Napoleon's First Major Battlefield Defeat

The Battle of Aspern-Essling, fought on May 21nd and 22st, 1809 marked one of the most significant land engagements of the Napoleonic Wars and the first major setback for Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte on the battlefield.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Battle of Essling, May 1809. By Fernand Cormon.

Taking place on the northern bank of the Danube River near Vienna, this confrontation was part of the War of the Fifth Coalition, wherein Austria, under the leadership of Archduke Charles, sought to challenge Napoleon's dominance in Europe. The battle demonstrated the growing capacity of the Austrian military to resist the previously unstoppable French Grande Armée.

Napoleon's strategic goal was to cross the Danube and strike decisively at the Austrian forces, effectively neutralizing their threat and consolidating French control over Central Europe. The crossing of the mighty river presented logistical challenges, requiring the construction of pontoon bridges. Despite the French emperor's reputation for meticulous planning and tactical brilliance, unforeseen complications and the resilience of the Austrian forces thwarted his ambitions.

Archduke Charles, leading the Austrian army, with his subordinate commanders capitalized on the vulnerabilities created by the French reliance on fragile pontoon bridges. The Austrians launched a surprise counteroffensive, targeting Napoleon's forces as they attempted to consolidate their position in the villages of Aspern and Essling.

Over two days, intense combat unfolded, with both sides suffering heavy casualties. While the French initially made gains, the destruction of their supply lines and bridges by Austrian forces turned the tide of the battle, forcing Napoleon to withdraw, a rare occurrence in his military career.

The battle's outcome was a psychological and strategic turning point. For the Austrians, it was a validation of their renewed efforts to oppose French hegemony. For Napoleon, the defeat underscored the risks of overextension and the challenges of managing a vast empire amidst persistent opposition. Aspern-Essling also highlighted the emergence of Archduke Charles as a capable commander and underscored the shifting dynamics of warfare in the Napoleonic era.

The Battle of Aspern-Essling would set the stage for further confrontations, most notably the Battle of Wagram in July 1809, a decisive yet costly victory for Emperor Napoleon's French and allied army. However, its immediate impact resonated as a demonstration of Napoleon's vulnerability and the fierce resistance of a reformed Austrian army.

The political and cultural lead-up to the battle

By 1809, Napoleon's grip on Europe was tightening. After numerous battlefield victories, his dominance was largely unchallenged. However, Austrian dissatisfaction with French hegemony and the territorial rearrangements of the Confederation of the Rhine led to a resurgence of resistance. Austrian reformers under Archduke Charles modernized their army, introducing conscription and improved training. Encouraged by Napoleon's focus on Spain and the perceived overstretch of French forces, Austria declared war in April 1809.

The Fifth Coalition War was characterized by Austria's attempt to rally German-speaking states to their cause and Napoleon's swift counteroffensive. The French Emperor sought to decisively crush Austrian resistance early to discourage other powers from joining the coalition.

Culturally, the war symbolized a clash of national pride. Austria, as an old European power, sought to restore its waning influence, while Napoleon aimed to consolidate his modern empire.

The strategic context

The Danube River was the lifeline of the theatre, serving as a critical supply route and barrier. Napoleon's strategy revolved around rapidly crossing the Danube to bring Archduke Charles to battle, using his signature approach of speed and decisive action to envelop and destroy the Austrian forces.

Archduke Charles, on the other hand, aimed to exploit Napoleon's reliance on rapid maneuvers. He sought to use the Danube as a defensive advantage, forcing Napoleon into a constrained engagement while leveraging Austria's numerical superiority.

The Commanders

Napoleon Bonaparte: The French Emperor's reputation as a military genius was unassailable by 1809. Known for his bold tactics and ability to adapt to battlefield conditions, Napoleon sought to secure yet another victory to maintain his aura of invincibility.

Archduke Charles of Austria: A reformer and tactician, Charles was Austria's most competent commander. Though often overshadowed by Napoleon, he was well-versed in defensive operations and had a deep understanding of the terrain.

The development of the battle

On the 20th of May, Napoleon initiated his plan to cross the Danube using pontoon bridges constructed by his engineers near the villages of Aspern and Essling. His goal was to establish a bridgehead on the northern bank, a vital step toward forcing the Austrians into a pitched battle. However, the Austrian army, aware of his movements, positioned itself strategically to counter this crossing.

Initial French success (May 21st, 1809)

Napoleon's forces crossed the river and established positions near Aspern and Essling. The French vanguard quickly pushed into Aspern, with fierce fighting erupting as Austrian troops counterattacked. By evening, the French had secured a tenuous foothold but faced relentless Austrian pressure.

Austrian resilience (May 22nd, 1809)

Overnight, the Austrians launched a determined assault on both villages, seeking to isolate the French forces. The Austrian artillery targeted the French pontoon bridges, severing Napoleon's critical supply line and reinforcements. This disruption stalled French momentum and left Napoleon unable to fully commit his reserves.

Throughout the day, the battle seesawed, with both sides suffering heavy casualties. Napoleon personally led counterattacks, attempting to retake Aspern and secure the river crossing, but Austrian resistance, bolstered by their superior numbers and entrenched positions, held firm.

By late afternoon, Napoleon realized his precarious situation. With his forces dangerously exposed and his supply line compromised, he ordered a retreat across the Danube, marking the first time he was forced to abandon a battlefield under direct opposition.

The influence and outcome of tactics

French tactics

Napoleon's strategy hinged on rapid crossing and overwhelming force, but his reliance on hastily constructed pontoon bridges proved a critical vulnerability. His characteristic use of concentrated artillery and massed infantry attacks faltered due to supply disruptions and Austrian counter-battery fire.

Austrian tactics

Archduke Charles's decision to engage the French immediately after their river crossing was pivotal. He leveraged his superior numbers and defensive positions to great effect. Austrian engineers and artillery played a crucial role, repeatedly targeting the French bridges and disrupting Napoleon's logistical base.

The Austrian use of flexible defensive lines and coordinated counterattacks demonstrated their improved tactical doctrine and underlined their determination to resist French dominance.

The aftermath

The Battle of Aspern-Essling was a pyrrhic victory for Austria. While they successfully halted Napoleon and inflicted heavy casualties (37,000 combined), they could not capitalize on their success in delivering a decisive blow. For Napoleon, the battle was a sobering experience that exposed vulnerabilities in his strategy and his army's logistical operations.

The immediate aftermath saw both sides preparing for the inevitable rematch. Just six weeks later, Napoleon reorganized his forces and decisively defeated the Austrians at the Battle of Wagram. However, Aspern-Essling tarnished his image of invincibility and emboldened resistance movements across Europe.

In conclusion, the Battle of Aspern-Essling stands as a defining moment in the Napoleonic Wars, a clash that tested the limits of Napoleon's strategic brilliance and Austria's resolve. While not a decisive strategic victory for either side, it marked a significant psychological shift in the war and the perception of Napoleon's invincibility on land.

For Austria, the battle symbolized the fruits of military reform and demonstrated that even Napoleon's formidable forces could be thwarted with preparation, determination, and tactical ingenuity. Archduke Charles's leadership, the precise targeting of French supply lines, and the Austrians' effective use of defensive positions and counterattacks revealed the vulnerabilities in Napoleon's reliance on speed and maneuver.

For Napoleon, Aspern-Essling was a sobering reminder of the risks inherent in overconfidence and the perils of logistical weakness. The loss of pontoon bridges and the resultant supply line collapse illustrated the growing complexity of sustaining a large, modern army in the field. While he would swiftly recover and triumph at Wagram, the psychological and symbolic implications of this defeat reverberated across Europe, inspiring his adversaries and energizing resistance movements.

Strategically, the battle highlighted the increasing role of engineering, logistics, and coordination in early 19th-century warfare. The lessons learned on both sides would shape subsequent engagements, influencing military thought and practices for years to come.

The Battle of Aspern-Essling is not merely a story of tactics and bloodshed but a tale of the evolving nature of war. It serves as a powerful reminder of the interplay between leadership, preparation, and adaptability, a narrative that continues to resonate in military studies and strategic planning to this day.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

The Story of Napoleonic Duels

In the wake of the much anticipated November 2023 release of Ridley Scott’s Napoleon, this year is the 45th anniversary of Ridley Scott’s debut 1977 film, The Duellists. The Duellists was Scott’s first on-screen project capturing French military life during the Napoleonic Wars.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt looks at The Duellists.

François Fournier-Sarlovèze

The Duellists captures this era perfectly with gorgeous cinematic filming locations in the lush countryside of France as well as placing the viewer directly into French military traditions during the height of Napoleon Bonaparte’s time as Emperor of France.

Ridley Scott’s 45-year film career has been significant. With 41 Academy Award nominations and 9 wins, Scott also has an extensive television career, amassing ten primetime Emmy Awards. Scott’s most notable films include Alien, Thelma & Louise, and Gladiator.

Background

The basis for the film is a 1908 short story by Joseph Conrad entitled The Duel. It is believed that the basis for the Conrad piece was a 1858 account that was published in Harper’s Magazine. It is also very possible that Conrad was inspired by another Harper’s Magazine published account of a true story about a series of Napoleonic-era duels between two real life French officers, Pierre Dupont de l’Étang and François Louis Fournier-Sarlovèze.

Duels of honor date back to the time of antiquity. In France, duels were recorded many, many centuries back. The duel between Fournier-Sarloveze and Dupont de l’Etang lasted thirty years and according to legend ended with a showdown with pistols at the conclusion of which Fournier-Sarloveze had to promise to never again engage his nemesis.

Winner at the 1978 Cannes Film Festival, The Duellists is an epic tale of the military interpretation of upholding one’s honor while navigating the regulations around being a soldier during wartime. 

The story of these two rivals begins at the beginning of Emperor Napoleon’s rise to power around 1800 and extends until after his exile in. The cinematic tale takes the journey of Armand d’Hubert (3rd Hussars) and Gabriel Feraud (7th Hussars) as they endure Emperor Napoleon’s campaigns, military life in the French Army, as well as their contempt for each other.

Contrast

With both characters being different of temperament and background, D’Hubert is of noble birth and Feraud is not, adding to the intrigue of their parallel climb through the ranks of the French Army. During the nearly fifteen-year clash between the two rivals, Feraud and D’Hubert duel in the beautiful countryside of Augsburg, on horseback in the early morning midst of Lubeck, and even a confrontation during the French retreat from Moscow in 1812. As you might predict, it even ends with a climatic showdown.

Ridley Scott’s The Duellists is not only a visual marvel and a historical account of life in the French Hussars during Napoleon’s campaigns but also an exploration into two men’s interpretation of both the military and civilian code of honor.

Whether for its epic storyline, incredible scenery, or perfectly choreographed action scenes, The Duellists is worth seeing.

Especially if you find yourself in anticipation of Scott’s November release of Napoleon.

Now read about the three times Russia was invaded in history here.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt lives and works in Abington, Pennsylvania.

Spain in the New World: The Revolutionary Abdications of Bayonne

By the latter half of the 17th century, the rule of Spain in the New World was reaching 200 years. Times were changing, both in the New World and in Europe, and the leaders of Spain knew it. Their problem was what to do about it. Spain had never had a coherent policy in its imperial rule. Since 1492, Spain was seemingly constantly at war, with an endless series of crises thrown into the mix. Solutions had to be found for the here and now, the future would take care of itself.

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at how the abdications of Bayonne in France led to chaos in Spain and then the start of revolutionary outcomes in South America.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later life and as a leader is here.

Joseph Bonaparte as King of Spain in 1808. He became King of Spain following the Abdications of Bayonne.

Napoleon Shackled to a Corpse

Trafalgar, 1805. The defeat of the combined Franco-Spanish fleet at the hands of Britain’s Lord Nelson. The most complete naval defeat of the 19th century. The end of Napoleon’s dream of invading Britain and finishing off Perfidious Albion once and for all. This defeat, despite being coupled with Napoleon’s most stupendous victory at Austerlitz, would lead to a chain of events that would see revolutionary independence movements erupt throughout the Western Hemisphere.

With no chance of invading Britain in the foreseeable future, Napoleon needed to reassess his strategy to defeat his primary geopolitical rival. If he could not defeat Britain on the battlefield, or at sea, then he could strike at the foundation of British strength: trade. Great Britain had nearly inexhaustible sources of wealth from controlling the world’s trade system. British merchants, ships, banks, and refined trading methods dominated the world. Being Europe’s merchant had made Britain fabulously wealthy, and thus able to fund a decades-long global war with Napoleon. Napoleon’s rationale was that if he could remove all of Europe as a British customer, then there would be nowhere for Britain to sell, and therefore, the country would go bankrupt. A bankrupt country could not continue fighting, what was in essence, a world war.

After his defeat of Prussia in 1806, Britain declared the European coastline from Brest, at the extreme western tip of France, to the mouth of the Elbe River to be under its naval blockade. Napoleon responded with his Berlin Decree, which forbade all commerce with the British Isles and declared a counter-blockade. All British goods and ships in any port of France or French ally were to be seized. Further, any ship from any nation that stopped in Britain before coming to the continent was also subject to seizure.

All of Napoleon’s allies officially accepted the Berlin Decree and embargoed trade with Great Britain. The European coastline is long, with many inlets and bays. Against a country with unquestioned sea control, it was impossible to prevent smuggling. All his allies quietly accepted smuggling to keep their economies running. This was especially true of Spain. The one spot in Western Europe that openly defied the Emperor was Portugal.

Portugal had been a British ally for hundreds of years. For the Emperor of the French, master of all between the Atlantic and the Vistula to be defied by the tiny King of Portugal was unacceptable. The country just had to be defeated. The road that began with the decision to blockade British commerce would lead to revolutions half a world away.

Godoy

Manuel Francisco Domingo de Godoy y Alvarez-Faria de los Rios y Sanchez-Zarzosa was one of history’s most notorious social climbers. Beginning his career as a military cadet in 1784, he would be made a Lieutenant General in 1791. When he was made a royal bodyguard after his time as a cadet, he was able to see firsthand the inner workings of the Spanish government. He was able to see how incredibly unintelligent and colossally incompetent King Carlos IV was. He saw that the true power behind the throne was Queen Maria Luisa. He knew the best way to achieve power in that situation. He was a handsome, dashing, and young army officer. The Queen was saddled with a stupid and indifferent husband. He knew what he had to do.

Godoy became the Queen’s lover sometime in 1788, while Charles was still the heir. It is unclear whether the King knew or cared whether Godoy was bedding his wife, but the results for Godoy were immediate. He was showered with titles and rocketed through the military ranks. By 1792, he became Prime Minister of the kingdom.

Graft and nepotism were the twin pillars of Godoy’s government. His family and friends received riches and titles through the influence of the Queen. Carlos, not interested in government or administration anyway, was more than happy to let Godoy do what he wanted. It was Godoy’s policy to tie Spain to the French. His calculation was that it was better to let the British threaten the empire rather than let the French threaten Spain itself.

Napoleon was a leader who liked to find out what motivated someone. Whether it was titles, riches, or glory, Napoleon would use that motivation to get his way. With Godoy, it was all three. Napoleon would join the Queen in showering Godoy with honors and money, in exchange for Godoy’s support for the continuance of the French alliance.

As the years passed, however, relations between the two allies would suffer. The destruction of the Spanish fleet at Trafalgar highlighted the impotence of Spanish military policy. While tied to France, there was zero chance for an independent foreign policy. Economically, Spain was in terrible shape. The richest source of wealth, its vast New World empire, was cut off by the Royal Navy. Napoleon, recognizing the atrophied state of the Spanish army, did not want Spanish troops anywhere near the battlefields of Central Europe. Instead, he would force contributions on Spain in the form of gold and cash to fund the Imperial war machine. Dissatisfaction and resistance to Godoy’s pro-French policy began to coalesce around one man, the man who hated King Carlos more than any other: the heir to the throne, Infante Ferdinand.

Ferdinand vs. Carlos

Relations between the king and his heir could not be any worse. Born in 1784, Ferdinand had been shut out of any power or decision-making authority by his father. Whether this decision was the king’s or Godoy’s is open for debate, but it had the effect of Ferdinand hating both men with an undying passion. Due to this strained relationship, the Infante would become the focus for all those who opposed Godoy’s (and the king’s) policies.

After the defeat at Trafalgar in 1805, Godoy began to realize that something had to change. Spain’s government at the time had little to fear from a displeased public. What they did have to fear was a displeased elite class. The day-to-day machinery keeping any government working has always been the elite class. When the elite turns against the government, the situation can become revolutionary very quickly (see Paris, 1789). Godoy, for all his nepotism and hedonism, was not a fool. He knew he had to do something.

In 1806, Napoleon, fresh off his victory over the Austrians and Russians at Austerlitz, was at war again, this time against Prussia. Napoleon would be facing off against the vaunted legions Frederick the Great had left behind him, along with the rest of the Fourth Coalition. For Godoy, this was the perfect opportunity. He issued a bellicose proclamation which, while not naming France, was intended to be seen as a shot across Napoleon’s bow. It called for the Spanish people to unite against the enemy, though who that was was left unsaid. Godoy hoped that this would appease his enemies, and if Napoleon lost, Godoy would be able to finally stake out an independent policy for his government.

It only took a few weeks for Napoleon (and Marshal Davout) to crush the Prussians at the twin battles of Jena and Auerstädt. The proclamation was withdrawn rather quickly afterward. Godoy would inform his French friends that it was meant for domestic consumption only, and his friendship with the Emperor could never be questioned.

Napoleon was not amused. The only ally of any sizable strength he had was Spain. Now Spain itself could not be trusted. During his conquests, Napoleon had a policy of placing his family in charge of small satellite states on the French border to ensure loyalty. Brothers Joseph and Louis were kings of Naples and Holland respectively. His brother-in-law, Marshal Murat, was Grand Duke of Berg. An idea began forming in Napoleon’s mind.

By 1807, Prince Ferdinand was growing more and more frustrated with the direction of Spain. He knew his father hated him. He even began to fear that Godoy was looking to take the succession from him. Despite being the focus of the anti-French party, Ferdinand took the drastic step of writing to Napoleon himself. He requested the emperor’s help against Godoy and his father the king. Godoy had a good intelligence network and was able to discover the contents of the letter. Using it as proof of a plot, Godoy was able to arrange a raid on the prince’s residence, finding more letters, including further complaints against the king. Ferdinand was arrested for plotting to overthrow his father. Napoleon, however, did not want his fingerprints on this situation and convinced Godoy to squash the affair.

After the Treaty of Tilsit ended the War of the Fourth Coalition, there was one country that openly defied Napoleon’s Continental System embargo on the British, Portugal. He could not allow Portugal to snub its nose at France, but France did not border Portugal. Spain, however, did. French troops would have to go through Spain to get there. An arrangement had to be made, and Manuel Godoy was a man always looking to make an arrangement.

This led to the Treaty of Fontainebleau between Napoleon and King Carlos IV of Spain. This treaty divided Portugal into three parts, a kingdom in the north, a central region, the control of which was to be determined, and a southern part called the Principality of the Algarves. The latter would be given to the man who would be the new Prince of the Algarves, Manuel Godoy, the Spanish Prime Minister. In exchange, French troops would be able to pass through Spain on their way to Portugal.

Tumult of Aranjuez

French troops began entering Spain in late 1807. General Junot’s corps of 25,000 was to be the only force that entered the country. If Great Britain decided to intervene in Portugal, the French could send reinforcements, but only after notifying Carlos IV. General Dupont’s corps entered the country soon after, with no notification. By early 1808, Marshal Moncey led three more corps over the Pyrenees. Many of them were not moving toward Portugal, but instead taking up positions at strategic points throughout the Iberian peninsula.

Although Godoy and Carlos were beginning to suspect something was afoot, they were hesitant to make an open break with the French emperor. Napoleon would reject a request that he provide a suitable princess for Ferdinand to marry.

Further French troops now crossed the border. They began occupying the border forts in the Pyrenees. Little resistance was met. Carlos, and Godoy, still did not want to provide any pretext for open war. The problem for the Spanish was that while it takes two to make peace, only one is needed to make war. Napoleon used his dashing, and hyper-aggressive, cavalry commander Marshal Murat, the primary commander in the peninsula. Murat led his troops toward Madrid.

As Murat approached the capital, the Spanish royal family and Godoy finally realized the danger they were in. However, they had a plan. Carlos may have been the King of Spain, but he was also the King of the four viceroyalties in the Americas. Yes, Spain would fall. There was no stopping Napoleon. But they could continue the fight from Mexico City, Lima, or Buenos Aires. Behind the wooden walls of the British Royal Navy, Napoleon would not be able to reach them from there. The royal family decided to flee.

Much like the flight of their French cousins, the Spanish Bourbons would not make it out of the country. While they were staying in Aranjuez, not far from Madrid, every element of society revolted against the corrupt Manuel Godoy. He was captured by the crowd. Two days later, King Carlos IV was forced to abdicate in favor of Ferdinand. Now the people would finally get the anti-French king that they craved.

Except they wouldn’t. One of now Ferdinand VII’s first acts was to write to Napoleon begging him for his support. Soon, Carlos wrote to Napoleon claiming that he had been forced to abdicate and requested that his old ally help him reclaim his throne. Napoleon, being the benevolent man that he was, invited Ferdinand, and his father Carlos IV, to meet with him in Bayonne, France. Carlos went under the impression Napoleon would support his claim that his abdication was under duress. Ferdinand went assuming that Napoleon would recognize his claim to the throne. Napoleon only wanted to lure both men out of Spain and into custody.

Dos de Mayo Uprising

While Carlos and Ferdinand made their way to Bayonne, Marshal Murat was occupying Madrid. He expected his troops to be treated as allies there to help. Instead, they were treated as an occupying force. Living at the royal palace was King Carlos’ youngest son, Francisco. To protect the young Infante, a crowd assembled to prevent the French from taking him into custody. When the crowd would not disperse, the French troops opened fire. The crowd, now an angry mob having smelled blood, went through the streets looking for French detachments.

Murat, realizing the danger of the situation, declared martial law and set about retaking the city. Utilizing the Imperial Guard, the best troops in the French army, control was slowly and bloodily restored. For the Spanish civilian population, this came with a double humiliation. The Imperial Guard had a battalion of Mamelukes, Islamic soldiers mostly from Egypt. Evoking memories of the Reconquista, it now became a religious and racial fight as well as a nationalistic one.

Upon retaking control of Madrid, Murat ordered military justice imposed on the population. Courts-martial would order the executions of those found guilty. Weapons were confiscated. The soldiers of Spain’s ally now openly acted like the occupation force they were.

Napoleonic Maneuvers

Meanwhile, in Bayonne, Napoleon had the Spanish king and the would-be king under his control. Meeting with Carlos, Napoleon recognized Carlos’ claim to the throne. Then Napoleon convinced him to abdicate that claim in favor of a French prince of Napoleon’s choosing. Meeting separately with Ferdinand, he met stiffer opposition. Ferdinand initially refused to abdicate his claim. After the meeting, Ferdinand received a letter essentially threatening him with death if he did not abdicate. On May 6, only four days after the dos de Mayo uprising, but with no personal knowledge of the events, Ferdinand abdicated his claims in favor of his father.

Napoleon now had what he wanted. Ferdinand abdicated in Carlos’ favor, and Carlos’ had abdicated and handed his crown to Napoleon. Previously, Napoleon had asked his brother Louis, King of Holland to take the Spanish crown. Louis refused. He then turned to his older brother Joseph. Joseph was an able administrator and good with finances. Napoleon thought he would make a pliant King of Spain.

Spain Rises Up

Information moved slowly in the early 19th century. The news of the new King José I of Spain spread like wildfire. Coupled with the events in Madrid, the entire peninsula rose. Many of the governmental administration and the elites were willing to accept Joseph. It was the people who turned this into a revolution.

City after city rose in revolt against the French. This “Spanish ulcer” would bleed the French army for six years. Only a month after the initial uprising in Madrid, General Dupont surrendered his entire corps, 24,000 men, to the Spanish. This further emboldened the people to greater resistance.

All the hopes of the people focused on Ferdinand, now in custody in French territory. He became the desired one. The hope of the entire nation to throw off their Bonapartist oppressors. Since Ferdinand could not rule as a captive, someone had to rule in his name.

Creation of the Supreme Central Junta

All over Spain, groups rising against the French organized themselves. With the government decapitated, and much of the civil service accepting Joseph, new men stepped up to assume leadership. In situations such as these, it can be difficult to get everyone to recognize the same supreme authority.

Many of these groups formed Juntas, or councils, and assumed governmental functions. These groups asserted for themselves authority over a certain geographic area. Fighting the most impressive military machine of the early 19th century was more than a disorganized rabble could handle. There had to be a central authority.

A series of regional Juntas banded together for the creation of a unifying supreme junta. This Supreme Central Junta would govern Spain in the name of King Ferdinand VII. It would be representative of all the people of Spain and the empire. Each local Junta would have representation. They even attempted to be inclusive and invited the viceroyalties and several captaincies-general of the New World to send representatives, albeit fewer in number than those from Spain itself.

Spread to the Americas

When news reached the New World about the French occupation of Spain, most colonial authorities accepted the authority of the Supreme Central Junta. Among the people, however, there was resentment. Why did the regions of Spain each get two representatives in the Junta, while each of their regions only get one each? Why were they even recognizing the authority of this extra-legal body in the first place?

For many in Spanish America, they could understand loyalty to King Ferdinand. What they could not fathom was continued loyalty to Spain. They should have their own Juntas with authority over their own kingdoms, independent of Spain, but still in the name of Ferdinand. This position would eventually be a short jump away from total independence without the king.

The creation of local Juntas and their struggles for local control would meld into the Wars of Independence for the nations of Spanish America. Napoleon had thought he could bring Spain under his control and attain with it the wealth of the Spanish Empire. Manuel Godoy, the feckless Spanish Prime Minister thought he could control a great empire, the king he served, and outwit the great man on horseback. What both men had done, through overconfidence and blundering, was set the spark which led to the conflagration of the Spanish colonies and the collapse one of the world’s largest empires.

What do you think of the Abdications of Bayonne? Let us know below.

Now, read about Francisco Solano Lopez, the Paraguayan president who brought his country to military catastrophe in the War of the Triple Alliance here.

Elizabeth Patterson Bonaparte: Napoleon’s Unwanted American Sister-in-Law

As the nineteenth century began, both the United States and France were in transition. The American Revolution only officially ended in 1783, and now the president-helmed United States was forging an identity that rejected the courtly atmosphere of its European counterparts. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, France was moving away from the republicanism of its own revolution. Approximately twenty years after the executions of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie-Antoinette, France was poised to become an empire under Napoleon Bonaparte. Amidst these changes, a scandal occurred when Napoleon’s youngest brother, Jérôme, surprised the world by marrying Miss Elizabeth Patterson of Baltimore, Maryland.

Christine Caccipuoti explains.

A triple portrait of Elizabeth Patterson Bonaparte. By Gilbert Stuart, 1804.

Marital Bliss?

When eighteen-year old Elizabeth wed nineteen-year old Jérôme on Christmas Eve of 1803, few people other than the bride and groom approved. She was the daughter of a well-off businessman, but despite being lauded as the “Belle of Baltimore” she loathed the newfound United States’ lack of sophistication and glamour. He was only in Maryland because he decided to take a detour before returning to France after an unsuccessful stint in the Caribbean with the French Navy. After their respective social lives brought them into contact, their courtship was a whirlwind, and the starry-eyed pair were engaged within months of meeting.

Elizabeth’s father did not trust Jérôme and French diplomats in the United States warned that Napoleon hated the match, but the couple did not care. They allowed Elizabeth’s father to draw up documents requiring Jérôme to defend his marriage to the best of his ability should Napoleon object and had their nuptials conducted by a Catholic clergyman to underscore its legitimacy through religion. To Elizabeth and Jérôme, marrying was the important part. Acceptance, they believed, would soon follow.

The newlyweds enjoyed an extravagant honeymoon that established them as newspaper celebrities, with Elizabeth immediately turning heads after she adopted French fashions. It wasn’t long before word of the union reached Napoleon, who was about to be crowned Emperor of the French. What little respect Napoleon had for Jérôme evaporated and he made his opinion known by banning French ships from allowing Elizabeth aboard. They were still not deterred. By the time they managed to reach Europe in 1805, Jérôme’s brother was formally Emperor Napoleon I and there was an added complication: Elizabeth was pregnant.

Aware of his responsibilities, Jérôme went to France to win over his brother while Elizabeth traveled to England, a country hostile to Napoleon that welcomed the opportunity to show kindness to a woman he shunned. During this separation, Elizabeth gave birth to their son, boldly named Jérôme Napoleon, who went by the nickname “Bo”.

Elizabeth waited, but Jérôme never sent for her. Because of his unacceptable marriage, he was not among the family members elevated to the title of prince, and this greatly upset him. Although he wrote loving letters to Elizabeth, once Napoleon told him that he would be cut off forever if he remained married, Jérôme abandoned his wife. A shattered Elizabeth had no choice but to take her baby home to Maryland.

Unhappily Ever After

Napoleon sought to annul Jérôme’s marriage but the Pope denied the request. Undaunted, Napoleon had the French ecclesiastical courts declare it void and decided that was good enough. As far as he was concerned Jérôme was free again. Quickly, Napoleon arranged a politically advantageous marriage for him to Princess Catherine of Württemberg and named him King of Westphalia, two moves done to cement his growing influence in Europe. In stark contrast, Elizabeth was still legally married to Jérôme in the eyes of the United States and several years passed before she gained a divorce. Following this, numerous suitors sought her hand, but neither they nor a pension from Napoleon made up for what she lost.

It wasn’t until Napoleon lost power in 1815 that Elizabeth was able to finally experience the pleasures of European life. After all, with the Bonapartes defeated, no one could stop her. She and Bo spent years traveling the continent. They even visited Rome, where part of the Bonaparte family resided after their expulsion from France. This enabled Bo to meet not only his grandmother, but also his father and half-siblings. It is possible that Elizabeth too saw Jérôme but the sole surviving story indicates only that they were once in the same gallery, but did not speak. Elizabeth harbored hopes that Bo would make an illustrious marital match in Europe, perhaps even to one of his Bonaparte cousins, but it would not come to pass. Instead he returned home and married an American woman with whom he later had two children, Jérôme and Charles. Bo’s decision not to pursue what Elizabeth saw as his rightful place in European society broke her heart almost as much as her initial divorce and severely tarnished their mother-son relationship.

Their contact with the Bonapartes continued. In the 1850s when Napoleon III (who was Bo’s cousin, as his father Louis was yet another of Napoleon and Jérôme’s brothers) made France an empire again, he welcomed Bo as part of the family. Jérôme, however, did not. When he died in 1860, Bo was not included in his will. Elizabeth faced one last disappointment when her battle to have Bo recognized as one of Jérôme’s heirs failed.

Once again Elizabeth returned to Maryland devastated. Although she made lucrative financial investments, her personal relationship with her son and his family was strained. The wounds of her youth never healed and her bitterness manifested in the composition of pieces like Dialogues of the Dead, which placed her disapproving father and scoundrel ex-husband together in hell. After such a disappointing life, it is only fitting that following her death in April of 1879, at the age of 94, it was decided her tomb should read, “After life’s fitful fever, she sleeps well.”

An American Legacy

Elizabeth may have disliked the United States, but her grandson Charles lived to serve it. In the 1890s, he met future President of the United States Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt when both men were involved in reform work. When Roosevelt took office in 1901, Charles went along with him, serving as Secretary of the Navy then Attorney General and earning a reputation as Roosevelt’s troubleshooter. His most significant achievement was creating a force solely to carry out investigations at the behest of the Department of Justice. This group later adopted a name that remains recognizable today: the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI. Whether or not Elizabeth would have been proud of her grandson’s enduring contribution to the American government is impossible to say because while yes, he rose to an impressive height, he did so in the wrong country.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

Christine Caccipuoti is a New York-based historian and received both her BA and MA in history from Fordham University. In her position as Assistant Producer of the podcast Footnoting History (FootnotingHistory.com), she serves as the resident Napoleonic historian and is the person behind its twitter account (@historyfootnote). Her personal website and blog can be found at ChristineCaccipuoti.com.

Sources

Carol Berkin, Wondrous Beauty: The Life and Adventures of Elizabeth Patterson Bonaparte, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014.

Charlene M. Boyer Lewis, Elizabeth Patterson Bonaparte: An American Aristocrat in the Early Republic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012.

Paul-Napoléon Calland, “Jerome Bonaparte Biography”, Irène Delage (trans), The Fondation Napoléon, 2006. (https://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/biographies/bonaparte-jerome/)

Lewis L. Gould, “Bonaparte, Charles Joseph”, American National Biography, February 2000. (https://doi-org.avoserv2.library.fordham.edu/10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0500081)

---, “Bonaparte, Elizabeth Patterson”, American National Biography, February 2000. (https://doi-org.avoserv2.library.fordham.edu/10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.2000085)

Desmond Seward, Napoleon's Family, New York: Viking, 1986.

Attorney General: Charles Bonaparte, via The United States Department of Justice (https://www.justice.gov/ag/bio/bonaparte-charles-joseph)

Brief History of the FBI, via The Federal Bureau of Investigation (https://www.fbi.gov/history/brief-history)

What if Napoleon Bonaparte had won the Battle of Waterloo?

Napoleon Bonaparte was famously defeated at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 by British and Prussian forces. But what if that never happened? How would European history have changed if Napoleon had won? Here, Nick Tingley explores why history may have ended up repeating itself…

A picture of Napoleon Bonaparte.

The battle between France and Prussia in 1870 was all but decided at the Battle of Sedan on September 1. As Napoleon III was led through the French countryside for the nearest port, he knew that this battle would spell the end of the Empire. As he was sailed across to England for exile, a unified Germany was created off the back of French territory - and the landscape of Europe would be forever changed.

Had he been more like his uncle, Napoleon Bonaparte, the fall of Napoleon III’s government might never have happened. Bonaparte had known when to give up. Even as the British troops of Wellington and Blucher’s Prussians fled from the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, Bonaparte had known that he had to pursue peace in order to survive. Bonaparte had even offered clemency to the British troops by aiding their evacuation from France after the battle, essentially bringing about a new era of peace in Europe championed by the two enemy nations. Bonaparte had developed so much since 1813 when he had refused a favorable settlement in defeat that he was able to bring about the longest lasting peace that Europe had seen in centuries…

But Napoleon III had not learnt from his uncle’s mistakes and the horrendous defeat at the Battle of Sedan would haunt him until his death in 1873…

When ‘What If’ Collides with History

Ironically, for a ‘What If?’ scenario, this version of history is not remarkably unlike our own. Whilst Napoleon Bonaparte did not win the Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815, his nephew did eventually become Emperor of France as a result of the 1848 revolutions that sprung up around Europe. His last act as Emperor was to lead French forces against Prussia in the War of 1870. He was captured at the Battle of Sedan and forced into exile in Britain, where he was forever haunted by the destruction of his Empire. His actions that year effectively allowed the creation of Germany that was, in no small part, responsible for much of the tension between the two countries over the next seventy-five years.

And yet, this event in history may well have occurred regardless of whether Bonaparte had won the Battle of Waterloo. If we suppose, for a moment, that Napoleon had managed to defeat the British and Prussian forces at the battle and maintain control of France thereafter, it is not beyond reason to suppose that, as Bonaparte’s nephew and heir, Napoleon III would have inherited the Empire anyway. Had that happened, the Battle of Sedan would almost certainly have occurred in the same way, leading to his downfall and the beginning of the tensions that would contribute to the outbreak of the First World War.

But what scenario would allow such a divergence from historical fact and yet still arrive at the same point fifty-five years later? Rather than looking to Napoleon III, our attention must be drawn to Bonaparte, the man whose decisions would ultimately determine the future of France and the rest of Europe.

Bonaparte the Warrior

At first we must address Bonaparte’s character. The Bonaparte of 1796, the year that he began his conquest of Europe, was a war leader to the greatest degree. Had he managed to defeat Wellington and Blucher at Waterloo, he would almost certainly have urged his officers to press after Wellington and Blucher’s scattered armies until every last one of them had been captured or killed. He would have then have turned his attention to the armies of Russia and Austria who, whilst not involved in Waterloo, were slowly advancing across Europe to address this resurgence of power.

This would have presented Bonaparte with a serious problem. In the first instance, Austria and Russia had armies of approximately 200,000 men working their way across Europe. In the second, Alexander I, the Tsar of Russia, was particularly keen to eliminate Bonaparte, as he believed that Europe would never remain at peace with him alive. Finally, French conscription, from which Bonaparte had been gathering troops during his previous campaigns, was not currently a policy in France. This meant that he didn’t have access to the same amount of reserves that he had previously.

In this scenario, Bonaparte would probably not have enjoyed any significant success for more than a week or two. With the arrival of the Austrians and Russians, Bonaparte’s armies would have stood little chance at all, and history would have certainly continued down the path that we are most familiar with.

Bonaparte the Stubborn

The Bonaparte of 1813 may have lasted even less time. In 1813, Bonaparte had refused any kind of settlement at all, even though he had been completely defeated at the Battle of Leipzig that year. In that battle, Bonaparte’s armies were effectively expelled from the rest of Europe and forced to retreat back in to France. Had Bonaparte sued for a peace at that time, he might well have retained his title and control over France. The result of his failure to do so was the invasion of France by the Coalition of Russia, Austria and Prussia and his own removal from the throne.

Had he treated his victory at Waterloo with the same refusal to negotiate, Bonaparte would have probably attempted to retake parts of Central Europe immediately following the Battle of Waterloo. Once again, Bonaparte’s failing would have been signaled by the arrival of Russian and Austrian troops which would have led to yet another disastrous retreat back in to France, if not the destruction of his entire army.

Bonaparte the Diplomat

There is, however, one scenario by which Bonaparte may have been able to win at Waterloo and still maintain control of France. If Bonaparte had granted clemency to the retreating British forces of Wellington, history could have taken a completely different turn. The British forces had granted something similar seven years previously at Sintra, where French forces had been allowed to evacuate from Portugal after several disastrous battles. Such an act of honor, whilst completely removed from Bonaparte’s character, may well have been enough to convince the British that there might be a peaceful solution to the French problem.

In the event that Bonaparte had sued for some sort of peace, before the arrival of the Russian and Austrian armies, they may well have found a new ally in the form of Britain. With the two former enemies working together to bring about a new era of peace, it is not beyond reason to suggest that the rest of Europe might have been tempted to follow suit. The Congress system that was prevalent in Europe for the years following Bonaparte’s downfall may well have still existed but with a stronger leader speaking on behalf of France.

However, all of this would rely heavily on Bonaparte being able to disregard all the previous behaviors that had come to define his reign. In order for this scenario to work, Bonaparte would have had to cease behaving like some sort of power-hungry megalomaniac and become a reasonable diplomatic presence in Europe. One can even imagine that, had Bonaparte become the diplomat that Europe needed him to be, the rise of Germany might have been significantly delayed.

The revolutions of 1848 might have been a significantly smaller affair as there would have been no antagonism towards a French monarchy, which would have disbanded with Bonaparte’s renewed rise to power, and therefore no revolution in France. The French revolution, which was one of the larger and more explosive of the 1848 revolutions, would not have existed to encourage the others across Europe. Without the discontent across Europe, we can easily see a scenario in which a united Germany never comes in to being, effectively removing the threat of World War One in 1914 and, therefore, the subsequent World War twenty-five years later.

The Likely Scenario

Unfortunately, Bonaparte’s actions were, by and large, a result of his psychological compulsions and the environment in which he came to power. He was very much a child of the French Revolution; his rise to power had been as a result of one of the bloodiest events in French history. The idea that a man, who owed so much of his power to man’s compulsion towards war, would be content at sitting around a conference table with the other leaders of Europe is improbable at best.

Had he been given the opportunity to make this decision, it is unlikely that he would have taken it, opting instead for the allure of battle. In the event that he had sued for peace, it would almost have certainly been a blind to allow himself time to build up his armies before making another attempt at conquering the continent. In all likelihood, rather than delaying the onset of a World War in Europe, he would almost have certainly caused one in his own right.

However, Bonaparte would not have had long to enact his plans. Barely six years after his victory at Waterloo, he would have succumbed to the pain of stomach cancer and his throne would have been left to his then thirteen-year old heir and nephew, Napoleon III. What chaos would have gripped France as a result of his death is almost unfathomable and not within the remit of this discussion. However, two scenarios present themselves. Either, under the influence of the rest of Europe, France would have returned to a monarchy-led government and once again would have continued down the course that we already know from history, or else the young Napoleon III would have taken to the throne, probably starting a civil war in the process. If Napoleon III were to survive such a period of unrest in France, he could have reigned for nearly fifty years, never having the opportunity to learn from his uncle that the best direction for Europe was towards peace…

Did you enjoy this article? If so, tell the world! Tweet about it, like it or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

You can also read Nick’s previous articles on what if D-Day did not happen in 1944 here, what if Hitler had been assassinated in July 1944 here, and what if the Nazis had not invaded Crete in World War Two here.

Sources

• Blucher: Scourge of Napoleon - Michael V. Leggiere (2014)
• If Napoleon had won the Batter of Waterloo - G. Macaulay Trevelyan (1907)
• Napoleon: The Last Phase - Lord Rosebery (1900)
• Napoleon Wins at Waterloo - Caleb Carr (1999)
• The Face of Battle: A Study of Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme - John Keegan (2004)
• Trafalgar and Waterloo: The Two Most Important Battles of the Napoleonic Wars - Charles River Editors (2014)

The Russian Peasant who attacked Napoleon’s War Machine – Image of the week

The tough Russian peasant who attacked Napoleon’s forces in 1812 is our image of the week.

We’ve had a number of articles related to Russia on the site this week, so thought we’d make the image of the week Russia-related too.

The 1812 Russian Campaign, or the French invasion of Russia, relates to Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Russia during the Napoleonic Wars. The campaign was led by a huge French-led force of well over 500,000 troops. All did not go quite to Napoleon’s liking though, and the Russians were able to overcome the French to devastating effect. The defeat was a catastrophe for Napoleon and his dreams of control over Europe.

Our image is related to the Russian Campaign and says: “A Russian peasant loading a dung cart.” In the image, a hardy Russia peasant is about to attack a dainty French soldier with his pitchfork. The French soldier is terrified, even though he has a sword. In the background we can see why he is horrified – there is a dung cart full of the bodies of French troops among hay. A boy is also in the background, happily looking at the man’s attack on the French soldier.

This print is from March 1813.

What else Russia-related have you missed this week? Our article on famed Russian Grigori Rasputin is here and a podcast about Gulags is here.

George Levrier-Jones

The Duke of Wellington’s victory over Napoleon - funny? Our image of the week

This week’s image of the week features one of the greatest British heroes of them all, Prussian von Bluche, and Napoleon Bonaparte.

The cartoon has leaders of two European armies literally putting the lid on another failed European attempt to dominate that continent. After controlling much of Europe just a few short years before, by 1815 Napoleon’s France had been defeated. This cartoon goes some way to commemorating that.

We see Field Marshal Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher, who led Prussian forces at the 1815 Battle of Waterloo, alongside his British counter-part, Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington. In the center we see them putting the lid on top of France’s Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon is trying to escape but can’t. His face looks distressed in a comical way. Indeed, Napoleon was exiled to the remote Atlantic island of Saint Helena by the British after the Battle of Waterloo.

There is an article about a very significant battle involving the Duke of Wellington and Napoleon’s France in the new issue of History is Now Magazine. Click here to find out more!

George Levrier-Jones