Three Napoleonic Battles

by Harold T. Parker

This narrative account of three Napoleonic battles adheres rather closely to the Aristotelian configuration of evolving tragedy. The historian succeeds in presenting herein events and character not only in historical reality but also in unities employed by the artist or tragedian. For a beginning of this lively, military story, Harold T. Parker chooses a portrayal of Napoleon at the height of his power, the battle of Friedland. The middle episode is concerned with Napoleon in his first serious personal check, the battle of Aspern-Essling. To complete the unity and to conclude the tragic progression, the author resurveys the episode of Napoleon's final defeat at the battle of Waterloo.

Genres: Military History, History

258 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1944

Reviews

[Elliot · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was pleasantly surprised with how good this book is. The three battles that Parker covers are Friedland, Aspern-Essling, and Waterloo.

To start the text, while engaging and readable, is also well-researched and detailed. Despite being published in 1944, I didn't find the writing to be outdated in any way. Parker often, and effectively includes first hand accounts which balance out the narrative and provide a sense of the soldier's perspective.

Parker begins with the battle of Friedland, where he states that Napoleon was at the height of his power. I found this account to be disappointingly brief, and I really didn't learn much besides a general outline of the battle.

That being said, I found his account of Aspern-Essling to be much better. I had a much better pictures of the buildup to the battle and especially the movements during the fighting. In particular, I found it interesting how perilous a position the French were in, and how they were saved from a significant defeat through Napoleon's vigorous leadership and the complacency of Archduke Charles. Parker follows up the battle with a number of excerpts from Baron Larrey's (the chief French surgeon) memoir, which were quite gruesome but also fascinating and illuminating.

After Aspern-Essling Parker focus on the Waterloo campaign for about half the book. His chronicle of this oft-told campaign was excellent. Free from any national bias, Parker paints a coherent picture of the campaign without getting muddled down in the details. Even though I have read several books about Waterloo, I felt that this description made several items more clear to me, despite this book's brevity.

To summarize, I quite liked this book, and would recommend it to others. I think it would serve well as an introduction to the Napoleonic wars, while just as equally providing an enjoyable read to those more familiar with this era.

[Cathaldus Muirman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This volume by the late American scholar and soldier Harold T Parker is a look at some of Napoleon’s greatest battles - Friedland [1807] Aspern-Essling [1809] & Waterloo [1815] and how he viewed the overall situation he found himself in the run up to each encounter and on the day of battle itself.
I found the author did an excellent job in describing what the general strategic situation was that led each side to seek battle and fight it out when and where they did. I note though that in each one described that Napoleon was the attacker and that he had a different result in each one.
At Friedland he decisively defeated the Russians and brought the Czar to accept terms favourable to France. When he fought the Austrians in 1809 he was unable to overthrow them and was forced to withdraw so as to fight another day. At Waterloo he was overthrown and had to flee the battlefield in a humiliating Rout for his Army.
Why the Russians decided to fight at Friedland is something of a mystery as they were on the retreat overall and just resting there when they clashed with Napoleon’s Advance Guard. Perhaps they thought that they could give a bloody nose to their enemies before they continued on their way? As it turned out the French Emperor was able to surmise the overall tactical situation pretty quickly and press them so hard they had to beat a retreat. While no easy Victory there was left no doubt that he and his Army were the Masters of the Battlefield. As a result Czar Alexander realised that he had to make Peace with Napoleon on his terms.
At Aspern-Essling the situation from a strategic and operational angle was completely different. Napoleon had captured the Austrian capital Vienna but had been unable to bring the main enemy force under Archduke Charles to battle. They were somewhere to the north of the river Danube across from the City but near or far the French were unable to ascertain. All the bridges were down and if the French were to attempt a crossing they needed to build pontoon structures to allow in particular Cavalry & Artillery to cross such a formidable waterway. This would all take to time to assemble the structures needed to undertake such a huge task that must attract to at least some degree the attentions of the Austrian piquets. The element of surprise would be limited if at all.
Nevertheless the French efforts did achieve a crossing and they debouched onto the Left bank in the vicinity of the well structured villages of Aspern and Essling. When the Archduke noticed this he brought forward his troops and cautiously committed them to battle. Slowly but surely they pressed home their attacks that checked the French advance. Then disaster struck for the French as the rickety pontoon bridges gave way as the Austrians launched old boats filled with heavy material from upstream to destroy them. They did enough damage that the French forces on the far bank were cut off from supplies and re-enforcements. As night came on Napoleon realised that the situation was tactically impossible so that he ordered a retreat as soon as communication with the south side of the river was re-established. Being the great Commander he was by his calm demeanour and attention to detail he got his Army away in good order thus giving the Austrians the slip in the darkness of the night.
At the Battle of Wagram some weeks later he showed he had learned his lessons well from this experience and when he struck again his bridges were better constructed and he deployed his Army in good order that after a well fought battle defeated the Archduke’s army. Once again the Austrians were forced to concede to French demands and the Emperor returned to Paris in triumph.
Waterloo was the culmination of Napoleon’s military career and it was a battle he lost badly. However here he had to face two separate enemy armies on different axis, one of which was on the defensive and the other on the offensive. The seeds of what happened on that day were sown two days previously when Napoleon had defeated the Prussians at Ligny but not as he imagined decisively but only enough to upset their balance. He left a considerable force under Marshal Grouchy to keep them at bay while he turned his attentions to the Allied Army blocking the road to Brussels. This was led by the Duke of Wellington deployed along the heights of Mont St Jean. It was a mixed Army of many States but it’s soldiers were in the main well trained and capable of standing well against attack. Try as they could the French could not break the line & as the day wore on a terrible visage presented itself to Napoleon - the Prussians were slowly but surely approaching from the East in considerable numbers - Marshal Grouchy was nowhere to be seen! He pressed his men all the more to break the enemy lines even committing battalions of the Old Guard to the attack. But it was all to no avail as the Black clad Prussians cut into the French right rear. This so un-erved his troops that they abandoned their attack on Wellington’s army and streamed away from the battlefield in disarray that turned into absolute Rout. The author gives due credit to Napoleon’s genius in many parts of this campaign but noted that he was not the General of previous years and left too much in the hands of his Generals where as Wellington and Blucher were there at the front with their men to prop them up or drive them forward as the case maybe. Napoleon on the other hand stood back and surveyed the overall situation and let the direction of the battle to others. This had worked well enough in other battles but here it was to work against him and he lost all he had worked for since he left the island of Elba to regain his Throne - it was to be his last battle.
Overall I would recommend this book to anyone interested in Napoleon’s method of warfare in fighting a Great Battle and while it of course could not cover all aspects of such huge clashes of arms he sets out in a concise fashion the sequence of events and what the tactical situation looked like to the commanders as they were able to ascertain with the information to hand at any given time. There is no doubt that Napoleon was capable of summing up situations on the battlefield that defeated Generals of lesser ability and carrying through on his decisions to achieve a victory or avoid a defeat. But at Waterloo his powers were waning or in abeyance that gave his enemies the day and sent him into exile once again and for the final time.