Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm writing a research paper on Napoleon; on how his tactics make him the best military general of all time

There are many battles I could use that illustrate his tactical prowess, but I am not sure how I should structure them

Should I make each section of the paper on a specific section of the war and outline his tactical victories in each section? Or should I make each section a particular tactic and outline all his successes with that tactic.

I am leaning towards the former; but I don't know which of the coalitions (1st coalition, 2nd, etc) I should use; this is only a 1000 word paper

share|improve this question

closed as primarily opinion-based by Drux, jwenting, Kobunite, Razie Mah, Steven Drennon Mar 3 at 5:55

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1  
1000 words makes me think this is a home work assignment and not a paper. –  Sardathrion Feb 17 at 17:33
    
    
I am an 8th grader, which is why our research papers are shorter. –  user1380792 Feb 17 at 18:05
1  
I like that they call them "research papers" in 8th grade. It sounds ridiculous, but it is not. –  Lennart Regebro Feb 18 at 7:59
1  
This sounds more like a question on writing technique than on the actual history. –  called2voyage Feb 19 at 21:39

2 Answers 2

You will have a difficult time convincing me that Napoleon was the best battlefield technician of all time, when he was only the third best French practitioner of that art during the Napoleonic Era; Davout and likely Desaix would head that list.

Similarly as a dynastic founder Napoleon's complete ineptitude at diplomacy place him a long ways down that list.

While Napoleon's construction and use of the Imperial Guard, and Artillery Reserve were masterful, most of French tactical doctrine and organization was already in place as the result of events leading up to Valmy. He would certainly have to place behind Alexander (or Philip if you prefer), Marius, and Temujin among architects of the military force they wielded.

As an innovator of tactics and strategies Napoleon is unexceptional, making use of the tools available in marginally more productive ways. Of his well published developments only the Battallione Carre is truly novel.

Where Napoleon did excel was as a charismatic leader of men. He was able to surround himself with an array of extremely talented subordinates who often despised, and would refuse to cooperate with, each other; bind them to himself with exceptional loyalty; and energize them to attain heights even they did not believe them selves capable of.

share|improve this answer
4  
How does any of this answer the question? –  Yannis Rizos Feb 18 at 12:46
    
@YannisRizos while I agree this doesn't answer the question, the question itself as it is written is simply OT. This at least should somehow help the OP, so I'm ok with it. –  Lohoris Feb 22 at 20:21

Tactics are hard to sort out, you should go a bit higher and look at the 'operational level' - the movements of the parts of the army. This will be easier to see and describe in a small paper. The campaigns of 1796 and 1797 are very good for him separating the other side into parts and taking them in turn. Then you could look at the 1805 sweep past Ulm and the 1806 drive around the Prussians before Jena/Auerstadt and the pursuit afterward.

Napoleon wanted the other side beaten before the final battle really started, rather than rely on some trick to win a close fight.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.