Napoleon's Military Successes The Empire example essay topic

There is little doubt that Napoleon's military skill and genus is unparalleled. Although not an innovator (he refused to replace the musket with a better weapon), he used speed and soldier's courage to plough through the early campaigns securing more land for France's expanding empire. The charismatic quality of his leadership made him a hero with his troops. He was often seen to be going through the troops, addressing them by name and recalling when they had fought with him previously.

Wellington said, "the morale effect of his presence in the field is worth an additional 40,000 men". Napoleon's ability to motivate his troops made them eager to serve him in the battlefield, and win great victories. Napoleon was wise when it came to dividing his troops effectively to surround the enemy and crush them (Ulm-1805.) Napoleon organised his troops into separate divisions under Marshals such as Ney and Soult. Each division marched a mile apart when approaching the enemy. The divisions would have individual orders but, when the enemy attacked one division, they could all be called to assist. Napoleon as I said earlier was not an innovative leader.

He used old tactics, but the difference was, he used them differently and more effectively. His tactic was always to force the enemy into a situation that they didn't want to be in. From there he would exploit their weaknesses and eventually crush them. The greatest example of this was at Austerlitz in 1805. Here, Napoleon defeated a numerically superior force of Austrians and Russians purely by clever trickery. French losses were minimal compared to the enemy, and Napoleon was a hero.

In Other battles like Jena and Auerstadt, Napoleon used the rapid movement or his large army to cover wide distances and attack the enemy from all sides. From his early military days, Napoleon showed an intense flair for improvisation. He would always plan his battles (geography of the landscape was his forte) well in advance but, would change them in the heat of the moment, providing on how the battle was going. When Napoleon was winning battles, he had the support of his men and, the empire was expanding. When he wasn't winning battles, the empire was not. It is true to say that without Napoleon's military successes the empire would not have grown to its size in 1808.

The proposition is supported that, when Napoleon was loosing, the empire was not expanding. This suggests Napoleon's military victories were fundamental in the growth and maintenance of the empire. However, there were faults in Napoleon's military ability. Napoleon was only a good general on the battlefield, he knew nothing about the sea or its ways, and even admitting his knowledge of naval matters was rudimentary. His inability to recognise new innovations that would aid his troops was also detrimental. He ignored a new gun, in place of the musket, which had poor accuracy and was slow to load.

Napoleon always kept his plans to himself until the very last moment. This meant that Marshals were often confused, causing a weakness in the chain of command. Napoleon relied heavily on soldier's courage, not ability and, didn't introduce new training to aid the conscripted French people who had little or no formal military background. There were other factors in the rise of Napoleon's empire as well as Napoleon's own military strength. There was also his use of exploiting rifts between countries in the coalitions.

Napoleon would always keep one coalition country as an ally while he fought others. Often, they were tempted by land and, didn't trust one and other. Only Britain, the isolated island remained an enemy of France for the entirety of the Napoleonic era. France was also able to secure peace treaties like the peace of Amiens (1802) where France agreed to withdraw from the Papal States and Naples.

This gave France valuable breathing space. The treaty of Lu neville marked the end of the second coalition and the Tsar exasperatedly withdrew his forces from Western Europe. The treaty also made Austria recognise France's possession of Belgium and Luxembourg. The weaknesses between the allied countries and the destruction of the coalitions made it easier for Napoleon to build upon his empire and conquer all of Europe. Napoleon was also keen on exploiting the weakness of other country's leaders. For example Tsar Alexander, who proved to be weak and in experienced in battle.

Napoleon's battles in Europe were helped by the fact that France had the largest population. Napoleon had a pool of 28 million Frenchman whom he could call up at will. These people fought to preserve the revolutionary idealism and liked Napoleon and his victories. As all the battles up until the Spanish campaign were self-financing, they didn't have to pay taxes, which was a bonus. People in the annexed countries were forced to pay in taxation.

Napoleon could loot Cities and towns as he went along. Prussia for example, had to come up with 311 million francs to pay France after their defeat at Jena. They were powerless to agree a peace treaty as Napoleon had one so convincingly. He took cultural artefacts, personal savings, anything that would please his troops and help France's economy. France's Economy by now was looking far better. Napoleon had improved the infrastructure while countries like Austria were financially exhausted, making their land easy prey for Napoleon and the Grand Armee.

Lastly, Napoleon was a great believer in luck. Always when a new general or Marshal came along, he would ask, "does he have luck?" Luck seemed to always fall at Napoleon's feet during the early campaigns, for example the battle of Marengo (1800) where Napoleon was nearly defeated. Napoleon's rise to ruler of France and conqueror of Europe has a certain degree of luck. However, His military victories were the presiding factor in his success in creating a large empire. Without his flare for warfare and his ability to beat numerically stronger armies with clever tactics, Napoleon would still be pealing potatoes in Corsica. General grant said of Napoleon Of course the first emperor was a great genius, but one of the most selfish and cruel men in history.

Outside of his military skill I do not see a redeeming trait in his character. He abused France for his own ends and brought incredible disasters upon his country to gratify his selfish ambition. I do not think any genius can excuse a crime like that. Napoleon was ill suited to running an empire, as his political skills were hardly as good as his military power.

The whole empire was fiendishly impractical. Without Napoleon's military victories, his empire would not have existed. However, there were many other reasons as to why he was able to achieve such a large empire so quickly. His enemies were hardly first class every time, and he was able to exploit this. He was able to fund his wars as he went along, allowing him free reign over where he wanted to go without the French public opposing taxation. These are also key reasons as to why his empire was achieved.