Good Napoleonic Reading

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Good Napoleonic Reading

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition >> Napoleonic History >> Good Napoleonic Reading

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Good Napoleonic Reading - 7/27/2009 1:09:55 AM

Russian Guard

Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

Just finishing up "Napoleon's Campaign in Poland, 1806-1807", by Petre, with a forward by Chandler. An excellent if somewhat dry read, if you ever wanted to understand the importance of roads, weather, and the advantage of Corps over Columns, this is it.

Detailed descriptions, at the Battallion level in many cases, of the Battles of Pultusk, Elyau, Heilsberg and Friedland. Also the siege of Danzig and some other lesser-known actions.

Interesting aside - the author adamantly states that Massena was the best Marshal under Napoleon, with Davout 2nd. That ought to stir some arguments

Post #: 1

RE: Good Napoleonic Reading - 8/3/2009 9:42:53 AM

Mus

Posts: 1759
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

Interesting aside - the author adamantly states that Massena was the best Marshal under Napoleon, with Davout 2nd. That ought to stir some arguments

What does he use to justify the opinion? That Massena was more often given independent commands? Its not a bad point necessarily, just that Davout had more impressive results from what I have read.

_____________________________

Mindset, Tactics, Skill, Equipment
Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas

(in reply to Russian Guard)

Post #: 2

RE: Good Napoleonic Reading - 8/10/2009 7:35:06 PM

Russian Guard

Posts: 1251
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

Interesting aside - the author adamantly states that Massena was the best Marshal under Napoleon, with Davout 2nd. That ought to stir some arguments

What does he use to justify the opinion? That Massena was more often given independent commands? Its not a bad point necessarily, just that Davout had more impressive results from what I have read.

Yes you hit the nail on the head, the author obviously finds more talent in the ability to operate independently. Davout virtually always worked closely with Napoleon, whereas Massena was often sent far away and trusted with independent command. He seems to think of Davout as the ultimate executor of someone else's plan. I don't agree, by the way. I think Davout was anyone's equal on the battlefield, including Wellington. Too bad Davout wasn't at Waterloo, from a "what-if" perspective.

(in reply to Mus)

Post #: 3