"Hundred Days: Any chance nappy could've won?" Topic

>"Politicians do influence events right?"<

Unfortunately.

What if, what if;
That is all I hear when the discussion comes to Waterloo. It's if nappy did this, or that, or if he had this general, (And the best of all) what would have happened if he had his AUSTERLITZ army.
Well I give an if Arty had a homogenous British army scenario. Would Nappy have won? I say no, he would have been even more heavily beaten. I'm afraid that any stand-up fight from 1806 to 1815 had the same result and all you Nappy lovers will just have to put up with it. The record says it all.

Bandit "Name something the family of Bernadotte did that influenced anyone outside of Sweden (outside of attending – I use that word on purpose) the 1813 and 1814 campaigns.
Politicians do influence events right?"

Lol! You fellas just can't let this go can you? Okay, I give up. Nappy was God, and Bernadotte and anybody else who thought otherwise are ing s.

Whipped this dead horse to a bloody mush we have. I'm outa here.

At the end of the day, Napoleon should have stayed in retirement & not ventured out on his 1815 debacle.
'IF' he had, then 50,000 brave men would have still been alive. That is not 'WHAT IF' but alas, 'IF ONLY'…

Mephistopheles
Whipped this dead horse to a bloody mush we have. I'm outa here.

I'm with you,

Paul

These type of questions involving Napoleon always seem to descend into this weird surreal world view.
If you are minded to answer the question asked "Yes ,because I really really love Napoleon" or
"No, because I think he was a murdering waster of men"
I would suggest that you are failing to be objective to admit of a sensible answer.

"Name something the family of Bernadotte did that influenced anyone outside of Sweden"

On the whole that's a good thing, isn't it?

The problem with this question is that there are two parts – the military part and the political part.

Militarily, Napoleon could and should have won against the Prussians and the Anglo-Dutch (as a Scot that statement involves much pragmatism). However:-

Politically, he had gone off too early. The Congress at Vienna had stalled dangerously over the issues of Poland and Saxont, with Alexander refusing to back down over Poland, and Prussia demanding more and more "souls" from Saxony to make up for losing Polish bits. As I recollect, Metternich wasnt happy about this and neither was Castlereagh. Britain had actually signed a secret alliance with France, as Castelreagh thought our interests were more in tune with the restored Bourbons.

So if Napoleon had waited, just for two or three months, there was a real chance France Austria and Britain would have been at war with Russia and Prussia, giving him many more windows of opportunity.

By moving when he did, he just brought the coallition together, especially Alexander, who genuinely believed he was the saviuor of Europe, and although he blamed the British for Napoleons escape, he knew he was responsible as it was becuse he was so generous that Napoleon ended up so close to the mainland with his Imperial Guard intact.

So your answer is "Right move, wrong time".

Er..ok

Well, as the monarch of what has effectively become the world's most successful constitutional monarchy, the Bernadotte family have contributed to keeping Sweden at peace since 1815. This is good if you are a Swede and had a chance of being killed in any of the ruinous wars that tore Europe apart in the following century and a half.

Sweden has become a synonym for an honest political broker and has a far higher international reputation for honesty and trustworthiness than the United States or France for example. Equally Sweden set up the first and possibly the best working Social Democracy in the world which has an enviable reputation in terms of health, childcare, equality, female emancipation, education…the list is endless.

In terms of international influence it gave up control of Norway in 1905 with virtually no real problems (as compared to other decolonisations)and has been a stalwart supporter of UN operations in terms of both men and money (and one dead Secreatary General; Dag Hammarskjold). Again, the US rarely contributed to UN Ops and was in arrears in terms of its UN dues for many years, again offered as an example.

In terms of the ruling house and its influence over these events? Well, in a growing constitutional monarchy they acted as guides, set the framework and contributed to the development of the polity as we know it.

Of course you could equally ask whether the Bonaparte family did anything to influence anyone outside of Europe that did not end in tragedy and bloodshed. Certainly like the Bernadottes it is hard to work out what was Boney's and what was the influence and ideas of those around him. Of course, if you assume he is solely responsible for all of it then it is a very questionable legacy indeed.

K

Sweden = good world citizen
Therefore
Bernadotte = successful politician

I'm not going to dispute the facts you laid out, but like you said yourself, sorta hard to distinguish between the things that happened because Sweden is Sweden and the things that the Bernadottes can take any credit for, let alone the first one.

Real quick @ 7 am …

As far as Napy goes, through arguably negative events he restarted the unification of Germany, something that one could argue was not a good thing during the 19th Century but I think it is easy to draw the line between his efforts and decisions of the local leadership a century later, and certainly post-1960 most of us did want a united Germany. Heck, pre-Napy there were a lot of advocates for a united Germany. Did Napy unite Germany? No, by no means, did he contribute? Yes.

The Napoleonic code has been a pretty good thing for France and it is certainly popular in Louisiana. As democratic law goes, it has been a positive thing and has influenced other nations in the region.

Cheers,

The Bandit

- The Napoleonic code has been a pretty good thing for France and it is certainly popular in Louisiana –

As well as in Québec…

Bandit

Well the German Unification argument is iteresting, in that his humiliation of Prussia and occupation of Germany possibly kick-started the German nationalism that led to unification…1870, 1914, 1940. So three French defeats then. Not a bad record in the law of unintended consequences.

K

PS and if anyone wants to say that France actually won the 1914 and 1940 rounds it is worth mentioning that being on the winning side is not the sam as wining

PS and if anyone wants to say that France actually won the 1914 and 1940 rounds it is worth mentioning that being on the winning side is not the sam as wining

I'll bite

When did the French 'lose' WWI? They were fighting in 1914, they held Verdun in 1916 and they were still fighting in 1918. The Treaty of Versailles ceded Alsace-Lorraine back to them, and reparations from Germany (and sowed the seeds of 1940, but that's another argument)

Doesn't look like losing from where I'm sitting, though Europe might have been better off in the long run if America hadn't been on the 'winning side'

>"Doesn't look like losing from where I'm sitting, though Europe might have been better off in the long run if America hadn't been on the 'winning side'"<

I assume you are referring to Wilson's general interference etc, and can sympathize, but I have to ask: would it have been the winning side without American participation (once Russia bailed out)?

Has anyone ever campaigned the whole 1815 situation? (not just the Belgian/lower Rhine front) If so, how did it work out?