The Campaign of Marengo, With Comments

by Herbert H. Sargent

As a matter of fact, however, Kray had his army so widely dispersed that he could not in any case have concentrated a sufficient force in time to oppose successfully the progress of Bonaparte. Even had he been able to assemble his entire army near Schaffhausen, it is doubtful whether, in the face of such odds, he could have prevented Bonaparte from crossing the river. Perhaps it will be well to substantiate this statement by an example. In the two passages of the Danube by Napoleon at Lobau near Vienna in 1809, the difficulties were greater and the odds less than in the hypothetical case now before us. Furthermore, in these operations Napoleon was opposed by that illustrious soldier, the Archduke Charles. Surely, these facts warrant the conclusion that an army of one hundred and seventy thousand soldiers, led by the greatest captain of modern times, could have successfully crossed the Rhine in spite of one hundred and twenty thousand Austrians, commanded by Marshal Kray.

That Bonaparte could have executed this plan of campaign admits of little doubt. We have already shown why the plan was not adopted. But it is worthy of notice that afterwards, in the Ulm campaign, along almost identical lines, he carried out this great strategic conception with remarkable results. It is worthy of notice that, in 1805 at Ulm in the valley of the Danube, he captured an Austrian army, under General Mack, by manœuvres similar to those by which in 1800 he purposed to overwhelm Marshal Kray in the Black Forest. It is worthy of notice that he then descended the Danube, and seized the Austrian capital, and that this march paralyzed to a certain extent the operations of the Archduke Charles in Italy. It is worthy of notice that this march was the principal cause which led the Archduke Charles to retreat before Masséna; and that the Archduke's army would have been captured or destroyed, had not Napoleon been compelled to march north from Vienna in order to meet the Austrian and Russian armies on the field of Austerlitz.

Consider now the situation in northwestern Italy. Since the French were holding the Apennines and Maritime Alps on the south, the French Alps on the west, and Switzerland on the north, they were in possession of the three sides of a rectangle, which almost enclosed Melas in Italy. Should Bonaparte decide to take the offensive there, he could attack the Austrians from the south, from the west, or from the north. This situation gave him several advantages; for Melas could not know on which side to expect the French. Bonaparte might surprise his adversary; he might deceive him as to the real point of attack, and then mass his forces at some unexpected point where he would have the advantage of position.

On the other hand, Melas within the rectangle had the advantage of interior lines. He could therefore, other things being equal, concentrate his forces more quickly upon any side than could Bonaparte. Should he learn in time where Bonaparte would enter Italy, he could defeat the French divisions in detail as they issued from the passes of the Alps. But in order to take advantage of his central position, he must be accurately informed of Bonaparte's movements. He must fathom his adversary's designs; otherwise the advantage of position could avail him nothing. Thus it is seen how the element of surprise became such an essential factor in these operations, and how important it was that Bonaparte should deceive the Austrians as to his real intentions. The success of the entire plan, the fate of Italy itself, hinged on this fact. It was the first great step towards success; it was the entering wedge to victory. Long before the campaign opened, Bonaparte saw clearly this fact. In the midst of untiring activity at Paris, while momentous questions were engaging his attention, he contrived the stratagem that deceived his adversary, and worked out the details that led ultimately to his triumph at Marengo.

Already some of the advantages which the possession of Switzerland gave to Bonaparte have been pointed out. It will now be noticed that he could safely assemble a large force in this almost impregnable stronghold, and could debouch therefrom upon the rear of the Austrians in Italy. In this way he could descend upon the Austrian communications with little danger of losing his own with Switzerland. Even should the army of Italy be driven back to the line of the Var, as long as the French held this river and the French Alps on one side of the Austrians, and Switzerland on the other, Bonaparte had the advantage of an angular base, from either side of which he could march to attack the Austrians in Italy. In fact, the possession of Switzerland, extending east from the French frontier, gave to Bonaparte the advantage of an angular base in his operations against either Kray in Germany or Melas in Italy. Moreover, Switzerland offered him a secure place where he could assemble his forces and strike either Austrian army a vital blow. Upon these facts was based not only the plan of campaign that decided the fate of Italy, but that grander conception which offered still greater results.

As previously stated, the Austrian plan of campaign was that Kray should remain on the defensive in Germany, while Melas took the offensive in Italy. There were several reasons for adopting this plan.

First: Austria had in the preceding year been remarkably successful in northern Italy. Step by step she had driven the French from the Adige to the Apennines. Being anxious to hold what she had conquered, and hoping to continue her success in Italy, she gave Melas one hundred and twenty thousand soldiers, and directed him to take the offensive against Masséna.

Second: By making her principal efforts there, she could receive the support of the British fleet in the Gulf of Genoa, and possibly that of the British corps in Minorca.

Third: The English favored this plan; for they saw in it a chance to gain possession of Toulon, which was a desirable acquisition on account of the naval establishments there.

Fourth: The Royalists of southeastern France were in sympathy with England and Austria, and might possibly aid them at the first opportunity.