How did Napoleons General ship made him successful.
There can be no doubt that several factors triggered napoleons successful while factors such as the quality of the French army that Napoleon inherited and Napoleons position of head of state were contributing factors towards his success there were more important factors including the lack of a modernisation of the army’s that Napoleon faced and the simple weakness of Napoleons enemies. While they contributed more towards Napoleon success there can be no doubt that Napoleon’s generalship, his ability to command, was what made him truly successful as this lead to him using tactics and techniques to greatly improve his army and so achieve dominance in Europe.
Napoleon is widely re-known as one of the greatest military generals in history; Carl von Clausewitz even went as far to call Napoleon the god of war. What made his army so ruthless was the modernisation at the end of the revolution. He divided his army into Corps each having cavalry infantry and artillery meaning they would be capable of holding their own. By cutting the army into smaller groups Napoleon had dramatically improved the mobility of his army a key factor behind his great successes. Furthermore Napoleon was head of his Army and did not need to work with a member of royalty or aristocracy meaning orders were much quicker to distribute. These plans had been carefully put together by Napoleon who had spent hours at a time before the battle calculated them extremely accurately so that his plans would already determine the enemy movement. This could be seen at the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon left a large number of reserves behind his weak flank to catch the assaulting Russians of guard and then quickly turn the tables on his enemies. It was Napoleons ability as a commanding officers, as a general, that was key in many of his battles as his men for a start were better trained equipped and drilled as well as use efficiently in battle. Other examples of his Brilliant tactical genius is when he enveloped the Austrians in 1796 by using the Alps as a screen, allowing his army to attack the Austrians on two sides.
If Napoleon had not been a good general a simpler General who preferred simpler tactics many of his battle would have been lost as it was Napoleons ability to manoeuvre and prepare his forces for the enemy. Most battle would have ended up being similar to the Battle of Borodino where Napoleon was incapable of leading and it resulted in a “slogging” contest where both sides would hammer each other with waves of attacks until one side couldn’t carry on. On many of Napoleons earlier campaigns that tactics would not have been feasible and so Napoleons career would have been cut short. While the fact that Napoleon inherited a relatively effective French military it was the fact that we was a good general that lead him to modernise it turn into the legendary Grande Armee. Even then however the training and modernisation would not have mattered if Napoleon was incapable of leading his troops and using his tactical genius and motivational skills. All battle would simply bare very similar likeness to the battle of the Battle of Borodino where while the French “won” the battle they lost the war as the long battle lead to the evacuation and then subsequent burning of Moscow. While a vast number of this army had been exceptionally trained and drilled in tactics it was nothing without the revolutionary tactics of Napoleon. Even when fighting an un-modernised army of Peasants they failed to defeat them quickly and effectively as they could have.
The military forces that opposed Napoleon and France had not be reformed in the same sense the military’s of France had been. The tactics and the way they fought, the way they were lead was all out dated. The makeup of these armies that fought for Prussia, Austria, Russia were largely made up of conscripted men, or press ganged, or they were mercenaries who were paid to fight.