How did Napoleon manage to fight off the rest of the European powers for so long (and even be so close to winning)?

This. Napoleon alone cannot explain it all.

>Napoleon won Borodino

>Austrians in charge of having competent army
>Russians in charge of having competent army
>Spanish in charge of having competent army
>Britain in charge of having an army
>Portugal in charge of having competent army

France was strongest country of 18 century. Both Hitler and Napoleon just wasted accomulated resources and power of French kingdom and German empire/republic.
>and even be so close to winning
Just no.

He did
The Russian fled the field and gave up Moscow

and won the war

He won all the battles except the last one

Except Friedland. And Aspern Essling. And Vyazma. And the Beresina. And the Battle of Nations. And a lot of battles during the Invasion of France in 1814.

France had a huge demographic advantage at the time and it was extremelly centralized and raised levies constantly. Really it wasnt as inpressive as it looks

Frogs have always been the most powerful state in Europe.

>Except Friedland

It was one of his greatest victory, faggot

>Really it wasnt as inpressive as it looks

You just sound like a butthurt bong desu
France had the biggest population in Europe, but Austria + Spain combined were enough to nullify it, let alone the entire continent together.

If you take a close look at battles, France is outnumbered most of the time
What France did between 1792 and 1815 is easily one of the most impressive performance in history

>Austria + Spain
Not really at least in terms of demographics. And if you take into account that they were raising way more levies than anyone. France had a huge numbers advantage in the end until Russia came

>austria and spain
That's like beating up two downies then claiming you're superman for winning 2 v 1.

You put a bunch of places neutral or allied to Nappy in blue, why?

>France was strongest country of 18 century.

Yeah and revolutionary France defeated that country, and THEN took on everybody else at once. That makes it more impressive, not less.

RESOURCE MOBILIZATION

>Not really at least in terms of demographics.

Yes really
Austria alone had a population almost as big as France, and Spain had more than half of it
Add to that Prussia, Austria's HRE possessions (current Germany, Italy and Belgium), the Netherlands, Russia and Britain, and you had a combined population of over 100 millions as opposed to France's 30 millions

When people spout the meme of France's big population, they tend to forget France was 1st but only by a small margin and that most big countries followed it very closely
So just two of these countries combined were enough to nullify the advantage, let alone the entire continent

From what I could gather, in 1800 it was:

Russia = 52 millions
France = 27 millions
Austria alone = 21 millions
Austria's possessions in Germany, Italy and Low Countries = 39 millions
Prussia = 17 millions
Spain = 15 millions
Britain = 11 millions

>Britain = 11 millions
>could crush the navies of 27 million and 15 million combined
lmao mainlanders

Reminder that Britain was being irrelevant in Spain when Napoleon was first defeated

>outnumbered by 5 to 1
>still cause the enemy casualties 4 to 1

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1800

Wow, this really refutes the argument that France had a huge population advantage

From your link:

France
>Mainland France = 27 millions
>Recently occupied territories in Belgium and Italy = 10 millions
>Colonies = 1 million
Total = 38 millions

Coalition
>British Empire = 115 millions
>Russia = 35 millions
>Spain = 24 millions
>Austria = 23 millions
>Austria's HRE possessions = 24 millions
>Prussia = 10 millions
>Portugal = 9 millions
Total = 240 millions

>i have literally no understanding of how reality works

t. you

do you really think it would be feasible for the UK to spam armies of bengalis in continental europe circa 1800

population means fucking zilch compared to army size and logistic capabilies in order to support said army

>His enemies generally were not nearly as unitednatates.income.percenti determined as the French coalition.
what is happening

>Why do people compare Napoleon to Hitler?

"See that guy trying to take over the world? Remember last time?"

Knew you fagget would spout that
Well, even if counting on the 10 millions of Great Britain rather than the whole empire:

(240-115)+10 = 135
135 millions vs 38 millions

>An example of the place that Frederick holds in history as a ruler is seen in Napoleon Bonaparte, who saw the Prussian king as the greatest tactical genius of all time;[89] after Napoleon's victory of the Fourth Coalition in 1807, he visited Frederick's tomb in Potsdam and remarked to his officers, "Gentlemen, if this man were still alive I would not be here".[90] Napoleon frequently "pored through Frederick's campaign narratives and had a statuette of him placed in his personal cabinet."

Napoleon fed off of romanticism just as much as Hitler did, check out the paintings of his battles. Hitler would have been seen as a military genius if he hadn't invaded Russia, but when he did invade Russia he got further and "won" (in casualty numbers) harder than Napoleon did by a long shot. Yet, they both basically lost in the end for roughly the same reasons.

>but when he did invade Russia he got further and "won" (in casualty numbers) harder than Napoleon did by a long shot.
No, you're an uneducated cretin
Napoleon won many wars against coalitions before he invaded Russia
Hitler just conquered Poland and Czechia, lucked out in France and that's it
Not to mention Hitler was never on the field and can't be considered the military mastermind behinf these victories

>Yet, they both basically lost in the end for roughly the same reasons.
Napoleon lost because winter and starvation devasted his army
Hitler lost because the Russians devasted his army

24 million is the number of the HRE as a whole you moron, it includes the Austrian and Prussian parts of the HRE as well as the other states.

your little calculation doesn't reflect the situation on the battlefield because usually France didn't fight the whole coaltion and not all members of the coaliton were comitted enough to put in all their ressources.

>European powers

Germany and Italy didn't even exist.

That whole argument about population is retarded anyway
What counts is the numbers of troops in battle, and if you look here , you'll see that France almost never had the advantage on that regard

>some of the current european powers didn't exists therefore there were no european powers at all back then

Why are you even on this board?

>land battles
lmao who cares

France had the largest population and could field the biggest army. Also, great generals and the enthusiam of a populace fighting for a cause.

There was also literally nothing stopping the french east of the border until you get to Austria proper or Prussia. Austrians were noticeably incompetent, Prussians were good but far outnumbered and outresourced on their own, Spain had some decent troops and officers but the back-stabbing french occupation dismantled the regular army, Russia had a good army and good generals (Suvorov was probably the best of the era) but still outnumbered on their own + could only support a fraction of their forces to operate in far away thestres like Italy or the Rhine along with coalition forces. The British army was quite efficient but very small in numbers.

Managing and coordinating coalition efforts isn't an easy task either. And once Napopoo grabbed everyone by the pussy, from Italy to to Holland, everyone got even further outresourced.

So in the end, it was all about France bleeding its life in Russia and Spain, coalition to gain vast superiority in numbers, win those battles in Germany, march to Paris and erase France as the prime european power, which the had traditionally been since like ever, and become a cuck country, Britains official continental bitch, after 1815 forever.

Because I enjoy fucking with autistic kids like you.

OP, the real answer is that France and Napoleon just had a revolution and Ol Nappy' wasn't afraid to arm his entire population. Most European monarchs were terrified of their population being armed and had smaller armies. Napoleon commanded a massive and loyal force no single nation could compete with.

/thread

>all these idiots spouting that the combined forces of the coalition had larger populations and therefore this for some reason means anything

You folks have to remember that the French had one of the biggest armies in europe, led by one of the best generals of all time, who actually gave a crap about logistics and supply. Not only that but Napoleon was able to comfortably replace his losses after each battle through mass conscription, the likes of which had not been seen in the modern western world. The French mastered the early concepts of Total War and therefore was able to drive an entire nation in support of the war effort. Something that the rest of Europe were either unwilling to do, or did not have the capacity to do so.

I would say Europe, not the world, but people make that mistake about both of them so it still fits.

>There was also literally nothing stopping the french east of the border until you get to Austria proper or Prussia.

Everything East of France was the property of Austria in 1790
When the war started in 1792, Austria tried to invade France through Belgium, the Rhineland and Italy
But the tide turned and France took over all those place, ending Austrian domination in Belgium, Germany and Italy

>all these retards (you included) spouting it's big numbers that explain Napoleon's success

See his major battles and STFU

Not a better logistician, relied on looting. Lack of supply was his downfall in Iberia

Yeah but the Austrians had this old style troops there, the population there didn't give a shit (in fact they welcomed the French as liberators and shit because le civil code and le freedom) and the french population was cocaine high into fighting for the Revolution.

Except the Vendee people, but they got swiftly liberated.

Wow, so much bullshit inthis post

>There was also literally nothing stopping the french east of the border until you get to Austria proper or Prussia.
As someone else pointed out, basically everything east from France except Switzerland was Austrian possessions

>Prussians were good but far outnumbered and outresourced on their own
The Prussians heavily outnumbered the French in the Fourth Colaition (see battles) and still got conquered in 19 days

>Spain had some decent troops and officers but the back-stabbing french occupation dismantled the regular army
Nice meme
The"""backstabbing""" happened in 1808, long after Spain had lost the Pyrenees War without any excuse

>The British army was quite efficient but very small in numbers.
The British army was anything but efficient
The Flanders Campaign and the 1799 invasion of Holland were shameful shitshows, and the Peninsular War was a stalled clusterfuck

>big numbers

I didn't say that. I said that it was his ability to consistently replace his losses through mass conscription (levée en masse) that contributed to his success. Something that the rest of Europe simply couldn't do at that scale.

Read the post next time.

Why did France have the largest population?

Numbers for Jena are wrong, Napoleon had more troops there (contrary to Auerstedt).
Encyclopedia Britannica says Napoleon had more troops in the battle of Friedland. Napoleon didn't win because of numbers, but he didn't have to face overwhelming odds either, as one might think when looking at OP's picture.

>Napoleon didn't win because of numbers, but he didn't have to face overwhelming odds either, as one might think when looking at OP's picture.

This pictures exaggerate things
Have you ever seen the WW1 one?
It looks like Germany was alone against the entire world when in reality only France, Britain, Russia and to some extend the US were relevant

As for Napoleon, he was a continuation of Revolutionary France, and Revolutionary France had to face overwheming odds, as it was attacked from every side by the most powerful european countries at once.

When Napoleon took over France in 1799, Spain, the Low Countries and Austrian possessions in Germany had already been taken and Prussia had surrendered
He just had to beat the Austrians and Russians in Italy and Britain pussied out
After that, all of Europe was never at war against France at the same time anymore until 1813, it was either Russia + Austria or Prussia + Russia, but not all of them at once

>Austria

See >Prussia

Wasn't it just Jena? After that it was zergrushing the prussians, then even numbers in Eylau vs Prussians+Russkis then Friedland vs ruskis only because the prussians had already been zergrushed.

>Spain

The Pyrenees war was outnumbered spanish beating frogs until competent general died, got replaced by shitty one and then frogs Zhukov the frontlines into victory.

>Britain

Except the purpose of the operations across the channel wasn't to invade France but to raid, say hello fuckers, and be a general pain in the ass, forcing the frogs to militarize the region and keep a number of troops detached there to deal with it.

>The Pyrenees war was outnumbered spanish beating frogs until competent general died, got replaced by shitty one and then frogs Zhukov the frontlines into victory.

Now you're just making up shit
The exact numbers for that war aren't known, all that we know is that the Spanish conceded over 20,000 killed while only 6,500 French died

And given that France was simultaneously fighting for its Northern, Eastern and South-Eastern borders at the same moment, it's very unlikely they poured a lot of troops in the Pyrenees

From what I can tell, it is the romanticisation of Napoleon, who was a master of PR and self-promotion, which is one of the main problems with any appraisal, fact of the matter is he slaughtered his way across Europe (just look at the accounts of French activities in the brutal gurriella war in Spain - another conflict Napoleon was eager to leave to someone else, just like he left Egypt to General Kléber (who was later assassinated in a Cairo street)

Few civilians knew the exact details of the Battles of Borodino and the slaughter those battles entailed, what is long overdue is an accurate account of a blood-thirsty lunatic (one in a long line of Europeans) and his insanity which reached megalomaniac proportions

You're full of shit
Napoleon fought seven wars as the ruler of France, yet out of these, only two were started by him (Spain 1808, Russia 1812)
Most of his conquest happened because other countries declared war on France

As an uneducated faggot, you're quick to lay the blame on Napoleon, the only european ruler from that era still remembered nowdays, but the rulers of Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia were far from innocent
If anything they were much more at fault for these wars than Napoleon

The Egypt operation was lulzy af

>Sail to Egypt because I wanna conquer India (lmao)
>the entire french mediterranean fleet gets annihilated in Aboukir because utter incompetence
>win a couple of irrelevant battles vs the t*rks but can't advance because no supplies and limited forcrs
>sneak out of Egypt in a frigate along with some generals abandoning the troops behind to be, literally, raped and killed by the t*rks
>back in Paris; "SALUT NAPOLEON LE HERO D'EGYPTE!!!"

>Revolutionary France had to face overwheming odds

Nope. The invasion armies of 1792 weren't all that large and quickly retreated on their own due to the dysentery epidemic and exposed supply lines. After that, France raised huge armies via levée en masse

France's expansionism and the installation of puppet regimes everywhere fueled the Napoleonic wars. France was the strategic aggressor, the other powers engaged in containment policy to restore the balance of power.

You know it's really criminal that we haven't had a TV series that truly captures the sheer scope of the Napoleonic era. I would kill to see a big-budget well-written and superbly casted show that begins with Napoleon at Toulon to his final days in St. Helena. And seen through the POVs of Prussians, Austrians, Russians, Danes, Swedes, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. as well as the French and British.

>spanish colonies in blue

Not even close. Napo never controled them

Still a lone country in the state of civil war repelled invasion from all sides by the most powerful european monarchies combined

It was impressive and you cannot deny it, even as a buttdevasted british faglord

This is true, but in certain circumstances, Revolutionary and Napoleonic France were the subject of aggression by the other European powers to contain revolutionary ideas from spreading.

Napoleon fucked up big time after Austerlitz. Instead of giving moderate terms to Austria and making strides to ensure peace, he went in over his head.

Not really
What fueled the Napoleonic Wars was the fact France, historically one of the most powerful monarchies and the cultural center of Europe, ended up with a commoner as ruler.

It scared european monarchs who feared this might give ideas to their own populace

>Napoleon fucked up big time after Austerlitz. Instead of giving moderate terms to Austria and making strides to ensure peace, he went in over his head.

Meh, he should have been harsher
Reminder that Napoleon conquered Austria and Prussia several times, yet he never deposed their monarchs despite the fact they kept starting wars against him again and again

He should have removed the fuckers from power, like they did with him when they finally reached Paris by 1814

There should be a trilogy about Napoleon

The Rise (1793-1802)
The Glory (1803-1811)
The Downfall (1812-1815)

Even if he removed the Hapsburgs and Hohenzollerns, whose to say the populace would've been dependable satellites and/or allies? Even the Poles were given a half-assed resurrection of their nation via the Duchy of Warsaw so that tells you of how much Napoleon's promises to people were.

I find Napoleon fascinating, but he should've quit while he was ahead. And why the fuck did he invade Iberia and let it continue to drain money and manpower? The Peninsular War was going on during the Battle of the Nations even.

A France containing modern Belgium and Luxembourg is ideally what he should've been content with. Belgium was already the industrial heartland of continental Europe at that time. Only Britain was better. Napoleon should've concerned himself with economic and educational matters instead of war after 1805.

I agree but each part needs to be at least 12-15 episodes to properly flesh out the era with some justice.

Couple reasons IMO.

>Napoleon's tactical and strategic genius. Notably his use of mobile artillery and his speed. Use of the corps system was significant.
>The French revolution created, for the first time, a militerised citizenry who would die for the patrie. Mobilisation and mass conscription allowed armies to be replenished with very eager volunteers. This made the quality and motivation of the troops far superior to the troops that, for example, Prussia was fielding at the time.
>France had one of the largest populations in Europe at the time.
>Many of the commanders facing Napoleon were septuagenarians. Austria seemed to be full of very very old generals during this period.

However, I would concede definitely that Napoleon's tactical and significantly, his strategic genius really helped. He also had many capable commanders working under him (Davout springs to mind as one of the greatest) and It also helped that he was an insane workaholic who wasn't corrupted by vanity and pursued glory relentlessly.

>A France containing modern Belgium and Luxembourg is ideally what he should've been content with.

Initially, Napoleon merely wanted to be the ruler of France
You have to remember the dude was from a commoner Corsican family, it was already more than he could ever have dreamed of

What happened is that Britain started the Napoleonic Wars and kept funding coalitions against him
Napoleon merely defended himself and ended up conquering most of Europe in self defense by 1807
Then glory seems to have made him overconfident so he started the Spanish bullshit in 1808 in hope to fuck over Britain (which was the main cause for the wars raging you have to remelber)

Dude, I'm a Napoleonic history buff but you're discounting the subject peoples of Italy who disliked his heavy taxation. And while the Confederation of the Rhine tidied up the German map, his trade practices and litigation really hampered the locals. Read economic conditions and history of Napoleonic-era Europe and you realize the only way France could prosper was at the expense of other Europeans. The Dutch in particular suffered a lot from being under Napoleon so much that his own brother Lucien ignored anti-British decrees.

>Many of the commanders facing Napoleon were septuagenarians. Austria seemed to be full of very very old generals during this period.

Interesting to note that Napoleon kept the meritocratic way to raise through ranks spawned by the Revolution, while other european countries gave the rank of general based on nobility
That's why you end up with stuff like the Battle of Redinha in which a son of barrel cooper blown the shit out of an Irish noble with mediocre fighting skills

They would have been incapable without fermenting huge revolt. A militerised nation (the wetdream of any true war follower of Klausvitz) is only really possible when the actual population feels threatened by something. It's a grass-roots restructuring of the population. In the past century, war in Europe had been a more formal affair between states with overtly political ends. This was unprecedented and would not return until WW1 when conditions were different and for a few reasons (such as the success of propaganda and the larger more powerful governments that existed) states were able to mass-conscript.

>The Dutch in particular suffered a lot from being under Napoleon so much that his own brother Lucien ignored anti-British decrees.

If by "anti-British decrees", you mean the Continental System, it was in 1806 long after Britain had shat all over Europe by starting two coalitions wars (3rd and 4th)

>discounting the subject peoples of Italy who disliked his heavy taxation

Not to mention the wide-scale looting of precious art and the import of French revolutionary bureaucrats into important positions who knew nothing about Italy.

Yep. I really find it baffling how people overlook how Napoleon's empire exploited non-French. Only the Polish and elements of the Irish viewed him as a liberator.

You forget that French custom officials were bossing around the Dutch and refraining them from trading with Britain before Lucien was installed as king. The Dutch needed trade to sustain its economy which they have for centuries, but France choked the life out of them. Google Books is your ally in this.

>Only the Polish and elements of the Irish viewed him as a liberator.

And the Croations, the Slovenians, the Dutch, many of the Germans and Italians
You can cherrypick about the few Italians who disliked him, but a fair share were happny to be free from Austrian domination

>Initially, Napoleon merely wanted to be the ruler of France

He wanted to be the hegemon of Europe and the others disagreed with it. France probably could have even kept the Rhine border if it had retreated from Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the Mediterranean.

>wage war against napoleon multiple times and refuse peace
>"oi m8, fucking war mongers"
>10 years later proceeds to try and take over the world
fucking anglos

>if it had retreated from Italy
And give it back to the Austrians so they can attack from there again?
Come on

>the Netherlands
The Dutch had their own revolution and willingly became a French ally

>Switzerland
I'd agree with thisone
But the fact the Austrians and Russia used it as an advanced base to invade France in 1799 didnt help

>and the Mediterranean.
Wut?

Face it, the reason why France was all over these place was because Austria done goofed

Anglos took over 3rd world shitholes, not Europe
That's more acceptable

France started the war of the first coalition. lol

>And give it back to the Austrians so they can attack from there again?

It would have given them far less incentive to enter another costly war. Austria could have come to terms with a France in its natural borders (even in 1813 Metternich was okay with this option, see Frankfurt proposals), but not with a hegemon. Just like Prussia stayed out of the 2nd and 3rd wars and only acted after France forced them into war with Britain, took away Prussian posessions in Western Germany and terminated Prussian influence in the rest of Germany through the confederation of the rhine.

Fucking this. It seems like the social/supply elements of his superiority are forgotten about in casual conversation of the topic often, when that's probably the area in which he displayed the best handle as compared to the other powers involved.

He was just saying Napoleon was smart when it comes to logistics (though obviously susceptible to the same slip-ups as other overpowered aggressors). Looting isn't the same as having a meticulous perfect supply train, but that doesn't necessarily make it worse or less deserving of appraisal. Worked out pretty fucking well for the steppe people, at least until gunpowder saw wide use.

>It would have given them far less incentive to enter another costly war.

Implying
They'd have plenty of other reasons to be butthurt (muh Belgium and Rhineland, they beheaded Marie-Antoinette, hurr a commoner is ruling France we must restore the monarchy...)

He was never in a position to remove the Austrian Emperor.

The Prussian sure, but he was happy enough with grabbing more than half of Prussian clay.

The Coalition should have done the same and partition France.

>very eager volunteers
Yeah about that....

They could have compromised on that (as I mentioned, Austria was willing to give up the left bank of the Rhine in 1813 and accepted the loss of the Austrian Netherlands in the Congress of Vienna), but the hegemonial policies of France made a compromise impossible. Instead, they failed to make peace with Britain over Ceylon and the Cape Colony and caused the enmity of the Russian Tsar with the invasion of Malta.