www.mastersofthefield.com

[OC] Ogonczyk · Joined: 05 Nov 2004 Posts: 20

The Second of December 1805 was a chilly but sunny day. The sunlight was glinting along the lines of bayonets and the newly received regimental eagles. It was the first time the newly created La Grande Armee went into the battle, under their new standards. The previous victory of the campaign – at Ulm was achieved practically without firing a shot. Now 75,000 French troops were facing a superior force of 90,000 Russians and Austrians. The closest village was known to the locals under its Slovak name as Slavkov. The official name in German was Austerlitz.

It has been always my favourite historical battle. I am trying to describe the key points of the battle below, based on several different sources rather than a particular text or a description.

Napoleons victory at Austerlitz was much more than a purely military achievement. In the first place he had been able to lure the enemy into the battle on his terms that is in the place and at the time he had carefully selected. Secondly, the Emperor made sure that it would be the Allies that would attack first, and that they would attack in the place he wanted them to attack. In other words, Napoleon’s enemies were fighting the battle according to the script he had written!!!
To achieve that Napoleon wanted his enemies to believe that the French troops were weaker than they actually were. The day before the battle he sent an envoy to the Russian camp, making impression that he would be willing to negotiate in order to avoid the fight. In response, one of the Russian Tsar’s AdCs, Prince Dolgoruki went to the French headquarters to dictate terms of a potential armistice. The prince was a very young, cocky and arrogant but not a particularly sharp aristocrat and it was easy for Napoleon to outmanoeuvre him. The Emperor staged one the best theatrical performances in his life. To the Prince, Napoleon appeared as someone lacking confidence, scarred and trying to avoid conflict at any price. It was as if the Emperor was begging the Prince for more favourable terms for the French to surrender. With that, Dolgoruki was becoming more arrogant and his demands were growing. At the end he requested unconditional surrender of the French and abdication of Napoleon. This was politely refused, but Napoleon continued the show, trembling with fear until the Prince’s departure. After the battle, Napoleon was laughing about that, saying that Dolgoruki treated him as a serf who was being sent to Siberia.

On the morning of December 2, Napoleon deliberately abandoned the most strategic position – Pratzen Heights, located in the very center of the battlefield, and withdrew most of his right wing. He wanted to make the appearance that his entire right flank was his weakest point. He certainly achieved that. The Allies had already been overconfident. Napoleon’s abandoning the best defensive position boosted their overconfidence further, and the Russian and the Austrian troops jumped to attack the French right, which offered only light resistance and continued to retreat. At the same time the French center and the left, offered firm resistance, making sure that the Allied troops will be sucked into the vacuum opening on the French right.

At one point, the French right stopped the retreat and the resistance stiffened. The Allies reacted with sending even more troops into the trap on the French right. By doing so they significantly weakened their center.

Napoleon then turned to the commander of his IV Corps: "Soult, how long will it take you to move your divisions to the top of the Pratzen Heights?" The reply was "Less than twenty minutes, Sire, for my troops are hidden at the foot of the valley, hidden by fog and campfire smoke," "In that case, we will wait a further quarter of an hour” was the Emperor’s reply.

Fifteen minutes later the drums beat the pas de charge and the divisions of Saint-Hilaire and Vandamme from Marshall Soult’s IV Corps marched towards centrally located Pratzen Heights. The Russians and the Austrians, believing that they were winning the battle were completely taken by surprise. As soon as the Heights fell into the French hands, Napoleon sent his heavy artillery there (12 pounders) and started bombardment that completely disrupted communications between Allies exposed left and their center. Morand and Friant Divisions of the newly-arrived Davout’s III Corps launched a fresh counterattack on the Russian left. In the meantime Soult’s troops operating from the Pratzen Heights split Allied forces into two. That decided the outcome of the battle although the fighting continued for several more hours.

The Austrian and the Russian Emperors literally fled the battlefield. The Russian army lost 55 senior officers, 437 junior officers, 954 non-commissioned officers, 432 musicians, 17,493 soldiers and 515 members of non-combat units, in total, 19,886 men. The Austrian army had a total of 5,922 men killed, wounded, captured or missing. The French General Headquarters, counted the losses at 8,694 men, of which 1,389 had been killed and 7,260 wounded. The losses of the Imperial Guard remain unknown.

Austerlitz is a classic example of master battle tactics and strategy.
_________________

"Strategy is the art of making use of time and space. I am less concerned about the latter than the former. Space we can recover, lost time never."
- Napoleon Bonaparte

administrator · Site Admin Joined: 01 Jan 1970 Posts: 319

Hi Mate

I enjoyed reading that oob (order of battle) it was very interesting and the first tactic was to allow the enemy to perceive the French as weak and scared. Good psychological manipulation and then to let the enemy see them retreat and draw them into an over confident attack, which was really a trap. Well it may have worked where Austria and Russia were concerned, but if old Irish Wellies had of been there maybe things might have been different, because he used to keep one step ahead and also made great use of the bayonet, the old Frenchies didn't like those hairy arsed highlanders screaming at the with bayonets fixed.

Yours SW

[HWK]Greenwarrior · Joined: 20 Apr 2004 Posts: 300 Location: A BLUE STATE!

Since we are on the topic just wanted to share with you a more detailed OOB...

Grand Armee totals,

83 battalions
140.5 Squadrons
282 guns
Around 50,000 men and 15,000 cavalry

14 generals, 80 staff officers, 514 officers killed or wounded. 10,000 men dead and wounded as well as the eagle of the 4th french line infantry regiment taken by the Russian Chevalier Guard

Autro Russian total

114 battalions
173.75 squadrons
7 pioneer companies
252 guns (although 5 russian batteries did not take part in the battle)
Around 70,000 infantry and 16,600 cavalry

Losses includes around 6000 austrians, and 21,000 russians killed wounded or missing as well as 133 guns 400 ammunition wagons, and 45 colours and standards

During this battle Napoloen in one of his famous declarations said the following....

"Soldats, je suis content de vous: Vous avez, a la journee d"austerlitz, justifie tout ce que j'attendais de votre intrepidite. Vous avez Decore vos aigles d'une gloire immortelle..."
_________________
"Next to a battle lost, the greatest misery is a battle gained"

[HWK]axlethehawk · Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2004 7:28 pm Post subject:

This is and always will be a classical battle and it's one of my favourite battles to read about.

"Tactical genius" on Napoloen's behalf.

But there again if the interfering and bungling allied emperors hadn't insisted on taking full command of their armies and left the overall commanding to the C-in-C Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov this battle may never have occurred.

Kutuzov, an extremely cautious 60 year old veteran had been withdrawing his forces in good order to avoid any conflict with Napoleon's 200,000 strong force which had recently encircled the 60,000 strong Austrian force at Ulm forcing them to capitulate almost without a shot being fired.

During his withdrawal, Kutuzov linked up with other allied forces and his overall strength soon reached 89,000 men and 278 guns.

Unfortunately for Kutuzov it was here, in Olmutz (Olomouc ) where the title of C-in-C was relegated to "name only", for both Tsar Alexander I and Francis I, Emperor of Austria were located in the camp.

They decided that Napoleon would be under-strengthed due to reducing his forces on the long march to guard his ever-lengthening lines of communication. Further retreat in their eyes was no longer a viable option as they wanted to defeat napoleon's army now.

If they had listened to their military C-in-C then the battle of Austerlitz would never have taken place and their armies would have remained intact. Napoleon's army would have been further reduced in it's numbers due to the bitter weather, starvation and the 1,000 mile march back to their homeland. It was at this time, that Napoleon discovered the Prussians were now poised to jion the "Third Coalition" against France and this too played a part, further reducing Napoleon's options and therefore became a key-role in his decision to act quickly.

THE REST IS HISTORY!!!!!!
_________________
<img src=http://www.mastersofthefield.com/avatars_signatures/Axle_logo1.jpg border=0>

[hwk] axlethehawk ( DIPLOMATIC LIAISSON )

Sharpe · Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:19 pm Post subject:

Austerlitz was a great victory on the field of battle, but The battle would never have taken place if Napoleon hadnt been warmongering....

Austerlitz was the first major blow , it signaled the begininng of the end for Napoleon.

after Austerlitz it was a gurantee that nappys empire would fall

Austerlitz was emperor Napoleons greatest error
_________________

Over the hills an over the main, Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain, King George commands an we obey, Over the hills and faraway!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HWK]Greenwarrior · Joined: 20 Apr 2004 Posts: 300 Location: A BLUE STATE!

humn.. hows that?,

it doesnt matter m8, you see, all empires eventually fall, all, maybe 200 years from now history will see the war in iraq as the greatest mistake of the USA, and it will fall out of the number one superpower. Austerlitz was his greatest Victory, there is no other way around it. you see regardles sof what Napoleon would have done, the other europeamn powers would have never left him alone, war would have broken out regardless!

Green!
_________________
"Next to a battle lost, the greatest misery is a battle gained"

[HWK]axlethehawk · Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 8:44 pm Post subject:

As I previously said too, he was left with "virtually no other option" when he opted to force the Allies to bring the battle to him on his terms.

As it stood , prior to this decision he already faced the combined forces of the British, Austrians and the Russians ( as foes, not at Austerlitz ) and he suddenly learns that the Prussians are to join the Allies in their conquest to destroy his army. The decision he made was no doubt the correct one, as he managed to inflict serious casualties upon the Allies and for a small cost to his own forces. Cool

_________________
<img src=http://www.mastersofthefield.com/avatars_signatures/Axle_logo1.jpg border=0>

[hwk] axlethehawk ( DIPLOMATIC LIAISSON )

Sharpe · Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:37 am Post subject:

u guys missed the point, this war could have been avoided if napoleon had just evacuted holland and italy, places he had no right to be in! he forced the allies to this war.

this battle did infact seal nappys fate, after austerlitz he humiliated the rulers of europe with his outrageous peace terms. The nations of europe were determined to destroy him after this battle and as history showed they tryed an tryed till he was defeated.

if nappy gives up the lands he had taken in aggresive wars his empire would not have fallen for a good deal longer.

nappy was a madman a warmonger and 1 of histories greatest villains.
_________________

Over the hills an over the main, Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain, King George commands an we obey, Over the hills and faraway!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HWK]Greenwarrior · Joined: 20 Apr 2004 Posts: 300 Location: A BLUE STATE!

Your probably right sharp... BUT....

you see it really wasnt nappy that they wanted to destroy it was the whole french revolution and what it stodd for, they did not want those crazy ideas nappy had going on in france to spread so it thye were not going to rest until the monarchy was restored imho

Green
_________________
"Next to a battle lost, the greatest misery is a battle gained"

[HWK]axlethehawk · Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 9:44 pm Post subject:

Yes Sharpe point taken m8, unfortunately though, as we all learn ( or more to the point don't learn ) from history and even more so from recent historical events, any tyrant / dictator who decides to invade territories which don't belong to them don't intend to give them up without a fight.............and that's the way of the world!! Rolling Eyes

_________________
<img src=http://www.mastersofthefield.com/avatars_signatures/Axle_logo1.jpg border=0>

[hwk] axlethehawk ( DIPLOMATIC LIAISSON )

THE BULL · Guest

please keep those possts a lot shorter, it s not enjoyable to read all those long posts, all of ya!

Kosciuszko · Joined: 30 Apr 2004 Posts: 196 Location: Poland

Well i dont agree for such nonsense logic... WHen u are on war u need won a battle. Sharpes way of thinking is only theory without any evidences - Who knows what could happend if Napoleon lost Austerlit ? Maybe Allies could enter France and started great terror and Napoleon could be executed ? Austerlit Victory was great and neccesary that time. He made the best what he could make. NApoleon lost the war but it was many many other reasons ( main was not well prepared expedition against Russia ). IM study now Hanibal expedition agianst the Rome - ofcource using Sharpe way is easy to say that Cannae victory was main reason of Hanibal disaster - cos never before and later Rome was so determinated.. But ofcource its crap. If romans win battle of Cannae - Carthago would be anihilated faster. Hanibal lost the war cos many other cirmunstances happend not cos he won battle of Cannae.
If u want to talk about someone mistakes u should try to use his point of view ... But its required to cut off all hisotrical knowledge and to base only on information avioalalble that time.
Napoloen believed that victory at Austerlitz will let him to get peace agreement, and he was right that time . HAniball had the same hope hawever he was wrong... But at Cannae he didnt fighting for good peace with Rome - but to save army from great disaster - and no one made its better in history.

regards
kosc
_________________
(...)" Thucydides says only that he had seven ships it was winter and he sailed quickly"

[HWK]axlethehawk · Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:29 pm Post subject:

S.B. wtf r u talkin about dude Confused

If a post requires a lengthy discussion then it does and that's all there is to it.

I am surprised that someone who has so many brain cells.....someone who has passed so many exams with such good results and apparently has so much knowledge ( even one so young ) that you would enjoy reading other people's views.

Only someone with low intelligence skills and a short span of attention would complain about becoming bored whilst reading.

How on earth did you manage to revise for all of those exams ...............hmmmmmmmmm I wonder ( did you just copy the answers m8y!!! Rolling Eyes

) .

P.S. obviously I am only joking........or am I Laughing

_________________
<img src=http://www.mastersofthefield.com/avatars_signatures/Axle_logo1.jpg border=0>

[hwk] axlethehawk ( DIPLOMATIC LIAISSON )

Jark · Joined: 22 Apr 2004 Posts: 97

I read last posts in this topic late at night had no strenght to write an answer, thanks to Kosciuszko I dont have to do it now, I agree with him, and really I see it hopeless when I read some posts, really cant understand why some people are seeing things so one-sided, it seems to me the best way to become fanatic in some cases,
France and imperium, lol, why we dont talk about british imperium and its politics to other nations, Sharpe, you should have for sure better knowledge and access to sources than some of us, maybe you could investigate and explain me why poeople on Mauritius still are speaking french though France lost the island to Britain in 1812 and english is an official language?

Yours,

Jark (Prince Eugene of Savoy)
_________________

Si Deus nobiscum quis contra nos?

	www.mastersofthefield.com Forum Index -> History	All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1