'Aussie Rick'’s Comments (group member since Jun 13, 2009)

'Aussie Rick'’s comments from the THE NAPOLEONIC WARS group.

I am sure neither Scharnhorst or Suvorov and Kutuzov would have appreciated the regimes that their names were linked to in later years.

Sounds like a very dedicated and brave man, how could Napoleon lose with such men!

Good to hear :)

I'm glad that Baron Larrey received the loudest cheers, he certainly deserved them!

Did you enjoy the book then MR9?

He deserves much acclaim and I am sure the many men he treated never forgot him. It sounds like you are enjoying the book MR9, I hope so.

Very informative post MR9, Larry was a pretty ingenious guy eh! Very interesting about the camel panniers as well :)

Manray9 wrote: "This evening I've started --

Larrey: Surgeon to Napoleon's Imperial Guard by Robert Richardson."

I hope you enjoy the book MR9, keep us all posted.

Betsy wrote: "AR, I remember that quote from the epilogue, but one thing I wondered about is that Prussia was hardly a model of military enlightenment in 1801. Did Scharnhorst really think that his ideas would b..."

I suppose from what he saw and from what he heard by those in the service of Prussia he had a better chance of enacting his ideas for modernisation. It must be that the events of 1806 gave Prussia the stimulus to accept Scharnhorst's ideas in the full.

"Scharnhorst: The Formative Years, 1755-1801" - From the Epilogue of the book:

"In keeping with the concept of the nation-in-arms, Scharnhorst insisted that Hanover end the mercenary character of its army by introducing universal military conscription. As his mentor Count Wilhelm had done, Scharnhorst advocated no exemptions among the citizenry. To obtain victory, the soldier must once again become a warrior. He must infuse his military actions with his personal, social, and political convictions, and that was possible only if he felt himself to be a citizen of worth and not a mere subject of royal absolutism. The people themselves become a reservoir of military strength. Through this Bildungprinzip Scharnhorst hoped to create a new generation of leaders and soldiers who would transform the Hanoverian army with a new spirit.

The armies of revolutionary France offered conclusive proof that soldiering was no longer a craft or occupation, but a profession that demanded continuous study. It was Scharnhorst's great achievement that he not only recognised this new dimension of warfare, but also attempted to develop institutions to harness it. Convincing the ruling elites of Hanover that the role of the professional soldier would have to conform to a new social and political structure proved an arduous task. Hanover rejected his ideas without ever considering their merit. Such 'Jacobin' sentiments were totally alien and unacceptable. Sensing he had no future in the Electorate of Hanover, Gerhard Scharnhorst accepted an appointment in the Prussian army in the spring of 1801. There he hoped to implement the modernisation ideas he had developed and refined in Hanover."


AR note - "Scharnhorst's Bildungprinzip - professional-development programs should combine theoretical instruction with practical exercises."

Scharnhorst: The Formative Years, 1755-1801 by Charles Edward White

Very nice post Scott! :-)

Me and my old trusty lap-top :)

Don't worry Betsy, you always join in the group discussions which is what counts!

I've got the same problem in that I have to type them by hand but I sit down with my morning coffee to gather the energy to type them up and I enjoy doing it (except for when I get a computer glitch and loss everything - then I get quite angry).

"Scharnhorst: The Formative Years, 1755-1801" - Another important observation made by Scharnhorst in his review of the first campaign against French Revolutionary forces:

"French domestic innovations provided tremendous power to the state and made possible the most significant tactical innovation of the war - the tirailleur, or skirmisher. Scharnhorst maintained 'it is an undeniable truth' that the individual French soldier, epitomised by the tirailleur, 'had decided most of the engagements of this war, and that they are superior to those of the Coalition armies'. He understood that there was nothing stronger in war than the heart of a volunteer.

'They were more skilful, and one can also say, possessed a greater bravery than the Coalition armies. The soldier of the latter, who was accustomed to regular movements, to machine-like behaviour, and not how to use the terrain (every ditch, every tree, every hill), and positioned with order and in mutual support, was subject here to the cunning, the inquisitive, and the speedy Frenchman.'

The light service had fostered the intelligence and independent judgement of the common soldier. Scharnhorst felt that the natural instincts of the soldier had returned to battlefield and to the conduct of war, much like he had stated in his essay on light troops and as Berenhorst had stated in his analysis of the Greeks and Romans. No longer was the French soldier a coerced, mindless robot in lock-step formation, moving and firing like a machine, and only upon order. Now he was able to think and respond freely (both individually and as part of a team) to the ever-changing conditions on the battlefield.

'The ingenious spirit of the French, the desire to exert themselves, and their great knowledge in positional and fortress warfare, makes them exquisitely suited for it. The physical ability and high intelligence of the common man enables the French tirailleurs to profit from all the advantages offered by the terrain and the general situation, while the phlegmatic Germans, Bohemians, and Dutch form on open ground and do nothing but what their officers order them to do.'

Scharnhorst understood that the French had not invented this new tactical system; rather, it was the product of a gradual evolution of tactical doctrine that had been underway throughout Europe since the Seven Years War."

Scharnhorst: The Formative Years, 1755-1801 by Charles Edward White

I should finish in a day or two Betsy and I am looking forward to the publication of the second volume.

I found this interesting article on Scharnhorst and Bildung:

https://www.realcleardefense.com/arti...

"Scharnhorst: The Formative Years, 1755-1801" - Some more observations that Scharnhorst noted in his efforts to reform the Hanoverian army:

"Scharnhorst also noted how worthless so many noblemen were as officers, and how poorly and disgracefully many senior leaders had performed under fire. These were the individuals who had scorned Bildung, convinced that theoretical formation in time of peace had no practical utility in war. Scharnhorst felt the main reason why so many aristocratic officers 'can neither write nor reckon' was the customary practice of most noble families of sending their least capable sons in the military. As soon as these children become officers, 'they cease to apply themselves and, on the contrary, yield to idleness and often to debauchery'. When these individuals reach the higher ranks, 'they were incapable of performing the duties of a non-commissioned officer.' Noteworthy here is the fact that Scharnhorst was not the only one to spot the bankruptcy of the German aristocracy."

Bildung:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildung

"Scharnhorst: The Formative Years, 1755-1801" - I don't know about you Betsy but the actions of Freytag and Lenthe in stopping Scharnhorst's promotion and advancement in his pay really pissed me off. No wonder the French chopped off so many aristocrats heads during their revolution!

"Scharnhorst: The Formative Years, 1755-1801" - As Betsy mentioned in her post #62, Scharnhorst started to agitate for reforms to be adopted to modernise the army, using lessons learnt from his involvement in the War of the First Coalition:

"Scharnhorst based his modernisation ideas on a clear understanding of the French Revolution and its impact on the art of war. In one of his papers, 'On the Training and Formation of an Amy in Peacetime', he claimed the superiority of the French lay in a coherent, aggressive strategy that reflected national rather than dynastic interests. It was the spirit of the French people, embodied in the nation-in-arms, which had revolutionized the art of war. The French army had been transformed. Lazy, cowardly, and inept officers had been ruthlessly weeded out. Many were executed, while others had fled the country . In their place emerged competent, effective, and enthusiastic leaders. Advancement depended on merit, service, and bravery, not birth, privilege, and connection. With a capable officer corps to lead and instil confidence and a high sense of morale in the rank and file, the French were able to exercise initiative and independence on the battlefield. This enabled them to adapt quickly and resourcefully to new and unexpected situations, which in turn resulted in greater mobility, a more flexible tactical doctrine, and the unparalleled freedom, enthusiasm, and heroism of the individual soldier. 'In other armies this is not possible without completely destroying all inner relationships'."

Scharnhorst: The Formative Years, 1755-1801 by Charles Edward White

"Scharnhorst: The Formative Years, 1755-1801" - A bit more about the retreat during the winter of 1794-95:

"In sharp contrast to their behaviour in Holland, Scharnhorst recalled from his historical studies how under the superb German leadership of Duke Ferdinand during the Seven Years War, English soldiers were among the finest in the army. 'Their subordination in other circumstances is so great', he noted. 'You may do with them as you like'. Overall, he felt the British soldier was extremely brave, eager to attack, steady under fire, willing to sacrifice himself, usually disciplined, and almost never complaining when fatigued. It was so sad, he concluded, that the noble qualities of the English warrior would soon be forgotten because of his misbehaviour during this campaign. Scharnhorst placed the reason for this misconduct squarely on the poor example set by the British officer corps."

Scharnhorst: The Formative Years, 1755-1801 by Charles Edward White

Zachary wrote: "Hello so I really just started to dip my toes in researching Napoleonic Wars and its overwhelming. It seems that his Campaigns are split between the French Revolutionary Wars (Wars of the First and..."

That's about right Zachary!