Had this plan been followed, Bonaparte could not, by any strategical combination, have outnumbered the Austrians in Germany. Since it was necessary that the Army of Italy should remain along the Apennines and Maritime Alps to prevent the invasion of France on that side, the maximum strength which Bonaparte could direct against the Austrians in Germany was Moreau's army of one hundred and thirty thousand and the Army of Reserve, forty thousand strong. In other words, Bonaparte could bring only one hundred and seventy thousand Frenchmen to oppose one hundred and ninety thousand Austrians.
Furthermore, northern Italy offered Melas many advantages for a defensive campaign. If hard pressed by Masséna, he could fall back to the Mincio, a strong position, flanked on the right by Lake Garda and on the left by the fortress of Mantua. If defeated in this position, he could retire into the Tyrol, where he would directly cover his communications with the valley of the Danube. In the mountains and defiles of the Tyrol, he could, if hard pressed, fall back to another strong position, fight again, and thus prolong the conflict. Moreover, Masséna could not advance eastward through Friuli towards Austria so long as fifty thousand Austrians remained in the Tyrol; for they could then descend upon the flank and rear of the Army of Italy, and could sever the French communications without exposing their own to Masséna's attacks. Of still greater importance, however, is the fact that, had Masséna driven Melas through the Tyrol, or across the Carnic Alps, his success would have had little or no effect upon the operations of the one hundred and ninety thousand Austrians in the valley of the Danube. And why? Because the route between France and Austria through northern Italy was longer than that through the valley of the Danube. Because the mountains of Austria on the side towards Italy offered strong defensive positions near the Austrian capital. Because the vital point of the theatre of operations was in western Germany, and not in northern Italy.
The proof of this will be apparent when we examine the Italian campaign of 1796-97. Though Bonaparte fought his way through northern Italy, and crossed the Alps into Austria, this movement had scarcely any effect upon the operations of the Austrian army that was facing the two French armies, under Moreau and Hoche, on the Rhine in the vicinity of the Black Forest.
In this discussion it has been assumed, in order to point out some of the advantages of a defensive campaign in northern Italy, that forty thousand Frenchmen, commanded by Masséna, might have driven fifty thousand Austrians, under Melas, from the Apennines to and even beyond the Mincio. But this assumption is altogether improbable. Undoubtedly Melas could have held in check the Army of Italy along the Apennines. To prove this statement, consider for a moment what Bonaparte did in the same theatre of operations in 1796. Though he defeated fifty thousand allies with forty thousand Frenchmen, his success was due in great measure to the faulty position of the allies. They were greatly subdivided and separated. Their front was widely extended. At Montenotte he broke through their long line, then defeated them in detail at Millesimo, Dego, and Mondovi. Their faulty position was due to the fact that the Sardinian army, based upon Turin, and the Austrian army, based upon the Mincio, were attempting to cover their divergent lines of communication back to their bases of operations. Moreover, as they fell back along these divergent lines, they became farther and farther separated from each other. The error of separating their armies and of scattering their forces, caused by the attempt to cover directly their communications, made it easier for Bonaparte to defeat them than if they had been united into a single army, and had adopted a single base of operations. For Masséna to defeat fifty thousand Austrians, based upon the Mincio, would therefore be a more difficult undertaking than was that of Bonaparte in 1796. But to do even what Bonaparte did in the early days of the first Italian campaign required a greater soldier than Masséna,—a Frederick himself might have failed.
To the plan of campaign that we have suggested, there was one objection: Marshal Kray did not have sufficient military ability to handle an army of one hundred and ninety thousand soldiers. To direct successfully the operations of so large an army is a great undertaking. Even to command and care for a much smaller one is no small task. Hundreds of matters must be carefully considered. Not only the strategical and tactical manœuvres by which the commander concentrates his forces and wins his victories, but his communications, his means of transportation, the supplies for his army, the equipment and discipline of his troops, the abilities of his subordinate commanders, the topography and resources of the country, give him the greatest anxiety. He must give close attention to all these matters; for the neglect of a single one may lead to disaster. He must be brave, clear-headed, cool, cautious, and fearless; and be able to make a quick decision in critical times. He must have an eye for facts. He must weigh correctly all reports and rumors, and out of the doubtful information at hand sift the true from the false. He must see everything that is going on around him. His glance must penetrate the enemy's line, his vision sweep the whole theatre of operations.
As an army increases in size, so, likewise, the difficulties of commanding it increase. To manœuvre one hundred and ninety thousand soldiers, so as to obtain from them a fighting power proportionate to their numbers, requires the genius of a great captain. Neither Marshal Kray nor General Melas was equal to the task. Though both were brave soldiers, who had distinguished themselves in previous campaigns, neither had great military ability. In fact, the Archduke Charles was the only soldier in Austria capable of handling so large an army. He had already shown himself to be a great general. His views upon war were largely the outgrowth of his own successes. He was not wedded to the past. He saw the errors in the system of war so persistently advocated by the Aulic Council. He perceived the reasons for many of Bonaparte's previous successes. He had fought Bonaparte in Italy; and he comprehended, though somewhat dimly, Bonaparte's system of war. Moreover, his views upon the military situation were sound. Though he was far inferior to Bonaparte in military ability, yet, being the ablest soldier of Austria, he should have been made commander in chief of the Austrian armies, and should have been allowed to conduct the campaign in his own way. Probably he would not have succeeded against Bonaparte; and yet, who can say what the result would have been had he commanded one hundred and ninety thousand soldiers in the valley of the Danube? Austria was perishing for want of a leader, yet among her distinguished sons she saw not her ablest soldier.
Why was the Archduke Charles not made commander in chief? Why did Austria deprive herself of his services at the beginning of a great war? It was because the Aulic Council, which decided all military questions and directed the operations of the Austrian armies, did not approve of the Archduke's views upon the military situation. He had advised Austria to accept Bonaparte's offer of peace, and had pointed out that, in case of war, the principal effort against France should be made in the valley of the Danube. But the members of the Aulic Council knew little about military matters; they could see no merit in these suggestions. With a narrowness which they had many times exhibited before, they continued to blunder on, neither willing to take the advice of their only great soldier, nor able to comprehend the strategical combinations which their errors allowed Bonaparte to make. They originated faulty plans, sent unreliable information to the Austrian armies, and exercised over Melas and Kray a fatherly control which hampered them throughout the campaign. In short, they failed completely to appreciate the situation. "To the Aulic Council," said Jomini in 1804, "Austria owes all her reverses since the time of Prince Eugene of Savoy."
That the Aulic Council should fail was inevitable. In war the opinion of a trained soldier on military matters is worth more than that of a congress of a hundred men. Whenever the members of a senate, a council, or a congress, attempt to decide military questions, they are sure to err; for, being absent from the theatre of operations, they can neither see clearly the military situation, nor render decisions with promptness in critical times. Besides, their decisions are often halfway measures, neither one thing nor the other; like the laws passed by a bicameral legislature, they are nearly all compromises. In war there must be resolution, boldness, decision; to compromise is to court defeat.
In this chapter we have attempted to point out the strategical situation as it appeared to Bonaparte at the beginning of the campaign. In subsequent chapters we shall try to show how Bonaparte carried out some of his strategical conceptions; and how the operations of Masséna at Genoa, and of Moreau in the Black Forest, affected those of Bonaparte in Italy. Before closing the discussion, it will be well to remark that the most perfect strategy is of little value, unless it is executed with energy and culminates in victory. The difficulty lies not so much in the conception of great strategical projects, as in the execution of them. Strategy is only a means to an end. It does not win victories; but it clears the way for the winning of them, and adds to their value. It aims to bring a stronger force upon the battle-field, or to place an army in a position where victory will bring great results. But the battle must decide the struggle. "Even the weakest combatant does not lay down his arms to strategical manœuvres." It is victory upon the battle-field which settles the disputes of contending powers. There, amidst the clash of arms and the roar of cannon, amidst the shouts of triumph and the cries of despair, amidst the wounded, the dying, and the dead, victory decides the fate of armies and of empires.
FOOTNOTES: