"Why NOT Waterloo?" Topic

The best way to move on from a thread is to stop posting to it; simples, as the meerkats say:).

With regard to the Allies and their reaction to Napoleon's return in 1815, I believe that there are a range of reasons why they reacted as they did:

1. A desire to terminate Napoleon's attempt to re-establish his rule as they did not believe that he could be trusted to be content with the France that he inherited in 1815. In this, the history of the previous 15 years was obviously informing them.

It is arguable that Napoleon would have had to try to expand his Empire sooner or later as the truncated version of France could not provide the revenue to support the size of the army that he had to maintain in order to satisfy his military supporters. Therefore, the allies were probably right in their view.

2. A desire not to allow the legitimate (in their view) ruling dynasty of France to be replaced in a coup; after all, that could set a worrying precedent for them.

While this may have been a selfish point of view, one could argue that it was both justified and in the interests of the people of Europe; the likelihood of any government coming to power via a coup being an improvement over the existing ones was fairly slim as coups tend to be about power rather than the introduction of either democracy or a liberal regime.

3. A desire not to disturb the new balance of power and alliances in Europe.

While the new balance of power may not exactly have been wonderful for everyone in Europe, particularly the long-suffering Poles (who have so often been the victims of European power politics, albeit sometimes the authors of their own misfortune), it did hold between the major powers for nearly 40 years, which was a bit of a record, until a series of major wars began in Europe, most of which (Crimea, 1859 and 1870) involved another French ruler who used the name Napoleon; the other one, of course (1866), being part of the long established struggle between Prussia and Austria for domination of Germany.

Overall then, the allies had sound reasons for refusing to give Napoleon another chance. Were those reasons entirely, or even largely, altruistic? Of course not, but then neither were Napoleon's reasons for returning to France. He must have known, or at least strongly suspected, that his return would lead to war but he was, as were all European rulers, happy to sacrifice the lives of the young men of his country for his own ends.

Europe was probably better off without Napoleon.

Article 4 of the Treaty of Alliance agreed at Tilsit is usually accepted as signifying Russian agreement to join the Continental System, although it is not explicitly stated.

Bandit

With so many 'literary cowards' as someone termed them, using the stifle button, I do feel obliged to reply to those with the courage to post and debate.

But yes, you may be right because it has been going on for far too long and I do not have the time to do the necessary research. And, considering one post leads to another, I might just make one more reply and them move on and ignore further posts, if people feel they have to make them.

Seroga

If you are Russian or something I was not referring to understanding English. Yours is pretty good. It is more my puzzlement as to why people want to carry on posting when I have stated I want to move on? So no real need for your sly dig about my French and Russian!

I do not have the time to seek out my sources. However, you may be right about Saxony, since I think it was Prussia that desired that nation more than Russia. But Russia got most of Poland, Russia also got Finland, Prussia got most of Saxony and Sweden got Norway, to name but a few greedy land grabbing bits of action that went on. Of course, as you probably know, Poland was being carved up by Russia, Austria and Prussia before Napoleon appeared, so they can't really use Napoleon as an excuse for doing it again. Pure greed! And I think Saxony went over to the allies, but still got carved up! Lovely stuff!

I was under the impression that Russia was an ally of France before 1812, so trading with the enemy is not on, is it? And I don't think I've ever stated that I agree with Napoleon invading Russia, or Spain for that matter. However, I suggest you look at Article 1 and 4 in the Secret treaties, July 1807 – which suggest Russia and France had agreed the same cause against Britain, of which the trade blockade would be included – see link below

link

For Russia to ignore and go against the blockade was an act of aiding an enemy of their ally, in this case France. It can't be seen any other way.

And surely, there were enough states surrounding France to reduce any desires Napoleon may (or may not) have had on expanding the borders of France. He was getting on in years and I think he himself said he had gone beyond the age someone should be leading men in battle, never mind running a country as well. And after all that had happened previously, 1812, 1813, his confidence would have surely been dented, especially with a lack of allies, to attempt empire building.

So basically, whether you belive it or not, I do want to move on. I really do because this thread, as interesting as it has been, is reaching close to boredom level. Enough is enough. We should leave it for 2015. But thank you for debating anyway. Much appreciated.

Gazzola,

" your sly dig"
You did not see the smiley face? I was trying to make a joke. I know, I know, my English s**ks. My wife says I am illiterate, and she is always right.

"I was under the impression that Russia was an ally of France before 1812, so trading with the enemy is not on, is it?"
I don't know. Did they agree to be an "ally", or is that something Napoléon wanted but didn't get from them?
If they agreed to be an "ally", where in any agreement was such defined as a joining in a blockade, or Contintental System or anything similar?
Come now, you just above blamed them for getting invaded by 600,000+ men for breaking a treaty. Let's try to get a little more specific.

Or are you are proposing that the Russians' fault – to the point of having their country invaded – lay in not living up to your personal ideal of what is "not on" for an "ally"?

May I suggest that we look at (i) what the Russians agreed to, and (ii) what they did in light of that agreement? It appears to me that you are believing Napoléon's post-facto excuse for his invasion, and then blaming the Russians for it!

As to breaking treaty obligations, if they even existed, I would further propose that since Napoléon never abided by Article 12 of the treaty that he did sign with the Russians (covering minor German-speaking states related to the House of Romanov), that the first – from day 1 – violation of the treaty or failure to act "as an ally should act" lay with the French Empire, thus absolutely freeing the Russian Empire from any culpabilty for later poor relations.

Regarding the Tilsit Treaty:
Article 1 of the secret annex descibes taking common action in war – military operations – armed conflict.
The word used is "guerre" – which was not understood in the era as to include trade regulations or prohibitions.
1798 dictionaire de l'Academie : "Querelle, différent entre deux Princes, entre deux Souverains, qui se poursuit par la voie des armes. Guerre sanglante"
It doesn't say anything about a trade blockade, tariff war or similar. These ideas of "war" by other means were not included in the conventional definition of the word "guerre" in the era. This is a retrospective, anachronistic re-definition.

Speficially, subject to further specific arrangements, the Russians agree in Article 2 of the secret annex to use their land and sea forces in specific military operations invisaged in Artice 1. Again, a trade blockade is just not there, only active military operations.
Article 4 of the secret annex describes Russia attempting mediation between France and Britian, sending a diplomatic note and withdrawing an Ambassador. It doesn't say anything about a trade blockade or similar.
Article 5 of the secret annex discusses making diplomatic requests about closing ports to British trade in Denmark, Sweden and Portugal. Article 6 discusses requesting this of Austria. So, if Russia had agreed to close its ports, I think it might have been mentioned. Further, if a nation listed for such a diplomatic request does not comply, the consequence does not include either of the French or Russians declaring war. A declaration of war in case of refusal is mentioned only in the context of having Denmark declare war on Sweden in the event of the later's refusal.

Just because Napoléon later claimed that a trade blockade was required of the Russians, or just because he wished that they had agreed to it, doesn't mean that they did in fact agree. What is in the treaty they agreed to. Not anything else.

And in any case, any obligation incumbent on the Russians under the Tilsit treaty was absolutly nullifed by the French failure to comply with Article 12.

Gazzola,

Just to avoid anachronism, let us also look at the period definition of "ally" or, in French "allié", as pertaining to national or state relations
1798 Dictionaire de l'Academie : "Celui qui est confédéré." and for the word "confédéré" – "joint par traité d'alliance avec quelqu'un".

You will note, at once, that a specifiction condition of confederation is inherent in the definition – a specific agreement and acknowledgement of the relationship. This is absent in the case of the Tilsit Treaty. A peace treaty was not the same as a treaty of alliance. And in the Tilsit Treaty, the words "allié", "confédéré" or "alliance" are just plain absent. Instead it says "paix et amitié parfaite".

So, when some of the provisions, for example Art. 3, of the Berlin Decree of are announced as extending to "nos alliés", this could not reasonably be interpreted as extending to nations not in an agrrement of confederation or alliance with the French Empire.

Further, even if you will not accept that your use of "ally" is anachronistic, the penalty for violation of the Berlin decree was specific, and repeated in the Milan decree : denationalization of the offending ship and cargo breaking the blockade, these becoming in French law "lawful prize". There is nothing about this being a cause for war or for sending 600,000 men to invade your country.

Gazzola

Perhaps people keep posting to respond to the comments you keep making – rather than because they have a lack of understanding of the English language?
If you want to leave the discussion, then you can simply stop posting (as has been pointed out to you several times). But I am not sure you have any right insist on having the last word, then call time on the discussion and expect everyone to obey you and not respond to your latest remarks.
I am sorry you are finding the discussion boring – I am rather enjoying it.

If nothing else, this protracted debate illustrates perfectly WHY wargamers – and others – continue to be fascinated by the Waterloo campaign!

It's deffinately educational.

I love it when people who can read/ speak Russian, German or French post information they have that I'd not otherwise know.
Good stuff Seroga.

"It is more my puzzlement as to why people want to carry on posting when I have stated I want to move on?"

Such modesty.

This thread, whilst being entertaining, has descended into farce once more. 4 pages and counting, plus the two pages of the original 'WHY ALWAYS WATERLOO' post which started all this off. I dont know why I bothered starting the thread. Being quite new to the forum I never realised just what the word WATERLOO could do to people's sense of reason. And it was fought almost 200 years ago!

Gazzola and myself have tried to put the debate to rest but it is not easy. We have tried to get people to see the bigger picture that no government or State was blameless, that all are power-hungry, greedy, and cared not a bit for the well-being of their subjects or any moral imperative. But some people seem only to be able to think terms of 'GOODIES AND BADDIES'. It really is quite childish at times.

That being said I Think people deserve a response if they write an interesting post, so you cant blame us for doing so. There are indeed too many 'Stiflers' on TMP. Thats another thing I find odd; surely hitting the stifle button is incompatible with being a Wargamer? Wargaming and War is about trying to stand your ground and not being a coward isnt it? Obviously if somebody is being offensive or deliberately causing trouble then a good stifle might be in order, but I think my stifles are due to the CONTENT of my posts, and I seem to be amongst the most stifled on TMP, according to the stats!

Obviously if your a Stifler you wont be able to read that last post……or this one.

Clearly Hofschroer needs to act as consultant to Gibson for a new Waterloo film.

Then it will be OK for everyone to love Wellington and the British army again.

Mad Hoffy hasnt returned to haunt the place has.

Telly: this is actually quite an interesting and civilised thread. You should see some of the older "debates" … The Kiley-Hollins wars… Anything involving the Mad Hoff.. Vulger and childish.

We live in an age of peace and relative civility now.

Stifling is indeed interesting; I am always impressed and amazed at Sparker's tally as he seems to be one of the less offensive or insane people on here.

I only have one person on stifle; he has posted quite a lot on this thread:).

Gazzola and myself have tried to put the debate to rest but it is not easy. We have tried to get people to see the bigger picture that no government or State was blameless, that all are power-hungry, greedy, and cared not a bit for the well-being of their subjects or any moral imperative. But some people seem only to be able to think terms of 'GOODIES AND BADDIES'. It really is quite childish at times.

This is the exact reverse of what has happened. I do not think anyone has said that any of the Allies were blameless or not power-hungry, greedy etc. etc (to say 'not a bit concerned' seems to me to go too far). The reason the debating has gone on for so long is that some people don't see that the same was true of Napoleon too, therefore, as a pragmatic response to the situation, the Allies response was, to a certain debateable degree, understandable. I can certainly respect Napoleon's coup as a pragmatic response to his being stuck on Elba, at risk of the Borbouns reneging on their agreements and France in a difficult situation under an un-loved King. It is the attempt to exonerate Napoleon entirely which results in incredulity.

Regards

Completely agree with Whirlwind. I don't think the debate has been childish in the least and I have found it entertaining. I would also suggest that if anyone is thinking if terms of 'GOODIES AND BADDIES', then it is those who seek to exonerate Napoleon of all blame.

Also agree with TelesticWarrior's comments on stifling: I don't think I've ever stifled anyone, though I have a pretty hefty amount of stiflers – not sure why as I don't think I am ever particularly rude.

I have to agree with Whirlwind and Bulldog; the only "goodies and baddies" arguments that I can see here are coming from the "Napoleon = good, Allies = bad" camp, who seem to have a need to defend the Emperor to something past the point of rationality.

On that topic, where is Kevin Kiley these days?

this is actually quite an interesting and civilised thread. You should see some of the older "debates" … The Kiley-Hollins wars… Anything involving the Mad Hoff. Vulger and childish.
We live in an age of peace and relative civility now.

Edwulf, I think your right. I just spent the last hour amusing myself by looking through the old 'Bricole Wars' threads. Strange to think that people could get so angry over something so trivial as who first thought about using a rope to pull a cannon.

Completely agree with Whirlwind. I don't think the debate has been childish in the least and I have found it entertaining. I would also suggest that if anyone is thinking if terms of 'GOODIES AND BADDIES', then it is those who seek to exonerate Napoleon of all blame.

Bulldog69 & Whirlwind & Collinjallen, it has definitely been an interesting debate and it's certainly not childish subject matter. I didn't mean to offend anyone. Surely you have to admit however that there has been a large amount of either Napoleon-phobia or Napoleon-philia in many posts. 'GOODIES & BADDIES' if you will. The thread itself started off with some absurd Anglo-centric comments for example.
I don't think Gazzola or myself have tried to absolve Napoleon. We just seem to agree that the Allies were primarily acting out of spiteful, vindicate motives rather than any desire to save Europe from further war. We would have let the French choose their ruler in 1815 because the Bourbons were clearly unloved and unfit to rule. The European Monarch's were acting out according to a heady mix of realpolitik and personal hatred of a man who was not of their kind. Napoleon was also acting selfishly, but I personally cannot blame him for leaving Elba. He came back to popular acclaim of the French people. I still hold to my view that Napoleon was not as much of a threat in 1815 as he was in, say 1815; he was older, fatter, sicker, as well as having less power and military might. This man was attacked by a massive coalition of Britain, Prussia, Austria, Russia……I could go on. It seems insane to me to demonize Napoleon in this situation. That is my view.

I guess we should also remember that the French would later choose another Napoleon in later years when dynastic Nations were collapsing once more under the weight of historical change.

Stifling is indeed interesting; I am always impressed and amazed at Sparker's tally as he seems to be one of the less offensive or insane people on here.

and

Also agree with TelesticWarrior's comments on stifling: I don't think I've ever stifled anyone, though I have a pretty hefty amount of stiflers – not sure why as I don't think I am ever particularly rude.

Should we start another thread asking why there are so many Stiflers out there?

I stifled somebody once. Unstifled them couple of days later. Felt a bit silly about it.

Also, how does one follow whats going on in a discussion if half the comments are stifled out?

If you have stifled someone, how do their comments appear when you look at a thread? Does the system exclude them entirely (so you have no idea they have posted at all), or do you see that their name and just an empty box where the text would normally be?

If you have someone stifled you can see that they have posted, but cannot see the content.

As to the idea that the crowned heads of Europe acted out of hatred of Napoleon because he was not "one of the club", that is rather an extreme statement. They certainly hated and feared the process that had resulted in his assumption of power but their key reason for acting against him in 1815 was that they could not trust him not to restart his career of conquest.

I picked up about 90% of my stifles through engaging in two arguments; one was with Gazzola and the other was over a well known British wargames retailer who has extreme right wing political views.

If anyone has a bit of time on their hands and would like to challenge their view on this interesting subject matter (whether Napoleon was part of the club or not) then have a read of this;

PDF link

It's Stanley Kubricks incredible 'Napoleon' script, perhaps one of the greatest films never made. If the link doesn't work just type Stanley Kubricks Napoleon script into the Web.

By the way I am not suggesting we treat this script as an historical source or something, but Kubrick did have both an incredible intellect and inside knowledge of the way the world works at an elite level.

Just thought we could change our angle of observation a little.

Compeltly agree with Whirlwind as well.

Can I have a summery of the discussion, please!

Brunet, I might be biased but here's my take.

1) I started a thread called WHY ALWAYS WATERLOO? (a not very good play on words on the Balotelli thing). My motive was to get a debate going on some other scenarios rarely wargamed, NOT to slag off the battle of Waterloo itself. The thread got derailed and degenerated rapidly.

2)John the OFM then started this thread WHY NOT WATERLOO?, with what looks like (certainly in hindsight) the sole purpose of opening up a can of worms.

3)It was more a keg of worms that got opened rather than just a can. The thread quickly changed from debating 'wargaming Waterloo' to debating 'who caused Waterloo?'. The main debaters were Gazzola (the Bonapartist angle?) versus Whirlwind (the Allies did the right thing by attacking France?). Many people got sent to the Dawghouse.

4)The debate has got going again now that everyone is out of jail. Gazzola got understandably fed-up with people blaming Napoleon solely for the campaign of 1815 and signed off (at least until the 200 year anniversary in 2015). I am now carrying the Bonapartist flag, being attacked (in an honourable fashion) from all sides (much like Napoleon was in 1815). Note that we are not totally blaming the allies either, but I do believe they should have left France alone in 1815.

5) As a 'side issue' it has been suggested that Napoleon was despised by the royal bloodlines because he was not one of them. They treated him by rules they would not have applied to one of their own, especially in 1814 and in 1815. I feel no understanding of the period, including the flare-up of war again in 1815, can be made without comprehending this.

You should really read the whole thread to understand it.

Wow, even the summary is long…..

+1 Whirlwind here.

If I dare to paraphrase Esdaile's work I alluded to before,
it was not so much that Napoleon was not one of the club – it was that he did not follow the "accepted" 18th Century rules of the club, that allowed the slicing up of say, Poland or Silesia depending on who was the victor this time.

As Seroga so cogently demonstrates, fault can also be laid against Napoleon. Some just do not seem to be able to accept that simple concept. Unfortunately the truth was they ALL acted in the same grand old manner of ruling elites everywhere and every-time.

Gustav,

it was not so much that Napoleon was not one of the club – it was that he did not follow the "accepted" 18th Century rules of the club, that allowed the slicing up of say, Poland or Silesia depending on who was the victor this time.

From a practical standpoint those two conditions are historically treated the same way. The point simply goes to the justification for treating him as being 'not part of the club' at which point you've accepted that they are not in fact treating him as a member. While some might be concerned with the
'why' of that condition, I am content to say it was for a variety of reasons that can be boiled down to status quo.

As Seroga so cogently demonstrates, fault can also be laid against Napoleon. Some just do not seem to be able to accept that simple concept.

Who are these someones? TelesticWarrior believes that there was blame on both sides but is partial to Nappy. Gazzola also stated that while he felt it was a minority contribution to the start of the war that Nappy was not guilt-free.

Did someone else claim that Napoleon was faultless?

Lastly, Gazzola's argument was pretty inarticulate at times so if you thought he was saying that Napoleon was a complete innocent in the matter, that could be why. In the defense of Gazzola – he was trying to conduct many arguments against many people within the debate by the end, it is likely all of us would be inarticulate under those conditions.

The notion that Napoleon did not contribute to the wars prior to 1815 is silly and the notion that he did not contribute to the war in 1815 is at best a strawman argument and at worst ignorant.

Now all that said… my own position:

What Napoleon did in 1815 following his return and seizer of the thrown *didn't matter* – while his actions *did* contributed to the opening of hostilities – those hostilities were *inevitable* due to the political positions of the Allied nations.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Some just do not seem to be able to accept that simple concept. Unfortunately the truth was they ALL acted in the same grand old manner of ruling elites everywhere and every-time.

Gustav, you make a great point but that is PRECISELY what Gazzola and myself have been writing. For pity's sake, over and over again, we have been writing this. Do please keep up….

I think Bandit has answered your other point about 'not being part of the club' very well.

Thank you so much for the remark "cogent" – I am really thankful ( and flattered)!

My repsonse to Gazzola was driven by his inferences about the Allies' motivations for starting military operations against Napoléon in 1815, such as his "Doesn't sound like the allies really wanted peace". I see the Allies at the Congress of Vienna making an effort to arrange a mutually agreeable balance of power in Europe that could (and actually did) secure a long-lasting peace among the major powers. As I listed, the return of Napoléon to France in 1815 greatly altered many of the rather delicate balances that had already been arranged, both immediately and prospectively into a future Bonaparte dynasty in France – even (especially!) if that dynasty was, as promised at the time, to become increasing chartiste or "constitutional".

Actually, the support of the middle class to a constitutional/legitamate Bonaparte dynasty may have been of far more concern to the Allies than some notion of Napoléon's rule as a usurpation. The British aleady enjoyed the huge benefits of constitutional, representative government. The American example might have occurred to the broad minded, as it did to de Tocqueville a few years later. Having a continental European power thus strengthened may have been the real problem.

=============================

My main comments were in repsonse to what I found to be really strange in Gazzola's characterization of the Russians. "Alexander expected to be made king of Saxony" and "Russia-well if Russia had not broken their agreement over trade with Britain, it is unlikely that Napoleon would have had to invade a country aiding their enemies." "Russia breaking their agreement to support the trade blockade with Britain".
The first of these it appears that Gazzola recognized as just spurious, an error conflating the Prussians with the Russians.

As to the Russians being blamed for getting invaded in 1812, accused of treaty violation, being a "bad ally" (whatever that might mean) or similar – for these I hope I have set the record straight:
-- Russia never agreed to becoming an "ally" of the French Empire …. They signed only a peace treaty at Tilsit, with several specific listed military and diplomatic obligations, and nothing more.
-- Russia never agreed to joining the trade blockade against Britain, closing its ports to British ships or similar …. They did promise diplomatic support to requests that Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and Austria do this, but nothing more.
-- Even if Russia had become an "allié" or "confédéré" of the French Empire (which they did not), and thereby became obligated to join the trade blockade against Britain (which they were not), the repercussion for violation of the Berlin and Milan decrees was explcitly the denationalization of ships carrying forbidden cargo, rendering the ships and contraband cargo lawful prize to the French …. And that does not provide any predicate whatsoever for the French to invade Russia with 650,000 men.
-- The French, on the other hand, clearly and from day 1 broke their obligations under the Tilsit Treaty with regard to the German-speaking minor states related to the Romanov dynasty …. This naturally relieved the Russians from any of their obligations under the same treaty.

There are a lot of, to me, strange ideas about Russian policy in 1810 and 1811 in English and French literature on the topic. I think much of this arises from French nationalistic writers of the period 1871-1918 being used as a basis for English-language works of Cold War vintage. These stange ideas cast Russia in a negative light as a dis-loyal ally or even as an aggressor in 1812. This was certainly Napoléon's propaganda line at the time, and perhaps was convenient to the prejudices of later French and English-language writers.

As matters of plain fact:
-- The Russians were not aliied to France after Tilsit, only at peace with the French Empire.
-- Although some Russians proposed preventive or pre-emptive actions against the French in 1811, the (to me, "wise") decision of the Russian government was (i) to not be the first to break the peace with the French Empire, (ii) to increase the size, power and mobility of the Army, (iii) to remain in a defensive military posture vis-a-vis Europe, (iv) to find an armistice for operations on other fronts, and (v) to actively engage in diplomacy and espionage in support of the foregoing.

These Russian polcies may have given Napoléon a practical rationale for his invasion in 1812: if one does not stop the Russians now, such policies (combined with their remote location) will render them immune to coercion later, so that the expected geopolitical advantage that Napoléon saw in "kinetic" operations could be lost. There are some practical problems with this practical rationale (such as the Russians' remote location!). But the rationale itself is not fundamentally errant.

However, the mere fact that Napoléon thought he needed to invade Russia in 1812 does not make the Russians at fault or to blame for this, neither legally nor morally – no matter how convenient such fault or blame might later be to later eras' predjudices.

Oh dear, I wrote too much again – and rather off-topic. I will surely get the stifle punishment some more times.
Oh well, Gazzola did say he wanted to discuss 1812, not 1815

Oh dear, I wrote too much again – and rather off-topic. I will surely get the stifle punishment some more times.

Don't worry Seroga, this thread has gone off topic many times already, we might as well do 1812 as well. And with stifles being thrown around like confetti, who cares if there are a few more?

Well, 1812 and 1815 of course are related.
The only nation capable of putting a large land army into action in western continental Europe without the necessity of British subsidy was the Russians.

It would take them a while to come, but they would come – in 1815, or 1816, or 1836 if necessary.

And this surety would have been part of the understanding of the situation by the other Allies. Indeed, if we want to think about a defecting Ally, the first problems they would face would be (i) no British money and (ii) followed by a visit from a large Russian land Army, replete with Cossacks and Kalmyks and Bashkirs and whatnot all intent on looting the "enemy".
The reason for the implaccability of the Russians in 1815 (and 1814 and 1813) lay largely in their having been attacked while observing their peace treaty with the French, and thus forced to fight in depth on their own territory. "Never again!" and all that, n'est ce-pas?

By the way, one need not attribute some moral outrage to Aleksandr in this. As a purely practical matter, after you have rallied the nobles, the merchants, the church and even the serfs to fight the Anti-chirst, you can't very well say, "Oh, you again? You want defensible borders in the Pays-Bas and Rhineland? No more reparations payments? Oh, very well – it matters not to us who are so far away." For this would put the Romanovs in league with the Anti-christ that they had "created", and led to all sorts of internal problems.

And so rather shortly after the Austrians, for example, defected, they would lose Austrian Galicia (for sure), likely get Hungary liberated, and would be serving snacks to Bashkirs in Vienna (without any British money to buy the snacks). The French would have looked like a much smaller problem to them.

Ohhhhh ….. that's a good "what-if" for gaming!

The non-Russian Allies defect to neutrality in 1815, agreeing to allow transit and even supply to the beligerents in return for respect of their neutrality.

The British seek first to re-assert their control over Hannover, and await their Russian allies. The Belgians and the Dutch claim neutrality (in return for letting the French transit) and the British land in East Frisia, Oldenburg or Jeverland.

The French Nord Amry goes after them, and the Army of the Alps ordered to transit east of the Rhine to join up.

We get Cent Jours spring 1816, with the British on the tactical defensive in some good position before Bremen (vice Brussels) waiting the arrival of the Russians on the French right flank, who arrive eventually (when !?) after snacking their way across the continent.

"Uxbridge – are those Baskirs over there, or more French ?? Go look !"

It is like some World War II 1946 game.

On that topic, where is Kevin Kiley these days?

I think that he mentioned something about going to the Armchair General forums? armchairgeneral.com/forums

Regards

TelesticWarrior

Good post but you are wasting your time with people like Seroga, which is why I stopped posting to him. For a start, he fails to understand what moving on means? A shame really, but he does seem full of himself and likes the sound of his own voice far too much, if you know what I mean. Basically, I don't think he wants to admit or believe that the Russians were just like everyone else – all greedy for power, land and money. The fact he makes all sorts of feeble excuses to justify their actions is proof of that, plus he seems to want ignore the secret treaties.

The Tilsit Treaty and the secret treaties certainly seems to imply to me that Russia was acting like an ally to France, or rather, pretending to be one. In the section described in the link below-B. Secret Treaty – No 4 it states 'common cause with France', which suggests an alliance, especially when added to the Russian passport threat.

link

And if I have it wrong on the Russians being or acting like an ally with France and supporting the continetal system, then I'm in good company because the great Napoleonic historian David Chandler, believed the same – p566 Campaigns of Napoleon – He states as much and also added -'The Tsar further promised to send the Russian Navy to help France in the capture of Gibraltar. This would, of course, be tantamount to a declaration of war against George III.'

I think it is just best to ignore Seroga and let him rant on. One day he will take his blinkers off and see things as they really were.

And sadly, people leave this site because they get attacked or even banned while trying to defend themselves, even when someone is being rude to them and don't get punished, which generally happens when people dare to disagree with certain viewpoints of certain posters. My new motto for this site is 'is stick to wargaming topics'

Gazzola,

While I concur with the general premise of what I *think* was your original argument, I can't agree with a lot of what you said to back it up nor with what you are now directing toward (or about) Seroga.

With regard to the Russian-French relationship, implication of allegiance is not the same as such.

Seroga,

I completely agree about Continental concerns about the Russians. The Austrians were very concerned about the balance of power between a strong Russia and Napoleonic France from the equation (this per Arnold who cites it as a concern as early as 1809 when the Austrians were deciding if they should go to war pondering what it would take to move Russia in to join them and Chandler who cites Austrian reluctant participation in 1814 concerned that if France was too weakened there would be nothing to balance the Russians).

I also agree with you (I believe I've previously made this clear) that the Allies were largely striving to maintain the status quo. This, at its most fundamental, means to preserve their current power structure, i.e. not transition away from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy or popular government. Therefore, counter examples on the continent would be rather scary. *My* statements regarding Nappy not being "in the club" are meant to be broad and not solely a reference to his non-ruling class bloodline. Heading a government that provides a counter example to the established monarchies is also not being part of the club. Another higher level example of maintaining the status quo is continuity with their previous actions and political stances as you cite in the case of the Tsar. So I think we are in agreement on all of that.

However, the mere fact that Napoléon thought he needed to invade Russia in 1812 does not make the Russians at fault or to blame for this, neither legally nor morally – no matter how convenient such fault or blame might later be to later eras' prejudices.

This I also concur with. I would go so far as to say that it is the same situation as in 1815. In 1812, Nappy felt he had either justification or necessity to invade Russia. According to Caulaincourt, Nappy talked about it as being a quarrel among friends and how the Tsar would come to his senses and negotiate. This gives a lot of insight into Napoleon's thinking. While Napoleon's specific reason for the invasion differs a lot from the Allies' war declaration in 1815, the general concept is similar. Both can be easily framed as wrong if you don't care for their justification and neither aggressor was provoked *at the time of the invasion* while both aggressors deemed it necessary based on their dispositions:

1812 – Nappy feels he must invade Russia to force the Tsar to support the Continental System (and thereby counter the threat posed by an economically strong England).

1815 – Allies feel they must invade France to counter the threat posed by a returned Napoleon (whether that be specific to the man or the policies or the type of government likely to be installed).

In both cases, the side invaded did not take any offensive action prior to invasion. I guess one could argue that Napoleon had taken aggressive action prior to 1815, but the counter comparison is that Russia marched against France in 1805-1807 and by the relative time of each invasion there was a lull, no active hostilities were going on and the invaders in both cases therefore had opportunity to choose a non-invasion or non-military solution.

Seroga & TelesticWarrior – This seem about right to you comparing the two in broad strokes?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Gazzola

No need to be like that.
It's is possible to attack the argument and not the man.

At times There is a very nasty anti-Russian streak on this site. 3-4 different Russian posters bullied off and away. I've never read one of them being anything but genuine, polite and helpful presenting oft neglected Russian sources and evidence.

Is it that there arguments are unchallengeable?
Is it a lingering bitterness from the Boney Boys about 1812?

Never understood it. Kiley was bad for it too.
If they were rude and petulant like some now departed American and Australian posters were I'd get it. But he's been nothing but polite…

@Gazzola

I am really sorry you do not like my posts. I think yours are interesting and thought-provoking. I suppose my writing style is just not good enough English to come across as sufficiently humble. I just don't know how to write better. I am sorry for this too.

I don't think he wants to admit or believe that the Russians were just like everyone else
No, I readily agree to that, just as you say "like everybody else".

all greedy for power, land and money
Well, actually I think that the motivations were a little more complex or nuanced than that, yet still the same all the powers.

The Tilsit Treaty and the secret treaties
There was one Tilsit Treaty. It had a secret annex. There were no other treaties or agreements.

With regard to Art 4 of the secret part of the Tilsit Treaty
Oh dear ! – you obviously are falling victim to reading an English translation of the treaty with the extended meaning of the translated words in modern English, not period French. Often one will find a "faux ami" or "false friend" where you think the meaning is the same in Engish and French, but it really is not. Over time, comparing period French to modern English, the connotations of words can really drift apart.
I linked the French text above. Please refer to it.
It says "faire cause commune". This meant, in the era (1798 Dcitionaire):
"Cause, signifie encore intérêt …. se dit aussi d'un procès qui se plaide et qui se juge"
The secret Art. 4 is about making various diplomatic arguments and protests and pleadings. The Russians, under the listed contingencies, agree to plead the "cause" of the French (and failing that, withdraw their mission – that is what asking for passports is all about: it is the Russian representatives in London giving notice that they are being withdrawn by their government). The idea of "cause" here in period French is – in modern English – much closer to the usage of "cause" as in a court case.
That's just not an alliance, confederation or anything like it. Nobody reading the Art 4 in French in the era would have thought it said that. If the treaty had included an alliance, it would have said so.

with regard to David Chandler
Proposal of some joint military activity (e.g. Gibraltar) was countenanced in the Art. 1 and Art 2. of the secret annex. That the two powers agreed to discuss such joint military missions does not mean the Russians agreed to a trade blockade. If David Chandler thought the Tilsit treaty said somehting like that, he was wrong. So yes, to the extent Dr. Chandler argues that the Russians agreed to an alliance, you are in very good company in making the same error.

feeble excuses
Since the French broke Art 12 of the main Treaty from day 1, even if you think reading the Treaty and its secret annex in the original language with the original meaning is somehow too "feeble", the Russians were still not in any way bound by a treaty the French had already broken.

And sadly, people leave this site because they get attacked or even banned while trying to defend themselves
Are you inviting me to leave because I have somehow caused you to attack me personally as blinkered, ranting, and full of myself? I am having trouble following your syntax – it is too indirect. If you want me to leave the TMP group, please do just say so directly. I am a newcomer, and would not wish to cause offense (or offence, or however it is spelled, or spelt …… aaaarrrgggghhhh!)

=========================

@Bandit

I concur with you completely. You wrote what I was trying to write! Thank you!
If you want to post in French or Russian sometime and need help, let me know and I will try to return the favor.
:-)

=========================

@Edwulf,

Thank you for the kind words, but …. I may be causing offence and am heartily sorry for it.

Might I add, plase, that if Aleksandr had agreed to a trade blockade with regard to Britain – he would have had a really big, additional, "Russian" problem at home.

The monopolists, in addition to the Crown itself, for such trade were the most powerful noble families, who did not fully think a Romanov was all that different or better than they themselves.

If they lost such a lucretive, and useful, trade – they might very well have mounted a coup d'état. Russia is not Holland : the effected parties in a blockade were not just bourgeois traders who might start some kind of legal case or claim in protest. In Russia, the effected parties would be the bulwarks (or potential enemies) of the Romanov dynasty.

Also here, page 284, is the Convention d'Erfurt of October 1808 link
This one is a treaty of alliance – as noted in the preamble, Tilsit was not clearly seen as such.

However, please also note that, with refrence to Britain, the Russians engage themselves to various diplomatic initiatives strictly in concert with the French. If these fail, then after 1 year the Russians agree to met with the French to determine next steps (Art 12) : "pour s'entendre sur les opérations de la guerre commune et sur les moyens de la poursuivre avec toutes les forces et toutes les ressources des deux Empires".

Again, there is a clear understanding that the Russians had committed to a joint diplomatic initiative (subject to various preconditions and a schedule) against the British, which did not yet include any further agreement on "opérations de la guerre" (military operations) and "les moyens de la poursuivre avec toutes les forces et toutes les ressources des deux Empires" (the means to pursue [the war] with all the forces and all the resources of the two Empires).

Now, it is possible that the final words of Art. 12 could be construed, by extension, to include the Russians' potential willingness to add a trade blockade against Britain to a future military operation against them. But it is absolutely clear that they had not yet agreed to either military operations nor a trade blockade as of the end of 1808. They had agreed to a diplomatic initiative, then a year's waiting period [!], then a meeting to begin discussions of military operations. On Napoléon's most important issue, the Russians had said "Nyet!". It was a polite "Nyet!", covered in words of friendship and diplomatic niceties, but it was still "Nyet!".

Erfurt gave Russia what they wanted from France with regard to Finland, Wallachia and Moldova. It gave France what they wanted from Russia with regard to Spain and some minor Italian states. Both agreed that they didn't want to see Austria get off her knees, so to speak. But these were easy deals to agree. What could Napoléon know or care about who was occupying Finland this year? – or Russia know or care about the Spanish throne's occupant? Both likely needed a map to recall exactly were Moldova was located!

I am sure Napoléon wanted more from the Russians with regard to the British. Equally, I am sure the Russians wanted more from the French with regard to the Turks. But neither side got these wishes, which were the really important points for each party.

Was it not the American Alfred Thayer Mahan who noted that substantial, successful and enduring alliances between land powers were essentailly impossible, and that the workable combination for a land power was with a sea power, so that each could grow their strength and influence in their separate realm with the least chance of coming to cross-purposes with their alliance partner?

I think that the British, the Russians and even Talleyrand (who was actively trying to change the direction of the Erfurt negotiations) saw this in 1808. But Napoléon, ever under-estimating the British and control of the seas, did not. Future French "Empires" and "Republics" were much keener on entering into amicable partnership with the British and, later, their American "sons" and heirs to the control of the seas. Smart choice, that.

Seroga

No, I am not suggesting you leave.

I do like your posts but I think you are completely blinkered concerning Russians doing nothing to cause the war of 1812. I think in reality both sides wanted it deep down, the Russians for revenege over their many defeats, and any excuse by either side would have been welcome.

I never sated or implied that their agreement concerning Gibraltar, meant they agreed with the trade blockade. But to agree on a military action is generally the action of an ally – which suggests they had agreed to support Napoleon against the British, which would have surely involved the trade blockade.

I don't think the great historian David Chanlder has got it wrong. I think you have or you are in total denial.

It does not matter what you say, so i would not waste further space. You have not convinced me to alter my views. I think we we will have to agree to disagree. And that is a nice way to end this lengthy, diverted debate, don't you think. And with the bonus of no one receiving silly bans!

For the future, I will be interested to read (and no doubt debate) your posts on actual battles and wargaming topics, rather than politics, which, in my opinion, is the dirty side of war.

Edwulf

I am not anti-Russian and nor do I blame them solely for the 1812 campaign. The fault lies on both sides and people like Seroga know that but try to make excuses for the Russians but not for Napoleon. That's a biased viewpoint, as are his posts.

And anyone disliking anything Russian because Napoleon lost the 1812 campaign is a fool. It is history, the past and can't be changed. And, in my opinion, all the various campaigns, the victories and defeats on both sides, make up the wonderful period we all enjoy. But I dislike the dirty, sly and sometimes secret politics that went on concerning both sides.

It is interesting how anyone who supports Napoleon is considered in the negative light by yourself. That suggests you are pretty biased yourself and perhaps you can't cope with people who dare to disagree.

Have you wargamed any 1812 actions lately? I'm looking forward to getting into 1813 mode, if you know what I mean?

Happy wargaming to you.

Bandit
I think I get what you say about my concept of Napoleons club membership :) But I think it is more nuanced than that.

I do think he was in fact accepted as a fully paid up member. However his whole "raison d'etre" and methods for warfare and diplomacy *were* very different as opposed to the traditional process, he played loose and fast with those accepted "rules". "A slice here for you and I'll raise you a province there."

That was the difference, not his birth nor his status. Although there may well have been allied aristos who looked down their noses at him because of his origins it was his approach and success in upsetting the European power balance apple cart that must have been the *real* issue for those who did the heavy lifting in the other corridors of power.

I cannot accept that each and every kingdom would have gone to the massive expense and hassle of mobilisation in 1815 just because they were snobs. That was in effect TW's main contention and that is just too simplistic in my view.

"I do think he was in fact accepted as a fully paid up member. However his whole "raison d'etre" and methods for warfare and diplomacy *were* very different as opposed to the traditional process, he played loose and fast with those accepted "rules". "A slice here for you and I'll raise you a province there."

Philip Dwyer makes the point – raised elsewhere, certainly, but nicely elaborated in Dwyer – that Napoleon was a terrible negotiator, who couldn't grasp that he was a terrible negotiator. He lacked all the requisite skills for effective negotiation: patience, an ability to listen and consider the motivations of others, the ability to put oneself in someone else's shoes, subtlety, guile, and even basic courtesy.

As a result, his stunning military successes were fleeting because they were usually ruined by bad treaties afterwards.

For example, the Peace of Schönbrunn. A very decisive military victory was ruined by a needlessly harsh peace settlement. Napoleon hacked more limbs off the Austrians, which only gave French troops and their satellites more restive, distant lands to garrison (Southern Croatia? Really?), and aggrandized the Poles in violation of his verbal agreement with Alexander, which only helped to turn the Russians against France.

Or the whole Spanish situation. No amount of military victories could ever compensate for the disastrous Bayonne accords. Was it really better to have to send a quarter-million soldiers in a vain attempt to conquer and hold an entire country, than to carry on with a feeble and half-hearted ally?

I'd say that this is one reason that a guy who could win such a dramatic string of military campaigns, failed to build a lasting empire.

The other reason is economics, which Napoleon didn't have a very good understanding of, either.

No. No 1812 actions. Except for in Spain.

We tend to fight generic actions so we can use all our figures which are British, Portuguese, Brunswick, Naples, Prussia, Bavaria, Baden and France. And of course I want Austrians. Hard to find a historical action with that lot. Of course if you know of one I'd gladly play it.

My biggest weakness is an inability to stick to an order of battle. Pictons 3rd division has now only one historical brigade, and an ad hoc brigade of light troops marines and a Flank Battalion.

I do not view people who like him negatively. I have a negative view of the man himself. He was planning on invading my country, killing my ancestors, burning there houses down ect ect. So it would be a bit odd liking him… Admire him. Yes. Like him… Nope.

My wargames group has two people who collect French armies and admire his achievements. I myself am not to bothered about the generals it's the soldiers and regiments that interest me. Though the rabid fandom of SOME modern day bonerpartists grates a little.

Though you can't deny, several highly learned Russian posters, with valuable resources have in the past been little short of bullied away by people here who couldnt stand the strength of their arguments. I love a heated discussion and friendly banter… but considering we all study warfare in the age of honour and gentlemanly conduct I would have thought it might be possible to keep our heads and perhaps challenge the content of some ones argument rather than trying to belittle the man behind it…

Happy wargaming. 1812 is almost over next year we get Vittoria, Gross Beeren and Liepzig.

Hello everyone who is still engaging in this thread. Fun isn't it?

Gustav,

I cannot accept that each and every kingdom would have gone to the massive expense and hassle of mobilisation in 1815 just because they were snobs. That was in effect TW's main contention and that is just too simplistic in my view.

My main contention is NOT that they went to War in 1815 because they were snobs. My main contention is that they despised Napoleon before 1800 because he was 'low-born' and a Revolutionary; they despised him after 1800 because he was low-born and a dangerous Commander who elevated himself to Emperor; they hated him from 1805 to 1812 but there wasn't much they could do about it because he kept destroying their armies; between 1813-15 they did all they could to finish him off. At no point during this period was he "a fully paid up member" of the club as you suggest.
The 1815 campaign simply cannot be looked at in isolation, and of course we must take all the things that happened in the decades before into consideration. Obviously this includes all the terrible things Napoleon did too, such as the execution of the Duc D'Enghien (definitely one of the club), as well as his invasions of Spain and Russia.

Seroga,
It is indeed good to have Russian members in the forum so I hope you hang around. At the moment I don't want to debate 1812 with you because
a) your detailed knowledge of the campaign might be too much for me, I'm more of a 'big picture' person!
b) I'm having enough trouble responding to the objections people have to my view of 1815!
c) I suspect I agree mostly with your stance on 1812, I think invading Russia was Napoleon's greatest mistake (and not just because of all the men he lost there).
I actually think he would have been better off trying to invade England again, this time using his massive army and resources. It was the British aristocracy and banking elite that was France's greatest enemy, not Russia.

Gazzola,

sadly, people leave this site because they get attacked or even banned while trying to defend themselves, even when someone is being rude to them and don't get punished, which generally happens when people dare to disagree with certain viewpoints of certain posters. My new motto for this site is 'is stick to wargaming topics'

and

For the future, I will be interested to read (and no doubt debate) your posts on actual battles and wargaming topics, rather than politics, which, in my opinion, is the dirty side of war.

Easier said than done! (sticking to wargaming topics, i mean). Definitely agree with you that politics is the dirty side of War. If more people in this world were clued up to the reality of real-politik and the ways things really work then it would be much harder for the elite to manipulate the young and naive.
I can see why you were feeling attacked, I re-read the first few pages of this thread before writing the summary above and people were really ganging up and mis-interpreting you, in my opinion. Passions get inflamed but in the end we have to remember, this is just a forum.

Bandit,

TelesticWarrior – This seem about right to you comparing the two in broad strokes?

I think your comparison of 1812 and 1815 is apt. I also like your interpretation of my 'not part of the club' idea, you seem to have a very good grasp of the Allies wishing to maintain the Status quo at all costs, therefore Napoleon would always be an enemy; not just because of his social background but also the dangerous precedent the French Revolution and Empire had set in providing an example of a different way of doing things. ALL the events of the period were coloured by these issues, including the Allies decisions in 1815. You seem to understand this very well, but other people are struggling with the concept. Maybe it is the way I am writing it?

Edwulf

It would actually be pretty hard to 'like' anyone from the Napoleonic period, since the ability to meet and get to know the characters of history personally, is sadly not possible, well, not yet anyway. But interesting to hear you admire him, as I do.

But very odd you have a negative view of a historical character from 200 years ago? I think that is a bit bizarre. After all I do not hate Napoleon because he was planning to invade my country. Nor do I blame the Norman, Roman, Viking and Saxon historical characters for actually doing it or the later German characters who failed to do it!

I think there are more anti-Napoleon posters here than those who admire him, judging by the rapid posts attacking those who mention they admire him or support him in any way.

People have come and left the site for a variety of reasons and always will do, no matter who is here. But it seems that some find it hard to accept that some people will actually disagree with them and interpret the sources in a different way. It was probably a valuable life lesson for them.

And indeed, some exciting 1813 battles to drool over. Those you mentioned plus also Dresden, Hanau and Caldiero, to name but a few.

But don't fret, still plenty of time left to get some wargaming in.

TelesticWarrior

Yes, it is difficult not to end up debating politics, but I am going to try. The problem is that people may mention and post whatever parts of a treaty or sources that supports their views and then get all hot and bothered if someone interprets the information in a different way.

Yes, it would be great if people were clued up to the reality of politics and the reality of what caused wars in the past. But most people want an easy life and don't want to have to question their own beliefs. Much better to just accept what people tell them.

But as you say, it is just a forum and we won't solve the world's problems on this site, nor will we change history, although some people seem to be attempting to. Mind you, it is a shame the Russian Revolution didn't happen before Napoleon invaded Russia.

But getting back to reality, I'd rather see some heated debates on various battles on this site, than the debates mentioning the sly and often secretive dealings of slimey politicians. But that's just my point of view.

Well, as Edwulf said in his post, not much of the year left – but as I replied – still plenty of time get some wargaming in.

Happy wargaming to you.