Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

We discussed earlier the loss of Paris and the impact of its loss on the campaign of 1814. It was asserted then that the capture meant the END of the campaign.

Actually in his book, "Napoelon 1814" Andrew Uffindell on page 122, paragraph 1, has this to say about the fall of Paris:

"The fall of Paris did not in itself restore the Bourbons, end the war, or ensure a peaceful settlement of Poland and other outstanding issues between the Allied powers."

He goes on to say further down the page:

"The loss of Paris altered the whole balance of the campaign by dislocating Napoleon's government and removing the advantages that had enabled him to defy superior numbers for so long."

The advantages had to do with it being used as a road hub and depot. Orleans is discussed but discarded as having a poor road system to its rear and not being large enough to facilitate the gathering of manpower for the army.

He says finally, on page 123 para 2, "Above all, the fall of Paris was a psychological blow. The questions was not simply whether Napoleon had the military means to recapture his capital, or whether its population would rise to support his attack, but whether he could retain the confidence of his key subordinates and convince them that further fighting would not be counter-productive."

Thus the fall of Paris did not end the war as the French generals did not capitulate when they saw that they could not hold the city. Rather its use as a road center and depot was gone and unless the generals rallied behind Napoleon it could not be retaken. No, if anyone is to blame it was Joseph for leaving the battle lines to go be with Napoleon's wife at a key juncture in the battle. Not that it could have been won but by withdrawing from the lines it was almost as if his own family was turning against Napoleon.

Could Paris have been retaken? My feeling is that it could have. The Allies were just then reestablishing their supply lines through Belgium after having had them cut (to the Rhine) by Napoleon's armies.

Could Napoleon have won the war? No.

Now let us rehash the loss of the other capitals:

Berlin - The Prussians had the Russians coming to their rescue - the French just had what they had at hand.

Vienna - The Austrians in 1805 had the Russians coming to aid them. Resolve was shown only until December 2nd when an already rickety Austrian government (the worst of the European monarchs IMHO) finally caved in after Austerlitz.

Moscow - sheesh, you have the entire Russian hinterland to fall back to. And St. Petersburg was historically the Russian capital, not Moscow by this time. Lose St. Petersburg and the war might have ended as the court would have been driven either into the east or into exile. But still, unlike Napoleon in 1814, the Russians didn't have a "Wellington" approaching from another flank.

The downfall of Napoleon was not Paris falling - it was his own doing. In the end his lack of diplomatic savvy and ability to gather in newer, younger men as the major leaders of his army (Massena should have been retired after 1809 for instance) he lost all control. Had he negotiated with the Austrians and given them lands in N.Italy and so on (given them Bavaria too perhaps) before the armistace was reached in the Summer of 1813 he may have been able to defeat the Prussians and Russians and remained in control of the Rhineland and Metropolitan France.

But the fall of Paris was a blow there is no doubt. But so was Vienna and Moscow and Berlin. The difference is that those countries had totalitarian regimes that could have their generals heads cut off for disobeying their monarch's desires. Napoleon had men of the Republic. Franz Josef, Frederick-Wilhelm, Alexander all had men that dared not turn on their master.

I believe that had Napoleon appealed to the men in the army like he did in 1815 that the war would have gone on. He could have nullified any agreement made by his subordinates to the Allies and had them removed from power.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.09)

Bill,
I think that the psychological piece was key. When so many of the senior generals felt the war was un-winnable militarily and that the Coalition was not going to be broken, their will to fight was broken by the capture of Paris. I think the question you are raising is why, and how is this different from Berlin, Vienna and Moscow?

A few thoughts:
(1) I think your statement about Russian general's fearing for their heads is incorrect. They had a major stake in the system and were afraid to lose privileges in the French won. It was the same with all of the elites in the old regimes, but perhaps more so in Russia. But you are correct, that Moscow was not the main administrative capitol at the time and that lessened the blow. Considering the high "turn-over" of Russian Monarchs in the preceding 60 years, Alexander had at least as much to fear from his generals as they did from him. It turns out that the same was true for Napoleon, although when his Generals turned on him he did not lose his head...


(2) Michael Leggiere, in The Fall of Napoleon Volume 1., goes into much detail on the coalition politics, as well as the morale (including excerpts from their letters) of the Marshalls. Although this volume stops before the main fighting begins, it seems to me that his point is leading to the idea that after the major fighting in 1814, the coalition was not broken by its varying political interests (Prussia and Russia wanting to limit French power, Austria and Britain wanting a stronger, Bourbon France), despite setbacks on the battlefield. He spends a lot of time looking at the political component of the Coalition and what their war aims were.

The fall of Paris, while offering another opening to split the Coalition, which is certainly what Napoleon was hoping to seize upon, was too much for the Marshalls. They were unwilling to try one more throw of the dice (militarily and politically. It has been much written that they wanted to keep their personal gains but also I think their patriotism was a factor too. From what I have read, the French people were starting to turn as well...

Also, the psychological blow was compounded by 9 years of nearly un-interrupted warfare. All of the other major powers (except Britain, whose soil was never violated) had some time off at some point. I think this played a factor in reaching the breaking point for the French.

(3). Leggiere contends that the French were much more reliant on a centralized administration than their opponents. They had a much more "modern" administration and bureaucracy that could not easily handle dislocation.

So basically, I think that the question "why did the fall of Paris lead to the end of French resistance" can be answered by the question of morale. A combination of military events, internal politics, and the self interest and patriotism of the Marshall's led to the Fall of Paris (and the preceding defeat of Napoleon's main field army at, I believe Arcis) being the breaking point of the morale of the Generals. Events are often greater than the sum of their parts (think the Tet offensive, Pearl Harbor, Fall of Atlanta in 1864) and that the interplay of politics, military events, and morale is complicated....

sorry, that wandered a bit. The hazards of posting at work.

_________________

Bill, I think that you are correct that Napoleon's willingness to continue to try to dictate terms on the battlefield was his downfall. From various sources I have read (have not read Uffindell), it seems that at different points in 1813 and 1814 there were opportunities for him to save his throne and a strong France, but he passed. I think that the war could have been won if he had been able to win larger victories and/or used the ones he did win to split the coalition.

However, it also seems from what I have read that the Coalition was willing to set aside its differences (Poland, Bourbons, Italy, etc) until after Napoleon capitulated. It was that political agreement that he needed to destroy...

_________________

As far as I recall Paris has never been captured and never will be.

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

I must admit, the likelyhood of its capture certainly diminishes so long as you are guarding the gates.

I'll tell you what fellows, I will get Colin drunk so that you can sneak past his defenses. Now, if he drinks me under the table like he beats me on the field of battle, we may need to organize a relay team so that when I pass out, another will continue against him in my stead. Ten or fifteen of us should be able to take him. The only problem I see is that we will need ten or fifteen more to take out Bardin and some of the others as well. Hmmm.....seemingly a mathematical dilemma. Fortunately we have the best recruiter in the club on our side. Even a Tiger tank can be taken out if you have enough Shermans and an indomitable resolve.

Yes, Colin, and Napoleon won Waterloo! Took Acre. Defeated Russia in 1812 ...

And Jimmy Carter solved the energy crisis of the 70s single-handed!

All of these historical truths are of course verified by the French archives.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.09)

How do you know Bill, you can't read French

And I would not recommend getting Colin drunk, because it will only make him concentrate harder. I would advise distracting him by sending him links to Ebay auctions of items from Napoleon's toilet!

_________________

Yeah, that might actually work Jim.

Whaddaya say, Colin? I have heard that Ebay has some really good bargains. Might you be interested in some of Nappy's personal treaures?

You allied rabble are so uncouth, after we have feted the beloved Tondu another time we will finish our celebrations by toasting yet another defeat of the allied mob.

Also Unlike your leaders our's will be in the field as he is a man of action so he has no use for such luxuries as a toilet.

Also Obersty Peters as it's 1809 and the sun of the glorious empire of France is at it's zenith I am afraid I cannot speculate about these mythical battles of the future you talk about.

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

Hmm, three years of French language training, also read Spanish, some German, Greek, Italian and ... working on a couple of other languages ...

Oops.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.09)