Gentlemen,do someone know why Bernadotte was so useless and uneffective under Napoleon’s command as a Marechal ,like he didn’t want to fight for the Emperor,even why he was given his marechal’s baton,I know that he was good in Revolutionary wars
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
He had a great record in the Revolutionary Wars and was one of the most experienced generals. He earned insanely fast promotion due to his bravery and leadership. Was important for the great victory at Flereus, and had a great rearguard action to save the army at Theiningin, then conducted a brilliant crossing of the alps to link up with Napoleon, then led the vanguard in mopping up smaller Austrian armies following Rivoli. He was then made minister of war and did an excellent job. Then was made a Marshal and took Munich, then helped close off the Austrians at Ulm, then took Salzburg then helped in the battle of Austerlitz. Controversially he did not march to the aid of Davout at Austadt though his orders were to do march on Dornburg which is what he was doing. Still not his finest moment you have to read and react sometimes even though Napoleon often critized his marshals when they did. He then made up for it though crushing the Prussian reserve army and pursuing them vigorously until they surrendered. He then took Lubeck and prevented his men from sacking it as well as treated Swedish prisoners with dignity and respect which would later comeback to help him become King of Sweden. He missed Eylau do to the courier being sent to him being intercepted. He was made Governor of the Hanseatic league which he did well, then successfully invaded Denmark. He pulled back at Wagram without orders, which was nice for his men but a bad tactical decision but he made up for it by retaking the positions he had abandoned. He is then put in charge of stopping the British Invasion of Holland which he does bottling them up until they are forced to return to Britain. Then he is made Crown Prince of Sweden. His campaigns against Napoleon show his skill in soldiery as well. He drew up the Travhenburg plan then defeated Oufinot at Gosbeeren and Ney at Dennewitz before helping in the Battle of Leipzig. So he was an extremely competent soldier, not useless or ineffective. He was strong willed so he clashed w Napoleon and he was not one of napoleons best marshals but he definitely deserved his marshals baton whereas there are other who didn’t.
Also he was basically family. Bernadotte was married to Desiree who was Julie Clary’s sister.
Julie was married to Joseph Bonaparte. Napoleon took family very seriously (in a bad way lol) and often over promoted family members.
He created a massive fucking hole in the line at wagram and had been dressed down by Napoleon during Ulm campaign before he performed well in mop up duty
He and Moreau did trachenberg plan with Moreau getting majority of credit.
At grossberen and Dennewitzthe Prussian corps and leadership saved the day. He was massively criticized by his allies and enemies at Leipzig
I'm not a bonapartist but you are flat out glazing his record.
We chillin, don’t need to be hating though, only person is an idiot here is Brethel the guy who responded to my comment, because he said Desaix was a better general than Massena, and that Davout was never defeated. I am glazing him a bit I’ll admit, but you seem to really hate Bernadotte. His slow matches might not have been everyone’s favorite but he never ran into a trap and his men were always well rested and taken care of before going into battle which does matter. At Ulm he helped close the trap, why did he get dressed down? And ya I said the Wagram thing but he did go and fill that hole right after. For the German battles while Swedish crown prince he didn’t get saved in my eyes so much as he utilized his army much better than Ney and Oudinot did theirs and that’s why he won. But he’s a good soldier not a great one. He’s a better administrator, leader and logistically sound general than a great tactical general.
I just think ya way overrated Bernadotte, think it's neat his family is still on the throne.
But responding, Napoleon threatened to have him shot for his conduct at Jena Auerstadt and was basically done w him after Wagram.
He did not replug the Wagram line he abondoned, Napoleon had to spend the morning refilling it and fighting over it.
He was dressed down by Napoleon as well for, get this, moving slowly to the battlefield (a recurring theme no.matter which side he fought for).
He was a great revolutionary general but one of the worst Marshals. He also was widely criticized by Schwarzenberg, Blucher and others for his Leipzig performance.
He's 17-24th range when ranking the marshals imo.
Devout hated him for leaving him alone at Auerstadt, begged Napoleon to let him go attack him in 1814. Napoleon should have let him
I would highly recommend that you get a copy of David Hackett Fischer's Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. Based on your erroneous and inaccurate postings you surely need the book. Of particular note, on pages 290-291 the fallacy of argument ad hominem is explained. There are actually four types of fallacies of this type, the one you should look up, and which you use, unfortunately, in your postings when you don't agree with someone is the 'abusive ad hominem' which is the one in which a person denounces an opponent, as you did in the above posting. Instead of addressing the comments, the opponent is attacked personally.
I have found Fischer's book very helpful over the years, especially when dealing with posters who lace their postings with personal insult.
When addressing ideas such as who was a better general, in this case Massena or Desaix, that is a matter of opinion, based on research. My research had led me to favor Desaix as a commander. That does not denigrate that Massena was also an excellent general. Perhaps you should moderate your fury and posting references wouldn't hurt. As it is, all you are doing is denigrating your own position.
Again, I would highly recommend Phipp's book The Armies of the Firsts French Republic, which also covers the commanders, among them Desaix and Massena. I would also recommend that you actually look up 'the German battles.'
And regarding the action at Vyasma, Davout was not defeated. Miloradovich attempted to encircle and trap Davout, who was the army's rear guard. He failed and Davout with the assistance of three of his fellow corps commanders (Poniatowski, Eugene, and Ney) defeated Miloradovich's attempt and continued on. Perhaps you could explain how you came to the conclusion that Davout was 'defeated'?
Are you using Wikipedia as a reference? If you are that is unfortunate. It is not a reliable reference. We were not allowed to use it is a source in grad school and I didn't allow my history students to use it.
Who would you say were the best marshals and why?
Massena and Davout were in a league of their own. Davouts record is pretty unblemished besides being defeated alongside Ney and Eugene by Miloradivich and the Russian vanguard at Vyazma during the Russian retreat. Massena is an ablouteky incredible general that almost never put a foot wrong and constantly outperformed expectations up until the invasion of Portugal and Fuentes de Onoro. Even then he was in a near impossible situation w insubordinate commanders, Napoleon micro managing him from Paris, and poor health, and a hostile countryside. Next I’d put Suchet, Soult, Lannes who were all also incredible generals but had some limitations, or in Suchets case didn’t see battle against a strong armies. Wbu?
It's Soult and Davout for me, but everyone had their shortcomings.
Davout was never defeated. Perhaps you could find sources to back up your assertion?
Look up the battle of Vyazma before u make inaccurate claims such that he was never defeated. It’s not a good practice for people who study history or historians to make false claims such as that and present them as facts.
stop spreading stuff like that, he got beaten badly at Vyazma
Bernadotte was the allied army commander before Berlin in 1813, but it was Bulow who did the yeomanry work in the field, not Bernadotte.
'French soldier yarns had Bernadotte demanding a parley with the commander of a French-held fortress in Germany. The sentry promptly shot at him: Bernadotte protested and was told the sentry had merely tried to apprehend a French deserter.'-John Elting, Swords Around A Throne, 691, note 13.
Too bad the sentry missed...
This is actually brilliant. If I ever get a Time Machine, I’m going back and giving that sentry a sniper rifle.
Bülow held out, Bernadotte reinforced and crushed them...
Bernadotte crushed no one. The two French marshals were defeated in their turn, but they were certainly not crushed.
Dennewitz casualties say otherwise
Bernadotte's problem is that he could not be trusted, which he clearly demonstrated in 1806 at Jena and Auerstadt and again in 1809 at Wagram. He was ambitious to other's detriment and he was definitely the enemy of his superiors. And he was not trusted by his allies in 1813-1814.
Not that I could summarize them to do it enough Justice, but modern examination of the topography and road network available to Bernadotte would’ve made it very difficult for his forces to come meaningfully to Jena (for all he knew).
He really was better off pressuring the rear of the Prussian army.
Apparently some of the Prussians had traversed the same ground and road and it didn't impede their progress. That is giving Bernadotte an excuse which is inaccurate and self-serving.
“Apparently”, without telling when, how many and their role in the battle. You’re not saying anything.
Bernadotte arrived near Jena after the Prussians were defeated. He neither fought nor 'pressured' anyone on 14 October. Napoleon remarked that he made a 'false' march.
His orders were to pressure the rear by arriving where he was ordered to, that’s what he did. He was following his orders, which would’ve lead to that pressure. Like I mentioned, the road system was impeding his ability to move as quickly as he wanted.
The people who have him these orders are to be blamed, not the man following them. Napoleon never liked him, he was his own Napoleon.
Great record? How so, or, more to the point, what was it. Be careful I have the references to look up your 'points.'
Did u not read my comment? I gave examples. Maybe u should read a comment before replying to it.
Where are your sources listed? You make grandiose claims but fail to support them with sources and evidence.
Bernadotte was described by Desaix as 'young, plenty of fire, vigorous, of fine passions, very estimable; he is not loved for he is considered a fanatic' (a Jacobin extremist). 'He also was furiously ambitious, apt at intrigue, and gifted with an overwhelming talent for obfuscating eloquence. In 1799 he was first ambassador to Austria (the Viennese mobbed him out of town), then somehow Minister of War (his unrealistc strategic inspirations soon caused the Directory to accept 'the resignation I have not given)'-John Elting, Swords Around a Throne, 127. The reference used for this excerpt is Phipps, The Armies of the First French Republic.
Bernadotte and his division did not arrive in northern Italy until early March 1797. He participated in Napoleon's campaign against the Archduke Charles, but missed the desperate battles of 1796. How was Bernadott'e crossing of the Alps 'brilliant'?
Soult and Bernadotte, supported by Murat, stormed Lubeck and sacked the city on 6 November 1806.
Where is the evidence that Bernadotte on his own 'drew up' the Trachenberg Plan?
Munich is some distance away from Ulm, so how did Bernadotte's operations 'help close off the Austrians at Ulm? The French units at Ulm (Lannes, Ney, Marmont, the Guard, Soult, Nansouty, Beaumont, and Baraguay) accomplished that. Bernadotte was at Munich.
When did Bernadotte 'invade Denmark' and why? Denmark was already a French ally because of the British invasion in 1807.
Bernadotte did not demonstrate any tactical or strategic skill in 1813-1814.
Regarding Holland in 1809 and the British expedition to Walcheren, it was not Bernadotte, but Bessieres who solved the problem along with dedicated officers and men who did their duty while Bernadotte and Fouche worked for their own benefit. The regulars that Bessieres brought with him were sufficient to keep the British at bay. Sickness did the rest.
He became a marshal because he represent the Republican faction of the Army alongside Jourdan, Masséna and Augereau and because he was part of Napoleon's family since him and Joseph Bernadotte were brother-in-law.
Same thing why Bernadotte was one of the first Marshall to access to the Noblity of Empire by being titled Prince of Ponte-Corvo by Napoleon in 1806 despite Napoleon didn't like him.
He had a lot of personality clashes with Napoleon, Davout and Berthier and their style differed a lot. Bernadotte was a tad bit more careful which led to many difficulties and challenges on the battlefield. They were not compatible
He became king of Sweden is what he did! He was a great French marshal! And in this house Bernadotte is a hero! End of story!
Earned faster promotion than Napoleon and was a nod to the revolution, also could have led a coup if Napoleon didn't (him or Moreau).
Earned his baton for political reason, sand bagged it for most of his Marshal career, performed well in some mop up actions but nearly was court marshalled for his bullshit performance at Jena-Auerstadt.
No shock. He marched very slowly to battle at Leipzig but when he finally deployed he had a massive cannon duel vs Marmont in the northeastern sector of Leipzig
Because Bernadotte is just not that good lmao.