This paper examines the Campaign of 1813, culminating in the Battle of Leipzig, through the analytical lens of Antoine-Henri Jomini's Principles of War. Drawing on Jomini's taxonomy of critical and decisive points, the paper evaluates how Napoleon applied — and failed to apply — the fundamental maxims of war strategy. It explores Jomini's classification of geographic strategic points, decisive points of maneuver, and objective points, then traces how Napoleon's poor timing, supply failures, subordinate inaction, and the ravages of typhus undermined what should have been decisive victories. The analysis concludes that Napoleon's campaign violated key Jominian principles of proper force concentration, decisive engagement, and scientific operational planning.
The objective of this study is to use the Campaign of 1813 — culminating in the Battle of Leipzig — to identify and analyze both the critical points and decisive points that Antoine-Henri Jomini in his Principles of War would have listed in relation to proper time and sufficient force, and to identify how many of these principles were applied — both positively and negatively — to Napoleon's maneuvering and engaging.
The focus of Napoleon in the Campaign of 1813 was to launch such a mass attack on the enemy that they would be overcome and decimated. However, as this study will demonstrate, Napoleon missed chances to do just that, and his poor planning and improper timing resulted in the unnecessary loss of many thousands of lives. According to Jomini, the art of war is comprised of six specific parts: (1) statesmanship in its relation to war; (2) strategy, or the art of properly directing masses upon the theater of war, either for defense or invasion; (3) grand tactics; (4) logistics, or the art of moving armies; (5) engineering — the attack and defense of fortifications; and (6) minor tactics (Mendell and Craighill, 2007).
Jomini proposed one "fundamental principle of war" that governed all wartime operations. This principle includes four maxims that military commanders must follow: (1) to throw by strategic movements the mass of an army, successively, upon the decisive points of a theater of war, and also upon the communications of the enemy as much as possible without compromising one's own; (2) to maneuver so as to engage fractions of the hostile army with the bulk of one's forces; (3) on the battlefield, to throw the mass of the forces upon the decisive point, or upon that portion of the hostile line which it is of the first importance to overthrow; and (4) to arrange that these masses shall not only be thrown upon the decisive point, but that they shall engage at the proper times and with energy (Nomura, 2012).
These maxims appear simple and obvious on their face, and Jomini admitted as much. However, in anticipation of possible criticism, he made clear that success in war depends upon the manner and skill with which the solid principles of war are applied. Three of the four maxims specifically mention "decisive points," indicating the great importance Jomini placed upon the concept. Jomini's taxonomy of significant points in Article XIX of The Art of War relates to how a military commander should evaluate options on the battlefield, and the strategic points and lines the commander is concerned with are reported to "vary in nature and importance, depending on the circumstances of the conflict" (Nomura, 2012).
Jomini identifies three primary types of points of concern to the commander: (1) geographical strategic points, significant due to their physical location; (2) strategic points of maneuver, which evolve as troops maneuver across the battlefield; and (3) decisive strategic points, described by Jomini as those "whose importance is constant and immense" (Nomura, 2012). Nomura (2012) notes that Jomini's emphasis was on "lines of defense, operational fronts, and well-located fortresses."
Jomini further broke decisive points into two types: (1) decisive geographic points (or lines); and (2) decisive points of maneuver. It could be argued that Jomini "unnecessarily added layers of complexity to his taxonomy of decisive points, given that he had already conceptualized geographic strategic points and strategic points of maneuver" (Nomura, 2012). The addition of the term decisive to each of these, in the words of Nomura (2012), "might seem superfluous."
In contrasting decisive and non-decisive points, Lyons and Leipzig are used as examples of points that could be either, depending on circumstances. Jomini characterized Lyons as an "important strategic point," since it formed the nexus of control of the Rhône and Saône valleys as well as the "center of communication between France and Italy." Similarly, Leipzig was considered an important strategic point given its position as the bridge of all communications in northern Germany. However, Jomini argued that these two points were not necessarily decisive "unless well fortified or possessing an extended camp with têtes de pont" (Nomura, 2012). Decisive points of maneuver were characterized by Jomini as "circumstantial, relative to troop position on both sides" (Nomura, 2012).
The decisive points of maneuver are therefore those on the flank of the enemy upon which, if his opponent operates, he can more easily cut the enemy off from its base and supporting forces without being exposed to the same danger (Nomura, 2012). Jomini concluded that the decisive point is that which "implies the immediate presence of troops or military fortifications" (Nomura, 2012).
Shoffner (2002) identifies three levels of war:
(1) Strategic Level of War. The strategic level is that at which a nation — often as one of a group of nations — determines national and multinational security objectives and guidance, and develops and uses national resources to accomplish them.
(2) Operational Level of War. The operational level is that at which campaigns and major operations are conducted and sustained to accomplish strategic objectives within theaters or areas of operations. It links the tactical employment of forces to strategic objectives.
(3) Tactical Level of War. Tactics is the employment of units in combat. It includes the ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other, the terrain, and the enemy, in order to translate potential combat power into victorious battles and engagements (Shoffner, 2002).
Shoffner (2002) also identifies specific types of operations in war:
(1) Decisive Operations. Decisive operations are those that directly accomplish the task assigned by the higher headquarters. They conclusively determine the outcome of major operations, battles, and engagements. There is only one decisive operation for any major operation, battle, or engagement at any given echelon. Commanders weight the decisive operation by economizing on combat power allocated to shaping operations.
(2) Shaping Operations. Shaping operations create and preserve conditions for the success of the decisive operation. They include lethal and nonlethal activities conducted throughout the area of operations, and support the decisive operation by affecting enemy capabilities and forces or by influencing the opposing commander's decisions. They may occur before, concurrently with, or after the beginning of the decisive operation.
(3) Sustaining Operations. Sustaining operations are operations at any echelon that enable shaping and decisive operations by providing combat service support, rear area and base security, movement control, terrain management, and infrastructure development (Shoffner, 2002).
"Napoleon's command errors at Lützen and Leipzig approach"
"Typhus, logistics collapse, and troop degradation"
"Jomini's invasion theory and strategic points applied to Napoleon"
Napoleon made several mistakes in relation to the principles and objectives of war strategy from the view of Jomini. His army's supplies, clothing, water, medical needs, and health conditions grew steadily worse. While Napoleon's emphasis remained upon his ultimate objective — which was appropriate from a Jominian standpoint — Napoleon failed to ensure that his operations were properly shaped and sustained. Many lives were lost due to the pace Napoleon demanded of his troops, and the troops took chances they did not have to take. Had the pace been slower, it would have been more certain to lead to victory. Debates persist about whether the Russian army intentionally drew Napoleon deeper into Russia or was genuinely fleeing from his forces.
You’re 25% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.