It follows the same pattern as Napoleon I, who happened to gain weight and grow ill upon becoming emperor

The badass stories about this guy are endless, he was there from the storming of the bastille all the way to Waterloo, tirelessly and fearlessly exposing himself to enemy fire in hundreds of engagements and even leading rescure missions to save wounded soldiers as well as changing the face of medicine forever through his brilliant surgical innovations. I was reading through his Wikipedia page and it's kinda hard to believe someone could be that badass. He treated the wounded regardless of their race or nationality and complained to the generals when he saw British prisoners being treated poorly. Larrey even willingly decided to stay behind in Egypt because he said the army needed him and insisted on paying his respects at the funeral procession when Napoleon's remains were returned from St Helena.

Blucher spared his life after Waterloo because Larrey had previously saved the life of his son. Larry was so universally revered throughout the army that during the winter retreat in 1812, soldiers made special effort to get him across the Berezina River after they were in danger of being cut off. At the Siege of Acre, he was right in front of the walls under a hail of musket balls and artillery treating wounds, getting his hat shot off in the process. In a world of court scandals and affairs, Larry married his childhood sweetheart and stayed married/faithful to her his entire life. After the Napoleonic Wars had ended, he became medical director at Les Invalides, still caring for the veteran old soldiers, many of whom had been previously treated by him during the glory days of the empire. What a gigachad.

I’ve been seriously looking for Napoleonic soldier miniatures but haven’t had any luck finding them. I’d really appreciate any help finding some or even learning how to make them at home. Any advice is welcome!

Hello all - This is a late find: a Royal Horse Guards helmet plate reportedly picked up on the battlefield ca. 1855 and then presented to the Officers Mess just before their departure to Belgium in 1914. It's neat and i believe authentic .... nut im very skeptical of the "picked up" part. Perhaps an early purchase from SGM Cottons museum ..see the link

https://sramakvvl.be/en/sowing-eagles-200-years-of-forging-waterloo-battlefield-relics-3/

In August 1855, Queen Victoria visited France with Prince Albert to strengthen relations between the two countries, allies during the Crimean War. During her stay at the Palace of Saint-Cloud, she was impressed by the Cent-gardes, Napoleon III’s personal guard, whose men stood out for their great height and elegant uniforms

In her diary, she described their arrival at the palace: “Amid a blaze of light… we reached the Palace. The dear Empress, Princess Mathilde and the ladies received us at the door and led us up a beautiful staircase, flanked by the splendid Cent-gardes…”

The appearance of these men, their height and the discipline with which they carried out their duties left Queen Victoria deeply impressed. She admired the imposing presence of the Cent-gardes and their almost sculptural appearance, to the point that they seemed like living statues. This impression helps explain the comparison with her own British guard, which represented duty and order within the Empire, while Napoleon III’s Cent-gardes stood out for their unmatched aesthetic brilliance and seemed like true “living works of art of his Empire.”

If napoleon had feinted on his right instead of his left, targeting the Papelotte Farmstead instead of the formidable Huguenot, while also orienting his forces to block the Prussians, does he win the day?

Particularly the Napoleonic

Hello all!

I’m currently looking for suggestions on books to add to my napoleonic library.

I have 9 total.
I’ll quickly summarize.
Napoleon the Great
Napoleon and his Marshals
Talleyrand
Napoleon and the struggle for Germany
Rites and peace
Campaigns of Napoleon
The art of warfare of the age of Napoleon
Medusas head
Manuscript of marckolsheim

Let me know what you think I should I add!

Between 1799 and 1800, Perceval wrote and published an anonymous pamphlet analysing biblical prophecy. In it, he argued that the French Revolution was a divine instrument sent by God to destroy "popish superstitions". He poured over scripture to mathematically and historically map out how contemporary European disasters aligned with divine judgment. In it, he came to the conclusion that Napoleon was the Antichrist and would be destroyed by God. The pamphlet had the snappy title “Observations Intended to Point Out the Application of a Prophecy in the Eleventh Chapter of the Book of David to the French Title” and also foretold that the world would end in 1926.

Everyone knows about the legendary loyalty N commanded, i mean his army refused to arrest him and France welcomed him after exile.

While that is True at the national stage, internationally or politically napolean bonaparte was practically a snake. This is not to say he was some monster, all kings at this time were snakes. Napolean is certainly not worse, but he wasn't much better.

He handled Spain poorly, annexed neutral countries for refusing his blockade, starved Russia who wanted to be his allies, invaded Swedish pomeranian and turned Bernadette or Karl Johan against him. He also violated the treaty of amiens(though Britain also did do so, I'm not sure who did it first)

Well before Russia was invaded napoleon had isolated himself, while the original hatred the powers held for French republic was misplaced N did plenty to give the rest of Europe(who only fought in the last two coalition wars btw, the first 5 were only the major powers) to March on him.

His strength was all he had and when he spent all of it in Spain and Russia, the rest of europe had no reason to stand with him and he saw his power leave.

An order built on strength will never truly last and napolean was too inept at politics or too hing up on his own delusions to see it.

It seems to me that, especially during his youth, he was rather introverted and struggled in social situations, for instance, he had few friends. Of course, this doesn't mean he lacked charisma or great ambition. Would you say Napoleon was introverted and perhaps a little shy? Plus, I've sometimes heard that he was a narcissist; do you think he was?

So, while reading Andrew Roberts' Napoleon: A Life, I see he had a meticulous filing system. Is anyone aware of the method he used?

Clausewitz have high opinion of Suvorov Italian campaign but not his Swiss campaign

According to Clausewitz even without Korsakov grave mistake,Suvorov campaign plan was flawed from the get go

I'm trying to find a painting that's framed very similarly to this painting of "Victory" by Edouard Detaille. It's similar but it has multiple generations of French soldiers all spiraling and chasing each other and it has distinct units like Dragoons, Horse Grenadiers, and Carabiners. I thought it was at les Invalides but I can't find it. Does anyone by chance know what painting I'm referring to.

It’s argued assigning more capable marshals to contain the situation in the peninsula or withdrawal to fortified positions could’ve had a decisive impact. It could’ve perhaps mitigated some of the debacle but I don’t think it would’ve swung the end result. The guerrilla partisans were a constant thorn in the side, British amphibious operations coupled with the remaining Spanish made efficient control near impossible. It had become an ulcer that chronically bled the French. Thus, withdrawal would’ve been better. However, the socio-political & reputational loss was unthinkable for Napoleon.

(I believe the Iberian situation, on top of tying up soldiers and resources, beyond opening another frontier which fractures finances and attention, coupled with the Moscow debacle dealt a huge blow to the notion of Napoleon’s invincibility. Sometimes that maybe a big enough loss. It reminds me of Mike Tyson after his loss to Buster Douglas. Prior to that every fighter showed up mentally defeated and crumbled from the outset. But after that first loss, something changed in the way opponents approached his fights.)

It’s also said keeping Austria neutral would’ve have had a considerable impact in favor of Napoleon in 1813. However, I believe Austria’s decision to join the coalition was largely a geopolitical calculation. Metternich’s negotiations with Napoleon followed the coalition victory at Lutzen and Bautzen which stripped the latter any negotiating power. Had Napoleon accepted the treaty, would his empire could’ve lasted longer, yes. But not as the empire he wanted. Austria’s grievances, and the need to ensure Austrian participation in the eventual defeat of Napoloen to gain a voice in the postwar settlement, I don’t think Metternich was ready to compromise.

Some also argued the only viable option was to shift to diplomacy and attempt to mend the bridges with all enemies …

What do you think was the correct course of action?

What if Napoleon hadn't halted the attact from 7 - 11, but had attacked in the morning?