Napoléon : ce GENIE militaire

QUESTION : Comment Napoléon a-t-il changé de tactique militaire ?

En augmentant considérablement le nombre d'hommes dans ses armées. Au 18ème siècle, les armées avaient tendance à être petites avec des professionnels hautement qualifiés des deux côtés. Par exemple, aux plaines d'Abraham en 1759, les Britanniques avaient environ 4 400 hommes, tandis que les Français en avaient environ 6 800. Lorsque Napoléon a combattu à Borodino 53 ans plus tard, il est venu avec une armée d'au moins 115 000 et faisait face à une force d'au moins 106 000. Et c'est en grande partie à cause de Napoléon que les armées sont devenues importantes. Au lieu de s'appuyer entièrement sur des professionnels bénévoles hautement qualifiés, Napoléon aimait constituer des armées de conscrits légèrement entraînés et écraser l'ennemi en se basant sur la force du nombre, autrement dit de la supériorité numérique quand il en avait l'occasion. Autrement il savait très bien combattre en infériorité numérique tout en emportant des victoires éclatante à l'image de la victoire des armée françaises lors de la bataille d'Austerlitz face à des armées austro hongroises et russes plus nombreuses ( 68 000 hommes contre 90 000 hommes ).
Toutes les armées européennes sont devenues plus grandes en conséquence. Napoléon a subi des pertes massives dans sa campagne de Russie, mais un an plus tard, il avait encore une armée de plus de 70 000 hommes après avoir remplacé ses pertes par de nouveaux conscrits. Mais Napoléon a montré que c'était possible. Vous pouviez apparemment obtenir des soldats efficaces avec très peu d'entraînement et qui étaient en grande partie consommables. Cela signifiait que vous pouviez toujours attaquer pendant que l'ennemi essayait de remplacer ses pertes. Par exemple, à Austerlitz, Napoléon a perdu environ 13 % de ses forces, mais les Alliés ont perdu environ 38 % des leurs et n'avaient vraiment plus d'armée à proprement parler. Ils ont rapidement demandé la paix. Normalement, perdre 13% de vos forces pourrait détruire votre armée, mais cela n'a même pas ralenti Napoléon.

QUESTION : Quelles tactiques non conventionnelles Napoléon a-t-il utilisées lors de sa victoire à Austerlitz ?

L'éclat de Napoléon en tant que stratège n'a servi qu'à amener l'ennemi sur le champ de bataille. La bataille a toujours été l'objet ultime de toute la planification et de la pensée de Napoléon. En effet, il a mené plus de batailles que la plupart des grands commandants avant ou depuis et a réussi à gagner la plupart d'entre eux. Une fois le contact ennemi établi, l'avant-garde s'empare de la position la plus favorable disponible, s'efforce de fixer l'ennemi et de former un pivot de manœuvre pour l'armée à l'arrière. Pendant que l'avant-garde s'épuise, ces unités fraîches entrent en action sur ses flancs. L'infanterie légère a sondé, développant des points faibles et immobilisant l'ennemi. Derrière l'infanterie légère, l'artillerie légère avança de manière agressive et les vrais combats commencèrent. Une fois l'armée ennemie engagée, Napoléon n'a plus qu'un but : la destruction. L'Empereur préférait se battre offensivement en toutes circonstances, même sur la défensive. À Austerlitz, il s'est effectivement tenu sur la défensive, a attiré ses ennemis dans un piège, puis a attaqué. Les tactiques de combat de Napoléon provenaient d'un mariage de fusil de chasse de l'armée royale avec l'improvisation révolutionnaire.

Dans la bataille, Napoléon dépendait de la vitesse, de la masse et de la manœuvre agressive : normalement, il frappait une aile d'une armée ennemie, de préférence celle la plus proche de ses communications. Le mouvement de flanc obligeait l'ennemi à se retourner, à faire des ajustements rapides au milieu des combats, soit par une retraite, soit en renforçant le flanc menacé et en affaiblissant l'autre flanc, le centre ou les réserves. Napoléon a recommandé une manœuvre sur le flanc de l'ennemi et a assuré que dans une telle situation "La victoire est entre vos mains". Rappelez-vous que le flanc de Napoléon a été attaqué à Leipzig, La Rothière et à Waterloo, et dans les trois batailles, il a été vaincu. L'Empereur avait deux plans de bataille de base : La Bataille de Manoeuvre (66 % de ses batailles) La bataille d'usure (33 %) La bataille de Manoeuvre exigeait une certaine supériorité en nombre. La force principale de Napoléon a retenu l'attention de l'ennemi sur son front, tandis qu'une autre force est tombée sur l'un de ses flancs, puis enroulant le reste de la ligne. La cavalerie est envoyée à sa poursuite. L'avantage de cette tactique était qu'elle infligeait une défaite majeure à l'ennemi à un coût minime. Mais les choses pourraient mal tourner. Un mouvement rapide des réserves à l'arrière de l'ennemi pourrait épaissir le flanc menacé. Et un ennemi déployé avec un fort soutien naturel (crête, zone boisée, etc.) sur son flanc serait immunisé contre cette méthode. La victoire à Austerlitz était essentiellement une bataille de manœuvre.
Cela signifiait que le grand général russe Kutsov était écarté. Il avait proposé différentes tactiques et il s'agissait d'attirer Napoléon plus loin en Europe de l'Est, de l'affaiblir avant que les alliés ne le détruisent. L'incapacité du tsar à écouter son soldat le plus expérimenté a contribué à sa défaite désastreuse. Une autre raison de la victoire des Français était l'échec des Prussiens à envoyer leur armée à temps, ils auraient pu aider à renverser le cours de la bataille s'ils avaient été présents. Austerlitz a été une grande victoire. Cependant, ce n'était pas la victoire décisive qu'on lui a souvent dépeinte. Napoléon a pu infliger une défaite à la Coalition. Napoléon a gagné parce qu'il a dupé les alliés en leur faisant croire qu'il voulait des négociations, ce qui les a incités à chercher une bataille, ce qu'il avait prévu et voulu. Les alliés auraient peut-être dû éviter une bataille et laisser l'armée de Napoléon souffrir d'une ligne de ravitaillement trop étendue en hiver. Pendant la bataille proprement dite, la stratégie de Napoléon a très bien fonctionné. Sa stratégie et sa tactique étaient superbes. Alors son armée était supérieure aux alliés, à l'exception de leur cavalerie. Ses unités étaient bien dirigées, motivées et flexibles, alors que les alliés utilisaient des officiers dirigés par des officiers souvent incompétents et mal organisés. Ces facteurs ont tous permis à Napoléon de vaincre une armée légèrement plus importante et d'établir la suprématie française dans une grande partie de l'Europe. Napoléon à la bataille d'Austerlitz, huile de François Gérard.

Mais ~en plus~ il y avait plusieurs raisons pour lesquelles Napoléon a gagné à Austerlitz. Il avait habilement convaincu ses ennemis qu'il était plus faible qu'il ne l'était par sa proposition peu sincère de négociations de paix. Cela a trompé le tsar et l'a encouragé à se battre. Ensuite, la stratégie et la tactique françaises pendant la bataille ont été brillantes. Napoléon a prédit où et quand les alliés attaqueraient, puis les a attaqués à leur point le plus faible. Cela signifiait que lui et ses troupes étaient capables de mettre en déroute une énorme armée en moins d'une journée de combat. Une autre raison de la victoire française était l'organisation supérieure de l'armée française, le système de corps était flexible et pouvait réagir à tout changement sur le champ de bataille. Les officiers français étaient aussi bien meilleurs que les alliés qui n'avaient que leur poste du fait de leur naissance et étaient souvent incompétents. Le soldat français moyen à Austerlitz était un vétéran aguerri typique qui s'inspirait des idéaux de la Révolution.
Le canon français était supérieur aux alliés de la coalition, mais pas de beaucoup non plus. L'une des principales raisons pour lesquelles Napoléon a pu vaincre les armées combinées de l'Autriche et de la Russie était qu'elles combattaient à la même manière qu'au XVIIIe siècle. Leur organisation, leur tactique et leur stratégie étaient dépassées, selon un observateur allemand de la bataille. Les Français avaient changé la nature de la guerre et cela n'a pas été reconnu par les Alliés ou alors bien tardivement. De plus, le tsar Alexandre a interféré avec les décisions de son commandant et de nombreux généraux n'ont accepté sa tactique que par respect pour sa personne royale bien plus que pour ses compétences tactiques qui étaient objectivement assez médiocres.

SOURCES: Chandler, David G. : Les Campagnes de Napoléon. Scribner, 1973. ISBN-13 : 978-0025236608 Cabott Abott, John Stephens : Napoléon Bonaparte. Dodo Press, 2006. ISBN-13 : 978-1406503784 Éditeurs de Charles Rivers : Les plus grandes batailles de l'histoire : La bataille d'Austerlitz. Plate-forme de publication indépendante CreateSpace, 2013. ISBN-13 : 978-1492923824 Fisher, Todd : Les guerres napoléoniennes : la montée et la chute d'un empire. Osprey Publishing, 2004. ISBN-13 : 978-1841768311 Lyons, Martyn : Napoléon Bonaparte et l'héritage de la Révolution française. St. Martin's Press, 1994. ISBN-13 : 978-0312121235 Stutterheim, Karl: Un compte rendu détaillé de la bataille d'Austerlitz. Ulan Press, 2012. ASIN : B009MH68O4

Well first off the reason Napoleon was considered one of the best strategist is that since his young age he constantly tried to improve his knowledge. Whetever it was history science or military. According to some historians also he was reading books about the place in which he was operating before launching in a campain. ( didn't serve him during russian campain though )
::What are some of Napoleon's most effective battle tactics?:: Napoleon conceived the destruction of the enemy force the main objective of any campaign: after that, the occupation of the enemy’s territory and its political submission would follow. He counted with three main elements to fullfill this objective: surprise, speed and maneuverability. ‘Living off the land’ favoured his speed, but also forced him to separate his corps and keep a strict eye on their location, allowing him to redirect them where they were necessary. Quite a few times an enemy attacked a corps, thinking it an isolated force, only to find out being itself attacked from different directions by other forces, force-marched there by Napoleon. And he managed to do that by using the Bataillon Carré, the Batallion Square: each corp marched within a distance that allowed to support each other, moving and changing directions without altering the arrangement. Once the enemy was located, Napoleon launched a flanking movement taking advantage of the terrain as possible and using cavalry to conceal his movements. The enemy was attracted to a point with feints and stuck in place until being surrounded: this was called manoeuvre sur les derrière, the move onto the rear, and usually was fatal for the enemy force.

When it comes to strategy I remember reading that Napoleon armies would defeat enemies that were larger and with more mens than him by moving quickly and do things that his opponent wouldn't expect like quickly cut out any kind of rethreat line.
Napoleon soldiers were actually well trained.
About that many historians would say that on the battlefield, he carried with him an aura of victory, even in the worst situations. That He inspired confidence to his troops, inspiring them and assuring them that victory was certain.
Napoleon made plenty of changes in military strategies. To the point that today many modern military doctrines are still kinda based on Napoleonic premises that were taken from a historical reading of the European war. He made good use of his artillery in the battlefield. Infantry was also massed into formations depending on conditions in battlefield. There were diferent formations possibles in fact. Like columnn formation, line formation, or something that is called infantry square. Napoleon actually perfected some strategies from other people and commanders. There were also diferent cavalries. Napoleon used them in a creative way most of the times. First they consisted of : Dragoons, Lancers Hussars, Chasseurs, Cuirassiers. Cavalry for example were used as a surprise element mostly because of their speed, most of the times when thick smoke was here to cover the battlefield.
As for logistic, a military transportation system was created by Napoleon in order to not know major problems linked to supplying the soldiers. When it comes to tactics the fact that he created the concept of Corps should not be forget also. He was also the kind of commanders and strategists that would rather bring down his opponents by out maneuvering rather than fight them and bring them down by using the tactic of attrition. Most of his famous battle clearly shows that.
Also just thinking about it if you were asked something about napoleonic war you can say something you can answer that french officers were elected and choosen on their merit rather than birth which kinda helped.
Also the fact that Francis I and Louis XIV already faced coalitions so france faced coalitions before Napoleon.
About impact of technological change. Starting from the french revolution, during this period, solders who used weapons could be classified in 3 categories, those being infantry, artillery and cavalry. As for infantry in french revolution, they used mostly gun bayonet, swords and also pistols. In the other hand, when it comes to artillery it was mainly canons who were used. You have multiple examples like the Canon de 12 Gribeauval or 12-pounder which was the heaviest canon used by the french artillery. The same canon was also used during the Napoleonic wars. The light Canon de 4 Gribeauval and the medium Canon de 8 Gribeauval are other examples of weapons used by artillery during the french revolution. Howitzer which was made to fire small charges at high trajectories played also a huge role during napoleonic wars because of the fact that it weighned less than the typicaliron canon allowing better mobility for the troops. Howitzer was used during the Austerlitz battle. Cavalry weared most of the times swords and pistol which were usefull for close range combat. Musketoon and carabine rifles were also used during the french revolution period althought not by the soldiers most of the times in france. When it comes to infantry, the difference between the french revolution period and the napoleonic war that the weapons consisted more often in muskets. Were also added more sabres. A sabre is a type of backsword with a curved blade associated with the light cavalry of the early modern and Napoleonic periods. Technological change directly affected both tactics and weaponry when it comes to WW1 and WW2. The increasement and improvement directly concerned mostly the tankis and the aircrafts when it comes to the technology directly linked to wars. For example althought the British introcued tanks during the WW1 they were nowhere the level of an average tank during the WW2.
For example the Mark 1 Tank from the WW1 could not keep with the German Panzers whatever talking about Panzer III, IV, V ( Panther ) or VI ( Tigers ).
If you have a question related to how important where generals or which were the tactics used by the french during the Napoleonic Wars, then you can name all the weapons I wrote higher up but also say that Napoleon made a good use of artillery as a battlefield weapon. Remember there were horse artillery, mountain artillery, and foot artillery which all three composed the field artillery. When it comes to infantry he knew how to adapt to the battlefield by positionning his infantry in colums and formations into the best way possible. In term of logistic support he created also a special transportation system. Combine the logistical revolution with the tactical superiority and operationnal superiority and that explain a lot when it comes to French success during the major part of the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon also relied much on surprise, maneuverability and speed. The Corps or corps d' armée system of semi-autonomous combined arms formations were also concept created by Napoleon which contributed a lot to create flexibility into the conduct of the operations. Also remember that many of his ideas were taken from others, but he used them better than other commanders. Many modern military doctrines, organizations, and norms are still based on Napoleonic premises
When it comes to military doctrines and if they ask you to take an example of military doctrine you can put some good examples especially when it comes to Napoleonic wars and WW2. I already talked about Napoleon tactics and doctrines. So I gonna stick with WW2 in my example. And take the Blitzkrieg tactic ( althought It was not really a military doctrine by himself ) which consisted of avoiding fighting the enemy where they are strongest, instead go around or break through the enemy line where they are weak, also then prioritise the communication and supply lines behind the enemy front, ultimatly leading to cutting off their supplies.
Napoleon.

:What are some of Napoleon's most effective battle tactics?

Napoleon conceived the destruction of the enemy force the main objective of any campaign: after that, the occupation of the enemy’s territory and its political submission would follow. He counted with three main elements to fullfill this objective: surprise, speed and maneuverability. ‘Living off the land’ favoured his speed, but also forced him to separate his corps and keep a strict eye on their location, allowing him to redirect them where they were necessary. Quite a few times an enemy attacked a corps, thinking it an isolated force, only to find out being itself attacked from different directions by other forces, force-marched there by Napoleon. And he managed to do that by using the Bataillon Carré, the Batallion Square: each corp marched within a distance that allowed to support each other, moving and changing directions without altering the arrangement. Once the enemy was located, Napoleon launched a flanking movement taking advantage of the terrain as possible and using cavalry to conceal his movements. The enemy was attracted to a point with feints and stuck in place until being surrounded: this was called manoeuvre sur les derrière, the move onto the rear, and usually was fatal for the enemy force.

What are some of Napoleon's most effective battle tactics?

Massed artillery: Napoleon's use of massed artillery was a key component of his tactics, he would use artillery to soften up the enemy's defenses before launching an attack. He also used artillery to disrupt enemy formations, creating confusion and panic, which made it easier for his own troops to advance. The divisional square: He introduced a new way of organizing his infantry on the battlefield, called "divisional square". This formation was square-shaped, with soldiers facing out in all directions, it was harder for the enemy to break through, and it also allowed the division to fire in any direction. Flanking maneuvers: Napoleon was known for using flanking maneuvers, where his troops would attack the enemy's flank or rear, rather than their front. This helped to disorient and disrupt the enemy's formations, making it easier for his own troops to advance. Feigned retreats: Napoleon would often use feigned retreats to draw the enemy into a trap, his troops would appear to retreat, but then would suddenly turn and attack the enemy from the rear, catching them off guard. Rapid marches: Napoleon's army was known for its speed and mobility, and he would often use rapid marches to outmaneuver the enemy and take them by surprise. Combined arms warfare: Napoleon used different units such as infantry, cavalry, and artillery together in battle, allowing for greater flexibility and adaptability on the battlefield. He would use his artillery to support his infantry, and his cavalry to exploit weaknesses in the enemy's defenses. Concentration of force: Napoleon's army would concentrate its forces at the point of attack, overwhelming the enemy with superior numbers and firepower.
Jena-Auerstedt in 1806 was also a great victory for the French. It was there they destroyed the Prussian Army. But Napoleon himself did not fight the main body of the Prussian Army. While he conducted a marvelous battle at Jena, believing he was engaging the Prussian Army, it was in fact, Marshal Louis Nicholas Davout, fighting the Battle of Auerstedt, who took on and destroyed the Prussian main body. This battle, collectively known as the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt, rightfully belonged to Marshal Davout. Napoleon was at first, very doubtful concerning Davout’s reports that he had defeated the Prussian Main Body. But in light of the facts, The Emperor heaped praise upon Davout. There are a number of good books on this battle as well. The Emperor did not fight poorly in this battle, but it was not his great victory. Aspern-Essling in 1809 was very nearly a debacle for the French. The Austrians had learned much from both General Bonaparte and Emperor Napoleon. They had been at war since 1792 and facing Napoleon both as general and Emperor. It took them a while, but they finally learned enough to very nearly turn the tables on Napoleon in 1809. The Battle of Wagram put things right for the French and proved to be Napoleon’s last really great battle. He would certainly win other victories, particularly during the Battle of France in 1813. But nothing so final as Wagram. Borodino in 1812 was again a French victory, but not handled with Napoleon’s usual skill. It was a series of hammer blows that all but destroyed the French Army while doing great harm to the Russians. Not enough harm though, as to make them wish to come to the peace table. In the end, Waterloo was not the battle the Emperor wanted. But it was the battle he chose to fight. He very nearly took the day as well. Had Blucher and the Prussians not appeared on the field, almost as a deus-ex-machina moment, history may have been rather different.
There were a number of personal traits of Napoleon as well as institutional advantages of France that enabled him to have such a tremendous military career. After all, he fought 60 battles, losing only 8 , only two of which are considered decisive losses. The other European powers united in not one, but seven different wars until they finally brought him down for good. Napoleon was a gambler. Warfare of the time was led by the aristocrats, who were generally very conservative people. They didn’t take risks as a rule. Napoleon, who was a nobody, rose to the top of the military ladder by being a clever gambler who could take advantage of his conservative (and often predictable) opponents. This would actually prove his downfall in the end, because success is a poor teacher, and he consistently overplayed the odds in the last few years of his reign. Napoleon was a hard worker who thought out everything in advance. Some reports suggest that he only slept a few hours each night, and was burning the candle at both ends to prepare his battle plans and organize supply lines. While many know of his disastrous Russian campaign
. Before this time, armies were ready relatively small compared to a country’s population, and the nobles did not like the idea of arming the poor classes. When France was faced with enemies pouring into her borders on every side, the revolutionary leaders instituted mass conscription, and raised armies much bigger than had previously been raised, allowing them to compete evenly with a united Europe. Eventually the other nations had to do the same in order to compete. This was made possible because weapons were finally being mass produced, and it was easy to train peasants to use something as simple as a musket. Napoleon repeatedly lost armies toward the end of his reign, and he just recruited a new batch of young boys to replace them. Eventually this became unsustainable, because the French people grew fatigued after 20 years of nearly constant war, and he eventually ran out of horses and well-trained veterans. The French had already been making small improvements to their military that facilitated improved mobility and efficiency. Horse artillery is one such example: smaller cannons were pulled by fast horses, ridden by their crew, who could get into position rapidly and move into a new area when required. Napoleon loved these guys and used them in combination with his slower artillery to great effect. The army organization and divisional structure was also vastly improved.
France was traditionally one of the most powerful, populous, and wealthy nations in all of Europe, and the revolution mobilized them into an enthusiastic fighting force. Napoleon’s constant victories (often at little cost, especially initially) only made the people more excited for war. Napoleon successfully transformed this huge nation into an empire dedicated to warfare, with almost unlimited manpower reserves. Napoleon was a smooth, shrewd, and Machiavellian leader. While campaigning, even as a general before he had any official political power, he had his own newspaper that would print glorified accounts of his victories, and minimize any casualties. He essentially ran a propaganda machine to increase his own popularity. Later, as Emperor, he was essentially an autocrat who used his nearly absolute power to improve the military machine of France in every way he could. Napoleon was a genius. He almost instinctually knew the best moves in battle. Most of his losses were either because he was hopelessly outnumbered (Leipzig ), or was sick and not even fully present at the battle (Waterloo ). While he planned extensively beforehand, he lived by the maxim: “No plan survives encounter with the enemy.” He was always willing to improvise to make the best move.
Napoleon lost in the end because success is a bad teacher: it made him cocky, and he overreached just when his opponents had finally learned all their lessons from 15 years of fighting him. They even created a formal military strategy (The Trachenberg Plan ) that stipulated that they would avoid him in open battle and attack only armies under his marshals until they could effectively outnumber him. That alone illustrates just how much they respected his military abilities, even as they united to bring him down.

What was the greatest battlefield victory of Napoleon and what was his poorest performance?
Most sources agree that the Battle of Austerlitz, December 2, 1805, was the Emperor’s greatest victory. He managed to defeat the Russian and Austrian Armies that day after a very successful and, for the time, lightning fast move from the Channel Coast of France, to the heart of Moravia. There are dozens of books written about this battle, but two of the best are “Napoleon and the Battle of Austerlitz” by Scott Bowden, and “Austerlitz 1805, the Battle of Three Emperors” By David Chandler. The Bowden book is unprecedented in its detailed analysis of the Battle and covers specific actions occurring during the battle. Chandler’s book is an Osprey Monograph, but anything Chandler ever wrote is well worth reading. Of further interest in the Battle, I would also recommend Claude Manceron’s “Austerlitz”. This is a rather romanticized version of the Battle, but very fact-based. I also cannot say enough good things about Robert Goetz’ book, 1805, Austerlitz: Napoleon and the Destruction of the Third Coalition. This is another book that is very detailed and awash in facts. Concerning the Emperor’s poorest showing on the Battlefield, opinions vary greatly. Things were not handled so perfectly at Marengo in 1800. Though it was a great victory for the French, had General Louis Desaix not arrived at the nick of time, after being recalled by General Bonaparte, things might have gone very badly for the French. Desaix, only 32 years old at Marengo, was perhaps one of the very few Generals who could have come close to parity with Napoleon on the Battlefield. A greatly talented military leader, Napoleon felt his loss keenly.
I’m not sure one could say that Napoleon ever fought badly. But the differences in Austerlitz and Waterloo are quite amazing.
Why is Napoleon considered an outstanding general?
, what is less known is that he actually had plenty of supplies to make it to Smolensk. He just didn’t anticipate going all the way to Moscow, or that the Russians would burn everything they had so there would be nothing left to pillage. Napoleon took initiative. Since he was usually outnumbered, Napoleon would do everything he could to go on the offensive, and knock out enemy armies separately before they united into too large of a force. He did this repeatedly in Italy , where the Austrians poured multiple armies over the alps to defend their territory, and he continued to destroy these armies individually. Napoleon had his armies live off the land, and marched faster than his enemies. While Napoleon still had supply lines, much of the food, clothing, and pay for his men was looted from conquered territory. This allowed him to march faster, and he often did forced marches where his men would march twice as far each day as the enemy predicted. His opponents were often shocked at how quickly he outmanuvered them. At Ulm he surrounded an enormous Austrian army and forced them to surrender - while they thought he was over a hundred miles to the west and were waiting for reinforcements. Again, another thing that got him into trouble in Russia: the Russians retreated even faster, and burned everything in their wake, so there was nothing to loot.
The French Republic (and later the Empire) promoted men based on merit. This is how Napoleon got his position in the first place, and promoting based on merit improved the armed forces across the board (with the exception of the navy, but that’s another story). Many of the other countries continued to only allow nobles in the officer ranks, who were not necessarily the most talented individuals (with some exceptions of course, such as Wellington). The French Republic basically invented the concept of mass conscription

How did Napoleon change military tactics?
By vastly increasing the number of men in his armies. In the 18th century, armies tended to be small with highly trained professionals on both sides. For example, at the Plains of Abraham in 1759, the British had about 4,400 men, while the French had about 6,800. When Napoleon fought at Borodino 53 years later, he came with an army of at least 115,000 and was facing a force of at least 106,000. And it was largely because of Napoleon that armies became large. Instead of relying entirely on highly skilled volunteer professionals, Napoleon was fond of putting together armies of lightly trained draftees and overwhelming enemies based on sheer force of numbers. Napoleon really had no other choice. He was short of highly trained professionals, but wanted to fight wars anyway. Draftees may have lacked skills, but they still had to be dealt with and he generally used them in front while holding back his best soldiers to take advantage of any openings. All European armies became larger as a result. Napoleon suffered massive losses in his Russian campaign, but a year later still had an army of more than 70,000 after replacing his losses with new draftees. But Napoleon showed it could be done. You apparently could get effective soldiers with very little training who were largely expendable. That meant you could still attack while the enemy was trying to replace its losses. For example, at Austerlitz, Napoleon lost about 13% of his forces, but the Allies lost about 38% of theirs and really didn’t have an army to speak of after that. They quickly sued for peace. Normally, losing 13% of your forces would break your army, but it didn’t even slow Napoleon down.

In terms of warfare only, is Napoleon the greatest military strategist in the history of warfare?
Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, is the commander who defeated Napoleon at Waterloo.
When asked who the greatest military commander of his age was, he responded: In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon! Of course, there is the possibility that Wellington was just trying to make himself look better as the man who managed to defeat the greatest military commander “in any age”, but I’m sure that he still had some valid reasons for saying this. Let me address some of the arguments against Napoleon that have been voiced in the other answers so far: “Granted, it always took grand alliances of two or more great powers to defeat him, but so did Hitler.” Hitler was a political genius. He was not a military genius, and even his fanboys (yes, they still exist) would not regard him as such. He did not take to the field to command his armies: he relied on more capable military commanders to do that for him. (For the most part. Except when he decided to micromanage them, which almost always resulted in catastrophe.) Conversely, Napoleon was primarily a military commander and secondarily a politician. He made his share of mistakes, but those mistakes were made in the midst of numerous stunning victories over which he had direct command. You really cannot compare the military prowess of Hitler to that of Napoleon at all. “Napoleon always relied on overpowering forces.” This is what a great commander does. For example, in the American Civil War, Stonewall Jackson was operating in a condition of numerical inferiority, but he used brilliant maneuvers to divide and confuse enemy forces so that, at the actual point of conflict, he would have numerical superiority. Similarly, Napoleon relied upon swift and decisive maneuvers to ensure that he would have the overpowering forces that would help to ensure victory. Napoleon benefited from his circumstances…but they were often circumstances that he had created!
Regardless of Wellington’s comment, it is difficult to say who the greatest military commander ever would be. But Napoleon is definitely on the short list in my mind.
What were Napoleon's 8 defeats?
Napoleon Bonaparte fought sixty battles during his career, from Italy to Belgium, taking in Egypt, Russia and Spain along the way. For the vast majority of these battles, he was successful, and he is regarded by some as the best general to ever live. However, he wasn’t infallible, and he did lose occasionally. Eight times, to be precise, in battles of varying scope and strategic importance. The Second Battle of Bassano, during the Italian campaign on the 6th November 1796. Napoleon failed to stop the Austrians crossing the Brenta River and capturing the village of Nove. Following the battle he ordered the retreat, leaving the Austrians in control of the battlefield. The Siege of Acre, from March to May 1799 during the Middle Eastern campaign. Napoleon lay siege to Acre, held by the Ottoman Empire. He tried to only use his infantry initially, but the Ottomans resisted him. When he finally called in his siege artillery it came by sea and was intercepted by the Royal Navy, who reinforced the Ottoman defences and turned Napoleon’s own guns back on him. The combined Ottoman-British defenders were thereafter able to repel everything Napoleon could throw at them and he ultimately gave up and retreated. The Battle of Aspern-Essling, fought between the 21st and 22nd of May 1809 during the War of the Fifth Coalition against the Austrians. Napoleon attempted to cross the Danube at the villages of Aspern and Essling. Waiting for them on the other side was an Austrian army led by Archduke Charles. The Austrians managed to stop the French from taking the villages, but Napoleon was able to withdraw most of his forces in good order.
The Battle of Krasnoi, fought between the 15th and 18th of November 1812. Napoleon was retreating from Moscow, having realised that his situation there was untenable. When the French reached the village of Krasnoi, the Russians struck. They inflicted heavy losses on the French, and Napoleon only escaped with part of his army by sending the Imperial Guard out of Krasnoi, which convinced the Russian general Kutuzov to delay what could have been a decisive final blow. The final act of the battle was the almost total destruction of the forces under Marshal Ney. The Battle of Leipzig, fought between the 16th and the 19th of October 1813. Napoleon took on the combined forces of Russia, Austria, Sweden, Prussia and some assorted German states (and a British rocket artillery battery). The coalition nearly encircled the French and then wore them out with constant attacks. Eventually, they were forced to retreat back to France, and to top off a disastrous battle they managed to blow up a bridge with a bunch of retreating French soldiers still on it due to a timing mistake. The Battle of La Rothiere, on the 1st of February 1814. Napoleon had been pushed back to the borders of France itself, and now faced an army comprising Prussian, Russian and Austrian, as well as other German, troops in snowy conditions. The snow made Napoleon’s artillery useless and his advancing columns were ravaged by Russian cavalry charges. He was forced to retreat.
The Battle of Laon, from the 9th to the 10th of March 1814, against the Prussians. The Allies were by this point closing in on Paris and the French forces opposite them were woefully outnumbered. Napoleon tried to stop the Prussians on the Marne, but was pushed back in heavy fighting, and ultimately the Prussian general Blucher launched an outflanking manoeuvre that forced Napoleon to retreat. The Battle of Waterloo, fought on the 18th of June 1815. Having returned from exile on Elba, Napoleon first struck into Belgium, defeating a Prussian army led by Blucher before coming up against a British/Dutch/German force led by the Duke of Wellington. The fighting was fierce, and lasted throughout the day, but it was ultimately decided when the Prussians, having escaped the French force under Marshal Grouchy sent to chase them away, returned, joined forces with Wellington and overwhelmed the French, forcing Napoleon to retreat back to France and costing him any chance of defeating the Seventh Coalition.
How did Napoleon lead his troops in the field?
Napoleon ranks very high when it comes to motivating his troops. After his death, the autopsy revealed Napoleon had been wounded far more often than anyone suspected. This is at least a sign that he often was with his troops in the front lines. When he was still in his training as an artillery officer he was annoyed by the officers in training of noble birth. They would command troops without knowing what the soldiers at the bottom of the chain had to endure. He planned on writing a letter of complaint to the ministry of war. His teachers luckily prevented Napoleon from sending this letter or we maybe would never have heard from him again. During the siege of Toulon he got his first big command. He noticed immediately that the artillery was positioned badly, the troops were ill equipped, ill supplied, low on morale and had bad leaders. Napoleon quickly reorganized his entire army, repositioned the artillery and gave them all courage inspiring names like “the battery of fearless men” etc… this instantly gave the men a feeling of self respect. It was new for them to see their commanding officers sit down in between them to eat the same food surrounded by his soldiers, to see him get his boots dirty and sleep in the same mud as his men. He spoke their language and shared their grief. He was a leader that did not sit in the back on a hill. He inspected lines and inspired troops. Napoleon wanted to be seen by his men.
During the Italy campaign he, again, received an army that was ill-equipped, ill-payed and on the verge of mutiny. He again got his troops in line and won a victorious campaign. During the battle of Arcole he wrapped a French flag around his sword and planned on leading his troops over the bridge. However he did not reach the bridge and got stuck in a muddy ditch from which he was rescued by his staff.
The first time that he could not keep morale high was during the campaign in Egypt. More specifically when he moved on throughout Syria. His speeches and promises could no longer fire up the troops who were further and longer from home then any of his armies before. When he inspected his troops he would be informed about some soldier’s achievements in battle. He would speak to the soldier, compliment him on what he did and pin a medal on his vest. This was unseen at the time. The soldiers felt like their leader knew them, cared about them and shared their hardships. His popularity rose to gigantic proportions.
Napoleon however was not a god. Many people noticed that together with his age and his appearance, his command also changed. Some historians believe Napoleon grew tired of military campaigns and had an increasing difficulty to endure the hardships that come with weeks of marching and fighting. The absolute turning point was the Russian campaign of 1812. All surviving testimonies state that something within Napoleon was broken that would never return. (This was the case for many of the survivors of that horrible campaign). He became fat, his eyes were no longer filled with fire, he would fall asleep and the enthusiasm that used to inspire his troops was no longer present.
He still was a tactical mastermind, which he proved during his campaign of 1814 which is generally seen as his most brilliant campaign. During Waterloo, Napoleon was not longer the commander he once was. When the troops marched to their place on the battlefield, some men testified that Napoleon would sit on a chair and fall asleep while his men were shouting “vive l’empereur”. His attack was straight forward, not really inspired. His age and hemmorhoids prevented him from inspecting his troops and visiting the front lines. His presence no longer had the desired effect on the men. He had to leave the field of battle to rest. When he came back, Ney had thrown the entire French cavalry in a suicidal charge against the English squares. Napoleon saw this, cursed Ney and… did nothing. This would have been unthinkable just a few years earlier. EDIT: it appears that Napoleon leaving the field in Waterloo is post Napoleon propaganda. Although I did read several books that confirm him leaving the field, but there is not enough evidence to support this. However my point still stands. With or without Napoleon on the field it was unthinkable that he would not have tried to stop Ney’s charge.

Why did the soldiers like Napoleon?
Napoleon promoted his soldiers based on their merit not lineage or wealth. One time he passed by a French regiment and asked its leader who was the best soldier/subordinate. The officer responded with a drummer as his best in the regiment. Napoleon bestowed on him the highest honor (I recall he made him a member the famous Legion of Honor)! This is just an example. Napoleon promoted many who had no noble birth into Empire Marshals such as Marshal Lannes who started as a grenadier. Napoleon also used to listen to his NCO and officers. He had mutual respect with his troops. In the 18th century it was common in the French army to delay the pay of soldiers or not send sufficient supplies. When Napoleon led the Italian campaign he allowed his troops to loot the conquered cities to compensate them for lack of salaries! When he became the head of state he worked to improve the supplies and regulate the soldiers pay. Napoleon also wore the outfit of his imperial guards and made it his day to day dress. Napoleon also did not travel with extensive luggage like the nobles of the Austrian army. That's all for now in a quick shot. Edit: I would like to thank you all for the upvotes and shares of my response to the question. I would like to add that Napoleon had a dazzling style when speaking to his soldiers especially the veterans of his campaigns. “You were with me at Austerlitz?” “Got wounds fighting under my command? How many?” You may imagine his personality. All the mentioned information were taken from David Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon.
More books have been written about Napoleon than any other individual in history. If you pick up books written in the late 1800s, the preface will have a short blurb justifying the existence of the book, when so many have already been written about the man. They started printing such excuses in books then, and still do so today. One such book (which I will look for in my library and later give credit to in a comment) ended its introduction with this fabulous statement: "The life of Napoleon was a tragedy which had the whole of Europe for a stage, Napoleon for the star, kings, queens and warriors for subordinate actors, and for an audience a dazzled world. Act after act of this absorbing drama was performed, yet still humanity looked on in wonder. The interest never waned. No one could possibly divine the end. What seemed at one time an incomparable climax, became the next day by comparison a common-place event; as a bright star of dawn is lost in the refulgence of the rising sun. … For twenty years the history of Bonaparte was the history of Europe; and even now, whatever route we take from Paris to the Pyramids, or from Madrid to Moscow, one name continually greets us, carved on the mountains trodden by his legions, reflected in the rivers where his shadow fell, and traced upon a hundred fields where it was whispered fondly by unnumbered lips, ere they were closed in death. It is the magic name - Napoleon."

What is the most badass thing about Napoleon Bonaparte?
In short, the most badass thing about Napoleon was his unparalleled military genius. He fought 60 battles and only lost 8 of them . Of these, only two are considered “decisive” losses - Leipzig and Waterloo . No one else in history can compare to his military genius. As a world leader, few can compare to his “rags to riches story” as someone born a nobody who rose on his own merit and tenacity to the Emperor of France and conquerer of a continent. He is creditied with ending the French Revolution within the borders of France when he put down a Paris revolt with a “whiff of grapeshot ,” as well as ending the war of the first coalition by threatening Vienna during his Italian campaign when he was merely one of many generals in the French Republic. After conquering Egypt , he staged a coup and became the head of state for France - initially as First Consul and later as Emperor . The majority of continental European powers united against France in not one, but seven different wars . Napoleon won the first 5 of these seven wars, continually expanding the French influence over Europe. Even after he lost the war of the sixth coalition and was exciled to the island of Elba, he returned and regained power for one last try, which required a seventh and final coalition to stop him. In fact, during the war of the sixth coalition, the leaders of the allied nations joined together for a meeting where they created the Trachenberg Plan . This plan literally stated that the military policy of the allies would be to avoid open battle with Napoleon himself, and instead target France’s other armies under his marshals.
Think about that for a moment: the greatest empires of the time literally admitted in a professional military plan that they believed him to be either unbeatable, or not worth engaging directly, even after he had lost his Grande Armee in Russia . This plan worked spectacularly, and led to the allies being able to finally surround and decisively defeat Napoleon for the first time at Leipzig , which, with almost 600,000 total combatants, was the largest battle fought in Europe prior to WWI. Even here, he fought hard for three days against a force almost twice as large as his own. Even then, Napoleon merely retreated, rebuilt his army, and fought on. During this period of time he won four battles in six days while larger allied armies poured into France from every direction. Eventually the allies occupied Paris and he was forced to abdicate. He was exciled to Elba, and then escaped and resumed his position as Emperor without firing a shot . As several others have remarked, he walked up to an army of tens of thousands that had been ordered to fire upon him, and said, “If any of you will shoot his Emperor, here I am.” With that, the soildiers lowered their guns and joined his side. Shortly thereafter he was defeated at Waterloo (while suffering from terrible dysentery) and exiled to the island of Saint Helena where he died. But he lived an undeniably badass life, particularly for someone who was born into an impoverished and non-noble family.

After Napoleon's second failed attempt to revive his army, why was he exiled instead of executed?
Even after his escape from Elba, Napoleon obtained the political and military backing of the majority of French people. He thus had legitimacy in the eyes of the French to be their leader. The accepted rules of warfare at the time, at least those followed by the British, did not permit execution of the defeated general leading the opposing side, nor the execution of the head of the opposing government. Napoleon occupied de facto both of those roles. This rule of international law existed because it made the surrender of armies easier and did not create martyrs for a defeated enemy the victors sought to pacify. Losing generals often suffer enough by virtue of disgrace and guilt for the defeat. In addition, Napoleon was the son-in-law of the Austrian emperor. Napoleon’s second exile to St. Helena was the appropriate punishment.