Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[Valmy]

If they had met post war Davout would have had to bow before Kung Karl XIV Johan av Sverige och Karl III Johan av Norge.

Yeah well he would have had to bow before Prince Sefer Ali-Bey Shervashidze of Abkhazia also...but I still think Davout was cooler.

[Ed Anger]

Since I often find myself contemplating whether or not Davout was a divine figure this hijack makes perfect sense.

he is the new Sol Invictus.

And when playing a Napoleonic wargame, I'm annoyed if Davout's ratings aren't among the highest.

[Alatriste]

Davout was on the losing side that makes him both unlucky (for being on the wrong side) and not very good (at either getting his side to win or picking the winning side).

At the end of the game

Bernadotte - King of Sweden and Norway
Davoust - Mayor of a Paris Suburb and his name misspelled on the Arc-du-Triomphe

I suspect Bernadotte has more VP.

About the misspellings or alternate spellings, they are awfully common in Napoleonic generals, specially Russian ones, but Davout has more than most... for starters apparently his family name was originally d'Abot or d'Abbot but he changed it because the D' looked aristocratic, and it was wiser to look plebeian in 1793. Further, it seems 'Davoust' was used at least as frequently as 'Davout', even by Napoleon himself.

@Grumbler

Ah, yes, Wagram... well. Wagram was certainly not his best moment, but 'spotted with defeats' is quite excessive, I'd say. Actually, out of my mind I can't remember any other, and a few minutes spent googling don't offer any example, either. Slow? Perhaps he was in some occasions, but not in others... certainly not in 1805, or in the pursuit after Jena. On the other hand, he performed reasonably well at Austerlitz, Mohrungen, Spanden... and at Walcheren too, in 1809, one can hardly say he did badly. 

No, he's considered bad because of two things: he didn't support Davout at Auerstadt in 1806, and his troops performed badly at Wagram.

About Auerstadt, we could spend 10 pages debating that famous affair. Let's just say that everyone had a part of guilt: Napoleon, that was mistaken about the location and intentions of the Prussians, Berthier, whose orders for Davout and Bernadotte were too ambiguous, Davout, that was both insubordinate and rash (Bernadotte outranked him, as he was 'général de division' since 1794) and Bernadotte himself... but he was obeying very specific orders from the Emperor.

About Wagram, well, few people would say Saxon infantry was an elite force... but anyway getting fired on by the enemy from the front and by friendly fire from the rear would test the mettle of any infantry.

Davout was in another league, that's evident, but in my humble opinion he has received excessive praise. In 1812 he didn't shine (granted, circumstances were exceptional) and in 1813 he was somewhat passive against a hodge podge of second class enemy forces (but numerically stronger, and much, much stronger in cavalry... I'm not saying it's evident he should have risked everything in a field battle)

[grumbler]

Alariste,

The things held against Bernadotte by modern historians and his contemporaries are/were:
(1) he was a "political general" who owed his position due to hios political skills rather than his very meager ones as a leader and general;
(2) he was ambitious beyond all reason, desiring for instance the French Crown after Napoleon's abdication, and doing his best to blackguard his rivals; and
(3) he was a very poor comrade, seeing all the other marshals as competition and therefor doing what he could to make sure they did not shine.  As an Ally, he did much the same thing, being willing to see the deaths of infinite numbers of Russians before the death of a single one of his own soldiers.

"Toad" is the word that springs to mind.

Davout's reputation has certainly been overblown by some, but the fact remains that he was almost certainly Napoleon's best subordinate, and a better leader and general than any Allied leader bar Wellington.  His efforts in 1812 were also exceptional, and I don't know how you can argue otherwise; had Jerome obeyed orders, Davout would almost certainly have brought Bagration to battle under extremely favorable French terms, with incalculable consequences for future operations.  At Borodino, his corps performed a diificult mission well, despite losing 40% of their strength on the eve of battle because they were such good troops that they were needed by those commanders  In 1813, Davout waged a vigorous (and mostly successful) war of the outposts until about December, when Allied numbers became so great he had to retreat into the city.  I am not sure how a general commanding a fortress can not be "somewhat passive," so that can hardly be an indictment of Davout!

If you want to ding Davout, it wouldn't be on military grounds.  He was excessively sycophantic in matters other than military, and openly contemptuous of those among the marshalate who failed to maintain tight discipline for themselves and their troops.

[Alatriste]

Grumbler, did you read this theard at the 'Napoleon Series' forum?

http://www.napoleon-series.org/cgi-bin/forum/archive2006_config.pl?md=read;id=70881

I happen to agree almost 100% with the things Robert Goetz and John Cook posted... Bernadotte was certainly a general far inferior to Davout, but his reputation has been savaged quite unfairly since 1813.

Not that all of them are false, just to mention one obvious fault one can hardly doubt that his Swedish corps in 1813-14 was shamelessly preserved intact while the other corps of the Army of the North did all the fighting (losses at Leipzig: 22,000 Russians, 16,000 Prussians, 15,000 Austrians... two hundred Swedes) but reading some accounts (Marbot and Savary, for example) Bernadotte is presented as a coward, a blusterer, a traitor, an incompetent and a clown, all at the same time!

About Davout (or Davoust) he was a superb general, and I freely admit a certain degree of... "je ne sais quoi" that makes me remark he's too often overrated. Perhaps it's just that others, like Masséna, Suchet and Soult, receive far less attention and praises than him, perhaps it's just that knowing how well he performed in 1806-7 and 1809, I would have expected even more of him in 1812-14.     

[Ed Anger]

Isn't this more fun than religion?

[Razgovory]

Much more.

[PDH]

Davout is great, because he was balding with glasses and he kicked butt. Enough said.

Now, Alatriste, I agree that Suchet gets the short end of the stick too often, just because he wasn't on the right at great battles. 

[Ed Anger]

Ed's ranking of French Marshals, based on general coolness and being a bad ass
(with bad spelling and all)

1) Davout
2) Lannes
3) Bessières
4) Massena (without mistress)
5) Suchet
6) Soult
7) Ney
8) Mortier
9) Massena (with mistress)


And so on, as there are too many of these fucks to rate. Bernadotte doesn't even show up.

[Razgovory]

Not that all of them are false, just to mention one obvious fault one can hardly doubt that his Swedish corps in 1813-14 was shamelessly preserved intact while the other corps of the Army of the North did all the fighting (losses at Leipzig: 22,000 Russians, 16,000 Prussians, 15,000 Austrians... two hundred Swedes) but reading some accounts (Marbot and Savary, for example) Bernadotte is presented as a coward, a blusterer, a traitor, an incompetent and a clown, all at the same time!

Coward is probably unfair (though he did have a weird habit of showing up late or completely missing battles), but blusterer and traitor are on the mark.  Incompetent probably isn't fair either though he does pale in comparison to other Marshals of France.  His treacherous self serving nature served him well in the end but you can't expect it make him popular with historians (or anyone who is French).

[Berkut]

This is easily figured out, just check your local game, and see how they are rated.

According to Nappy Wars, it is:

1. Napoleon (4-8)
2-3. Davout, Soult (3-6)
4-5. Lannes, Massena (2-6)
6. Bernadotte (2-4)
Everyone else (1-4)

Numbers are tactical rating-troops they command.

Glad to be of help.

BTW, we need another player for the next Languish Nappy Wars game, going with a 4 player version this time. Sign up in the thread in the gaming forum, and you to can betray Napoleon for the Swedish crown!

[Viking]

Empires in Arms (Strategic.Tactical.Command.Rank and * for cavalry leader)

Nappy 5.5.6.A
Davoudt 4.5.2.B
Massena 4.4.3.C
Ney 2.4.1.C
Soult 3.3.3.C
Murat 2.3.3.B*
Bernadotte 2.2.2.B
Jerome 2.2.1.D

Wellington 5.5.3.B
Charles 4.4.6.B
Blücher 3.4.5.B*
Kutuzov 3.4.4.B
Barclay 3.3.5.C
Bagration 2.4.4.B
Schwartzenberg 2.3.3.B

[The Brain]

Bernadotte's is the only Napoleonic marshal's baton I have seen in the flesh so he gets my vote as the greatest ever marshal.

[Viking]

Bernadotte's is the only Napoleonic marshal's baton I have seen in the flesh so he gets my vote as the greatest ever marshal.

We've got his (and Nappy's) sword in trondheim.

[crazy canuck]

Isn't this more fun than religion?

Trying to divert this back on topic are you?