Did you know that a Napoleonic infantry corps d'armee included two to four infantry divisions & a brigade or division of light cavalry (hussars, chasseurs de cheval, lancers, etc.), for scouting, screening, skirmishing, delaying & pursuing the enemy?
A cavalry corps consisted of two to four heavy cavalry divisions (with brigades formed of cuirassier, carabinier, grenadier de cheval & heavy dragoon regiments), ie battle cavalry, big men on big horses, sometimes armored (cuirassiers), meant to attack formed infantry & artillery in combat with shock action, plus a light cavalry division.
Napoleon understood well the use of both horse & gun, plus being a passed master of foot, engineers, signals & all other branches.
As anyone who has ever studied military history for even a single day knows, cavalry is a commander's eyes & ears, plus before the rifle age, its shock force, comparable to modern heavy or main battle tanks.
Without cavalry, a commander is deaf & blind, as was Lee at Gettysburg due to Stuart's joy ride, or Grant at Shiloh, due to lack of any large cavalry formation at all. His opposite number also was deficient, although what he had was the best that America ever produced, a squadron commanded by Nathan Bedford Forrest.
It's not the least bit stupid. Had you ever studied history, you'd know that Napoleon himself said the same thing.
The Austrian army if anything was better when Napoleon fought it in Italy the first time than often later.
Napoleon said he learned nothing from 20 years of command that he didn't know in Italy. You are incredibly stupid, as well as ignorant.
Do you enjoy proving yourself a moron in every post?
Just STFU & quit while you're behind.
As always, your idiotic assertion is ridiculously absurd.
Napoleon made a name for himself in his first Italian campaign. At a young age, he was as good as he would ever be, & better than later in life.
As the great military historian Bevin Alexander observes in "How Generals Win", during N's first campaign in Italy 1796-97, he applied nearly all of his brilliant ideas, including the central position, the "strategic battle", & manoeuvres sur les derrieres.
When will you learn just to STFU & quit making such a fool ass of yourself?
Where did you get the idiotic notion that mounted soldiers are of no use in wooded terrain?
Your betters have showed you many instances of effective military use of horses in forests, even with heavy downed trees as at the Battle of Fallen Timbers, where American mounted rifles defeated Indians of the Western Confederacy in 1794.
Even if you were ignorant & stupid enough to imagine this misconception as a child, your betters for years have shown you otherwise.
Not that the northeastern & southeastern theaters of operations in the Revolution contained all that much forest. Maybe slightly more than the average in Western Europe, but by 1775, not much more.
Americans did fall trees to slow Burgoyne's advance south from Canada through then less developed upstate New York, but most battles were fought in the open fields, with little more cover for riflemen than in Europe.
Your every spew just shows you ever more stupid, ignorant, lazy, crazy arrogant & too stubborn to learn from or even read all the education & information provided you by your betters all these years.
The Grande Armee consisted of 11 regular corps, each of about 20 to 60 thousand men, & four cavalry corps. Allied armies swelled the Imperial forces even more. No such formations of this size had ever existed before. Napoleon had to invent it & its component parts from scratch.
In the Seven Years War, divisions were the largest formations. The entire Prussian army fielded 150,000 men in 1756. At the key battle of Leuthen in 1757, Frederick the Great's masterpiece, he commanded just 36,000 troops, against 80,000 Austrians, an enormous number compared to prior wars.
Of course he knew it would be cold, Napoleon didn't "expect" the Russians to lay waste their own country & burn their capital, which is a far more reasonable assumption than your, great genius & master that you are, "expectation" that PFE wouldn't crash from over $31 to $11 despite being in a long-term downtrend.
The Spanish suggested the scorched earth, poisoned well "strategy" to the Russians.
Washington lost a larger portion of his army in 1776 than Napoleon did in 1812, & because of enemy action, not due to having to march hundreds of miles through territory laid waste.
Obviously you've never studied history for a single second in your entire pitiful, miserable existence, yet somehow feel competent to comment on it, just like the delusional loon you've always showed yourself.
Ignoramus! Fool! Moron! Lying lunatic loser! Welching weasel worm!
Sexist, misogynist, child molesting pig!
Then he made his big boo-boo & invaded Russia in 1812. At Borodino, the French & allies had a few more men (130K to 120K) & a bit fewer guns, but the Russians were in defensive works. Napoleon's heavy cavalry captured the key redoubt, an unheard of feat of arms. But it didn't matter, the scorched earth policy & burning of Moscow sealed the French fate.
The Sixth Coalition moved in for the kill on the weakened Empire. In 1813, Prussia, Russia, Austria, Sweden, Spain, Portugal & Britain attacked Napoleon on all fronts. Outnumbered three to one, he inflicted early defeats on the coalition, but they came up with a strategy that worked, attacking whichever corps lacked Napoleon & withdrawing from those directly under his command.
He almost won the Battle of the Nations at Leipzig, the biggest of all, but had to retreat from Germany into France. At the same time, Wellington invaded southern France from Spain.
His marshals mutinied, & the allies sent him into exile on Elba in 1815. But in 1815 he slipped past the Royal Navy & landed back in France. Quickly raising an army, he beat Wellington & Bluecher before Waterloo, but bungled on that day, against superior forces yet again.
Your dismissiveness is asinine. Washington can't compare. Founding the US was historically important & Washington was a good leader, but that doesn't make him a better general. Napoleon would have whipped his ass ten times out of ten, even with fewer men. Our riflemen would have given us an edge, but not enough to defeat Napoleon's veterans of 1805-11, who had even more experience than the Continental Army in 1781, after a similar period of service.
Hey, loon! There were no forests on Long Island, where Washington lost because of lack of cavalry.
When was Napoleon ever defeated when not badly overmatched? Name one time, lying fool!
In 1796, he won in Italy against a larger Austrian army (41,000 v. 71,000).
In 1798-99, he won in Egypt against a larger Anglo-Turkish army. British control of the Med forced him to give up conquest of Syria.
In 1800, he defeated a much larger Austrian army in Italy again (28,000 men & only 24 guns to 40,000 men & 100 gund) at Marengo, a hard fought battle won by a cavalry charge.
In 1801, he set up camps to train a Grande Armee for the invasion of Britain, but made peace with Austria & Britain.
In 1803 war resumed, & in 1805 a Third Coalition including Russia formed against France. After Trafalgar, Napoleon gave up on invading England & marched his newly trained army across Europe to defeat much larger Austrian & Russian forces at Ulm & Austerlitz. The speed of his march enabled him to bring superior numbers to bear against a part of the Austrian army at Ulm, but at Austerlitz he beat the combined Austrian & Russian armies (~65,000 to 85,000).
In 1806, he faced the Fourth Coalition of Prussia, Russia, Saxony, Sweden & the UK. At Jena, 60,000 French beat 90,000 Prussian & Saxon forces & at Auersedt, 27,000 defeated 53,000, knocking Prussia out of any anti-French Coalition until 1813.
At Eylau in 1807, he recovered from Ney's bringing on an unwanted battle in the snow, with the biggest cavalry charge of the entire period, with only 45,000 men & 200 guns against 67,000 men with 460 guns. At Friedland, he maneuvered his artillery like infantry or cavalry to win a more evenly matched battle, with 71,000 French vs. 76,000 Russians. He liberated Poland.
In Berlin he said that if Frederick were alive, he & his marshals wouldn't be there.
He imposed his Continental System on Europe to keep British commerce out. This led to war with Portugal, Spain & eventually Russia.
In 1807, with Napoleon in command, the British army was driven out of Spain, & the Spanish army defeated in just months. After he left, the British came back & the Spanish & Portuguese mounted guerrilla war. After he left, the allies were able finally to drive the French out in 1813.
Austria ended its peace treaty & formed the Fifth Coalition in 1809. Napoleon lost the first battle at Aspern-Essling, outnumbered 27,000 to 96,000 on the first day & 66,000 to 91,000 on the second. But at Wagram, he brought superior numbers to bear. France & allies numbered 150K to 135K Austrians, although many of the allies weren't very reliable or effective. Thus ended the Fifth Coalition.