Dear George,

Your arguments are valid though I would point out several differences between the different Armies.

1 - The prussians were fighting what they thought was a liberation war, much like the french in 1793 so their morale would have been higher. Besides, the regulars and reserve regiments were mostly composed of well trained soldiers, which was not the case and when you look at the landwehr. Therefore, when you look at the state of the Landwehr by October 1913 most of its regiments were well reduced to a mere battalion where only the most lucky or able bodied men were still serving.

2 - As for the austrians and the russians they fought well but not brilliantly, the russians were not defending the Rodina anymore and Austria was only playing political games so their armies were never fully commited and when you look at the battles before Leipzig the prussians bore much of the brunt for the fighting. The exceptions being Dresden where both the Austrians and the Russians were severaly handled.

3 - IMHO the main difference between french conscripts and allied ones was not so much the experience but the age. French were youngters whose bodies were not fully formed. There is a letter from Marmont, stating just that during the armistice that says the young boys were not maturing enough because with exercices and the like they needed more food than a veteran soldier in order to be effective and it was denied to them thereby lowering their morale and fighting spirits. As the french were living in a devastated country, unlike the allies, their logistical situation was much worse than could be imagined.

4 - The allied cavalry as a whole was a mostly veteran well trained and especially well mounted arm. Sir Robert Wilson goes to the extend to say the russians were the best mounted cavalry in Europe. French cavalry was badly mounted to say the least and the better units being the Guard and also the 1st Cavalry Corps of Latour-Maubourg who incidentally was the one containing most 1812 veterans and the one that fought so well at Dresden, for me absolutely not a coincidence.

I agree, Napoleon's absence was, in 1813, usually a good prospect of defeat because most generals were unwilling to risk and the soldiers were less enthusiastic without Napoleon. Reports from Ney's 3rd Corps show the difference in morale between the troops in the days when Napoleon commanded the Army advancing against Blucher and the same units disgruntled when advancing now under Macdonald just before the battle of the Katzbach.

Besides, as modern as he might be, Napoleon was still an 18th Century man that did not fully understand a national war. It shows in Spain, in Russia or in 1813 as he did not grasp the extent of power a people can have. Also, his command and staff as modern as they may seem were all subordinated to his will and most senior commanders were to say the least, incapable of initiative outside his umbrella; Again, before the Katzbach, Ney left his Corps and preferred to follow Napoleon to Dresden in a relatively junior post of commander of 2 Young Guard Divisions.

Cheers
Mathias