Originally posted by insurgent
Oh yes, the battles of the IDF deserve mentioning.
But perhaps also the Battle of Austerlitz deserves mentioning, who would know such superior coalition forces could lose so spectacularly to Napoleon?
Actually, it really was no contest. About half of Napoleon's troops were veterans of the wars of the revolution, and all of them had been training for two years at the camp near Boulonge in preparation for an invasion of England. They benefitted from the improved French logistical system and bought food from local farmers to avoid lengthy baggage trains common in ancien regime armies.
The main reason, though, for the third coalition's defeat was the fact that they were still fighting an eighteenth century war. Tsar Alexander didn't expect for Napoleon to advance in the winter, since armies usually set up quarters and waited until spring. French tactics also emphasized mutual support between infantry, cavalry, and artillery, and permanent orginization above the brigade level (division, corps) allowed all three arms to function cooperately. Conversely, the allied armies had no permanent orginizational levels higher than the regiment, so it was difficult for units to be coordinated or supported on the battlefield. On the few occasions when the Russian or Austrian achieved a success, no other troops were availible to support them due to faulty communication.
So basically, the outcome of the clash between Napoleon and Alexander would have not changed had circumstances changed slightly, although it was a masterwork of genius the way Napoleon invited the Russians to attack him by abandoning the high ground on the Pratzen Heights. When the Russian I, II, and III columns moved off the heights to attack Napoleon's right flank, Soult's corps re-occupied them and destroyed the entire allied left wing from behind. Had Bernadotte not lagged when releasing his corps into action, the entire coaltion army would have been destroyed.
