Also in 1796, Bonaparte was made commander of the French army in Italy. He defeated four Austrian generals in succession, each with superior numbers, and forced Austria and its allies to make peace. The Treaty of Campo Formio; provided that France could keep most of its conquests. In northern Italy he founded the Cisalpine (Italian) Republic and strengthened his position in France by sending millions of francs worth of treasure to the government. In 1798, to strike at British trade with the East, he led an expedition to Ottoman-ruled Egypt, which he conquered. His fleet, however, was destroyed by the British admiral Horatio Nelson, leaving him stranded. Undaunted, he reformed the Egyptian government and law, abolishing serfdom and feudalism and guaranteeing basic rights. The French scholars he had brought with him began the scientific study of ancient Egyptian history. In 1799 he failed to capture Syria, but he won a smashing victory over the Ottomans at Abū Qīr (Abukir). France, meanwhile, faced a new coalition; Austria, Russia, and lesser powers had allied with Britain.
In April 1803 Britain, provoked by Napoleon’s aggressive behavior, resumed war with France on the seas; two years later Russia and Austria joined the British in a new coalition. Napoleon then abandoned plans to invade England and turned his armies against the Austro-Russian forces, defeating them at the Battle of Austerlitz on December 2, 1805. In 1806 he seized the kingdom of Naples and made his elder brother Joseph king, converted the Dutch Republic into the kingdom of Holland for his brother Louis, and established the Confederation of the Rhine (most of the German states) of which he was protector. Prussia then allied itself with Russia and attacked the confederation. Napoleon destroyed the Prussian army at Jena and Auerstädt (1806) and the Russian army at Friedland. At Tilsit in July 1807, Napoleon made an ally of Tsar Alexander I and greatly reduced the size of Prussia. He also added new states to the empire: the kingdom of Westphalia, under his brother Jerome, the duchy of Warsaw, and others.
Evaluation of Sources:
The first book I evaluated was Napoleon’s Expedition to Russia-the memoirs of General de Segur edited by C.J. Summerville. The source gave an excellent first hand account of Napoleon’s generalship on the battlefield. It is a first hand account of General Count Philippe de Segur; the man who led France into Russia for there campaign against Russia. He was able to study Napoleon closely, often being in the same quarters as him on the battlefield.
The first publication of his memoirs was published in Paris in 1924, about three years after Napoleon’s death. They had a ripple effect through France and Europe, through their vividness of and the war that killed a million people in a span of six months. By 1927 they were translated into eight different languages and distributed all over Europe. The one problem with these original publications is their massive size, they spanned two whole volumes and were very expensive to print. This edited edition by C.J. Summerville was able to drastically reduce the number of pages keeping the reader more interested but still able to get Segur’s major points across.
Though this book is off the scope of the research it is able to add another dimension to findings. Segur really described how Napoleon prepared for battle and introduced the reader to the ways that Napoleon worked. I felt this book was extremely well written, and I feel if it wasn’t for Segur many would a have a much smaller understanding of Napoleon.
The second source I evaluated was The Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte written by Robert Asprey. This source gave a very detailed account of Napoleon’s planning for battle and the usefulness of all his aides. The main focus of the source was his early battles and his rise to supreme power, topics pertinent to my investigation. This source is one of the most recently published books about Napoleon and it has a very modern writing style, which made reading a little easier.
The author is an ex-marine and veteran of two wars. His writing has a very dry and powerful feel and is often influenced by the author’s views. The book builds Napoleon up to be an amazing figure and barely mentions any of his faults. This source tremendously helped me with my topic with its great detail of every battle but to learn about Napoleon this is not the source for you.
Analysis:
Napoleon was bred to be a Military leader from a very young age. He had the top schooling in France where students were grown into military personal. Napoleon excelled in the areas of mathematics and could have easily have been an excellent mathematician. This is one of the first attributes that lead to Napoleon’s mastery of the battlefield, his intellectual genius and knowledge of mathematics. Napoleon was also a conosure of knowledge; this was shown on his campaign to Egypt where her brought many scholars along to examine the artifacts of the ancient Egyptians.
Napoleon’s education on the military and military tactics gave him a young goal to excel in the military. Napoleon studied different tactics extensively and this was a favorite topic of his in school. This early understanding of tactics gave Napoleon a head start on developing and refining his on ideas. Education was a key component in Napoleon’s development into one of the greatest military leaders of all time.
The recruitment and organization of troops was a great skill of Napoleons, and he did it in such and expedient way. One example of this even though the end result was a disappointing one for Napoleon was his preparation for the battle of Waterloo. In the time span of less than four months Napoleon was able to recruit and organize over 150,000 troops, catching his opposing forces off guard. His ability to recruit was seen in size of his massive armies from 1808-1813. At one time his forces totaled over one million men, an unheard of number at the time. Though some of his forces came from drafts in countries he conquered, most of his forces comprised of volunteers that were drawn to Napoleon’s charisma and aura.
A misunderstanding for most people is that Napoleon was revolutionizing the way wars were fought, that idea is extremely untrue. He merely just refined the preferred tactics that were already in place and used them to the best of his capacity. His true skill came in his ability to move troops very quickly and very quietly often catching the enemy off guard. This tactic is considered the predecessor to the German Blitzkrieg in World War Two. Another tactic the Napoleon often used was to move his troops into the heart of the opposing troops splitting them into two. On the Battlefield Napoleon was nothing more than ordinary but he gained most of his advantages in the movement and placement of his Troops.
Napoleon’s true talent was his ability to motivate his troops even under the bleakest conditions. The Irony in this is the fact that Napoleon stood a mere five foot two and really wasn’t someone the troops could look up to but Napoleon was able to appeal to the troops with all of his interaction. He made himself appear to be a common troop that experienced the same hardships that they did. This was exemplified by Napoleon being there every step of the way in the battle, often seen in the heart of the battle. The troops admired Napoleon for this and really connected with him.
