"The wrong horse shoe?" Topic

Gazzola 18 Feb 2012 2:49 p.m. PST

DJCoaltrain

I think your notion that Russia was 'annoying' Napoleon slightly baffling? You don don't organise and take into an opponents country 500,000 men if they were merely
'annoying'.

*NJH: Pick any moment of time from 1807 to 1812 and explain how the "machinations" of the Tsar threatened France, or Napoleon's grip on the throne. As you note, in 1812 I personally wouldn't have taken half a million men into Russia for anything. But then, I'm fairly circumspect and like to weigh what I might gain against what I might lose.

I also play poker and I study the people from whom I'm going to take money. Napoleon intended to take a lot more from the Tsar. Certainly it was possible to study the Tsar and realize that the Tsar faced death if he capitulated to Napoleon, once again.

I can't read Napoleon's mind anymore than you or anyone else. We can only look at the strategic situation of Europe in 1812 and ask the very reasonable question, "Why do it?" We can't assess the man, or his campaigns by what we think was in his mind. We can only assess him by what we know of his actions. Some call it hindsight, I call it history.

Your suggestion that Napoleon could not have solved the British problem is also baffling. Napoleon sorted the British problem in Spain in 1809 when personally involved, resulting in the British army having to escape by sea at Corunna. There is no reason why he could not have done the same again, only this time, not give someone else the task of finishing off the job as he did in 1809.

*NJH: The British were never going to be sorted by Napoleon. They were first and foremost a naval power. As long as they controlled the seas, they had the initiative. The Brits controlled the tempo and pacing of the war, not Napoleon. They could land when/where ever they chose and they could leave at their pleasure. Plus, they were never going to settle with Napoleon. The Brits didn't need to defeat Napoleon himself, they had the luxury of virtually defeating his subordinates at will. Napoleon couldn't personally stay in Spain forever, and when he left the Brits could always come back.

Again, everything you say is based on hindsight. You know the results of what did happen.

*NJH: I base my responses upon the historical record. I have no great affection for any of the belligerents, or principle personalities of the Napoleonic era. The era only interests me as part of my study of warfare in the 18th and 19th centuries, and through the ages.

That is all too easy to do and done far too often by armchair experts.

*NJH: I'm no expert, armchair or otherwise. Anyone who claims to be an expert just wants your money or adulation.

You could say he should have married the Russian Princess instead of the Austrian lady and he could have then taken care of Wellington without the fear of Russia becoming more aggressive while he was doing so.

*NJH: No, I didn't and for good reasons.

But again, that is also said with hindsight.

*NJH: History is not hindsight. Also, please provide academic and pertinent comments in rebuttal. Your continuous assertion that everyone operates from hindsight is banal and tedious.

Cheers

DJ Coaltrain wrote: "I have no great affection for any of the belligerents, or principle personalities of the Napoleonic era. The era only interests me as part of my study of warfare in the 18th and 19th centuries, and through the ages."

I agree. I think that when the ordinary man fought for something that they could gain for themselves and/or their faimilies, they were ready to go down in droves for it.

DJCoaltrain

Perhaps you think my suggestions that people like yourself are spouting, what seems like expert opinions on what should or should not have been done, is because you are making your assertions based on hindsight, like it or not. In other words, anyone can do it!

By saying 'you like to weigh up what you might gain against what you might lose, suggests you see yourself superior to Napoleon, in that he didn't. You like to play Poker. Guess what, Napoleon was a gambler, albeit a gambler on a scale that you will never ever dream of reaching. Many of his gambles worked, some, like 1812 didn't. But that's what makes the whole period and Napoleon so interesting, and other areas of history of course. Alexander, Caesar etc.

You miss the point completely about Britain. Had Napoleon gone to Spain instead of Russia and defeated Wellington, the British army would have had to sail back to Britain. Would Wellington have remained in command of a defeated army, since he seemed to have opponents in Britain? Who else could have stepped into his shoes? I doubt Spain and Portugal would have remained allies and continued to fight Napoleon. Political and possibly economical reasoning may then have forced Britain to make peace, at least, while Napoleon lived.

And yes, history is history, and it becomes history once it has occurred and once we know what happened. And when it has happened, it is then so easy to tackle any faults or mistakes made, which is what you are doing. Perhaps you have not realised that? Sorry if I sound banal and tedious, but that is often the result of listening to banal and tedious armchair experts spouting the same old hindsight. They've been doing it for a long time now and sadly, probably will continue to do so.

I'm happy that Napoleon was such a gambler and even after such great losses, Egypt, Aspern-Essling, Russia, Leipzig, abdication, still managed to throw the dice and keep the game going. I doubt anyone else during that period would have managed to survive the first round. He helped create such a wonderful slice of history and one that will always be remembered and, of course, one that will keep people debating and arguing.

However, based on your postings, I doubt we will agree on anything, so I will happily agree to disagree. I do hope you can do the same.

Gazzola 19 Feb 2012 3:01 p.m. PST

DJCoaltrain

Perhaps you think my suggestions that people like yourself are spouting, what seems like expert opinions on what should or should not have been done, is because you are making your assertions based on hindsight, like it or not. In other words, anyone can do it!

*NJH: I'm not an expert on Napoleonics. Anyone who makes that claim should be viewed with suspicion. Now, logically speaking, all we ever know is the past, we can never know what lies in the future, or even the present. All we have for evaluation is the historical record – good, bad, dreadful, or self-serving. Evaluating a person's performance based upon the historical record is what we do as historians. It's all we can do.

By saying 'you like to weigh up what you might gain against what you might lose, suggests you see yourself superior to Napoleon, in that he didn't.

*NJH: I have no illusions about who I am, and I'm quite comfortable as me. Am I superior than Napoleon – well that would depend upon the context. However, more importantly, we're seperated by two hundred years of human drama. A comparison of a 20th-21st century man to an 18th-19th century man is an exercise in pointlessness.

You like to play Poker. Guess what, Napoleon was a gambler,

*NJH: I said I play poker, I didn't say I'm a gambler.

albeit a gambler on a scale that you will never ever dream of reaching.

*NJH: As a military officer in the USAF one of my assignments was to be part of a team of very smart folks who developed the s/w and h/w to detect the launch of, trajectory of, and targets of SLBMs and ICBMs launched by the USSR and the PRC. There are 350 million plus Americans. Is that a scale significant enough?

Many of his gambles worked, some, like 1812 didn't. But that's what makes the whole period and Napoleon so interesting, and other areas of history of course. Alexander, Caesar etc.

*NJH: As a small boy I was initially attracted to WWII, the Pacific Theater. Then the ACW. When I became a military officer, the study of the art, the history, and the science of warfare became a necessary part of my professional development. I still study history and science.

You miss the point completely about Britain. Had Napoleon gone to Spain instead of Russia and defeated Wellington, the British army would have had to sail back to Britain. Would Wellington have remained in command of a defeated army, since he seemed to have opponents in Britain? Who else could have stepped into his shoes?

*NJH: I do not think Napoleon would have defeated the Brits (commanded by Wellington) in Spain. Wellington had his detractors, but he also had his supporters. As to filling his shoes, no one. Taking command of the army and leading it to victory, well the Brits did have other generals.

I doubt Spain and Portugal would have remained allies and continued to fight Napoleon.

*NJH: Spain and Portugal were fighting a religious war against the Godless Anti-Christ. There was no way they were going to let the Anti-Christ win.

Political and possibly economical reasoning may then have forced Britain to make peace, at least, while Napoleon lived.

*NJH: Politically speaking, there was no way the Monarchist society of Britain was going to let a Republican society continue to exist in France. Economically speaking the Brits weren't facing economic collapse because of the Continental System.

And yes, history is history, and it becomes history once it has occurred and once we know what happened. And when it has happened, it is then so easy to tackle any faults or mistakes made, which is what you are doing.

*NJH: History is full of warts, blemishes, and wrinkles. Unless we are willing to examine them academically and dispassionately we will never see them. A cult of personality emerges when adulation covers the imperfections.

Perhaps you have not realised that?

*NJH: What I realize is that sometimes folks allow beliefs to deny facts.

Sorry if I sound banal and tedious,

*NJH: I said your "Your continuous assertion" was banal and tedious. Big difference.

but that is often the result of listening to banal and tedious armchair experts spouting the same old hindsight. They've been doing it for a long time now and sadly, probably will continue to do so.

*NJH: Have you considered the possibility that these folks you hold in such low esteem might actually have a point? Or, are they wrong just because they disagree with your beliefs? Think about it.

I'm happy that Napoleon was such a gambler and even after such great losses, Egypt, Aspern-Essling, Russia, Leipzig, abdication, still managed to throw the dice and keep the game going. I doubt anyone else during that period would have managed to survive the first round. He helped create such a wonderful slice of history and one that will always be remembered and, of course, one that will keep people debating and arguing.

*NJH: People, innocent people, died in the hundreds of thousands because of his gambling. No one should ever be so free-wheeling with the lives of others.

However, based on your postings, I doubt we will agree on anything, so I will happily agree to disagree. I do hope you can do the same.

*NJH: I don't take anything on TMP personally. Nor do I consider my postings to be the final definitive word on anything. I'm constantly adjusting my position on darn near everything as new data and new facts emerge. Stagnation leads to corruption, and corruption leads to academic/scientific incompetence.

Cheers

Good posting DJCoaltrain – well said

It occurs to me that there is another way to view this. Conquering Russia was an "out of context problem" for Napoleon. That would easily account for the disparity between Napoleon's expectations and the Russian's refusal to meet them.

DJColtrain

I'm not sure I should really attempt debating further with you, since you seem to see yourself as some sort of supersoldier because you were able to work some computers. You were one of many 'smart' or armchair soldiers pressing buttons. Well done you! Sorry, but scale wise, compared to Napoleon, very miniscule. Have you led an army in the field – no! Have you run an country – no! Have you run an empire – no! So please, do get real. I can't believe you actually tried to compare pressing buttons with Napoleon's achievements! Unbelievable! Napoleon will be remembered in history – you will not!

And if someone admires a character from history or their achievements, it does not mean they offer only adulation on that person, that they do not see the faults or accept the mistakes. Napoleon, after all, was only human. You have to look at all aspects of a person and their achievements, not just the good, positive or successful aspects. But those that do admire Napoleon get used to people throwing out such pathetic claims.

And I welcome anyone having different points of view and debating matters. I certainly do not expect anyone to agree with my views – hopefully sometimes, but certainly not all the time. Life would be so boring if we all agreed and liked the same things. More peaceful perhaps, but definitely boring and unrealistic.

And blaming Napoleon for the deaths of people during the Napoleonic Wars is absolutely pathetic, especially from one who states he has studied history. You know quite well that Napoleon did not start many of those wars. I think you might be more nearer to what might be the truth when you suggest Britain would never allow a Republican France to exist, which suggests they would do anything to bring about Napoleon's fall, including helping to start wars against him? However, if France did not affect them financially, would they have been bothered? I doubt it.

I certainly do not base my views purely on belief but also on facts. So to suggest such a thing is again, pathetic. Perhaps you just can't understand people coming to a different viewpoint to yours? But again, that's reality and you should be used to it by now.

Yes, war, any war, does cause death and suffering. Sadly, history is full of it. Do you lay the blame for all the deaths during the ACW on Lee or Lincoln? I doubt it. There are a variety of areas and causes that create wars. Again, you say you study history, so I'm sure you are well aware of it. And I'm sure you don't believe we should ignore history and ignore characters from history because people died? Again, that would be asburd. We have to study all aspects of history to learn from it, the good and the bad.

Most of the French people and Napoleon's soldiers went to war with him. They didn't need their arms twisting. They knew what they might gain or lose if they didn't. Look at what the Allies did to Poland. Many nations also knew what they could gain or lose, so also chose to march with him and some, of course, when events went against Napoleon, later turned against him. But that happened all the time in history and certainly in war. But again, I am sure you are well aware of this.

I personally do not think Portugal and Spain would have continued opposing the French, well not for long, had they not been supported by the presence of a British Army and possibly British money. Without a British army there they would have eventually given in, if not just through shear weight of numbers. And there were those in Portugal and Spain who probably would have welcomed the French and profited by working with, rather than against them.

As for the British army beating Napoleon without Wellington – I doubt it. Yes, they had some good commanders who could beat Napoleon's Marshals and generals, but certainly not good enough to beat Napoleon himself. And even Wellington needed the help of the Prussians to do the job at Waterloo. So lets keep it real, eh?

As for the Russian campaign. You've studied history so let's not cover facts up with fancy words and titles. If it had worked Napoleon would have been seen even more as military genius. But war is a fickle thing. You win some and you lose some. Napoleon lost, so the whole thing was a dramatic failure, which eventually led to his own downfall. That's the beauty and horror of history. But unlike Napoleon, who was able to keep going right up to 1815, other commanders would have been finished in 1812. That;s not adulation – that's fact!

von Winterfeldt

Baa! Baa!

News just in: ""WWII all the fault of the Allies", says that nice Mr Hitler."

"As for the Russian campaign. You've studied history so let's not cover facts up with fancy words and titles. If it had worked Napoleon would have been seen even more as military genius. But war is a fickle thing. You win some and you lose some. Napoleon lost, so the whole thing was a dramatic failure, which eventually led to his own downfall. That's the beauty and horror of history. But unlike Napoleon, who was able to keep going right up to 1815, other commanders would have been finished in 1812. That;s not adulation – that's fact!

But it didn't work, so he must be an idiot. Please don't ignore reality and pretend that it did work.

Aha!! Napoleon lost! Not the weather. Not spies in Paris. He lost. He invaded Russia, without the ability to feed his army or his horses. The "expert" could not figure out how much oats a horse needed, and how much a supply column could carry deep into enemy territory. He ignored the warnings that the Russians would retreat and string him out inot He also ignored two veteran Russian armies, who were the veteran armies fighting the Swedes and the Turks, and let them destroy his bases in his rear (such as Minsk). He cannot at the same time be a genus and somebody playing with a full deck.

Please explain how (paraphrasing) "its a fact that other commanders would be finished in 1812"??? Napoleon still controlled Italy, the German states and the Low Counties. He still had 200 to 500 thousand troops scattered across Europe. The allies had only a recently rebuilt Prussian army and a real gun-shy Austrian army to add to the veteran Russian army, which was already thousands of miles from their bases. It was not a hopeless situation. (Please, explain why he never bothered to build any extra bridges for potential retreat for the battle of Liebsiz?).

I still maintain that Napoleon had a screw lose and ignored essential basic military principles.

1968billsfan

So, based on your 'expert' judgement, anyone who makes a mistake in war and everyone involved in a campaign that fails – is an idiot? That suggests you are the biggest idiot!

Napoleon's campaign failed for a variety of reasons. But it is easy to lay the blame at Napoleon's feet because it failed. A bit like the manager getting the blame for losing a match. It can't be players or any other reason.

Allies had only Austrians gun-shy? Rebuilt Prussians? I wonder what your pathetic description of the British army would be? But you carry on believing what you want to believe – if it makes an idiot happy, who am I to complain.

Connard Sage

If the Allies had treated Germany better after WW1, then perhaps Germany would not have been in such a mess, people's lives in Germany may not have been as bad and perhaps, just perhaps, there would not have been so much hatred and the desire for revenge. And maybe Hitler would never have made it into power. So well done on your post – perhaps, for once, you have a point. Keep it up.

For those who may still be confused, I'm not saying directly that I blame the Allies for starting WW2.

Wat off topic,
But how are we treating Greece ?
It was the austerity forced on Germany after WWI that led to Hitler's rise.

(Luckily the Greeks no longer have Hoplites)

Gazzola 23 Feb 2012 3:11 a.m. PST

DJColtrain

I'm not sure I should really attempt debating further with you, since you seem to see yourself as some sort of supersoldier because you were able to work some computers. You were one of many 'smart' or armchair soldiers pressing buttons. Well done you!

*NJH: OK, you have missed my point entirely. I served in the USA military (Army 11B40, but Air Force mostly) from Johnson to Clinton (in various capacities). I have my DD214 which lists my decorations and overseas service. That means I did more than push buttons. I have a few physical infirmities acquired in service to my country, and a VA disability with medical records to verify them. I also endured a year and a half of exposure to Agent Orange, it's not fun waiting for that shoe to drop. Your assessment of my military service is entirely wrong.

Sorry, but scale wise, compared to Napoleon, very miniscule. Have you led an army in the field – no!

*NJH: I was a line officer and a regular officer – I have some idea how a military machine works, and how to judge military competence.

Have you run an country – no!

*NJH: Yes, I am the government of the USA.

Have you run an empire – no!

*NJH: No, but then neither have you. That means what I post is just as valid as what you post, regarding the proper way to run an empire.

So please, do get real.

*NJH: I am real. I'm saying that all we have for judging any historical figure is their historical record. That's all, nothing else. There is no crawling inside their minds, nor can we ever know their true motivations for the things they did, or why. Therefore, when we look at the performance of any Commander in the field we can only look at his/her record and what they gained versus what they lost. The final arbiter of success on the battlefield is victory. Napoleon lost – the Tsar won. No mental gymnastics can get around that 500lb gorilla.

There were decisions made that should have not been made. There were decisions not made that should have been made. There are factual actions that we can identify as having had a negative effect on the 1812 Russian campaign.

Napoleon didn't win, and 200 years later we can discuss the reasons for his abject failure in the 1812 campaign. Which I think laid the basis for the poor showing in the 1813 campaigns, which led to the failures in 1814, and Napoleon's abdication.

I can't believe you actually tried to compare pressing buttons with Napoleon's achievements! Unbelievable! Napoleon will be remembered in history – you will not!

*NJH: You really should exercise a more discerning mind when reading the postings of others. I offered an example of how familiar I am with the need to be especially diligent when performing the duties of defending one's country. Somehow you think this is a comparison of my military career to Napoleon's. I do not want to be remembered as the loser at Waterloo, nor as the architect of the disastrous 1812 invasion of Russia. BTW – I am already remembered by history, but you do have to dig deeper to find me.

And if someone admires a character from history or their achievements, it does not mean they offer only adulation on that person, that they do not see the faults or accept the mistakes. Napoleon, after all, was only human. You have to look at all aspects of a person and their achievements, not just the good, positive or successful aspects.

*NJH: Now we're making progress. So provide examples of some of his faults and mistakes. Just to be for fair and balanced.

But those that do admire Napoleon get used to people throwing out such pathetic claims.

*NJH: I admire Joshua Ben Joseph. Next my Grandfather, then my Father. My heroes were/are my Uncles who fought in WWII and my cousins who fought in Southeast Asia, and my cousins who have served in Iraq, and my Son-in-Law who has served twice in Iraq. They fought for what was right, not personal glory and ambition – they are heros and worthy of respect and admiration.

And I welcome anyone having different points of view and debating matters. I certainly do not expect anyone to agree with my views – hopefully sometimes, but certainly not all the time. Life would be so boring if we all agreed and liked the same things. More peaceful perhaps, but definitely boring and unrealistic.

*NJH: There you go! That's what TMP should be about.

And blaming Napoleon for the deaths of people during the Napoleonic Wars is absolutely pathetic, especially from one who states he has studied history. You know quite well that Napoleon did not start many of those wars.

*NJH: Riiight, and the Poles crossed the German frontier in September of 1939. I blame all the belligerents for the blood spilled between 1792 and 1815. Napoleon gets his fair share because, "when you're in charge everything is your fault." And, as you say, they named the era after him.

I think you might be more nearer to what might be the truth when you suggest Britain would never allow a Republican France to exist, which suggests they would do anything to bring about Napoleon's fall, including helping to start wars against him? However, if France did not affect them financially, would they have been bothered? I doubt it.

*NJH: At that time the Brits had a visceral hatred for regicide. At that time the nobility of Britain couldn't afford to allow a relatively egalitarian country survive so close to home. France and Napoleon represented a direct threat to the core foundations of British society.

I certainly do not base my views purely on belief but also on facts. So to suggest such a thing is again, pathetic. Perhaps you just can't understand people coming to a different viewpoint to yours? But again, that's reality and you should be used to it by now.

*NJH: There are three essential types of logic – ethos, logos, and pathos. If you know that, then you should not be using the phrase "pathetic" to decribe the fallacies you perceive in my postings.

Yes, war, any war, does cause death and suffering. Sadly, history is full of it. Do you lay the blame for all the deaths during the ACW on Lee or Lincoln? I doubt it.

*NJH: I lay most of the blame for the ACW on the founding fathers who courageously placed their lives and property at risk in defiance of their King. However, they failed to face themselves with the same courage and will to win. Those who led the states in rebellion also get some. Why would I blame Lincoln for holding the USA together, and expanding the freedoms of all the inhabitants of that USA?

There are a variety of areas and causes that create wars. Again, you say you study history, so I'm sure you are well aware of it. And I'm sure you don't believe we should ignore history and ignore characters from history because people died? Again, that would be asburd. We have to study all aspects of history to learn from it, the good and the bad.

*NJH: The question to ask about any war is, "What are the stakes for which each side is fighting?" I reject the notion that there is moral equivalence between belligerents. I also think that a case can be made that in several conflicts neither side had any moral highground.

Most of the French people and Napoleon's soldiers went to war with him. They didn't need their arms twisting. They knew what they might gain or lose if they didn't.

*NJH: I do not think either of us can realistically claim to know what was in their minds, or hearts. Also, France had a levy/draft system – choice wasn't an option.

Look at what the Allies did to Poland.

*NJH: Poland was partitioned into oblivion in 1792, well before Napoleon came to power. Also, I never claimed the Coalitions had any moral highground.

Many nations also knew what they could gain or lose, so also chose to march with him and some, of course, when events went against Napoleon, later turned against him. But that happened all the time in history and certainly in war. But again, I am sure you are well aware of this.

*NJH: It's called national interests. Also, just because some countries marched with Napoleon doesn't mean they were happy to do so. Also, just because they marched against him doesn't mean they were happy to do so. I'd bet even money if they could have stayed out of the fighting they would have. Some of my ancestors are from Baden, I'd lay even odds they'd have been happy to just farm.

I personally do not think Portugal and Spain would have continued opposing the French, well not for long, had they not been supported by the presence of a British Army and possibly British money. Without a British army there they would have eventually given in, if not just through shear weight of numbers. And there were those in Portugal and Spain who probably would have welcomed the French and profited by working with, rather than against them.

*NJH: Spain and Portugal were Roman Catholic countries, France was not. The clergy in both countries whipped the faithful into a primal frenzy of hatred for the French, which wasn't much of a problem because they already hated the French.

As for the British army beating Napoleon without Wellington – I doubt it. Yes, they had some good commanders who could beat Napoleon's Marshals and generals, but certainly not good enough to beat Napoleon himself. And even Wellington needed the help of the Prussians to do the job at Waterloo. So lets keep it real, eh?

*NJH: Do not sell the Brits short. And, at Waterloo, the Prussians did exactly what they were supposed to do. They slipped away from Grouchy, fell upon Placenoit, and doomed Napoleon. But, for that to happen the Brits had to hold Napoleon's attention to his front.

As for the Russian campaign. You've studied history so let's not cover facts up with fancy words and titles. If it had worked Napoleon would have been seen even more as military genius. But war is a fickle thing. You win some and you lose some. Napoleon lost, so the whole thing was a dramatic failure, which eventually led to his own downfall. That's the beauty and horror of history. But unlike Napoleon, who was able to keep going right up to 1815, other commanders would have been finished in 1812. That;s not adulation – that's fact!

*NJH: I played ball with a man who thought a long high fly out deep into the outfield was much better than a base hit. A long army killing campaign deep into and out of the bitter cold of Russia wasn't better than taking the win and retreating after Borodino. Better to win, keep the army intact, and fight again, than win, lose the army, and have to fight again.

Cheers

DJCoaltrain

I can see from your recent post that you have been a serving soldier. I joined the Army straight from school.

I'm very sorry to see you suffering from Agent Orange. I hate it when soldiers doing their duty end up suffering from things that are not thought out enough.

But being an officer does not mean you are capable of running an army or an empire. It means you've had military experience, that's all. Not that I'm putting down military experience.

You claim you are the government. NO! You were only a part of it, a small cog in a great machine. You did not run the country. The country is run by those voted in by the people. That means politicans run the country, sad as that may be, not you. You did as you were told, you obeyed orders and probably gave some orders.

And I have not made out I know better than Napoleon about running a country or empire or leading an army. I don't find the luxury of hindsight gives me that ability. It is a shame others do not think the same. So no, your view is not as valid in that sense because you think you know better based on hindsight. Had you been there in 1812, and not known what was to happen, you may well have believed differently. You and others should try thinking about it in that way, instead of being so quick at pointing fingers. It is a bit like saying you should have known about the effects of Agent Orange – hindsight. Get it?

My son-in-law did an Afgan tour and my daughter might be doing one. They are soldiers. They do what they are told. I don't for one minute think that many soldiers obeying orders do so because they think they are doing the right thing. Soldiers are trained to obey orders – they often don't have a choice – you should know that? I wonder how many soldiers would actually agree on going into Iraq or Afgan if they could actually sit down and discuss the merits of it and the effects it may have and has had. Perhaps many of them would have preferred to do the right thing and go into some of the African states where people are suffering, not just the oil rich nations? It is just a thought. And does anyone feel safer because we've bombed the hell out of Iraq and Afgan – perhaps a little bit, but then again, probably the opposite. Unless peace is talked out, revenge will be on the agenda. Bomb alerts keep happening!

Napoleon making mistakes. Of course he did. But mistakes are only mistakes when they don't work. For 1812, I think, but again based on hindsight, he should stopped at Smolensk, extended the Duchy of Warsaw and, if the Russians didn't show signs of going on the offensive and made peace offerings, tackled the Brits in Spain. Waterloo – he shouldn't have split his army. Again it is all hindsight and what ifs.

Sorry, but if you have to dig deep to find you, it means you are not remembered that much or perhaps didn't achieve that much? I don't mean to insult you, since you may have achieved great things. Perhaps you could point a few out? I mean thst sincerely because it is interesting to know what people have achieved, without them boasting about it.

And perhaps you (and others) only remember Napoleon as the loser at Waterloo and the leader of the failed campaign of 1812. A bit like only remembering Ceasar for being assassinated. I prefer to remember Napoleon as someone who rose up through the ranks and termoil of the French Revolution to become an Emperor. Won famous victories, kicked the British out of Spain (albeit for a short period), and remained as Emperor, running an empire, despite the disasters of 1812, Leipzig etc, etc. And they still needed two armies to defeat him at Waterloo, when he should really have been hanging up his campaign boots. But even so, neither army could not beat him alone. I can't prove that of course – that is just my opinion. But it can't be disproved either.

And I wouldn't mind being remembered for all his achievements and for having a period of history named after him. Not many have. But Napoleon is not my hero, as you seem to imply, but I do admire his achievements. The failings, 1812, Waterloo, make it all the more amazing that he was able to continue for as long as he did. Most people I know who admire Napoleon also accept him for his faults and mistakes, not just his successes. For some reason, many of those who do not admire him, can't seem to accept that. It has to be black and white. But life, real life, is not black and white, well, not all of the time anyway.

I admire my parents and relataives who fought in the First and Second World Wars. But they had to do it and become soldiers who had to do what they were ordered to do. Thankfully they did did and we are free to argue and discuss history without fear of a knock at the door.

You say Napoleon gets his fair share of the blame for the death and suffering during the Napoleonic Wars. I think the problem is that some people tend to throw most of the blame at him. Very few blame the British king, the Tsar, Francis or the German king. So I applaud your suggesting they should take the blame as well. Well done. As you say, this is what TMP should be about.

So Lincoln is faultless for trying 'to hold his country together'. But he is the man in charge and as you say, the man in charge gets the blame – so on that basis, if Napoleon is to blame for the deaths during the Napoleonic wars, because he is the leader, then Lincoln is to blame for the deaths in the ACW. I don't believe that, I'm just basing it on what you are stating, unless of course, there is one rule for one and one rule for another?

I apologise for using the term pathetic. But I've heard the same excuses and charges brought aaginst Napoleon so often it becomes pathetic to hear them again, especially when they are all based on hindsight.

You end with 'better to win, keep the army intact, and fight again, than win, lose the army, and have to fight again' Nice statement, except that it is pure hindsight again. Commanders do things because they expect to win when they do it. They haven't got a crystal ball, they don't know what will happen. They only hope their plans will go the way they want them to. But as we all know, sometimes they don't.

And I feel there must be one thing we can agree on. If Napoleon hadn't been Napoleon and achieved and done the things he did, we wouldn't be hear two hundred years later arguing and debating what he should and shouldn't have done. I don't think we can say if he hadn't lots of people would not have died. Millions have died before 1796 and after 1815 and had Napoleon not become an Emperor I'm sure millions would still have died.

We all have different points of view and have our own favourites. But we all have one thing in common, or I think we do – we all love the Napoleonic period, warts and all. Anyway, it has really been nice talking with you but I guess it really will be a case of agreeing to disagree.

Gazzola:

Sorry to say, but you seem to be an insulting person, who enjoys calling other people idiots. You really should not be posting on this board, as you also seem to be an unbalanced person. I don't come here to get into a "flame-war", you should temper your tone or risk being restricted here. You apparently are treating people who disagree with your view of Napoleon, much the same has he treated people who might differ from his views.

Did we ever figure out if the horse shoes had any effect on the campaign?

It looks like another bricole war started around here…

Let's all just take a step back, take a deep breath, and realize that we all just shortened our life spans by getting flared up about something none of us can prove.

Now back on topic.

Can anyone tell me what makes these winter shoes so special? What would make them so much more useful than winter shoes?

1968billsfan

You are the one who threw out the term idiot! Read your own post.

As for insulting – perhaps you are too easy insulted. But if you do feel insulted – then I apologise. It is not my intention to insult people.

But when people start calling the great characters of history idiots who have a screw loose etc, I feel anyone is obliged to term them an idiot. Why use such terms? You could have just said he made mistakes, which we all agree on, based on hindsight. No you had to go the whole hog and them cry when someone calls you an idiot! That's being a bit of a hypocrite, don't you think? And at least you have the ability to reply – Napoleon does not.

I welcome people who have different views. That's part of the idea of having discussion forums, isn't it? It doesn't mean I agree with what they say or they agree with what I say. That's the way it should be and what TMP is about.

But yes, I agree with you on some points you raised. I will try to tone down my postings, no matter what 'idiots and experts' say or claim. There is no need for me to go down to their level. I apologised to Coaltrain for using the term pathetic in my posts to him and explained what made me use it. I think you will probably know why I employed the term idiot in posts to you.

You do realise you do not have to post to me or anyone else and you do not have to read or reply to posts that might uspet you. For some people I guess, it is best to stick to the post that agrees with everything they say.

My overall intention is to enjoy the Napoleonic period and share what I can. If someone makes a post I disagree with then I think I should have a right to disagree. Some of the posters here do give the impression that they are used to getting their way and everyone agreeing with them. It is often a wake up call for them.

But again, sorry if I offended you. As I say, not my intention. But perhaps you should also consider toning down your posts, especially in how you so easily insult great characters of history. As I say, they can't reply to such insults – but I (and others) can. No hard feelings, I hope?

ghost02

Good post. My apologies for getting involved and off track.

I think the horse shoe aspect is just one of the reasons the French had problems, but certainly not the main reason the 1812 campaign failed. Napoleon made too many mistakes and wrong discussions, which, on hindsight I think everyone agrees on. And his tough opponents certainly acted differently to how he expected them to.

But that happens in war, all wars, and sadly soldiers (and often civilians) are the ones who generally suffer from any errors made, on both sides. However, as clever as Napoleon was, I doubt he could have forseen such a severe winter, which became another aspect of the failure. As I always say, there are many aspects to winning and losing, not just one and certainly not just one man.

Thanks. We all (including me) have to watch where the line of proper behavior is, and realize that it might be different for different people. I try hard to keep away from personal criticism but don't always succeed in the heat of frantic typing. All is sweetness & light!

@ghost02

I don't know exactly what they looked like but the winter horse shoes appear to have had spikes on the bottom to give them grip on ice. In 'The French Cavalry 1792-1815' by David Johnson the author writes: "The French cavalry had always taken the view that winter shoes made for tired horses, and that an animal wearing winter shoes fitted with crampons could injure itself when it struck one hoof against a leg … but this happened so rarely that it was hardly worth taking into account."

He goes on to quote Polish cavalry officer Josef Grabowski who claimed that Napoleon and his marshals had been warned many times to issue winter shoes for the Russian campaign but without result. Grabowski claims that the Polish cavalry was able to charge over ice while the French cavalry could barely move forward.

However, as Johnson points out, winter shoes offer no protection against frostbite and starvation, which is what did for the Grande Armee's horses in the end.

So the shoes would not have done much. Interesting.

The emperor didn't need new shoes after all.

So as I understand it, the shoes would have very little utility, unless new shoes on a dead horse magically brings it back to life…

I don't really think that was the point that Johnson was making. I think he felt that it was an error not to take winter shoes as it meant that the French cavalry was severely handicapped once the icy conditions arrived. However, this was symptomatic of a general lack of preparedness on the part of the French cavalry arm. Johnson writes: "During the advance through Russian Poland, forage was so scarce that the horses were fed either on filthy straw taken from local inhabitants' beds, or on unripe crops which fermented in their bellies."

In an effort to relieve the situation Napoleon ordered that huge quantities of oats should be despatched from the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. But this order was pointless because the harvest wouldn't be brought in until mid-August – by which time huge numbers of horses had already been lost.

ghost02

I'm sure they probably would have helped. But as I said earlier, the failure of the 1812 campaign was due to a variety of aspects, not just one.

Got it. Thanks guys.

Gazzola 25 Feb 2012 4:15 a.m. PST

……And his tough opponents certainly acted differently to how he expected them to.

*NJH: See my above post regarding an "out of context problem."

DJCoaltrain

As I mentioned in my post to 1978Billsfan 12th Feb, 7.15 – Alexander Mikaberidze wrote 'The 2nd Western Army was maneuvering in the scortching heat and without food and fodder.' This is on their own turf remember!

Also, in the words of a Russian commander, Alex writes in his extensive article, The Mutiny of Generals: Part II: 'We began to retreat, no one knows why. You will get no one in the army, or in Russia, to believe that we have not been betrayed. I can not defend all Russia alone….I am completely encircled and can not say yet where I shall break through. I implore you to advance against the enemy…or else it shall be the worse for us when the enemy comes and perhaps on the domestic front as well. It does not befit Russian to run. We are behaving worse than the Prussians…One feels ashamed.'

If the Russians themselves felt they should have stood and fought, if not expected to do so, then you can't really blame Napoleon for getting it wrong. No one expected them to use the retreating and reaguard type tactics they generally ended up employing. Luckily for them it worked, otherwise it would have been Alexander and other Russian commanders we would have been criticising and saying got it wrong, all of which, of course, would have been said in hindsight.

But hopefully some further sources will become more easily available and perhaps we may become aware of how much the Russians really suffered. I'm sure they didn't have it easy and the above seems to confirm that.

There were a lot of fractions at the court with very frencified views who wanted an early classic battle. It is very likely that there was a lot of lip service done to satisfy these, while still doing sticking to the actual plan. Notice that even though the mustering of 500,000 French troops was (sic) noticed, the initial Russian moves were for retreat and drawing them away from their bases to be attritued down. If the Russians were really planning on an early showplace battle, wouldn't their armies start off united? Another aspect that Westerners ignore is that the toughest Russian armies had been fighting the Turks (they captured the Turkish army and won that war) and the Swedes (they took Finland from Sweden and then a neutrality pact was eventually signed). These armies were lead by Russians and not the tiny, westernized elite that did most of the writing that made it into western european histories. Napoleon learned that the "La maneuver sur les derrieres" could be played on a strategic scale as well as just a battleplan.

The Napoleon Series website had an interesting article:
Napoleon as a Military Commander:
the Limitations of Genius
Peter J. Dean BA(Hons) Dip Ed.

at
link

, which I think has a balanced view of the impact of Napoleon's personality and personality problems on his military and personal judgement.

in "chapter 3" (after the ***** seperater), is the following written:

"…..Napoleon's strength of personality fell as the years progressed as did his enormous capacity for work. The intellectual force never seemed to be over burdened, but the lack of resolution became more noticeable. He became more irrational and subject to delusion, an all or nothing mentality took hold and it clearly effected a rational decision making process. His iron will and determination turned to stubbornness and with the growing delusion came the distrust of those around him. Napoleon turned from what Chandler describes as, "the foremost realist of his age" to what Von Wartenburg states as, "an apostate from his old belief in facts, and began to believe in things which had no reality."

That describes him at his worst, most of the time he was the genus that he is credited with mostly being. This is the part of Napoleon that I see as seriously flawed.

Gazzola 27 Feb 2012 2:57 p.m. PST

DJCoaltrain

As I mentioned in my post to 1978Billsfan 12th Feb, 7.15 – Alexander Mikaberidze wrote 'The 2nd Western Army was maneuvering in the scortching heat and without food and fodder.' This is on their own turf remember!

*NJH: A Scorched Earth works both ways.

……..

If the Russians themselves felt they should have stood and fought, if not expected to do so, then you can't really blame Napoleon for getting it wrong. No one expected them to use the retreating and reaguard type tactics they generally ended up employing.

*NJH: Hence my suggestion for the use of the "out of context problem" explanation. Thank you for making my point for me.

Luckily for them it worked, otherwise it would have been Alexander and other Russian commanders we would have been criticising and saying got it wrong, all of which, of course, would have been said in hindsight.

*NJH: The purpose of analyzing a war or campaign is to evaluate what went right, and what went wrong. The goal is to maintain the rights and correct the wrongs. Unfortunately, every now and then someone gets things so very wrong, or so very right, that there is no second opportunity for the loser.
The 1812 Campaign was so crippling to Napoleon that he had no second chance. Losing over half a million men, and their equipment will preclude a second chance, unless you're Uncle Joe.

But hopefully some further sources will become more easily available and perhaps we may become aware of how much the Russians really suffered. I'm sure they didn't have it easy and the above seems to confirm that.

*NJH: I'm fairly sure they suffered near as much as the Grand Army. If they were any better off than Napoleon's troops, Ney's rear grd efforts might have been in vain. From all I've read, it was a brutal bitterly cold winter and the snow fell on all equally. It may have been cold, but it sounds like Hell to me.

Cheers

The books about the Russians are already there – one just has to read and understand them – in case you cannot speak Russian, then the books by
Mikaberidze as well as his editioning of memoires – give a good insight into the Russian Army of 1812.
Of course they suffered as well, and their numbers dwindled, but in no proportion compared to the starved Grand Armιe which was prepared for nothing and they had to bear the failure of Napoleon's strategy as well.
Napoleon got it wrong form the first step, the Russians got it right – they prooved to be more than a match for Napoleon and his Grande Armιe.
The results speak for themselves.

von Wintefeldt

I take your points but I feel that if the Russians, as you state, proved to be more of a match for Napoleon and his Grande Armee, then they would have felt confident enough to take on Napoleon and his army right from the start, rather than employ delaying-retreating-rearguard actions, of which they were execptionally good at. And after Borodino, had they still felt they were the match to Grande Armee, they would not have continued to retreat. They would have stayed and fought on the following day – but they did not. But, as you point out, results speak for themselves and the Russians did not feel confident or equal to the French until they had actually started to retreat. So they didn't really prove anything until the retreat had begun and their confidence increased. The results that went their way in the end was certainly not against Napoleon's army at the start of the Campaign.

DJCoaltrain

I disagree with you about scorched earth policy working both ways. Why would a commander employ such a tactic if he felt his own army might suffer from it? For example, I doubt the British employed the tactic against Massena in the Peninsular if they felt the British army was going to suffer from it. They made sure their trrops would be well fed etc. More than likely it was mor e a case of errors on both sides that caused the French and Russian troops to end up suffering as they did. Yet most accounts seem to mainly concentrate on the French suffering as if the Russians has a whale of a time.

Of course studying or analyzing mititary history is about looking at what went right and what went wrong. I always try to look at both sides of the picture and the positives and negatives on both sides, plus, of course, reading as many accounts of the same action or campaign as possible. But you can't really put to right what went wrong because what went wrong has already happened. In that sense you can only use hindsight and suggest what may have happened had this or that been done of not done. In reality that is not putting right what went wrong.

Perhaps to many of us, knowing what happened based on hidnsight, we would like to think we would not make the same mistakes. But who knows how we would have acted or thought had we been living in 1812? But it seems there are still of examples of those who do not learn from history, considering the German disaster in Russia during the World War 2. They knew what had happened and why in 1812, and basically went and did exactly the same. No matter who you blame – it happened. Sadly, people will often think and act differently at the time, no matter how much studying and analyzing had been undertaken.

Gazzola 29 Feb 2012 4:28 p.m. PST

DJCoaltrain

I disagree with you about scorched earth policy working both ways. Why would a commander employ such a tactic if he felt his own army might suffer from it?

*NJH: First, The Russians didn't use the WWII type of scorched earth. In 1812, the food available along the invasion routes just wasn't adequate to support the French and Russian Armies. Once they marched across an area there was no going back, there just wasn't anything to sustain either army. So no marching back and forth, no ebb and flow.

For example, I doubt the British employed the tactic against Massena in the Peninsular if they felt the British army was going to suffer from it. They made sure their trrops would be well fed etc.

*NJH: When you're running for your life you don't worry about what you need to do to slow/stop the pursuit.

More than likely it was mor e a case of errors on both sides that caused the French and Russian troops to end up suffering as they did. Yet most accounts seem to mainly concentrate on the French suffering as if the Russians has a whale of a time.

It's been awhile since I read anything about the 1812 campaign. However, I don't recall the authors writing about the high life of the Russians as they desperately tried to catch the French.

Of course studying or analyzing mititary history is about looking at what went right and what went wrong. I always try to look at both sides of the picture and the positives and negatives on both sides, plus, of course, reading as many accounts of the same action or campaign as possible. But you can't really put to right what went wrong because what went wrong has already happened. In that sense you can only use hindsight and suggest what may have happened had this or that been done of not done. In reality that is not putting right what went wrong.

*NJH: I was speaking from my own "limited" military experience. Everytime a project/mission was completed we often performed an analysis. The purpose was to better prepare us for the next time we encountered a similar situation. SOP for professionals. I'm sure Napoleon was every bit as analyzing as us. However, he would have been expecting the Russians to behave as the other European Armies had behaved. He was counting upon it. Unfortunately, for Napoleon, they didn't, their behavior was "out-of-context problem." Hence my suggestion earlier. If Napoleon based his 1812 campaign preparations upon the behavior of previous opponents, including the Russians, then he could hardly have expected the Russians of 1812. They didn't behave as he anticipated, they didn't behave as his previous opponents, and they didn't behave as accepted military wisdom of the time dictated they should. A problem out of the context of traditional European warfare.

Perhaps to many of us, knowing what happened based on hidnsight, we would like to think we would not make the same mistakes. But who knows how we would have acted or thought had we been living in 1812?

*NJH: In 1812, my Great-Great-Great Grandfather was fighting the Brits in the USA. So I guess my family would have aligned themselves with Napoleon. Odd that, because one of his sons (my Great-Great-Grandfather) later served aboard a British warship, HMS Cambrian in the 1840s. Funny world

But it seems there are still of examples of those who do not learn from history, considering the German disaster in Russia during the World War 2. They knew what had happened and why in 1812, and basically went and did exactly the same. No matter who you blame – it happened. Sadly, people will often think and act differently at the time, no matter how much studying and analyzing had been undertaken.

*NJH: Absolute power creates a sense of invincibility and omnipotence. Both faults are deadly to a military commander.

Cheers