Buzz
The early 19th century was a transformative period in history. A Corsican nobleman of humble beginnings rose to prominence, leading wars that resulted in the deaths of three million individuals. The Louisiana Purchase ignited the pioneering spirit in the United States, paving the way for its growth into a global superpower. The Rosetta Stone unveiled the mysteries of ancient Egypt, while abolitionist movements gained momentum worldwide, challenging the status quo.
However, this page isn’t just a recap of the era’s highlights. Our goal is to debunk common misconceptions that a superficial understanding of the period might have created. Along the way, we might even challenge some of the glorified perceptions of Napoleon Bonaparte—an endeavor that’s been a long time coming.
10. Napoleon Was Not Necessarily the Greatest French General of His Time
Despite the devastation Napoleon Bonaparte’s armies inflicted on numerous nations and his eventual demise as a prisoner on a remote island in the South Atlantic, his lasting legacy remains that of one of history’s most renowned military leaders. This reputation lent a tragic air to his imprisonment and death, even though the wars fought for his ambition claimed the lives of approximately one million French soldiers.
Louis-Nicholas Davout, the youngest marshal in Napoleon’s army (even younger than Napoleon himself), is widely regarded as the finest French general of the era. His pivotal role in the 1805 Battle of Austerlitz was crucial—he marched his two divisions 120 kilometers (75 miles) in just two days and held his ground against superior forces while Napoleon struck at the enemy’s center.
Davout averted disaster at the 1807 Battle of Eylau and secured victory by assaulting the Austrian flank during the 1809 Battle of Wagram. He also organized the army Napoleon used for the 1812 Russian campaign. When the tide turned against the French, Davout led the rear guard, ensuring Napoleon’s escape.
Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo was partly due to his decision to leave Davout and his forces behind, as Bonaparte often sought personal glory. However, when commanding independently, Davout’s track record was impeccable: he never lost a battle. His most remarkable achievement was at the Battle of Auerstadt, where he triumphed despite being outnumbered more than two to one—a challenge Napoleon himself never faced.
However, Davout was far from perfect. In 1814, his forces were besieged in Hamburg during the harsh winter. Facing dwindling supplies and no other options, Davout made the ruthless decision to expel tens of thousands of desperate civilians from the city. While this act was undeniably harsh, Davout’s loyalty was always to France above all else.
9. The French Army Was Not at Its Peak During Napoleon’s Era
The French military’s reputation during World War II and its reluctance to join the 2003 Iraq invasion led many to believe that Napoleon Bonaparte’s era marked France’s final military glory. The troops, capable of winning battles from Barcelona to the heart of Russia, were known for their rapid mobility and resilience against overwhelming odds.
Yet, training within the French infantry was often shockingly inadequate, sometimes to the point of being deadly. According to the Time-Life book The Enterprise of War, Marshal Laurent de Gouvion Saint-Cyr estimated that around 25 percent of French infantry casualties were due to poorly trained soldiers accidentally shooting each other. Even Bernard Cornwell’s Sharpe series never depicted them as being so incompetent.
This era was also marked by shameful behavior, especially during the frequent incursions of French armies into enemy territories. To reduce the logistical burden on Napoleon’s forces, soldiers were ordered to “live off the land,” which often translated into systematic pillaging and acts of violence that could rival the brutality of the Vikings. Napoleon himself was no stranger to such conduct, as historical accounts suggest he assaulted his Polish mistress during their first encounter.
Davout, however, stood out as an exception to this widespread plundering. His corps imposed the death penalty for looting, and he personally abstained from profiting off such activities. This principled stance isolated him from his peers, much like an honest officer in a corrupt police force.
8. Napoleon Was Not Invincible From the Start
The commonly accepted narrative portrays Napoleon as an undefeatable genius early in his career, effortlessly outmaneuvering his fragmented enemies. However, as time passed, his overconfidence grew, his once-boundless energy waned, and his adversaries gradually deciphered his tactics through repeated encounters.
After all, his most infamous defeats—the Russian campaign and Waterloo—occurred in the final phase of his career. Reflecting on his journey, Napoleon once remarked, “I have fought 60 battles and I have learned nothing,” revealing his self-perception as an eternal prodigy.
However, Europe and Asia didn’t require the duke of Wellington or Russian cunning to witness Napoleon’s defeat. Joseph Alvinczy, a name unfamiliar to many amateur historians, became the first general to triumph over Napoleon on November 11 and 12, 1796. This victory was particularly remarkable as Alvinczy faced a numerical disadvantage at the Battle of Caldiero.
Although Napoleon’s forces eventually recovered and secured victory in the broader conflict, the same couldn’t be said for his defeat at the Siege of Acre in 1799, which marked the catastrophic end of his Egyptian campaign. Similarly, during the decisive Battle of Marengo in 1800 against Austria, Napoleon’s initial strategy failed, prompting him to consider retreat.
It was only after receiving guidance from General Louis Desaix on how to outmaneuver the enemy (“This battle is lost, but there is time to win another,” Desaix reportedly said before his death in the same battle) that Napoleon managed to reverse the situation. This further underscores the extraordinary nature of Field Marshal Davout’s military achievements.
7. The Louisiana Purchase
The 1803 Louisiana Purchase effectively doubled the size of the United States at what appeared to be a bargain price of $15 million. This has often been depicted as Napoleon Bonaparte’s short-sighted decision to sell off vast, valuable territory without foreseeing its future worth. This perception is further strengthened by the fact that the U.S. government was prepared to spend up to $10 million solely for New Orleans and West Florida.
However, the sale was strategically sound for France at the time. The loss of Haiti to a slave revolt and yellow fever had severely disrupted France’s ability to supply its North American forces. Additionally, France insisted on payment entirely in gold, delivered upfront, which bolstered its treasury just as it prepared for war with Britain and later a coalition including Austria, Russia, and Prussia. For the U.S., the purchase came at a steep cost, plunging the nation into significant debt—ironically, owed to Great Britain.
6. French Troops Wore Blue, British Troops Wore Red
Americans often envision the armies of this era in their traditional colors: the British in red coats, supposedly making them easy targets for colonial soldiers, and the Americans in blue uniforms, supplied by the French during the Revolutionary War.
However, the reality was far more colorful. French forces included Dutch Grenadiers in white and dragoon cavalry in green, who rode to battle but fought on foot. Napoleon’s armies even featured Mamluk cavalry from the Middle East, clad in turbans and red vests.
Following Napoleon’s victory over Prussia and the liberation of Poland, his Grande Armée incorporated Polish troops wearing predominantly purple uniforms. On the British side, rifle regiments donned practical green, while hussar cavalry opted for blue. Simplifying the uniforms to just red and blue would have undoubtedly made things easier.
5. It Was a Pinnacle Moment for France as a Nation
Historians and enthusiasts of military history often view periods of a nation conquering its neighbors as golden eras. While the morality is debatable, such conquests brought wealth and land to the victors through plunder. Napoleon Bonaparte, to his credit, also implemented humanitarian initiatives during and between his campaigns, including liberating Jews from ghettos.
However, the harsh reality was that poverty was widespread during Napoleon’s rule. His 1806 Continental System, an embargo on British imports, inflicted significant economic damage on France and its allies. Even Napoleon, despite his ego, recognized this and began introducing concessions by 1810.
Napoleon further tarnished France’s legacy in 1802 by reinstating slavery, which had been abolished in 1794. The subsequent loss of Haiti in 1803 was no accident. Reflecting on his impact, Napoleon admitted, “I found them—and I left them—poor,” acknowledging his failure to improve the lives of ordinary citizens.
4. The Russians Strategically Defeated Napoleon By Retreating Until Winter
To frame the Russian strategy during the 1812 invasion positively, it’s often suggested that the Russian military devised a plan to retreat as Napoleon advanced with 600,000 soldiers. The Russians understood that even a massive army would struggle to maintain control over such a vast territory. When Napoleon captured Moscow, the Russians set it ablaze, forcing his retreat through the harsh winter and decimating what was once Europe’s largest army through strategic cunning.
However, as Vincent J. Esposito and John R. Elting note in their historical review for A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars, there is no evidence in the Russian high command’s communications of any “trace of a plan” to weaken Napoleon’s forces through deliberate retreats.
This is further supported by the fierce resistance at cities like Smolensk, where over 12,000 casualties were sustained—hardly the actions of an army employing a delay strategy.
3. The Russian Winter Was Not Solely Responsible for Napoleon’s Defeat
As previously mentioned, the Russian winter is often credited with crippling Napoleon’s 600,000-strong army. Another popular theory suggests that the extreme cold caused the tin buttons on French soldiers’ uniforms to disintegrate, leaving them exposed to the harsh elements and contributing to their demise.
However, the French invasion force had already suffered catastrophic losses long before winter arrived. In June 1812, as Napoleon’s army marched through Poland, they encountered a region ravaged by the retreating Russian forces.
The lack of adequate forage led to the deaths of tens of thousands of horses. Soon after, a typhus epidemic swept through the French ranks, claiming the lives of 80,000 soldiers by the end of July—more than would perish during the retreat from Moscow.
Desertion became rampant, especially among troops from nations coerced into fighting for Napoleon. By this point, his army had already lost half its strength.
Disease and desertion continued to take their toll throughout the summer. By the time Napoleon reached Moscow, his forces had dwindled to around 90,000 to 100,000 men, a mere fraction of their original size. Regardless of the exact numbers, it’s clear that his army had been reduced to a shadow of its former self.
The typhus epidemic that ravaged Napoleon’s army can be seen as a form of poetic justice. The French soldiers’ reliance on plundering local peasants for supplies exposed them to the disease, particularly in the devastated Polish communities. Despite Napoleon’s popularity in Poland for granting the nation independence, his tactics there contributed significantly to his downfall, rivaling even his overconfidence.
2. The Russian Invasion Marked Napoleon’s Decline
Napoleon’s 1812 invasion of Russia is often cited as the pivotal moment that led to the collapse of his empire, attributed more to his overconfidence than to inevitable circumstances. This campaign resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and exposed the vulnerabilities of his once-invincible armies.
While Napoleon later claimed on Saint Helena that he would have conquered Russia with the return of favorable weather had Moscow not burned, this assertion overlooks numerous critical factors that made such an outcome unlikely.
First, despite Napoleon’s renowned reliance on gunpowder, France’s ports were blockaded immediately after declaring war on Britain. This severely limited the empire’s access to saltpeter, a crucial ingredient for gunpowder production.
This shortage explains why French soldiers were notoriously poor marksmen—they lacked sufficient gunpowder for proper training. Historically, any power that dominated Europe but failed to challenge Britain at sea ultimately fell, as seen in the outcomes of both World War I and World War II.
Moreover, Napoleon’s Continental System, his primary strategy to counter British influence, was impractical to enforce. Despite widespread resistance to French rule, bribery and smuggling ensured British merchants thrived, allowing Prussia, Russia, and others to sustain their economies.
Even without support from Prussia or Russia, Austria’s forces managed to defeat Napoleon at Aspern-Essling in 1809. This demonstrated that his rivals were adapting to his tactics, which ultimately led to his battlefield defeats and eventual downfall.
1. The Battle of Waterloo Was Decisive
The Battle of Waterloo is undoubtedly the most iconic battle of the Napoleonic Wars, its name even becoming synonymous with the downfall of an overconfident individual. This clash pitted Napoleon against the Duke of Wellington, a celebrated hero of the Peninsular War and one of Britain’s most accomplished generals, despite his personal disdain for warfare. The battle’s intensity was such that Wellington famously described it as “the nearest-run thing you ever saw.”
However, even a victory at Waterloo would not have secured Napoleon’s position. France’s economy was already crippled by years of war, leaving the nation unwilling to endure further prolonged conflict.
By June 18, 1815, as Napoleon appeared close to triumph, massive Austrian, Russian, and Prussian forces were mobilizing against him. Superior numbers had previously defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Leipzig in 1813 and during the 1814 campaign that led to his exile.
As Owen Connelly emphasized in his book Blundering to Glory, Waterloo was a spectacle of sound and fury but ultimately inconsequential.
