Lessons from Napoleon Bonaparte

My journey to business school passed through the Air Force Academy and five years as a Marine Corps officer. Along the way, I developed a fascination with military history and what it reveals about strategy, psychology, and execution. A battle plan must survive contact with people, terrain, limited resources, and an opponent with plans of their own. Many of the challenges a business leader might face are amplified tenfold under the pressures of combat.

I found myself deeply fascinated listening to David Senra’s recent Founders podcast on The Mind of Napoleon, which inspired a research sprint that resulted in this article. Even though popular culture often reduces Napoleon to a small man with oversized ambition, a caricature familiar to anyone who has seen Night at the Museum, he is also arguably the greatest military commander in all of human history. Napoleon completely revolutionized the French and all Western militaries, introducing many operational and organizational concepts that define militaries to this day.

His achievements also extended well beyond the battlefield. Napoleon helped stabilize and rebuild the French state after the massive upheaval caused by the French Revolution. His government established a number of enduring institutions across judicial, legal, educational, economic, diplomatic, military, and social spheres. He also developed a powerful administrative network of prefects helping him to maintain a span of control over his sprawling empire.

As someone who definitively altered the course of human history, there is much to be learned from both the greatness and the downfall of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Finding the weakest link that governs the others

In 1793, Napoleon arrived at the Siege of Toulon as a 24 year old artillery captain. British and allied forces occupied the Port of Toulon, a critical naval port that provided access and control in the Mediterranean. The French Army sieged the city from land, but the besieged were sustained by sea. As long as the harbor remained open, the defenders would hold out.

Napoleon broke the problem down into a chain of consequence. The French needed to control the city. The city was besieged by the French Army. The city could endure the siege through maritime sustainment. The British Navy occupied the harbor, maintaining key sustainment lines from the sea. 

Across the harbor stood a ridgeline that looked down on the harbor. Napoleon theorized that occupying the positions along the ridgeline with French artillery would threaten the British Navy, forcing the fleet to leave the harbor. As a result, the Port of Toulon would lose its critical maritime sustainment and eventually the besieged would have to give in. 

When Napoleon first took command of the artillery, he found the artillery batteries were undermanned, underequipped, and undertrained. He would not be able to take the ridgeline with these forces. So he approached training and resupplying the batteries with unmatched energy and determination. In a few months, he had transformed the French artillery by establishing a forge and workshop, training infantryman to man the artillery guns, and procuring new guns and ammo from other elements of the French Army.

He then notified the General that his forces were ready and prepared to take the British Fort Mulgrave that defended the ridgeline. Napoleon then inspired his soldiers to victory by personally leading the attack. Napoleon’s horse was killed and he suffered a near fatal bayonet wound to his thigh, but his plan worked exactly as predicted. The British Navy quickly evacuated Toulon once artillery was placed on the ridgeline. Europe was astonished by the fall of Toulon, and Napoleon’s contributions earned him promotion to brigadier general. He was still only 24.

When receiving a problem, Napoleon was known to dig many layers deep. He would map out the contingencies, and understand exactly how to break the chain of consequence so events would unfold in his favor. Then, he would insert himself into the execution at the point of maximum friction to ensure success.

Shaping the enemy’s decision making

By late November 1805, Napoleon had defeated a major Austrian army and now occupied Vienna. But a combined Russian and Austrian army was gathering near Austerlitz, in what is now the Czech Republic. Winter was approaching, his troops were exhausted, and more enemy reinforcements were on their way. Napoleon wanted to end the campaign, consolidate his gains, and return to France. He needed to force a decisive battle.

Napoleon recognized an opportunity in Alexander I, the 27 year old Russian emperor. He knew Alexander wanted the glory of defeating Napoleon and was pressing for this decisive battle against the advice of his more cautious commander. Napoleon encouraged that ambition, offering negotiations to create the impression that the French were weak and wanted to avoid a fight.

Alexander I refused the peace envoy and he prepared the allied  troops for battle. Napoleon’s troops formed on the low ground to the west of the Pratzen Heights, the ridge at the center of the battlefield. Much of the allied army stood on the heights or just behind them to the east. The French right wing was to the south.

Napoleon intentionally exposed his right wing as a vulnerable position. Napoleon had reinforcements marching up from Vienna to reinforce it, but to the allies, the exposed flank offered a chance to cut off Napoleon’s retreat and then flank the rest of Napoleon’s army to achieve decisive victory. Napoleon knew that by attacking his exposed wing the allies would have to divide their army, and weaken their position on the heights. This would present Napoleon with the opening he needed to assault and secure the Pratzen Heights with two hidden infantry divisions he had concealed in the fog of the low ground. He hoped their concealment would encourage the allies aggressiveness if they were unaware of the risk his divisions presented.

Napoleon’s wager depended on his right holding long enough for the attack on the center to succeed. If it collapsed before help arrived, he risked disaster. If it held, the allied troops attacking it would quickly find themselves encircled and the French would have a decisive advantage over the split allied army.

As the battle began, the allied attack developed more slowly than Napoleon expected. He held his infantry back, patiently waiting for more allied troops to descend toward his right. Attacking too soon would mean fighting more of the allied army on the high ground. Later in the day, once the allied assault had weakened the center, Napoleon ordered the two divisions to spring forward and capture the highground.

The French seized the heights after roughly two hours of fierce fighting, while the reinforcements arrived just in time to hold the French right. The Russians then called a Hail Mary, committing the Imperial Guard to counterattack the heights. Russian cavalry scattered French infantry and threatened the gains Napoleon had just fought hard to win.

Watching the counterattack develop from his new position on the heights, Napoleon committed the cavalry of his own Imperial Guard, elite troops he kept in reserve for his protection. The Imperial Guard neutralized the Russian Imperial Guard, preserving French control of the center. Napoleon now had a dominating position on the battlefield, and turned some of his forces against the allied troops still attacking his right, striking them from the flank and rear.

By the afternoon, what remained of the allied army was retreating. Within weeks, Austria had signed a peace treaty. Napoleon had turned a difficult strategic position into one of his greatest victories.

Napoleon understood what his opponent desired and arranged the situation so that pursuing it would work in his favor. He drew the allies into an attack that weakened their own position, then waited patiently for the right moment to exploit it. He managed his own risk by concealing his attacking force, bringing up reinforcements to sustain his exposed flank, and holding elite troops in reserve to neutralize a counterattack. His total grasp of the physical and human elements of the battlefield allowed him to secure a decisive victory and bring the campaign to an end as winter began to sweep across Europe.

Eric Menser (MBA ‘27) hails from Stafford, Virginia. He graduated with a B.S. from the Air Force Academy, did five years as an officer in the Marine Corps, and then worked in the Office of the CEO at Palantir Technologies. He enjoys learning from the all time greats. Eric is an investor at Journey, a technology growth equity firm.