Also in 1796, Bonaparte was made commander of the French army in Italy.

  2. "Mussolini was an all powerful dictator" - How accurate is this statement?

    Furthermore over the years this militia had merged into the army, making it to a great extent harder for the King to ever use the army against Mussolini because the this militia had merged with the army, so it would have been difficult to get them to attack Mussolini as

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work