The 10 Key Battles That Made Napoleon Bonaparte 

As did his Marshals, It was like Joe Biden vs Elon musk

Well, not exactly. While it's true that in other armies you weren't allowed to rise above a certain rank if you were not noble, there was a limited sort of meritocracy in that smaller pool of talent. For example, if a noble in the Austrian army did poorly enough, he would be replaced by a noble who was expected to do better. Most of the generals Napoleon defeated in his 1796-1797 campaign in Italy were veterans who distinguished themselves and worked their way from relatively minor roles through this limited meritocracy all the way to high command. Wurmser, for example, joined the Habsburgs as a major general (the rank "major general", not the adjective "major" + "general") who commanded only a few hundred hussars. He greatly distinguished himself in the War of the Bavarian Succession, leading his hussars in multiple successful raids against the Prussian army (which was then still feared as the greatest army in Europe), capturing thousands of prisoners along the way and defending the border with the highest skill. He was promoted to Lt. Field Marshal during that war, and then, as Austria prepared to fight the Ottoman Empire in 1787, to General of Cavalry, which placed him in command of a minor army in Galicia, where he saw little action. When the French Revolutionary Wars started, Wurmser was transferred to the Rhine, where he meticulously probed the Lauterburg and Weissenburg lines, before directing the Austrian assault at the first Battle of Wissembourg in October 1793. Despite being outnumbered by the French, who also held a powerful defensive position on earthworks, Wurmer's attack succeeded. Wurmser would be eventually defeated, however, when the French returned with more men, and for this defeat he would be briefly dismissed from command. In 1795, he was posted on the Rhine when the 187,000-strong French army attacked. He fought the French at Mannheim and defeated them in battle and siege, over the month of action inflicting some 10,000 casualties on the French for only 1,000 Austrian losses. For this service, he was promoted to Field Marshal, placing him in the highest echelon of Austrian field command. He was still on the Rhine the next year to meet the new French offensive there, until the French army commanded by a certain 26-year-old Corsican thundered down the Alps into Italy, smashed the Italian and Austrian armies there, and overran the territory. He was, obviously, not so successful there, but he _did_ nearly defeat Napoleon once (before Napoleon turned the tables back on him, with interest) and he managed to hold out with a trapped army in Mantua far longer than anyone expected. Despite this ending, in the grand scheme of things, Wurmser's rise from the leader of a few hundred hussars to leading armies of tens of thousands was fairly meritocratic, justified by how the man distinguished himself multiple times across three decades in Austrian service. He just happened to meet the worst possible opponent. On the other hand, Napoleon's rise was not entirely meritocratic. While it _is_ true that Napoleon built up an impressive list of military achievements from 1793-1795, from the obvious victory at Toulon to his lesser-known function as a military planner in the French government, leading to victories at Saorgio in 1794 and Dego in 1795, it was not for _these_ achievements that he was promoted to commander-in-chief of the Army of Italy, but for 13 Vendémiaire, where he saved the Directory by firing on an angry (and armed) mob set on overthrowing the government as had happened several times already in the Revolution. Napoleon's promotion to major command was more of a political favour than a recognition of his merit. This isn't to say that the French government thought Napoleon wasn't a good commander, rather the opposite. He already had the achievements, he had already effectively de facto functioned as major command multiple times, and wherever he served, his superiors wrote back to the government not merely praising him, but _crediting_ him for their victories (ex. "It is to the ability of the General of Artillery that I owe the clever combinations which have secured our success" from Pierre Jadart Dumerbion after the Battle of Dego in 1794). The problem, however, was that even at this early stage, the government was already somewhat wary of Napoleon, who was already well-known for approaching them over and over, telling them how _they_ ought to fight the war on grand strategic levels despite his minor de jure position. Napoleon further hurt his position in 1794, where the government ordered him to take a command repressing the French rebels in the Vendée, only for Napoleon to refuse this command. The government would approach and order him to take his command in the Vendée several times, but Napoleon refused over and over in favour of wandering Paris unemployed, dependent on fortune and charity. On 15 September, Napoleon was finally officially removed from active service for this behavior. Napoleon was competent, no doubt, but his behavior had demonstrated he could not be trusted to follow orders he disagreed with, and rising to the highest ranks in the French Revolution was as or more political as it was meritocratic. When the government finally approached him to put down the royalist insurrection in Paris in October, it was more the fact that Napoleon was the only general in the area and the Directory was desperate to survive than out of faith in him. Likewise, when they gave Napoleon major command in 1796, they gave him command over the smallest, most ill-equipped, underpaid, and least important of the major French armies (also plagued low morale and stirrings of mutiny), with the expectation that he would do little with it other than provide a diversion. Instead, this resulted in Napoleon defeating seven armies, marching on Vienna, and negotiating the terms of peace on his own without consulting the French government, all in the space of twelve months. This created a considerable fuss in the government, as their political darlings had meanwhile been defeated in that same time, while the unreliable Napoleon had ended the war and made the peace on his own, propagated his achievements by creating his own personal propaganda machine independent from that of the government, and become by far the most popular figure in France. To make matters worse, Napoleon had made it clear that his rise to prominence had not made him feel any better about his superiors in the government. After his initial string of victories in Italy, the government sent a letter to Napoleon congratulating him and telling him he would be splitting his command with another French general (admittedly, a very stupid idea from a military point of view, but not stupid from a political point of view if you're trying to check Napoleon's power). Napoleon shot back in response that if the government dared to split his command, he would resign from the army and go into politics, which was a thinly veiled way of threatening the government that if _they_ tried to use their political power to undercut him, then _he_ would become a politician and remove them from their positions himself. The government backed off. Overall, Napoleon's career benefited from him being the only man the government had on hand on various occasions. If the government could turn to a more politically reliable general for 13 Vendémiaire and ignore Napoleon, they would have. If the government could replace Napoleon in Italy or split his command, they would have. If the government had a popular political favourite dramatically winning the war instead of their political favourites suffering military setbacks as Napoleon marched on Vienna and ended the war, they would have given that general all the honours Napoleon ended up with. Napoleon's military merit was obvious, but his political loyalty was dubious. Even in 1799, Napoleon was the last general Sieyes turned to for his coup, and for good reason, as immediately after the coup Napoleon politically outmaneuvered him, serving as a mediator between Daunou's camp and Sieyes' camp, with the result that the finalized Consulate was made up only of positions from either camp that favoured _Napoleon_ rather than either Sieyes or Daunou. The general, who was supposed to receive a weak position subservient to a "Grand Elector" after the coup, ended up the de facto absolute ruler of France overnight.

Napoleon was a noblemen himself and ingretiated himself with the leadership of the Revolution (his first wife had strong connections with the Revolution). As always, when it comes to Napoleon, a simplification of history.

​@@brianmoran1196 this might be the worst analogy I've ever seen

Yes, interesting choices. Trafalgar didn't have any impact on the course of the war as the Grande Armee left Boulogne two months before the battle. The Royal Navy already had dominance at sea as French revolution destroyed the French navy as all the admirals were aristocrats and left the country or were dead and Spain was a declining power. Napoleon ordered Villeneuve to support the campaign by moving towards Austria where Massena was against Archdukes Charles and John but then he ignored his orders and decided to attack Nelson for no meaningful reason.

Agreed

agreed. Napoleon handled the battle of Rivoli so well. Most generals in history would have lost that battle. Its second right after Austerlitz. I don't know why these list always includes Egypt and Waterloo like they don't do enough research on Napoleon.

@@Pure_HavocArcole is a shitshow aswell, not a total victory but nevertheless an amazing display of composure in a deadly situation

So true, was shocked by that

There are battles here missing in the movie. Obviously this is to capture people's interests in the film and hopefully in the historic events. Have you seen the movie? Did you find the depiction of Napoleon as hilariously odd as I did? I felt he was played like Jim from Friday Night Dinner :)

Yep unfortunately Lodi, Arcole and Rivoli (to replace Trafalgar, Pyramids and Ligny) won't even get a mention which are likely to be his greatest victories during the italian campaign. The top 10 famous battles of Napoleon would be a more fitting title as well.

They made him neurotic

Are you joking, Lepzig battle of Nations would have been SOOO great to see experimental rockets, all 4 nations participating in one battle (technically 5), and see Napoleon order his first Retreat in Europe in style by blowing up his escape route....But we get waterloo...again... @@RodolfoGaming

I'm fine with that. Looking forward to the mmmmmovie

especially the briton who plotted against him for decades. they were traitors and they will always be

Because it completely crippled Napoleon's plans more than any other battle

the british till this day still hate Napoleon , he had them at chokehold for over 10 years

Am English and I really respect him. The fact that he promoted through merit is amazing as UK had extensive class system then and in some ways we still do. However if I was born back then I would hated him as well.

In the day look at it this way in following world wars who ever controlled the air eventually won the war, and in Napoleon's days those that controlled the seas controlled everything

No it didn't

I agree

To defeat an enemy without engaging in battle is the ultimate generalship according to Sun-Tzu Art of War. Also, Snow should have talked about Napoleon's core strategems - Corp, massed artillery, hold the center, and various other strategies that made Napoleon one of the most winning generals in history. I cry when I think about the destroyed Army that went into Russia, and the resultant loss of the Napoleonic ideals.

You look at a map of Ulm's campaign then Schwarzkopf first Gulf's campaign it 's nearly the same almost 200 years apart.

@@ksmatch06 It's satisfying to know that our men and women at West Point still learn from one of the masters

To be fair to Schwarzkopf he didn't abandon his troops and flee back to Washington on multiple occasions or lead a 600,000 strong Grand Armee to total destruction ! 😂😂😂

Blimey someone's been reading their history books

@@richardloach610 Well, I do write and guest podcast on the subject, so it helps!

2) True, but the austrians were still in the war and would encircle Massena later. 6) I dont think it's entirely clear or fair to just call these "frontal assaults", it sorts of implies simplicity/stupidity, when what can be described as a frontal assault can lead to a collapse or a brilliant victory depending on several factors. Plus, sometimes, flanking is too risky, including for the flanking force

2) The Egyptian campaign was ultimately a military failure, but it was a political success, and even militarily, it only turned into a full failure after Napoleon left. Certainly, Napoleon had calculated that the strategic situation in Egypt was not going to improve with a new war in Europe, but calling it a disaster, at least given Napoleon's tenure there, is over-exaggerating. The Pyramids, Mount Tabor, and Aboukir were devastating victories and three of Napoleon's finest moments as a tactician. Sure, Napoleon failed at Acre, and the expedition was ultimately unsuccessful, but would so too was Hannibal three times at Nola campaign in Italy, and calling the latter a disaster would be eye-rolling. The French army was in an unenviable strategic position when Napoleon left it, but it was not anywhere close to broken, and its endurance to the end of the Second Coalition (assuming France wins there regardless, which is a fair question) was completely possible. After all, despite the defeat at Acre, the result of Napoleon's Syrian and Aboukir campaigns for the Ottomans were that the twin armies meant to retake Egypt were both resoundingly defeated, ending their efforts to retake Egypt for the rest of the year. Then, a year later and after Napoleon left, the Ottomans with a newly rebuilt army tried again and were yet _again_ crushed by the French at Heliopolis. Defending Syria was one thing, but to retake Egypt the Ottomans would have to actually defeat the French in battle there, which was another question entirely if Napoleon (or even Kleber, had he not been assassinated) decided to continue the expedition. Defeating the French in those circumstances with a British expedition would be a probable argument given it was what happened in 1801, if not for the success of a British expedition in Egypt being in no way assured - only six years later in the Fraser expedition, the British sent another expedition to Egypt and were soundly defeated by Muhammad Ali's Egyptians (despite outnumbering their opponent and not even facing Muhammad Ali directly at the beginning), not even managing to penetrate past the coast. In that light, the British victory in 1801 was in no way certain, and a more vigorous French defense, as would have no doubt happened under Napoleon, would have been quite harder to dislodge. The most likely scenario for a French defeat in those circumstances would not be the British and Ottomans overrunning Egypt in 1801 or 1802, but France outright losing the war in Europe, thus making any continued French resistance in the Egypt pointless, but this would be regardless of the success or failure of the expedition _itself_ which still makes a judgement of military disaster on the particulars questionable. The comparison in that case would, again, be to the Second Punic War. Does Scipio's invasion of Africa, forcing Hannibal's evacuation from Italy (though admittedly, he had been losing ground for quite some time by then), render the Carthaginian campaign in Italy a _disaster_ on account of its failure? 4) The result at _Auerstedt_ was luck, yes, but the campaign itself was not. A Prussian victory at Auerstedt would not have forced Napoleon back with his tail behind his legs. He would have still annihilated the secondary Prussian army at Jena, and so even with a French corps mauled at Auerstedt, the victorious Prussian army there would find no respite as Napoleon turned his entire army on them. Likewise, the Prussians were against a rock and a hard place already at that point, while Napoleon was not. If Napoleon found himself defeated, he could retreat back to France. But if the Prussians were, then Napoleon was in prime position to cut off all Prussian forces west of the Oder. Neither the Prussians nor the French had good intelligence about the other, but Napoleon's plan to march through the Francoian Forest and wheel to the west threatened to cut off Prussian supply lines, while the Prussian plan (or rather, lack of it) placed their army in a sudden battle for survival where the French dictated the terms and had all the pressure and initiative. Napoleon got lucky that Davout defeated the main Prussian army for him at Auerstedt, but Napoleon's campaign plan meant he only needed to be lucky once to destroy the Prussian army, while the Prussians needed to defeat the French continuously to simply relieve the pressure. 5) Aspern was not Napoleon's first defeat. He had been defeated twice in Italy by Alvinci prior to Rivoli, and once at Acre. Aspern showed Napoleon could still be defeated after 1799, but the significance of this is arguable. While not Napoleon itself, Napoleon's army had already been humiliated a year prior at Bailen, which already shattered the myth of French invincibility. For the war as a whole, Aspern turned out to be only a passing victory, as Wagram came on its heels. Aspern encouraged the Tyroleans, but they had already been revolting (and had already defeated the French) prior to Aspern, and were crushed after Wagram anyway. Aspern is significant in that Napoleon lost many veterans and one of his best commanders, but that's a separate argument from it being Napoleon's "first" defeat. Arguably, in the grand scale of things, Aspern seems significant due to later, unrelated, unforced, and far larger errors Napoleon committed, without which the defeat at Aspern would probably be as meaningful as Ariobarzanes's fleeting success over Alexander at the Persian Gate. 6) Napoleon was ordering frontal assaults as early as Millesimo (and arguably, Toulon) in 1796, not starting with Wagram in 1809. His frontal assaults were also not primarily due to a failure of intelligence (unless you're tautologically defining everything as a failure of intelligence) but because he had specific tactical or strategic reasons for it, whether that was his assessment of what his declining army was capable of, a bid to pin his enemy, seeing his enemy as demoralized and on the verge of breaking under his pressure, or to shock his opponent and wrestle back the initiative. Now, you can say his reasoning was _incorrect_ in this or that circumstance, or argue that the older Napoleon was proportionally less creative and more prone to frontal assaults than the younger Napoleon, but to say Napoleon turned to frontal assaults simply because of a failure of intelligence is puzzling unless you're tautologically counting every incorrect military calculation as a failure of intelligence. 7) Not exactly. Depending on the source (for both battles), the Japanese victory over the Russians was Mukden in 1905 involved more men. There are also, obviously, ancient sources that claim this or that battle had a million or hundreds of thousands of men (ex. Gaugamela and Salsu), but these numbers are admittedly absurd, not taken seriously, and unconfirmable (with the possible exception of battles with a long and large archeological record like Changping, which apparently have mass graves turning up two thousand years later - at the very least, such evidence would provide a minimum based on the number of dead discovered, and a maximum based on the expected proportion extent of decay).

That'snot quite correct. The Battle of Mudken in the Russo Japanese War was about the same size if nor slightly bigger.

Yeah it's too bad this skips over some crucial battles and highlights some much less relevant ones

Almost ALL RU-vid videos have sponsors. Sponsors pay the creators money so they can have housing, food, video equipment and research time. That way you and I don't have to Venmo creators money so that they can keep giving us such wonderful content. I'm surprised that anyone doesn't know this!

second this, Dan is out here earning a paycheck.

@@hydroplaneing There is a big difference between a sponsored video, and a video with an baked in ad segment. I'm surprised that anyone doesn't know this!

@@MTGeomancerI assume any "free" content has sponsors and don't waste time complaining about it. Sponsors are sponsors no matter how they come: a nuisance we have to put up with. Heck, you can have an 30 minute ad on TV that has sponsors!

Aspern-Essling, Eylau, Smolensk, Berezina, Somosierra.

Don’t forget the Alamo too.

He was a terrible person, its easy to appreciate his accomplishments but to love him seems odd

Surely you mean hate? The man was a tyrant who killed up to millions.

Spoken like a loving Kutuzov fanboy. It's is undeniable how much troops were lost in advancing to Russia to start a domino effect that would lead to Napoleon downward spiral. @@DalgarIOM

Agreed 👌🏻

Even asking the question is already a bit ridiculous

A British guy, questioning Napolean's preeminence...what a shocker. lol

@@hbullock Napolean gifted the 19th century to the British. As an Englishman he is alright with me.

@@hbullockLOL! 🤣

Every Napoleonic list seems to always include the Battle of the Pyramids. But I agree. Napoleon fought 61 battles, many of which were decisive. 10 do not do Napoleon justice. I have a suspicion he picked the battles found in the Napoleon movie, since they are a sponsor of the video.

🤣🤣…🥶

This is why Russia has never been invaded by Minnesotans. We know better. 😅

Perhaps, in a video "The Key Battles That Made Admiral Nelson".

@@tibsky1396 exactly what i was thinking

Trafalgar did a great deal more than prevent Napoleon from invading Britain. On the one hand, it deprived Napoleon of his overseas empire, trashed France's maritime trade and ruined the French economy, thereby constraining Napoleon's ability to maintain his military machine. On the other hand, Trafalgar allowed Britain to monopolize global trade, massively enriching it and enabling it to fully fund its allies, who were thereafter able to outmatch Napoleon in terms of equipment and manpower. It might be boring, but wars are decided by economics, and it was France's economic weakness which doomed Napoleon to defeat. Put bluntly, he couldn't afford enough allies, enough men, enough guns, enough horses or enough food; and no amount of tactical brilliance could ever offset this disadvantage. In the final analysis, the war swung this way and that, with victories and defeats, and yet more victories and defeats, until France finally ran out of money and was facing starvation - and it was Trafalgar, more than any other battle, which caused this to happen.

Well, desaix was under Bonaparte's order. And it's not like Napoleon didn't have plenty of glory to begin with, or that he was ungrateful towards his good generals

He did talk about the battle extensively, and described how Bonaparte lost a third of his Grande Armee at Borodino (which was why the French army "lost more men in the advance into Russia than the retreat").

Hello, I'm Charles Nike Watching from Florida Jacksonville USA. I'm sorry if I may appear intrusive I just want to let you know I didn't know this kind of beauty 😍 still exist, What's your name and where are you watching from?

I can not figure out why Ridley Scott several times would portray events that did not happen, like Napoleon leading cavalry charges or trenches at Waterloo. The two "historical consultants" listed in the credits should be embarrassed. If Scott got obvious things wrong, one wonders how accurate he was about Josephine.

There is, the lines of Wellington... I am sure there are others. John Malkovich plays Wellignton in that film

Because Beethoven's Third was written to honor Napoleon. Beethoven switched the title of the Third, after it was already finished, to Eroica only after Napoleon had crowned himself Emperor.

@@taivo55 Beethoven realized that he was a dictator, not a savior. But that's not the point. It seems the Beethoven music fits perfectly to Napoleon's life. I heard it in many Napoleon documentaries. BTW To me it makes perfect sense to put a funeral march into the 2nd movement of the Eroica. And for you?

​@@DressedForDrowning Most rulers in that age were dictators to one extent or another, but I think that Beethoven's major objection was the taking of such a charged title as "emperor" with its anti-revolutionary implications of hereditary privilege. It is, of course, one of Beethoven's masterworks (an odd number, of course, LOL).

1970 Waterloo Historical Drama Epic Movie. Marshal Blucher! I have ordered to retreat. Retreat?! I am 72 & a proud soldier! This Steel is my word! I am too old to brake it. If Wellington runs for the coast, none of us will get home to Berlin. I do not trust the British.

Everyday I think about the French Empire

The entire force that invaded Russia was 700k, 30k was a third of the army that took part in the battle of Borodino - first of all, the French forces suffered horrendous casualties during the campaign so they had a force nowhere near 700k by the time of Borodino. Secondly, only a part of the remaining French forces took part in the battle.

STOP SPAMMING

*KEYBOARD WARRIOR*

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

*R34ARD*

🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪

Calling yourself out?@@frontenac5083

His supply lines were incredibly stretched out and weak by that point. If he had stayed in Moscow, the Russians would have most likely regrouped and surround him. He had no choice but to pull back.

Much of Moscow aside from the Kremlin had been burnt to the ground. His army would not have been able to live off the land.

@@raylaylin4229 I suppose in retrospect anything sounds better than what they did. March into cold death with no food or shore up what remains of a destroyed city and live off the remaining citizens while waiting to be laid under seige. No good choices left.

@@zowaeh1829 It's one of those hindsight things, you always think theres somewhere to go or to get back from but you do that enough times you realise that wherever you go there you are. Think I would have deserted and married a Russian girl rather than turn around and do the same journey back but in winter without food. But theres that hindsight thing again.

@@matthewmckever2312 Assuming the Cossacks did not find you first. Nobody gives credit to the Russian Army. Napoleon did set aside supply depots. But the Russian Army blocked Napoleon and captured them - thus making him retrace his steps over desolate terrain.

Man has to eat.

Jealous, loser? (Rhetorical question.)

🤡🤡🤡

Virtue signaling? (rhetorical in spirit)@@frontenac5083