Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I need a chronological listing of all battles in the Napoleonic wars..

Anyone have a site to look at ?

Monsieur le Marechal Baron John Corbin
Duc de Paive
Commanding the Division de Cavalerie de la Jeune Garde
NWC President

John,

Try http://www.napoleon-series.org/ In the section Military/List of battles are the lists of all the actions (including minor) even with outcomes and sometimes casualties. Of course both depend on the point of view[:I]

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Mayor Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
commander of Little Russian grenadiers regiment</b></center>

The book you want is <i>The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book: Actions and Losses in Personnel, Colours, Standards and Artillery, 1792-1815</i>, by Digby Smith, Greenhill Books, London, 1998, ISBN 1-85367-276-9. Every significant action from Quaregnon (28-29 April 1792) to the Sieges of Givet and Charlemont (22 August - 24 September 1815). Enjoy! [:D]

<b>Maréchal Bill Peterson</b>
Duc de Zurich, Comte de Besançon
2ème Régiment de Grenadiers à Cheval, Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde
Commandant, Ier Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie (<i>Vae Victis!</i>), AdN, NWC

Somewhat decent lists:

Land Battles:

http://www.historic-battles.com/ForumSoftware/index.php?topic=68.0

Sea Battles:

http://www.historic-battles.com/ForumSoftware/index.php?topic=90.0

<center>--------------------------------------------------------



Herr Windbagenführer General der Infanterie Scott Prinz Ludwig von Saxe-Weimar
Aide-du-Kamp and Webmaster
Heer am Niederrhein

[url="http://www.prussianarmy.com/"]Königliche Preußische Armee[/url]

http://www.networkforgood.org</center>

While Smith's book is an alright book to <font color="orange">start</font id="orange"> with, you should take it with a grain of salt. There are errors in it and as an avowed Napoleon hater, I have found that his views are highly skewed against the French. Its too bad that someone who considers himself to be a "historian" is so biased.

As an example, he misses entirely the GdD Rapp's victory over the Allies at the Battle of Le Souffel on 28 JUN 1815 which has been described elsewhere as the last battle of Napoleonic Era. He calls it "Suffelwyersheim" and says it was an Allied victory over the French. He uses Plotho, Sporschil, Wrede, Straklof, & Voss as his sources.

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Le Tondu</i>
<br />While Smith's book is an alright book to <font color="orange">start</font id="orange"> with, you should take it with a grain of salt. There are errors in it and as an avowed Napoleon hater, I have found that his views are highly skewed against the French. Its too bad that someone who considers himself to be a "historian" is so biased.

As an example, he misses entirely the GdD Rapp's victory over the Allies at the Battle of Le Souffel on 28 JUN 1815 which has been described elsewhere as the last battle of Napoleonic Era. He calls it "Suffelwyersheim" and says it was an Allied victory over the French. He uses Plotho, Sporschil, Wrede, Straklof, & Voss as his sources.

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well all John was looking for was a list and I think that Digby-Smith's book will work fine for him.

Just curious - where do you get your facts that he is a Napoleon hater? I have read several of his works and never saw that in them.

Bill Peters

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Bill (Peters),
Le Tondu is right that Digby professes to hate Napoleon. To a certain extent he uses this as a promotional tool it helps him stand out from the crowd who put Bonaparte on a pedestal. He is frequently to be found on the Napoleon series forum and it doesn't take many posts into a thread before he lets loose a volley about his hatred of the man.

However, this in no way results in a bias to his work which is invariably meticulously researched well sourced, and generally respected by other authors in this field.

I am not sure where Le Tondu gets the impression that his work is biased - especially in the case of the data book. This book is a listing of the engagements, about 1,200 of them from 1792 to 1815. There is detail of the date, location, forces and outcome of each engagement. These are all sourced facts, so I find it difficult to understand how Digby is supposed to have applied bias to these.

John,
Regarding the battle of Le Souffel, this battle is in the data book. It is listed as Suffelweyersheim (sic) on page 552. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with calling it by this name. This was the name of the village where the principal action took place. Le Souffel is the name of the river the Allied forces were attempting to cross. This is no different to naming the battle of Borodino as the Battle of the Moskowa.

There is a minor error in the name in that Suffelweyersheim was the Germanic form of the name when this region was part of Prussia / Germany in the period 1870-1918. The correct form of the name shoudl be Souffelweyersheim. This may reflect the date that the sources used were written, or that the germans have always named it such just as the French name London, Londres. It is no big deal.

The five sources cited by Le Tondu for the book are those that were used for this action at Souffelweyersheim. The bibliography lists some 200 books / monographs that were used to compile the data for the whole book. After each action the sources used are detailed allowing further reading about the actions.

Staying with Le Tondu's observations about this battle, it is listed as an Allied victory. It was an engagement between Rapp's corps which had been recalled to Paris and the lead elements of the 200,000 strong Austrian army advancing into France. The battle took place as the Austrians and Wurtemburg troops attempted to cross the river Souffel in the face of Rapp's corps. The French inflicted heavy casualties on the Allies (Rapp's memoires state French: 700 killed / wounded; Allies: 1,500 to 2,000 killed and a greater number wounded). However, this only bought time for the French to withdraw to the fortress at Strasbourg, while the rest of the Allied army moved up.

To claim the battle as a French victory would be akin to claiming that the Russians won the battle of Eylau.

Digby does state that the Allied army losses were 'Not known, slight.' which may be the case from the references used. Rapp's memoires were not listed as a reference and it would be impractical for a work of this scope to consult every available memoire for each of the 1,200 engagements. In the context of the size of the Austrian army, I do not find it unreasonable to state that the losses were slight.

Another interesting piece of information about this action is that the day after the battle, the inhabitants of Souffelweyersheim (17 or 18 including mayor Georges Schaeffer) were rounded up and taken before an Allied general, accused of having taken the side of the French and having traitorously fired on the Allied soldiers. An intercession by pastor Dannenberger saved the inhabitants from execution, but they were gathered on the Muhlmatten on the 29th June while the Allied soldiers burned the village of Souffelweyersheim down.

It is also interesting to note that the website for the town records the battle as 'The allies gained the victory but at the price of heavy losses.' So perhaps Digby was not so wrong after all.

Personally, John, I highly recommend this book. The additional information provided above came from a few quick google searches and a check through some of my own books. But I would have known nothing of this engagement had it not been for Digby's book to begin with.

If, however, you only need to know the battles for a limited period, or want more detail about only the major battles, then in the first case email me and I can provide you with a summary for a particular campaign and in the second case, you might try 'Campaigns of Napoleon' by David Chandler which walks you through each of the campaigns and discusses the principal engagments.

Regards

Mark

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by John Corbin</i>
<br />I need a chronological listing of all battles in the Napoleonic wars..

Anyone have a site to look at ?

Monsieur le Marechal Baron John Corbin
Duc de Paive
Commanding the Division de Cavalerie de la Jeune Garde
NWC President
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Heres a good link with an EXCELLENT list.The language is German but its very comprehensive.It includes just about all actions of the Napoleonic war.Im sure the german members will be able to translate
http://miniatures.de/html/ger/1799-1815.html

http://hometown.aol.de/monsmoy/images/cannon.gif

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mark Eason</i>
<br />Bill (Peters),
Le Tondu is right that Digby professes to hate Napoleon. To a certain extent he uses this as a promotional tool it helps him stand out from the crowd who put Bonaparte on a pedestal. He is frequently to be found on the Napoleon series forum and it doesn't take many posts into a thread before he lets loose a volley about his hatred of the man.

However, this in no way results in a bias to his work which is invariably meticulously researched well sourced, and generally respected by other authors in this field.

I am not sure where Le Tondu gets the impression that his work is biased - especially in the case of the data book. This book is a listing of the engagements, about 1,200 of them from 1792 to 1815. There is detail of the date, location, forces and outcome of each engagement. These are all sourced facts, so I find it difficult to understand how Digby is supposed to have applied bias to these.

John,
Regarding the battle of Le Souffel, this battle is in the data book. It is listed as Suffelweyersheim (sic) on page 552. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with calling it by this name. This was the name of the village where the principal action took place. Le Souffel is the name of the river the Allied forces were attempting to cross. This is no different to naming the battle of Borodino as the Battle of the Moskowa.

There is a minor error in the name in that Suffelweyersheim was the Germanic form of the name when this region was part of Prussia / Germany in the period 1870-1918. The correct form of the name shoudl be Souffelweyersheim. This may reflect the date that the sources used were written, or that the germans have always named it such just as the French name London, Londres. It is no big deal.

The five sources cited by Le Tondu for the book are those that were used for this action at Souffelweyersheim. The bibliography lists some 200 books / monographs that were used to compile the data for the whole book. After each action the sources used are detailed allowing further reading about the actions.

Staying with Le Tondu's observations about this battle, it is listed as an Allied victory. It was an engagement between Rapp's corps which had been recalled to Paris and the lead elements of the 200,000 strong Austrian army advancing into France. The battle took place as the Austrians and Wurtemburg troops attempted to cross the river Souffel in the face of Rapp's corps. The French inflicted heavy casualties on the Allies (Rapp's memoires state French: 700 killed / wounded; Allies: 1,500 to 2,000 killed and a greater number wounded). However, this only bought time for the French to withdraw to the fortress at Strasbourg, while the rest of the Allied army moved up.

To claim the battle as a French victory would be akin to claiming that the Russians won the battle of Eylau.

Digby does state that the Allied army losses were 'Not known, slight.' which may be the case from the references used. Rapp's memoires were not listed as a reference and it would be impractical for a work of this scope to consult every available memoire for each of the 1,200 engagements. In the context of the size of the Austrian army, I do not find it unreasonable to state that the losses were slight.

Another interesting piece of information about this action is that the day after the battle, the inhabitants of Souffelweyersheim (17 or 18 including mayor Georges Schaeffer) were rounded up and taken before an Allied general, accused of having taken the side of the French and having traitorously fired on the Allied soldiers. An intercession by pastor Dannenberger saved the inhabitants from execution, but they were gathered on the Muhlmatten on the 29th June while the Allied soldiers burned the village of Souffelweyersheim down.

It is also interesting to note that the website for the town records the battle as 'The allies gained the victory but at the price of heavy losses.' So perhaps Digby was not so wrong after all.

Personally, John, I highly recommend this book. The additional information provided above came from a few quick google searches and a check through some of my own books. But I would have known nothing of this engagement had it not been for Digby's book to begin with.

If, however, you only need to know the battles for a limited period, or want more detail about only the major battles, then in the first case email me and I can provide you with a summary for a particular campaign and in the second case, you might try 'Campaigns of Napoleon' by David Chandler which walks you through each of the campaigns and discusses the principal engagments.

Regards

Mark
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Mark - thanks for the info. Now that forum makes ours look like a church meeting. I have been over there a few times and everytime Dave Hollins says something his arch enemy has to pipe in and make it a brawl. I get a kick out of how folks dislike this forum. All I need do is point them to the Napoleonc series forum and that lightens them up a bit.

Is there a Turk-Greek forum on the web? Now that one would really be heated! [:D]

Almost as heated as a Alamo forum! Talk about brawls. More people have DIED over who was at the Alamo than the original cast! ACW is another hot one. Just bring up Longstreet's name on a ACW history forum and you can dig through over 200 responses before you make head or tails out of it.

Or rugby!! [:p]

Anyway, thanks for the heads up on D-S. I might pop in at the forum and add in a nice comment about Napoleon's greatness! Arent I a stinker? [;)]

Say, maybe Al and I could take turns over there!!!! [:p][:p][:p]

Bill Peters

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Bill,

The conflict has pretty much ended over there now. Dave Hollins posts no more - not sure if his access was revoked but I've not seen anything from him for a good while now.

Kevin Kiley, the other side of the brawls hasn't been seen there recently either.

It is actually a much more constructive place to visit now as you don't have to wade through those endless, circular threads. Al is a regular there these days.

If you really want to rile Digby though, just post a message about what a decent sort Suchet was, and how his benevolence brought wonders to the Spanish people. Then call 911 and have a medevac crew on alert in yorkshire as Digby will really blow a gasket over that one [}:)]

Regards

Mark

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mark Eason</i>
<br />Bill (Peters),
Le Tondu is right that Digby professes to hate Napoleon. To a certain extent he uses this as a promotional tool it helps him stand out from the crowd who put Bonaparte on a pedestal. He is frequently to be found on the Napoleon series forum and it doesn't take many posts into a thread before he lets loose a volley about his hatred of the man.

However, this in no way results in a bias to his work which is invariably meticulously researched well sourced, and generally respected by other authors in this field.

I am not sure where Le Tondu gets the impression that his work is biased - especially in the case of the data book. This book is a listing of the engagements, about 1,200 of them from 1792 to 1815. There is detail of the date, location, forces and outcome of each engagement. These are all sourced facts, so I find it difficult to understand how Digby is supposed to have applied bias to these.

John,
Regarding the battle of Le Souffel, this battle is in the data book. It is listed as Suffelweyersheim (sic) on page 552. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with calling it by this name. This was the name of the village where the principal action took place. Le Souffel is the name of the river the Allied forces were attempting to cross. This is no different to naming the battle of Borodino as the Battle of the Moskowa.

There is a minor error in the name in that Suffelweyersheim was the Germanic form of the name when this region was part of Prussia / Germany in the period 1870-1918. The correct form of the name shoudl be Souffelweyersheim. This may reflect the date that the sources used were written, or that the germans have always named it such just as the French name London, Londres. It is no big deal.

The five sources cited by Le Tondu for the book are those that were used for this action at Souffelweyersheim. The bibliography lists some 200 books / monographs that were used to compile the data for the whole book. After each action the sources used are detailed allowing further reading about the actions.

Staying with Le Tondu's observations about this battle, it is listed as an Allied victory. It was an engagement between Rapp's corps which had been recalled to Paris and the lead elements of the 200,000 strong Austrian army advancing into France. The battle took place as the Austrians and Wurtemburg troops attempted to cross the river Souffel in the face of Rapp's corps. The French inflicted heavy casualties on the Allies (Rapp's memoires state French: 700 killed / wounded; Allies: 1,500 to 2,000 killed and a greater number wounded). However, this only bought time for the French to withdraw to the fortress at Strasbourg, while the rest of the Allied army moved up.

To claim the battle as a French victory would be akin to claiming that the Russians won the battle of Eylau.

Digby does state that the Allied army losses were 'Not known, slight.' which may be the case from the references used. Rapp's memoires were not listed as a reference and it would be impractical for a work of this scope to consult every available memoire for each of the 1,200 engagements. In the context of the size of the Austrian army, I do not find it unreasonable to state that the losses were slight.

Another interesting piece of information about this action is that the day after the battle, the inhabitants of Souffelweyersheim (17 or 18 including mayor Georges Schaeffer) were rounded up and taken before an Allied general, accused of having taken the side of the French and having traitorously fired on the Allied soldiers. An intercession by pastor Dannenberger saved the inhabitants from execution, but they were gathered on the Muhlmatten on the 29th June while the Allied soldiers burned the village of Souffelweyersheim down.

It is also interesting to note that the website for the town records the battle as 'The allies gained the victory but at the price of heavy losses.' So perhaps Digby was not so wrong after all.

Personally, John, I highly recommend this book. The additional information provided above came from a few quick google searches and a check through some of my own books. But I would have known nothing of this engagement had it not been for Digby's book to begin with.

If, however, you only need to know the battles for a limited period, or want more detail about only the major battles, then in the first case email me and I can provide you with a summary for a particular campaign and in the second case, you might try 'Campaigns of Napoleon' by David Chandler which walks you through each of the campaigns and discusses the principal engagments.

Regards

Mark
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Süffelweyersheim

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by etrapanob</i>

Süffelweyersheim
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Andy

Not sure you are right. Looking at sites with the German and French names for locations in Alsace, I have not found one that shows the german form with the umlaut over the u. I thought this may be just ease of typing but some of the other place names do have it - so probably not the case. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/michel.barbier/AlsaLor-DSecSur.html

I guess a look at a german map from the 1870 - 1918 period ought to clear it up.

By the way, how do you get those symbols (umlaut, accents etc.) in the text here. I can do it in a word processor and copy and paste but that's too much effort - I figure there must be an easier way, what's the secret

Regards

Mark

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mark Eason</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by etrapanob</i>

Süffelweyersheim
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Andy

Not sure you are right. Looking at sites with the German and French names for locations in Alsace, I have not found one that shows the german form with the umlaut over the u. I thought this may be just ease of typing but some of the other place names do have it - so probably not the case. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/michel.barbier/AlsaLor-DSecSur.html

I guess a look at a german map from the 1870 - 1918 period ought to clear it up.

By the way, how do you get those symbols (umlaut, accents etc.) in the text here. I can do it in a word processor and copy and paste but that's too much effort - I figure there must be an easier way, what's the secret

Regards

Mark
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
sorry my mistake ,i read it wrong .I have a German keyboard

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by etrapanob</i>
I have a German keyboard<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

D'oh !!

So obvious when you think about it

Thanks Andy

Mark

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mark Eason</i>
By the way, how do you get those symbols (umlaut, accents etc.) in the text here. I can do it in a word processor and copy and paste but that's too much effort - I figure there must be an easier way, what's the secret<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You can use the 'Character Map' applet that comes with Windows. Just have it open and you can quickly copy and paste 'special' characters from it.

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/Napoleonic/nap.htm"]Lieutenant Colonel Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/anglo_allied_army_stats/Anglo_Allied_Army_Cavalry_Corps.htm"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps[/url] ~
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/dragoons.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
</center>