Context and Precedence:
Europe had been in turmoil since the start of the French Revolutionary Wars in 1792. In 1797, after five years of war, the French Republic subdued the First Coalition, an alliance of Austria, Prussia, Great Britain, Spain, and various Italian states. A Second Coalition, led by Britain, Austria, and Russia, and including the Ottoman Empire, Portugal, and Naples, was formed in 1798. Still, by 1801, this, too, had been defeated, leaving Britain the only opponent of the new French Consulate. In March 1802, France and Britain agreed to end hostilities under the Treaty of Amiens.
In May 1803, Britain declared war on France again.
This day in history, December 2, 1805
After eliminating an Austrian army during the Ulm campaign, French forces seized Vienna in November 1805. The Austrians avoided further conflict until the arrival of the Russians, who helped increase the allied numbers.
Napoleon sent his army north in pursuit of the Allies but then ordered his forces to retreat so he could feign a grave weakness to lure the Allies into thinking that they were facing a weak army but, in reality, a formidable one. Napoleon gave every indication in the days preceding the engagement that the French army was in a pitiful state, even abandoning the dominant Pratzen Heights near Austerlitz. He deployed the French army below the Pratzen Heights and deliberately weakened his right flank, enticing the Allies to launch a major assault there in the hopes of rolling up the French line.
A forced march from Vienna by Marshal Davout and his III Corps plugged the gap left by Napoleon just in time. Meanwhile, the heavy Allied deployment against the French right weakened the Allied center on the Pratzen Heights, which the IV Corps of Marshal Soult viciously attacked. With the Allied center demolished, the French swept through both enemy flanks and sent the Allies fleeing chaotically, capturing thousands of prisoners in the process.
Few troops drowned in the ponds in the area despite the depiction in the feature film Napoleon.
This is how Ridley Scott saw it:
Allied casualties stood at about 36,000 out of an army of 89,000, representing about 38% of their effective forces. The French lost around 9,000 out of an army of 66,000, or about 13% of their forces. The Allies also lost some 180 guns and about 50 standards. The great victory was met by sheer amazement and delirium in Paris, where the nation had been teetering on the brink of financial collapse just days earlier.
Napoleon’s words to his troops after the battle were full of praise: Soldats! Je suis content de vous (English: Soldiers! I am pleased with you). The Emperor provided two million golden francs to the higher officers and 200 francs to each soldier, with large pensions for the widows of the fallen. Orphaned children were adopted by Napoleon personally and were allowed to add “Napoleon” to their baptismal and family names.
Joaquin Phoenix has no presence at all in those scenes.
The Bernard Cornwell “Sharp” novels give some very good descriptions of the battles of English vs French. The TV series not so much as they use too few people to show an actual battle.
The French attacked in columns which got through lines by speed and accepting casualties. Lightning war of its era.
The English developed multiple ranks firing in sequence and were apparently the only army who had enough financial support to regularly practice with live ammunition. So the column lost its strength.
Yes, and Napoleon was able to exploit his troop’s good morale (they loved him and trusted him) to move them in unexpected ways quickly. Waterloo was an example of Napoleon catching the British by surprise in the hopes of defeating his enemies in detail rather than hitting them head with 10-1 odds against. In the same way, General Nathan Bedford Forrest managed the same tactics with similar success during the War of Northern Aggression/Civil War. Forrest (Bryce’s Crossroads) defeated three larger Union formations on the same day by taking them one at a time.
Back to Waterloo, Napoleon had to hit the British when he did and rushed the engagement in the hopes of taking out Wellington before Blucher could combine with him. As Wellington said, “It was a close run thing.”
The British (much like the Romans) fought best in defensive situations. The French formations were organized for rapid movement. The British bragged up Waterloo but lost ALL of their elite cavalry and much of their best infantry in the engagement. They won, but they were
mauled despite their defensive advantage and equal numbers. Napoleon came from exile, deposed Louis XVIII through the love the army held for him, and took on Europe more or less at a run. It ticks me off to see Napoleon Bonaparte run down and played on the screen by a pussy.
Hoped for the best, planned for the worst. Especially with Phoenix playing Bonaparte.
“Napoleon Bonaparte run down and played on the screen by a pussy.”
Fair enough. But it could have been far worse. I’m assuming (have no desire to see the movie) that Napoleon’s achievements were not credited to a trio of sassy genius negresses, nor to a wise Muslim “Arab” played by Morgan Freeman (which would infuriate actual Arabs), nor to a “Persian” in S&M gear (looking at you, Frank Miller). And I assume that Napoleon didn’t blow men (as Dear Z is rumored to have done) in the movie. So it could have been worse. Much worse.
It would have been more farcical. They tried to be serious in the movie. It didn’t quite take.
Concur on Cornwell’s “Sharp” novels. He did the research and got ‘most’ of the details right.
Yes, I’ve read all of the Sharp novels – and the rest of Cornwell’s work (all highly recommended).
To be fair about it, the recent movie, NAPOLEON, got the uniforms, flags, and weapons right. The French carried Charleville muskets and the British carried pattern muskets (Brown Bess).
Austerlitz was brilliant as was Boney himself, and I say that as a fan of the Iron Duke. Was Bonaparte miscast in this recent film by a “pussy”?
Everyone says so, though I’ve yet to see it.