Napoleon v. Washington

The Nations in 1812 The United States The United States was still a fledgling republic, in the process of organizing its government and military. When America was forced to choose either Britain or France economically, American legislation on this issue led to ruinous results. Richard Stewart writes that the “resultant crippling of American trade so thoroughly disunited the American people that the government could not count on the loyalty and support of the population when conflict did break out. ”1 The United States military was only familiar with the same tactics and procedures it used during the American Revolution. Bonura writes, “[…] events on the Continent made the dominance of existing American drill regulations from the 1780s seem obsolete and antiquated. ”2 He later notes that the Continental Army decreased to an extremely reduced size after the Revolution,3 and that during the War of 1812, it “suffered from a lack of uniformity in training and tactics. ”4 In fact, his entire work revolves around the United States’ reliance on French military tactics, especially during the Napoleonic era. As for the size of the troops, the United States was again at a disadvantage. During the early months of the War of 1812, the United States was unable to meet its goal of 35,000 Americans in the army, only reaching 12,000 – less than half.5 The French Empire In 1812, the French Empire was literally at the height of its power. Napoleon held French control over much of Europe. At the Empire’s height, Napoleon controlled Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Germany, and several central and eastern European nations. 6 At its Imperial zenith, the Empire contained 44 million citizens, 40% of the total European population.7 The French Empire was a superpower with a leader who many believed was invincible because of his ability to adapt to situations and conquer armies heavily outmatched. It had a professional and well-equipped army that had already been led to victories across Europe; Coalition after Coalition of allied European nations were crumbling beneath the might of his Empire. Rebuttals Guerrilla warfare My opponent states that guerrilla warfare was effective in driving Napoleon’s army out of the Iberian Peninsula. This is very true, Napoleon did suffer greatly against such an unorthodox tactic. However, my opponent fails to show that the American military would actually use these tactics. In fact, after the Revolutionary War, guerrilla warfare was largely abandoned by the American military in favor of a more classic, European-style military. Haney writes, “After the American Revolution, knowledge-based warfare fell into disuse as the nation moved to build large armies, erect fortifications, and maintain fleets with which they might deter a potential aggressor. ”8 It is thus safe to assume that America’s formal army, rather than the casual and unprofessional Continental Army, would be used against France in the same way it was used against Britain in the War of 1812; my opponent cannot argue guerrilla tactics because they were not heavily used during the War of 1812. Let us assume for a moment that America inexplicably abandons their newfound army in favor of guerrilla tactics. American guerrilla tactics were under different circumstances than those of the Spanish. In fact, the geography of Spain was perfectly conditioned for guerrilla tactics. David Chandler writes, “[…] the nature of the terrain would make truly effective operations extremely difficult […] and the whole terrain was more suited for guerrilla than regular warfare. ”9 American troops may have been patriotic, but Spanish guerrillas were successful in that they were on optimal guerrilla terrain; allowing the Americans to have this advantage would not only be historically inaccurate. Multiple wars My opponent here states that in 1812 Napoleon would have been fighting multiple wars. This is completely false. In fact, since we are dismissing the French invasion of Russia in 1812, the French Empire was only involved in the Peninsular War, as stated earlier; of course, troops stationed anywhere in Europe could be removed and diverted to this American conflict, just as they were for the Invasion of Russia, which was a disaster for the Invasion and not necessarily for elsewhere in Europe. The Sixth Coalition, formed out of the Convention of Tauroggen, did not begin until 30 December 1812,10 five months after the 1812 invasion of America. It follows, therefore, that it should not be considered for the purposes of this debate because of the thousands of factors that would change due to Napoleon’s invasion of France. To predict what each European nation would do is an impractical and unrealistic task. We only know that the Peninsular War is being fought in Spain; since the French invasion of Russia and the War of the Sixth Coalition occur after this fantasy invasion of America, they should not and realistically cannot be considered. Location of the United States My opponent’s main contention here is that the United States is too far away. However, it should be noted that in 1807, five years before this invasion, Napoleon had 34 ships-of-the-line, but had finished another 80 by 1813, with 35 in construction.11 The French Navy was significantly weaker than the Royal Navy, but since both navies were stronger than the fledgling American Navy, and since Napoleon would have mainly fought by army because it was his strength, Navy size simply is not as important as my opponent is making it out to be. That is not to say the French Navy was not a challenging opponent for the Americans. Apparently, my opponent thinks its relevant to point out how long it took Columbus, in 1492, and then how long it took a ship carrying religious pilgrims in 1620, to cross the Atlantic. My opponent discusses the difficulty of getting to America because of the British fleet; Britain got to America with the difficulty of the French fleet. As evident by Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt, even the naval destruction of his fleet at the Battle of the Nile did not strategically alter his invasion on land. Arguments Military competence It seems as if my opponent has provided no positive evidence for Washington’s intellect despite the fact that his name is specifically included in the title. Washington is not known as a brilliant tactician or strategist. In fact, had the French not been persuaded to join the American Revolution, “Washington’s military incompetence during the Revolution would have lost the war. ”12 Napoleon, however, was a “tireless mastermind and brilliant strategist. ”13 Napoleon’s greatest victories are considered some of the greatest masterpieces in history, from Toulon, the Pyramids, Austerlitz, to Wagram, among others. Napoleon, mentally, had a vastly superior advantage. My opponent concedes this point, but it is a significant fact to note, especially when the title is not “France vs. America,” but “Napoleon vs. Washington. ” American military weakness As explained in my “United States” section in “The Nations in 1812,” the United States suffered from extremely unfavorable conditions (refer to this section for detail). It is not surprising, then, that technically the United States lost the War of 1812 to the British.14 Napoleon’s Marshals One of the most often overlooked aspects of Napoleon’s military triumphs were the role of the Maréchal d'Empire – the Marshal of the Empire. In 1812, Napoleon had 20 marshals, the most recent being Gouvion-St-Cyr.15 These Marshals were responsible for commanding large portions of the Grande Armée, and were responsible for assisting Napoleon in many of his greatest victories. While it is unknown which of his great Marshals Napoleon would have taken to the United States, one can be certain they were a valuable asset to Napoleon and his army. Napoleon said of one of his Marshals, Lannes, “I found him a pygmy, I lost a giant. ”16 Sources . http://goo.gl...