Napoleon Bonaparte, recalled to life, writes memos to the French General Staff, 1905-1914
The French military mastermind weighs in on military reform, the balance of power, and Winston Churchill
Where this came from: I have been relistening to Dan Carlin’s magnificent Hardcore History series Blueprint for Armageddon, which is one of the best treatments, in any medium, of the First World War. In the first episode, Carlin notes that all the major powers had built their armies upon Napoleonic lines. Hearing this, it occurred to me that a military genius like Napoleon, seeing the state of armies, economies, and technology in the early 20th century, would not have built a Napoleonic army.
Idly daydreaming, I wondered what would happen if the late 19th century obsession with spiritualism had borne fruit in proving the viability of necromancy. One thought led into another, and then I was considering what would happen if the French General Staff resurrected Napoleon from his essential salts - as Charles Dexter Ward resurrects his necromancer and alchemist forefather Joseph Curwen in The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, though with a happier outcome. Then I wondered what memos he would write to the French General Staff.
Below is the result of that speculation.
Memo from Napoleon Bonaparte to the French General Staff (April 5, 1905)
To the esteemed members of the General Staff,
Upon my return to the realm of the living, I was filled with pride to see our great French nation continuing to be a force on the European stage. However, I must express my grave concerns regarding the state of our military forces in the present era. The armies of Europe, including our own, have been modeled after the Grand Armée of my time—an honor that humbles me. But as I assess the current geopolitical landscape, it is clear that the strategies and structures that once brought us glory are now a perilous liability.
The nature of war has transformed, and we stand on the precipice of a conflict unlike any seen before. The destructive power of modern weaponry—rifles, machine guns, heavy artillery, and even nascent aerial forces—renders massed infantry assaults, as practiced in my day, suicidal and ineffective. The consequence of adhering to outdated tactics will be unnecessary slaughter on a scale unimaginable, as well as a protracted stalemate.
Strategic Recommendations:
1. Decentralization of Command and Flexibility in Operations:
The French army must evolve from the rigid, hierarchical structures of the past to a more flexible, decentralized command system. Initiative at the lower levels of command must be encouraged. Subordinate officers must be trained to make quick, autonomous decisions in response to the rapidly changing dynamics of the battlefield. Something like this was present as a germ in the Prussian military I fought on the plains of Europe a century ago, but the scale of the army of the German Empire has suppressed this instinct in its officer corps. We, in contrast, must start cultivating this agility now, as it will allow us to exploit weaknesses in the enemy's line and counter unexpected developments without awaiting orders from distant commanders.
2. Emphasis on Firepower and Technology:
Modern conflict is dictated by firepower. Raw numbers of men, in consequence, are of less importance. Our forces must be equipped with the latest in rifle technology, with a focus on accuracy and rate of fire. Machine guns, while heavy and cumbersome, must be integrated at the battalion level to create zones of denial and repulse massed enemy attacks. Artillery should be concentrated and coordinated to deliver devastating barrages that can disrupt enemy formations before they reach our lines. Furthermore, we must explore the burgeoning field of aviation for reconnaissance and, eventually, as a means to strike beyond the enemy's reach.
In addition, though the French uniform of our troops today is a stirring site, it is simply too visible. The German uniforms, with its feldgrau coloration, is ugly and unsightly, but we must put aesthetics aside in favor of concealment and survival. I recommend an immediate program to swap out the present blue and red colored uniforms for ones in a camouflage pattern. Any objections on the part of the troops and officers should be dealt with via the small rewards that soldiers treasure - an extra day of leave, a larger wine ration, or small bonuses in pay.
3. Development of Fortifications and Defensive Works:
Given the increased lethality of weapons, the battlefield will favor the defender. We must invest in the construction of fortified positions along likely avenues of attack, especially in the northeastern regions where we are most vulnerable to German aggression. These fortifications should be designed to withstand prolonged bombardments and equipped with underground facilities to protect our men and allow them to maintain their fighting effectiveness. The engineer corps must study the performance of reinforced concrete and other materials against modern high explosive and delayed-fuse shells.
Of all my recommendations, I am certain this one will meet with the most resistance. I am certain many of you will wonder how I, a master of maneuver warfare, could opt for fortifications. But the times have changed, and men who wish to survive and triumph must change with them.
4. Mobility and Maneuver Warfare:
While defense will play a crucial role, victory will still depend on our ability to maneuver. The days of marching columns are over, but the principle of massing force at decisive points remains valid. We must create specialized mobile units—cavalry, now obsolete in its traditional role, can be transformed into mounted infantry, supported by motorized vehicles where feasible. These units must be capable of rapid deployment and concentration at points where the enemy is weakest. I urge that research into motorized vehicles, for the transport of men and artillery pieces, be prioritized.
5. Training for the New Era:
Our soldiers must be retrained for this new form of warfare. They should be proficient in the use of modern weapons, understand the importance of entrenchments and fortifications, and be capable of operating in smaller, more autonomous units. Discipline remains paramount, but we must also cultivate the intellectual agility required to adapt to unforeseen circumstances on the battlefield.
6. Psychological Preparedness:
The horrors of modern warfare are unparalleled, and our men must be mentally prepared for the brutal realities they will face. We must foster a spirit of resilience and camaraderie, ensuring that they understand the strategic importance of their sacrifices and maintain high morale even under the most trying conditions. Training must be extended beyond field maneuvers and made as realistic as possible. Our soldiers must be taxed to their limits physically and mentally, so they can develop the fortitude to withstand the storm of steel they will meet on a modern battlefield.
Conclusion:
The coming conflict will not be a repeat of the wars of my time. We must not allow nostalgia for past glories to cloud our judgment in preparing for the future. The enemy is formidable, but with foresight, innovation, and the indomitable spirit of France, we can overcome the challenges ahead and secure our place as the leading power of Europe.
I urge you to consider these recommendations with the seriousness they deserve. The fate of our nation, and the lives of countless soldiers, depend on our ability to adapt and outthink our adversaries. The battlefield of tomorrow is one where intellect, technology, and flexibility will triumph over brute force.
Vive la France!
Napoleon Bonaparte
Special Advisor to the French General Staff
Emperor of France (retired)
Memo from Napoleon Bonaparte to the French General Staff (September 14, 1909)
To the esteemed members of the General Staff,
Following my recent state visit to Germany, where I had the unique opportunity to observe the German Army firsthand and converse with the similarly resurrected Otto von Bismarck, I feel compelled to share my reflections. This visit provided invaluable insights into the strengths and vulnerabilities of our potential adversary and offered a stark comparison to our own military and political environment here in France.
Observations of the German Army
1. Strength in Organization and Discipline:
The German Army, as it stands in 1909, is a formidable force. Their organization is meticulous, with every aspect of their military machine operating with precision. The Prussian tradition of discipline remains the backbone of their forces, with a strong emphasis on rigid command structures and an almost fanatical devotion to duty. This, however, may prove a double-edged sword, as their inflexibility could be exploited on the battlefield where quick adaptation is necessary.
2. Heavy Reliance on Firepower and Massed Infantry:
Germany’s military doctrine continues to emphasize the massed use of infantry supported by overwhelming artillery barrages. While they have made strides in integrating machine guns and modern artillery, their tactics are rooted in a belief in decisive battles through overwhelming force. There is little evidence of the kind of flexibility and decentralization that I have advocated for our own forces. This suggests that, should we encounter them on the field, we might leverage our more nimble and adaptive strategies to counter their brute force.
3. Emerging Technological Advances:
The Germans are keenly aware of the importance of technological superiority. I noted their investment in innovations such as more advanced field telephones, wireless communications, and early experimentation with armored vehicles. While these are still in the developmental stages, it is clear that they understand the potential for technology to revolutionize warfare. We must redouble our own efforts in this domain to ensure we are not left behind.
Reflections on Bismarck
1. A Towering Intellect and Strategic Genius:
Bismarck remains, even in his resurrected state, a man of towering intellect and strategic brilliance. I had the privilege of conversing with him three times, twice in private and once during a state dinner with an obviously impatient and aggrieved Kaiser, who insisted on interrupting our conversation and monopolizing my attention. In our private meetings, after initial pleasantries and jokes about the oddness of our shared resurrected state, my conversations with the former Chancellor were as engaging as they were insightful. It is clear that his understanding of statecraft and the intricate balance of power in Europe is unmatched. His ability to perceive the long-term consequences of political and military actions is as sharp as ever, and I found our discussions to be both challenging and enriching.
2. A Man Out of Time and Power:
However, it was equally clear that Bismarck is now a man isolated from the levers of power. The current German leadership, led by Kaiser Wilhelm II, views him with a mix of reverence and suspicion. Bismarck’s role is now largely ceremonial; he is more of a living relic, a curiosity for scholars and statesmen alike, rather than an active participant in the shaping of German policy. The Kaiser, with his erratic temperament and desire to leave his own mark on history, has distanced himself from Bismarck's cautious and pragmatic approach to governance.
3. A Cautionary Tale for France:
In Bismarck’s isolation, I see a cautionary tale for us in France. It is a testament to the wisdom of the French state that I, too, have been brought back to life, but unlike Bismarck, I have been granted the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to our nation’s defense in a small capacity. The French willingness to listen to my counsel, even as an old emperor now serving as an advisor, reflects a strength in our political system—a flexibility and respect for experience that could very well be the key to our survival in the coming years. We must continue to value diverse perspectives and integrate the wisdom of the past with the realities of the present.
Conclusion
Germany is strong, but not invincible. Their rigid structures, while powerful, are vulnerable to the kind of innovative, adaptive strategies we are developing. Bismarck’s wisdom remains a treasure, but his isolation from power leaves Germany in the hands of a Kaiser more concerned with grandeur than with the cautious, calculated statecraft that secured Prussia’s ascendancy.
Let us be grateful for the trust placed in us to shape the future of our military. The lessons of the past, combined with the innovations of the present, will ensure that France remains not just a power, but a nation capable of leading Europe through the challenges ahead.
Vive la France!
Napoleon Bonaparte
Emperor of France (Retired), Special Advisor to the French General Staff
Memo from Napoleon Bonaparte to the French General Staff (July 22, 1912)
To the esteemed members of the General Staff,
I have recently returned from a speaking tour across the United States, where I had the opportunity to engage with many of the nation's political and military leaders, as well as to observe the state of their technological and industrial capabilities. What I have seen and heard during my time in America has left a profound impression on me, and I believe it is essential to share these observations with you, as they have significant implications for France and the balance of power across the globe.
Observations on American Technological Sophistication
1. Industrial Might and Technological Innovation:
The United States is a nation of unparalleled industrial capacity. Their factories and production facilities are among the most advanced in the world, and they have embraced new technologies with a zeal that is both impressive and somewhat alarming. The Americans have mastered the art of mass production, allowing them to produce goods, including potentially military materiel, at a scale and speed that is unmatched by any European power. Their railroads span the continent, and their cities are vibrant centers of innovation, particularly in fields such as electricity, telegraphy, and increasingly, aeronautics.
2. Potential for Naval Supremacy:
Despite their relatively underdeveloped military, the United States possesses the potential to become a formidable naval power. Their shipyards, particularly those on the Atlantic coast, are capable of producing warships of considerable size and quality. While their navy is not yet on par with that of Great Britain, it is growing rapidly. Given the right circumstances—perhaps a future conflict that forces Britain to overextend itself—the United States could very well challenge and even displace Britain as the dominant naval power. This is a development we must watch closely, as it could shift the balance of power not only in the Atlantic but globally.
Critique of the American Armed Forces
1. Underdeveloped Military Infrastructure:
For all their industrial and technological prowess, the American military is surprisingly underdeveloped. Their army is small and lacks the professional rigor found in the European forces. The structure and training of their troops are inadequate for the kind of large-scale, high-intensity conflicts that we foresee in the near future. There is also a distinct lack of strategic foresight among their military leaders, many of whom still adhere to outdated concepts of warfare. Their most recent military experience has been a farcical expedition to Cuba, and a series of raids into Mexico in pursuit of bandits. However, given their industrial capacity and enormous population, this shortfall could be rapidly corrected if the nation were to mobilize fully.
2. A Focus on Isolationism:
The American political culture is deeply rooted in isolationism, which has led to a general neglect of military preparedness. They are content with their geographical security and do not feel the immediate threat of invasion that has shaped European military thinking. Indeed, I recall a witticism Bismarck shared with me in one of our private meetings, that “the Americans have cleverly contrived to be flanked by two weak neighbors and on the other sides … by fish.”
This attitude, while providing them with a sense of security, leaves them vulnerable to being caught unprepared should they be drawn into a major conflict.
Reflections on the American President
1. President William Howard Taft:
During my visit, I had the honor of meeting with President William Howard Taft. He is a man of considerable intellect and possesses a strong legal mind. Taft is methodical and deliberate in his decision-making, which can be both a strength and a weakness. His preference for negotiation and legal solutions over direct confrontation, while admirable in themselves, reflects the broader American reluctance to engage in international conflicts. While this has served the United States well in maintaining peace, it may hinder their ability to respond swiftly and decisively to global crises.
2. Critique of Leadership and Vision:
While President Taft’s leadership is steady, it lacks the dynamism and strategic vision necessary to position the United States as a preeminent global power. He is cautious, perhaps overly so, and seems more concerned with domestic issues and the intricacies of legal precedents than with asserting America’s place on the world stage. This inward focus, while beneficial for internal stability, may delay America's inevitable rise to global prominence and weaken their ability to influence international events in the near term. Former President Roosevelt, whom I had the pleasure of accompanying on a bison hunting expedition to the state of Montana, is a deeper thinker on foreign affairs and a more capable judge of geopolitics. He has, however, proven himself unelectable, and political observers in America judge he has no prospect of regaining the White House in any subsequent election.
Conclusion
The United States is a nation on the cusp of greatness. Their technological and industrial capabilities are second to none, and they have the potential to become a dominant global power. However, their military infrastructure and strategic vision are not yet fully developed. Should they be forced into a major conflict, their capacity for rapid mobilization and production could quickly make up for these deficiencies.
We must keep a watchful eye on America, particularly as their naval power grows. The day may come when they challenge the old European powers, including France, for supremacy on the seas and in global affairs. In the meantime, we should consider how best to engage with this rising giant, perhaps even finding ways to align our interests where possible.
It is a testament to the wisdom of the French state that I am able to share these insights with you, and I remain grateful for the opportunity to serve in this advisory role. Unlike the great Bismarck, who has been relegated to a position of isolation in his homeland, I am fortunate to contribute meaningfully to our nation's future. Let us use this advantage wisely as we navigate the complex world ahead.
Vive la France!
Napoleon Bonaparte
Emperor of France (Retired), Special Advisor to the French General Staff
Memo from Napoleon Bonaparte to the French General Staff (January 28, 1914)
To the esteemed members of the General Staff,
I have just returned from a most remarkable visit to Britain, at the personal invitation of Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty. The experience has been, without a doubt, the most enjoyable foreign visit I have had since my resurrection. It provided me with valuable insights into the state of British affairs, their naval power, and the evolving dynamics of our relationship with this once adversarial nation.
Reflections on Britain and the Anglo-French Rapprochement
1. A New Chapter in Franco-British Relations:
For a person resurrected, the events of one’s former life are recent, even though in time they are nearly a century distant. As such, I accepted the invitation from the Churchill with a certain reluctance. Remembering my exile and imprisonment on St. Helena, I arrived at the pier in London with a bitterness I found difficult to swallow completely. Acknowledging these emotions and recalling that I was there not as a private citizen but as an agent of France, I resolved myself not to let them color my observations.
It is truly extraordinary to witness the warmth and strength of the relationship that now exists between France and Britain—a relationship so different from the rivalry that characterized my own time. The Entente Cordiale, established a decade ago, has grown into a robust partnership that has fundamentally altered the balance of power in Europe. Britain, once our most determined foe, is now our steadfast ally. This shift in relations, while surprising to those of us who were actors in the past, is a testament to the changing dynamics of European politics and the common interests that now bind our nations together.
2. The Strategic Value of British Friendship:
Britain's naval supremacy, combined with our own formidable land forces, creates a powerful alliance that serves as a counterbalance to the growing strength of Germany. In this new era, the friendship of Britain is not merely advantageous—it is essential for maintaining the equilibrium of power in Europe. The British understand that their security is tied to the stability of the continent, and they have wisely chosen to align themselves with us. This partnership, I believe, will be crucial in the years to come, as tensions in Europe continue to mount.
Observations on Winston Churchill
1. An Impressive Mind and Passion for History:
Any residual bitterness about my visit to England was washed away by my first meeting with Winston Churchill. The encounter was particularly enjoyable. He is a man of exceptional intellect, with a profound knowledge of history that rivals my own. He also possesses a sparkling wit, which enlivened all of our meetings. Our conversations ranged from the great battles and campaigns of my era to the political and military challenges of the present day. Churchill possesses a deep understanding of the forces that shape nations, and his passion for history informs his approach to contemporary issues. It was refreshing to engage with someone who not only appreciates the past but also seeks to learn from it in shaping the future. Indeed, there were times he seemed to know more about my own times than I did!
2. A Gambler’s Instinct:
However, I must note that Churchill has the instincts of a gambler—an inclination to take bold risks that, while potentially rewarding, can also be fraught with danger. He is drawn to strategies that offer the promise of dramatic success, sometimes without fully weighing the long-term consequences. His analyses of my battlefield and strategic decisions frame them as bold strokes of insight, of “throws of the dice” in his terms. Humbly, I submit that my successes were in fact due to in the moment insight, but those insights were backed by exceptional labors of study and preparation, of calculating ahead of time each potential turn of a battle or campaign. Without the preparation, I would not have been in a position to make the observation that birthed the insight. As Churchill was my host, however, I politely declined to correct his analyses.
This gambling quality, while making him a dynamic and innovative leader, also carries the risk of miscalculation. I would advise our allies to temper Churchill’s boldness with careful strategic consideration, ensuring that his gambles do not lead to unforeseen catastrophes.
Impressions of Britain’s Naval Power
1. The Unchallenged Mastery of the Seas:
Britain’s navy remains the unchallenged master of the seas, a status that has been maintained through a relentless commitment to naval supremacy. The British have invested heavily in their fleet, with new battleships and cruisers that are the envy of the world. Their command of maritime routes ensures not only their own security but also the protection of global trade—a vital lifeline for both our nations. The British navy, combined with our land forces, forms a formidable deterrent to any power that might seek to disrupt the peace of Europe.
Churchill is intensely aware of German efforts to build a competitor fleet and assures me that he directs his admirals to attend to this direct threat in their construction planning and training. As such, in the event of a conflict wherein we are allied with Britain, I am content that we can leave the naval side of the war to them.
2. Technological Innovation and Preparedness:
I was particularly impressed with the level of technological innovation within the British navy. From their advanced dreadnoughts to their exploration of submarines and naval aviation, the British are not content to rest on their laurels. They understand that the future of warfare will be shaped by new technologies, and they are preparing accordingly. This forward-thinking approach is something we must emulate in our own military preparations.
Conclusion
This visit to Britain has been a revelation, not only in terms of the impressive state of their naval power but also in the realization that we now stand on the same side as our former enemy. The strong ties between France and Britain are a source of great comfort to me, and I am confident that this alliance will serve us well in the uncertain times ahead.
I must express my gratitude for the hospitality shown to me by the British, and particularly by Winston Churchill. His company was not only intellectually stimulating but also genuinely enjoyable—a rare combination in international diplomacy. While I harbor some concerns about his propensity for risk-taking, I am confident that, with the right counsel, Churchill will be a valuable ally in the years to come. On a personal level, I am grateful for his companionship and hospitality in enabling me to lay aside a galling bitterness that I had carried back with me to life from the grave and which lingered as a weight upon my soul.
Let us continue to cultivate this vital partnership, for in unity with Britain, we shall find the strength to navigate the challenges that lie ahead and ensure the security of our beloved France.
Vive la France!
Napoleon Bonaparte
Emperor of France (Retired), Special Advisor to the French General Staff