Re: French Military Victories
- From: am05@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 3 Nov 2005 07:06:15 -0800
Raktizer Omheit wrote:
> <am05@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1130965096.456735.158310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Raktizer Omheit wrote:
> >
> >> The might of the Napoleonic French army was
> >> dramatically shown when they crushingly defeated the army of the German
> >> Kingdom of Hohenzollern Brandenburg-Prussia at the battle of
> >> Jena-Auerstedt
> >> in 1806, and at the battle of Friedland in 1807, both located deep within
> >> Prussian territory.
> >
> > At Friedland he actually defeated Russian army.
> >
> > Sorry, my mistake, am05.
> >
> >>Even after
> >> Napoleon's disastrous defeat in Russia in 1812, largely because of the
> >> harsh
> >> Russian winter,
> >
> > Actually, the winter was not harsh during most of his retreat and he
> > lost
> > huge numbers of people and horses due to the heat of the Russian
> > summer.
> >
> > Actually, it was harsh AFTER his retreat from Moscow, am05.
No, this is a popular legend but not a fact. The winter was reasonably
mild all
the way from Russia (ice on Berezina did not settle yet) and the real
cold started
only when French entered Lithuania.
However, N's army suffered huge losses by a number of reasons:
(a) The baggage train was not properly organized except in the Guard
and Davout's
corps. As a result, food was short and the discipline was failing.
(b) The horses, except those of Imperial household, were not shod
properly and had
been falling in the big numbers (quite a few of them had been picked up
by the
Russian and placed on service). Which, among other things, had a
negative impact
on a baggage train and supplies. Which, in turn, impacted discipline
even further.
French were surrendering in the big numbers and the small marauding
parties were
an easy prey for everyone from the regular partisans to the local
peasants. When these
undisciplined mobs reached the French supply bases, they usually looted
them
with a lot of waste.
(c) According to some contemporary Russian eyewitnesses, the French (in
general)
did not know how to handle even a reasonably mild but snowy winter in
the terms
of clothing and footwear even when 'materials' were available. It is
very easy to catch
a cold in a snow just by getting the wet feet and if you don't have a
shelter and proper
food, chances to die (not as much from the cold but from exhaustion)
are really high.
> >
> >
> >>the large distance from Warsaw to Moscow, the Russian
> >> scorched earth tactics,
> >
> > ... which actually never was implemented on any serious scale...
> >
> > Yes it was implemented on a large scalo, am05.
> >
It never was. Barclay forbade it. Kutuzov never spelled it out and,
anyway he
received command too close to Moscow for this to be of any effect even
if it was
implemented.
> >>the large Russian population,
> >
> > Russia was not a densely populated country at this time.
> >
> > It still had the largest population in Europe am05, when Russia includes
> > all those territories that once formed part of the U.S.S.R.
> >
You are talking about the different times. Population can not be
computed
retroactively and situation in the early XIX had little to do with one
of mid XX.
For comparison, IIRC, at the times of Peter the Great Russia had appr.
the same
population as France or even less.
Not to mention that when you are talking about _density_ you have
remember
size of a territory as well. Russian population was dispersed over the
huge territory
and, except for few big centers, was not dense at all. What is more
important, is
that Russian mobilization abilities were relatively low thanks to the
unefficient
social system and to the fact that, unlike France, Russia did not have
an universal
military service. In 1812 Russia did not have anything comparable to
the numbers of
the Grand Army (450-500K, if Nappy is to be believed).
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The French had moments of military glory
> >
> > Actually, periods which lasted longer than Napoleon's reign: most of
> > the
> > rieign of Louis XIV France was the 1st military power in Europe
> > balanced
> > only by alliances of the various european powers....
> >
> > True am05, but Napoleon's conquests were far bigger in territory.
Indeed. I was just pointing out that these 'moments' amount to a big
chunk of a
modern history.
[]
> >
> >>
> >> The French and their Scottish allies were to have far less success
> >> against
> >> the Anglo-Normans during the so-called Hundred Years' War of 1337-1453
> >
> > Except that they eventually managed to kick English out of all
> > territories
> > they occupied in France, except Calais. I'd say, there were
> > extraordinary
> > successful in a long run.
> >
> > Took them an awfully long time to do it, am05, some 116 years between
> > 1337-1453, and with high casualties too.
It does not really matter if we are talking about result. After 100YW
France was in a
posession of all French lands which the English ruled sinse what, XII
century?
AFAIK, a negative impact of the 100YW on English economy started
showing decades
before it was over and when it was over, England was plunged into a
long civil war.
Never again was it capable to carry _alone_ a major war on the European
continent
(unless one is willing to consider the Duke's campaigns in Spain and
Portugal as a
completely isolated event, which IMO is not correct).
> >
> >> because they refused to adopt the use of the English longbow, which the
> >> English were to use until the 1580's.
> >
> > They actually tried to adopt it but eventually figured out that the
> > firearms
> > are better. Last two battles of 100YW proved this.
> >
> > The Battle of Guinegate against the French in 1513, and the Battle of
> > Flodden Field in 1513 against the Scots still proved that the English
> > longbow was a powerful weapon, and repeating rifles were still a long way
> > off in the future. However, the English also had the help of the Germans
> > at Guinegate, am05.
English lost at Fromigny and Castillion (sp) thanks to the French
firearms and, even
with the modern rifles being unavailable for quite a while, the
firearms were the way
to go.
This did not mean that the bow immediately became obsolete: in mid-XVII
it still was
a powerful weapon, as was demonstrated during Khmelnitsky upraising:
the Tatars
were a 'swing factor' in this war and their main weapon still was a
bow.
> >
> >
> >> The Scottish and French never adopted the use of the longbow
> >
> > Not true because French had numerous archers. They were just not
> > numerous
> > enough and probably not of the best quality.
> >
> > No, am05. The French did not have their own crossbow archers,
I was talking about the _archers_, not crossbowmen. French tried to
mimic the
English system but with no visible success.
> as opposed
> > to mercenary Genoese crossbow archers, until 1429, and the crossbow had a
> > slower rate of fire, smaller range, poorer accuracy, and less penetrating
> > power than the crossbow,
crossbow has less <whatever> than a crossbow? I'm not sure that I'm
following you.
>although the Mongolian composite bow had a range
> > twice as long, and a penetrating power twice as strong, as that of the
> > English longbow.
With all my infatuation with the Mongols I'm not sure that your
information is
necessarily correct, unless you are talking about some outstanding
cases (with the
special sport/hunting bows) as opposite to the average level. 'Twice'
looks a little bit
too high.
>>The Mongolian horse archers were the best soldiers in the
> > world in the open field of battle for their time.
> >
They were quite good in the sieges as well and their main strenght was
not in a weaponry
they were using but in their superb military organization. Ability to
plan (successfully)
coordinated operations for the columns separated by the hundreds of
miles was a
difficult task even in XIX century. Drilling troops to such a degree
thatthey can
implement the complicated maneuvers on a battlefield also was one of
the most
difficult tasks for the modern armies.
> >> was because
> >> their aristocacracy did not trust their middle-class farmers,
> >
> > The problem was not a distrust but the low numbers of the personally
> > free
> > farmers in France.
> >
> > Then what is Scotland's excuse am05? Too many crofters and not enough
> > yeomen?
I was talking strictly about France. Do not feel myself qualified to
tell something
definite about Scotland.
> >
> >>The French and
> >> Scottish armies had another reason why they refused to use the longbow,
> >> and
> >> that was because it was considered to be unchivalrous to kill the enemy
> >> from
> >> a distance with a longbow.
> >
> > Clearly they did not have any problems with doing the same thing by
> > using the
> > crossbows and firearms and by hiring extremely unchivalrious Swiss
> > pikemen
> > as well.
> >
> > Why hire Swiss pikemen as mercenaries when you can train your own
> > countrymen as pikemen, am05?
The same reason: not enough free men. They actually tried with the
Bretons,
Gasconians and, IIRC, people from Picardy. But an average French
peasant was
not (AFAIK) considered a suitable material and attempts of Francois I
to do something
about creation of the national infantry failed. Even Richelieau had big
problems with
raising a _national_ army and had to buy the whole army of
'Bernardines'.
Swiss, OTOH, provided a steady source of the high-quality infantry
always available
for money. The temptation to use something ready as opposite to launch
an
experiment with unpredictable outcome was too great to resist.
.
- References:
- Re: French Military Victories
- From: am05
- Re: French Military Victories
- Prev by Date: Re: French Military Victories
- Next by Date: Re: Why the Roman Empire Fell
- Previous by thread: Re: French Military Victories
- Next by thread: Re: French Military Victories
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
