r/Napoleon

In your opinion, how common was it for a normal infantry line to stand firm against a cavalry charge during the Napoleonic Wars? Could a unit of regular soldiers realistically remain calm and maintain its formation as the cavalry approached, or would the fear and pressure of the moment usually be enough to make them panic and flee?

I’m particularly interested in how ordinary infantry reacted in these situations. Did discipline and experience make a major difference, or did even well-trained regular troops struggle to stand firm against a cavalry charge?

I have read Chandler’s Camapigns of Napoleon, many books on Waterloo and one really good on his death.
Unfortunately in my city there are very few books on Napoleon and so turned to this to find some good recommendations.
I wanted to read Clausewitz’s Work on the 1796 campaign and De Langeron account of Asuterlitz but I still need to get them.
About Austerlitz, and the 1805 campaign, i wanted to read something more especially after having seen the 1960 movie.
Also the 1806-1807 campaign is something i have read very little next to none, heard Jomini volume 3? Covered it but i don’t know much about him as an author.
But Imma accept any reccommendations.

Se trata de un cuadro de la artista argentina Agostina Mauro que retrata un encuentro entre Napoleón y un joven San Martín que habría ocurrido en Tolón, en 1798. La obra fue entregada por Ian Sielecki, embajador argentino ante Francia.

El homenaje se da en el marco del 176.° aniversario de su paso a la inmortalidad en tierras francesas.

Fuente: Ambassade Argentine en France

Without the help of its allies and the harsh Russian winter, do you think Russia still could have defeated Napoleon in 1812? Considering the Russian strategy of retreat, supply shortages, and the attrition of the Grande Armée, would Russia still have been able to win easily, or would it have been an extremely difficult victory?

Hello I was wondering what other Napoleonic enthusiasts thought about this book. I first read it back in the 1990’s and have reread it on several occasions. I have found it to be an excellent read but it is one of those titles on Napoleon that does receive a lot of mention

I struggled the most with a few things. First of all, it was difficult to decide whether England or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was more powerful in the early 17th century. The most difficult part for me, however, was the second half of the 18th century, particularly the placement of Austria, Prussia and Russia.

Keep in mind that this is about power projection on the European continent and not about power projection anywhere else in the world. That's why Spain and Portugal score lower than you might expect and also why Russia only strarts rising in the 18th century

I also don't view the Ottoman Empire as European power, but as a non-European power that held territory inside Europe. That's why I didn't rank them. (But you are free to discuss were they would be placed)

Last post, Bavarian General Jakob Von Hartmann was placed in “Mediocre But Not Bad” tier.

Top relevant comment decides where a general goes on the tier list.

At the national gallery of art. I can't really believe it.

I recently came across a story about a Polish grenadier company at the Battle of Leipzig in 1813 that was reportedly surrounded and wiped out to the last man.

I’m curious about how accurate this story actually is. Was the company really trapped with no possibility of retreat and fought until the last man, or could this have been exaggerated by later accounts?

Does anyone know which regiment or company was involved, and are there any contemporary sources that describe what happened?

Ney’s hesitation at Quatre Bras on June 16th is one of the biggest "what-ifs" of the entire 1815 campaign. By waiting so long to attack Wellington at the crossroads, he missed a golden opportunity to crush the Anglo-Allies early and join Napoleon to finish off the Prussians at Ligny. ​It always bugged me that Davout was stuck in Paris running the War Ministry while Ney was losing his head on the front line. What if the "Iron Marshal" had been put in command of the left wing at Quatre Bras instead?

From what I read opinions on this subject seem to split in the middle

Camp1: The more popular camp

The Prussian army(Moltke) have invented new system of warfare that made 'Napoleonic warfare' obsolete,Infact it is thanks to their adherence of Napoleon in the face of advance in fire power&technology that result in lackluster performance of these powers in the mid century war(1859 Franco-Austrian,US civil war,Austro-Prussian,Franco-Prussian)

Supposedly only the Prussian have grasp the new realities of war and made improvement on their C&C(There some who even said that the reasons that Napoleon did his finest work in 1814 is because the size of the French army reduced back to the level he can handle,And prior to that he and every else before Moltke can't properly handle hundred thousands strong armies)

This is on top of the Prussian masterly of rail ways and their new armanents(Breech loading rifle and field gun)

Thus the mid century opponents of the Prussian weren't necessarily incompetent they were just behind the time,Even Napoleon(The real one) himself wouldn't have done much better in their shoes

Camp2: Doesn't seem to be as popular with modern historian

The principle of war remain the same.Thus the Prussian success and the failure of their opponents are due to their proper understanding of Napoleon or the lack thereof

The Prussian did well but there are weakness in their deployment and plan,If they face generals imbued with Napoleonic spirit they would be punished badly

Interestingly I have read books debating this subject written in the 1890s so people back then was curious about this too

Which camp are you?

I will admit it's not fully realistic though as they should look much more tired and disheveled!