Which was the most catastrophic defeat in the Napoleonic wars?

[Millander]

Do you mean in the long run as thraughting Napoleon's planned invasion of Britian.

[Friedrich]

Merely not only one event but a chain of events: French invasion of Russia.

Napoleon lost hist entire army, all his experienced troops. Not for nothing the new french conscripts in the German campaign 1813 were called the Marie-Louises (named after his wife, Marie-Louise of Habsburg). Napoleon was still a genie, he was still able to win some major battles. But he couldn't win the war against a coalition of all other major powers in europe with such greenhorns. We know the result. Rest is history.

He could have won the coalition if his army hadn't died in the snows of Russia. The Coalition smelled oppertunity and jumped on him, and it's just amazing that with such limited forces he still -almost- managed to win that war LOL. He just didn't have the cavalry to cut off his opponents retreating armies.

He was amazing until Waterloo, yes, as I wrote. But he couldn't. Even if he had won in Leipzig, he would not have been able to win the war against the coalition. Even if he had enough horses, he had a huge lack of manpower. He could only hope for seperate peaces. You can not win a war with such a high attrition if you are allready short-handed compared to your opponents.

[joer5835]

Do you mean in the long run as thraughting Napoleon's planned invasion of Britian.

Yes and no, the battle did prevent Napoleon's planned invasion, but I'm talking about effects that happened much later. France lacked naval support throughout the wars, considering their navies were inadequate, and blockaded, so they couldn't even leave their port. That way there was nothing they could do to, for example, interupt British supply lines overseas during the Peninsular war.

[GrandMaster]

Think it is fair to say that Ulm was a significant defeat, as it highlighted the logistical weakness of the Austro-Russian alliance, whilst similarly foreshadowing their loss at Austerlitz.

[Colonel Howe]

Talavera!!1!1!1!!

#SharpesEagle

#WuvUSeanBean

[Ted]

Ulm, Jena/Auerstedt, Leipzig, Austerlitz, Waterloo - there were so fuckin' many catastrophic defeats during this wars......

[Duuring]

Waterloo wasn't a catastrophic defeat. The campaign was doomed from day one.

[Mr T]

Marshal Masséna's defeat in his invasion of Portugal in 1810 was quite catastrophic, it was a bit of a miniature version of the Russian campaign. Started of well for the French but the scorched earth tactics of the Anglo-Portuguese followed by the retreat behind the impregnable Lines of Torres Vedras scuppered any hope for Massena. He withdrew after a month, though probably should've bailed earlier, after finding no weakness at all in the fortifications. The only redeemable aspect of the retreat was Marshal Ney's great rearguard action. After entering Portugal with around 65,000 men, 25,000 were lost, the vast majority due to hunger and disease, it tarnished the reputation of Massena, who was one of France's greatest commanders. 

[CayM]

Stop please, I am crying.

[Toffee]

Waterloo wasn't a catastrophic defeat. The campaign was doomed from day one.

I think it was extremely catastrophic. It was a must win battle for Napoleon if he wanted to win the war. It wasn't doomed since the start. In fact he could of won the battle if the prussians hadn't have arrived. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Napoleon winning the battle up until that point?

[Ryner]

Waterloo wasn't a catastrophic defeat. The campaign was doomed from day one.

I think it was extremely catastrophic. It was a must win battle for Napoleon if he wanted to win the war. It wasn't doomed since the start. In fact he could of won the battle if the prussians hadn't have arrived. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Napoleon winning the battle up until that point?

I don't believe so, I'm not too familiar with the chronological order of events that occurred but I'm fairly certain he had already lost the majority of his cavalry and a size able amount of infantry in previous assaults.

[Mr T]

Napoleon wasn't winning the battle because the Prussians arrived, it is believed they arrived around 15:30 - 16:00, tthis forced Napoleon to send Lobau's VI Corps to the right, then he had to send the entire Young Guard division and then two battalions of the Old Guard, along with a few batteries of Guard artillery and perhaps a brigade or division of cavalry. This prevented Napoleon using Fresh troops against the Anglo-Dutch army, the French were thus unable to use infantry to support the numerous cavalry charges, attempts were made but all Napoleon's infantry of I and II Corps were either engaged or in no state to form a strong decisive attack after the repulse of I Corps almost successful assault in the early afternoon.

Napoleon lost Waterloo because the Prussians were able to join with Wellington, we have the benefit of hindsight, and so we can say that effectively the campaign was decided at the outcome of events on the 16th of June.

[Duuring]

Napoleon's logistic service was a mess and had never really been transformed into a wartime service. His guard was an entirely new formation with men barely knowing each other and he was being attacked by 800.000 men from pretty much every direction except the east, where there was a Royalist uprising. Even if he had won Waterloo, Wellington would have met up with his (Dutch) reserves and retreated behind the Schelde river. Napoleon would then have to split his forces again to at least keep Wellington there; No way he could have attempted to cross that river, or into Brabant where every city was a fortress.

Waterloo would not buy Napoleon victory, only time.

and so we can say that effectively the campaign was decided at the outcome of events on the 16th of June.

Agreed, no Waterloo without Ligny/Quatre-bras, but even a victory at both battles would not have meant total victory for Napoleon.

[Toffee]

Ah ok. Don't really know much about the topic but I should do some research!

[Duuring]

In short, the 1815 campaign was 100% hopeless.