Napoleon was a Military Genius. How far do you agree?
Napoleon was commander of the French army and battled against Europe since his reign as Emperor began in 1804(as well as before, when he was rising to power). He fought a number of different coalitions and was able to build up an empire that lasted a decade. However his victories may have come from not just his own skill, but also the strength of army and generals, which he inherited control of, and the failure of the European state and Countries to form effective coalitions against him as well as being inept on the field of battle. I believe his victories came not from his own genius, but the inherited strengths of his army.
For centuries, there has been an uneasiness between counties diplomatic relations, and when Napoleon reached the height of his power and sought an empire, the different countries were unable to put aside this mistrust and work together, through this Napoleon was able to defeat armies countless times simply because they were not at ‘full strength’. Russia and Prussia for example, despite being part of the same coalition, were never ‘one’ army, but rather two separate embodiments. As a result Napoleon always sought to defeat the two armies separately. As well as this lack of a cohesive alliance, the armies and their leaders were unable to match the skill of Napoleon (which he doubtlessly had) and the ability of his army. At Eylau (1807), when Napoleon failed in his plan and had his army spread out across the countryside, the enemy armies were unable to take advantage of this and drive their victory home despite this obvious advantage, and were later defeated when Napoleon’s army was at full strength. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd coalitions were all ineffective in their goals, and the 4th coalition were the same despite having some victories over Napoleon. It was only later on, when the Coalitions managed to successfully work together that they were able to defeat Napoleon, for example at Leipzig (1813).
Napoleon was, and it cannot be denied, a great leader of armies and deserved his role as commander of the Grande Armee. He had displayed his skill multiple times, both during his reign as Emperor, and before when he was rising to power. His ability to gain victory in Italy over the Italian states and the Austrian army, forcing them to sign the treaty of Campo Formio, evidently shows this, especially with weakened and demoralised army he had in his command. And then again, later in 1805, he was able to decisively rout and destroy the Austrian Russian army. His plan to weaken his flank to focus the enemies attention was a complete success and he then went on to shock the enemy with a blitz to gain victory with minimal losses. These are but a few of his victories that were directly attributed to his skill, and his empire alone shows his skill as his territories were taken by conquest mostly. However, to say that Napoleon was a genius is, I believe, incorrect. An early campaign at Egypt showed that despite his skill, and natural ability he was he was flawed, a fellow general stated that he “needed 10,000 men each month” to sustain his losses. And of course let us not forget Napoleon’s key focus, from 1798 to the end of his empire, his hated enemy – Britain. Despite his best efforts, he could never gain an advantage over them, an early defeat at sea to Nelson stopped his plan for an invasion, his defeat at Waterloo (1815) at the hand of Wellington, and his powerlessness to stop the British advance in Spain, and liberate some parts (although technically he was not in command of the Spanish Campaign at that time). And of course, Napoleon’s reliance on his army and Generals shows that despite his abilities, he was not perfect, and by extension a Genius.
Speaking of his army, Napoleon, when he became Emperor, had, at his command, the Grande armee. This was the best army in Europe and the largest, which contained veterans from the Revolution and before. Not only this,
