How far do you agree with the view that the peninsular war played the prime role in Napoleons downfall?

Authors Avatar

Rumbie

How far do you agree with the view that the peninsular war played the prime role in Napoleon’s downfall?

The peninsular war which began in 1808 and ended in 1814 was a war between France and the allied powers of Spain, the United Kingdom and Portugal. The war was provoked by Napoleon’s invasion of Portugal in 1807 and by the subsequent French capture of Madrid in March 1808. The war which led to Napoleon’s abdication has led to so much controversy as to whether or not it played the prime role in Napoleon’s downfall.  Historians such as Brendan Simms see the Russian campaign as the turning point that destroyed the Grande Armee and this view is supported to differing extents by other historians such as Jean Tulard. However, Napoleon saw the start of his downfall as being what he described as the ‘Spanish ulcer’.

The peninsular war played a prime role in Napoleon’s downfall as it is where Napoleon is seen making a lot of mistakes and bad decisions that affected his chances of winning the war. The first of these was his decision to leave Spain in the hands of marshals at the beginning of 1809 when he was facing trouble from the Austrian army. Napoleon’s decision to divert experienced troops from Spain to fight in Austria and then in Russia weakened his chances in Spain. Napoleon had to fight a war on both the western and eastern front. No matter how great a general Napoleon was, he could not be everywhere at once. This led to a high loss of men in his army, the battle Aspern-Essling in May lost him 20,000 men and again at Wagram he lost 32,000 of his men. This strained a lot of his resources thus reducing any chance of success in the wars that he had gotten involved in. It also meant that Napoleon now needed to conscript a lot of men in order to continue on the fight. This highly disadvantaged him as a lot of these conscripts were not fully trained and able to handle the demands of such wars. Also, conscription was met with hostility and resulted in low morale. This differed from before when Napoleon was said to have ‘cultivated’ his men, then they had high morale unlike now when they were simply forced to fight. Coming from a dire financial situation, these now new soldiers might have already held some level of resentment towards their ruler who was also now their commander in chief.

Join now!

The second was his decision to fight in Russia. Napoleon had hoped to make a quick attack, however, without an official declaration of war his problem was finding an enemy to attack. Napoleon’s armies were drawn deeper into Russia and their supplies stretched. Moreover, his enemies had developed a ‘scorched earth’ policy in response to Napoleon’s ‘live off the land’ technique where they set fire to crops and villages as they retreated. This further reduced chances of success for Napoleon and increased in the number of his men killed. Although napoleon’s tactics had been effective in the past, his enemies ...

This is a preview of the whole essay