"What Made Napoleon Great?" Topic

SJDonovan

Over reacted. Really? Or perhaps I made my comment because I fail to see the mention of a burns unit as joke or remotely humorous, and especially so when it was aimed at someone who lived in an area in which I believe a hurricane was approaching, a very destructive hurricane that had already killed people.

Ottoathome

It is your opinion, and ONLY your opinion, that Napoleon is not great. But your opinion does not mean you are correct. Others, like myself, see him as great, which, of course, is just MY opinion. But that does not mean I am correct, it is just my opinion. You should learn to respect and accept other people's opinions, even when they disagree with your own.

As to those you do see as great, yes, there are certainly people worthy of the title, in the arts, music, literature, the world of medicine, science, etc. However, I think you should remember that this site is a wargaming site and we are concerned here with the military side of life and history. Of course, that does not mean there is a lack of interest in the areas of art, music, literature, medicine, science etc that relate to it.

dibble

You just don't get it, do you?

It is the fact that this man rose to such great heights at an early age and so quickly.

It is the fact he could have remained in Egypt and become a forgotten character of history, but instead came back and led France to victory.

It is a fact of all his victories during the various coalitions who waged war against him.

It is the fact after the disaster of 1812 he came back again.

It is the fact after the defeat at Leipzig in 1813 he still managed to fight on.

It is the fact after his first abdication he was able to come back and basically walk his way to becoming Emperor of France again.

It is the fact that he nearly won the hundred days campaign and it took two armies to beat him at Waterloo.

It is the fact, despite several coalitions set against him and the constant efforts of the British to fund other nations to wage war against him, that it took them so long to finally defeat him.

It is the fact, despite being defeated at Waterloo, he still scared the hell out of everyone. So much so that they had to place him on an island in the middle of nowhere under constant watch.

It is the fact, that a mere man could live such a life in such a short time, and create so much love and hatred then and now, and be remembered and admired forever. He wasn't just part of history, he made it.

Of course, all the above is just my opinion, and you are free to disagree.

Dear Gazzola

No.

People who have monstrous opinions do not deserve respect "just because." By your logic I should respect Adolf Hitler's opinions and those who think he was a great man too.

I have no compulsion to be generous and respectful of reprehensible people, or those who make bloody murderers their heroes.

In fact, they deserve nothing but contempt. If you hold an iditotic opinion you are an idiot. If you lionize and adore bloody tyrants and make excuses for them you are a person with as little moral sensibilities as they and in fact want to be just like them. Any excellence of their achievements is vacated by the fact that these achievements were made in the service of evil and in harming and destroying their fellow man.

Of the people in the military venue of history there are more than enough great men and heroes who were not bloody murderers and immoral tyrants.

What you are saying is that hatred of tyranny is a fault, a faux-pas, a failure of respect. If that is the case then I plead guilty. It is when we separate the actions of men from their moral underpinnings and their human consequences that we wander into brutality and cruelty, and the supreme monstrosity is wishing to be respected for their depravity.

Your condemnation of me for my intolerance of such people is for me high praise. Thank you.

SJDonovan

Over reacted. Really? Or perhaps I made my comment because I fail to see the mention of a burns unit as joke or remotely humorous, and especially so when it was aimed at someone who lived in an area in which I believe a hurricane was approaching, a very destructive hurricane that had already killed people.

A hurricane? And not just a hurricane, a very destructive one? Gosh, well that changes everything. I would never have accused you of overreacting if I had known that you believed a very destructive hurricane was approaching.

In future I shall be sure to check on the prevailing weather conditions before commenting on your posts.

Gazzola

It is the fact that this man rose to such great heights at an early age and so quickly.

11) That he could lose it all in 11 years.

12) After Waterloo he ran and ran (yet again) after being beaten (yet again) to flee the continent.

My list that I posted earlier are the result of your list above F_A_C_T!

"1) A bloke who loses his Empire.
2) His country three times.
3) Abdicated twice.
4) Destroys his army that was one of the most powerful ever seen.
5) Suffered one of the worst battlefield defeats up to that point.
6) Failed in Egypt.
7) Failed in the Iberian Peninsula.
8) Failed in Russia.
9) Had a habit of abandoning his armies (at least Hitler stayed until the very end and had the decency to shoot himself).
10)He won the propaganda stakes from a little Island off the West coast of Africa.

So the likes of poor old Alexander and Frederick have to be demoted to enable the fat rat on an island shaped like a hat, to fit in?"

PS

The raid on Copenhagen was a success militarily regardless.

Paul :)

Ottathome

Please try to stick to our period. We are talking about Napoleon here, not the monster Hitler.

However, since you have mentioned him, if there are people who think Hitler was great, that is their choice. I do not agree with them, far from it. But I live in the real world and realise that there are those who will sadly think that way. That's life unfortunately.

And you don't think Napoleon was great, okay, that's your choice. But from your post you obviously must hate everyone from that period, since they were all empire building and waging war. I'm sure you would not be silly enough to think otherwise.

But please don't expect everyone to agree with you or to think the same as you about any about historical character, because that would very foolish indeed.

dibble

So, by your reckoning, a man can only be gauged by his failings. How quaint. Foolish but quaint.

And what's with the 11 years? Your are conveniently ignoring his achievements up to 1804?

In my opinion Hannibal should also be considered as great, but obviously, since he lost in the end that can't be acceptable.

Robert E. lee should also be considered great, but again, on your reckoning, that would not be acceptable because he also lost in the end.

A 'bloke' who lost an empire, first had to be a 'bloke' who built it, and in such a short time too. Get it?

Failed in Egypt. Hmm, the French were able to remain there, despite the British presence for a few years. And his 'failure' in Egypt sparked off the interest in Egyptology.

When he was in Spain he drove the British out, as you well know. It was his Marshals who really failed in Spain. Had he returned to Spain and failed I would have given you that, but he didn't. And, of course, look how many years it took the British to force the French out of Spain, and that did not involve fighting Napoleon himself.

Hitler has nothing at all to do with Napoleon, so it is rather pathetic to mention him. And I don't think he would have had the opportunity to abdicate, do you? And if he knew his life could be spared, I doubt very much he would have, as you disturbingly term it, 'had the decency' to shoot himself.

Yes, I agree, Russia was a failure. But after such a failure and heavy losses, the allies still struggled for a further two years to defeat him.

Alexander, Frederick, Alfred and all the other greats are not demoted. What an absurd statement to make. The great family of greats have been extended by the inclusion of Napoleon.

Dear oh dear, how blinkered you are dibble.

ps: yes, Copenhagen was very successful. It turned a neutral country into an enemy and involved a deliberate terror attack against civilians. And by the way, the terror term is not looking at it with a modern viewpoint, that was the intention of the British in 1807. They wanted to terrorise the civilians into forcing their military to surrender, which worked, so yes, on that basis, it was a success.

SJDonovan

It was not a case of over reacting over a piece of humour. Jokes can be made about anything. However, in this case and in my opinion, it was very inappropriate for someone to use a burns unit as a joke. It is also equally inappropriate to make such a defensive and flippant reply to my mentioning the hurricane. You do realise that it killed hundreds of people? I'm sure you don't find that funny, as I'm sure that you don't find people getting burnt is funny?

Monster Hitler, Monster Napoleon, small difference.
Empire building? Again, does that make them good?
You seem to think so. So I shall let you go on with your opinion that the more massive a murder your are the more excellent you are. As you said, you stand by YOUR opinion, I'll stand by mine. Time for you to practice what you preach.

SJDonovan

It was not a case of over reacting over a piece of humour. Jokes can be made about anything. However, in this case and in my opinion, it was very inappropriate for someone to use a burns unit as a joke. It is also equally inappropriate to make such a defensive and flippant reply to my mentioning the hurricane. You do realise that it killed hundreds of people? I'm sure you don't find that funny, as I'm sure that you don't find people getting burnt is funny?

Gazzola,

Sanctimoniousness is funny.

Why compare Npoleon with Hitler???
Hitler is comparable with Stalin and Putin.
But nobody even don't think about comparing Napoleon with Putin.

'…you stand by YOUR opinion, I'll stand by mine…'

Opinions are fine-everyone has them.

That being said, opinions expressed in a historical context without supporting documentation or support are meaningless, especially if they distort the historical record. That is venturing into propaganda, and that is not helpful to anyone either historically or logically. In point of fact, it is a logical fallacy.

Why compare Npoleon with Hitler???

Excellent question. One answer is the attempt by some to demonize Napoleon and lower him to the level of a monster, which he certainly was not.

'Far from being evil, Napoleon was naturally good. If he had been evil with so much power at his disposal, would he be reproached for two or three acts of violence or anger during a government that lasted fifteen years!'
-Baron Agathon-Jean-Francois Fain.

I did, however, obtain a copy of Hendrik Willem van Loon's The Story of Mankind to take a look at it and see for myself what the author had to say about Napoleon en total.

Van Loon wrote five pages on Napoleon in the volume, almost five thousand words and in that space made over 40 errors in fact, ranging from Napoleon's height to the idea that Napoleon neglected the French medical service.

There are no notes or sources, and it should be noted that the volume was intended as a children's book.

I most certainly quoted van Loon, as his statement showed a distinct ability of Napoleon as a leader. However, the use of the article en total would not be an accurate representation of Napoleon the man, the general, or the Emperor.

The raid on Copenhagen was a success militarily regardless.

If you're referring to the 1801 operation you are correct. If you are referring to the 1807 attack and siege of Copenhagen then you are wrong.

This has already been succinctly demonstrated on this forum and the British themselves called it a siege.

So I shall let you go on with your opinion that the more massive a murder your are the more excellent you are.

How could you stop his postings? That is just plain ridiculous.

Hitler was a mass-murderer with the blood of over 11 million civilians murdered from 1939-1945.

Perhaps you could give examples of murders perpetrated by Napoleon?

Monster Hitler, Monster Napoleon, small difference.

I completely agree that Hitler was a monster.

Perhaps you could give examples of how Napoleon could be considered a monster?

I would submit that there was a very great difference between Napoleon and Hitler, and you've already been given some examples.

I read this topic in the hope of finding something interesting in it. What a waste of time!

Agreed.

Brechtel

If you're referring to the 1801 operation you are correct. If you are referring to the 1807 attack and siege of Copenhagen then you are wrong.

I'm referring to the 1807 Siege and you know it.

If you have contrary evidence that the raid wasn't a military success then I suggest you put it up.

This has already been succinctly demonstrated on this forum and the British themselves called it a siege.

To your deluded and warped idea's it may have but unfortunately for you, not to others.

Ah, the Brechtel has re-booted.

To your deluded and warped idea's it may have but unfortunately for you, not to others.

The following is one of the citations I posted before on the siege of Copenhagen and is by a Royal Engineer officer who served at Copenhagen in 1807.

Please note that he called it a siege, and he wasn't the only one:

'I should have suggested several improvements that appeared to me from my own experience and reflection to be essential…I considered the British Army…to be incapable of succeeding in a siege…without either having recourse to the barbarous measure of incendiary bombardment, or without an enormous sacrifice of the lives…in sanguinary assaults…which might be rendered unnecessary by a more efficient organization of the Royal Engineer department, and especially by forming a well-instructed and well-disciplined body of engineer soldiers…The better instruction of the junior officers of the Royal Engineers appeared no less essential, for at that time they were not even taught the theory of the attack of fortresses…and the examination for commissions were merely a matter of form, and no genuine test for proficiency. As for practical instruction, they had none, for they were sent on service without ever having seen a fascine or gabion, without the smallest knowledge of the military passage of rivers, of military mining, or any other operation of a siege, excepting what they may pick up from French writers, of which a striking proof occurred in Sir John Moore's retreat, when all attempts to blow up stone bridges…made by officers of the Corps, myself amongst others, failed…with the exception of only one, which Lieutenant Davy, a very promising young officer, succeeded in completely destroying, but at the expense of his own life, which he lost from not understanding the very simple precautions necessary to insure the safety of the person who fires the train of the mine. For my part, I should not have even known how to make a battery in the attack on Copenhagen, the first siege in which I was employed, but from the information I derived from a French book on the subject.'-Charles William Pasley RE, 1811.

So let me get this straight Brechtel. You posted a quote from a source (Van Loon) which you did not read, but only posted because it was supposedly an idolization of your fantasy. Then you rad the source, saw it was out of context and then you condemned the source you yourself quoted.

This makes all your bloviation and fetish about sources quite whimsical and buffonesque. Who quotes a source he has not read?

As I said before, you are your own caricature.

Brechtel

It was a raid and it was a military success. And no-one is denying that there was a siege which was all part of the raid.

I'm still waiting for your reasons that the raid wasn't a military success.

I posted:

The raid on Copenhagen was a success militarily regardless.

You posted:

If you are referring to the 1807 attack and siege of Copenhagen then you are wrong.

You have a habit of being wrong so this one is just another of your 'par for the course' episodes.

I suppose that in your Nappy parallel existence your alternate spin should be expected.

Paul :D

I didn't state that the Copenhagen operation was not a success. I stated you were wrong because you insist it was a raid when it was not.

It was a siege, not a raid, both for how the operation was conducted and how long it took. I find it incredible that you believe a siege can also be a raid.

If you're referring to the 1801 operation you are correct. If you are referring to the 1807 attack and siege of Copenhagen then you are wrong.
This has already been succinctly demonstrated on this forum and the British themselves called it a siege.

If you're going to quote what I wrote, then do it in its entirely, not cherry-pick I was referring to your continued incorrect 'assessment' of the 1807 operation being a raid instead of a siege; I was not stating that the operation was a failure.

One question remains: Do you actually understand what a raid is:

It appears that you have no idea of the difference between a raid and a siege. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not sure what's incredible Kevin, other than that Copenhagen has been brought up yet again. I appreciate it serves as a way to take threads on the topic of Bonaparte of on a tangent when you don't like the way they're going.

The siege and bombardment of Copenhagen, as well as the Battle of Koge, were all part of a British raid to secure the Danish fleet.

Please, let's not go down the 'raids can't last more than X days, have more than X troops, must have X as an objective, use artillery' road again. You made those claims last time and were proved wrong, using modern definitions out of context and ignoring many, many examples throughout history.

You were either demonstrating breathtaking ignorance, for someone who claims to have a good understanding of military history, or disingenuous.

EDIT: I've just done a quick search and you came out with the line 'I've never heard of a three week raid before.' Incredible indeed.

And I clearly demonstrated once again that the British themselves called the operation a siege.

If you can demonstrate that a raid takes three weeks on the ground I would definitely like to see it.

What is disingenuous is the constant nonsense that is put here that is ahistorical. And if you believe that the 1807 operation against Copenhagen was both a siege and a raid, then please show the evidence.

What you may believe is not always accurate and there is enough inaccurate material posted here, including this posting of yours, to continue myths, misinformation, and misrepresentation of the period.

Any 'breathtaking ignorance' in this thread has not been shown by my material but by yours and others.

Perhaps you can show the 'many, many examples' of raids undertaken that included a siege? If not, then your claims are just inaccurate and are historical misrepresentations.

Gazzola

So, by your reckoning, a man can only be gauged by his failings. How quaint. Foolish but quaint.

My reckoning is on success, Nappy failed miserably and died a sick has-been on a damp patch off Africa.

And what's with the 11 years? Your are conveniently ignoring his achievements up to 1804?

I alluded to north Africa in my listing and that is enough as far as I'm concerned. I won't mention the sack of Italian states and slaughter of thousands of prisoners….Oop's! I just have.

In my opinion Hannibal should also be considered as great, but obviously, since he lost in the end that can't be acceptable.
Robert E. lee should also be considered great, but again, on your reckoning, that would not be acceptable because he also lost in the end.

Aha! The penny has finally dropped….

A 'bloke' who lost an empire, first had to be a 'bloke' who built it, and in such a short time too. Get it?

…Oh no! it's rolled into that big gap in your argument where you keep Nappy's excuses.

Old Adolf gained and lost a huge empire in even quicker time. Should he be a ‘great' too?

Failed in Egypt. Hmm, the French were able to remain there, despite the British presence for a few years. And his 'failure' in Egypt sparked off the interest in Egyptology.

After his army vandalised precious relics with graffiti and using them as target practice for his artillery.

Perhaps Nappy could have become great if he changed his profession and become a 'Great Belzoni' type. They could have met and perhaps felt at home sharing notes and conversing in their native Italian tongue.

When he was in Spain he drove the British out, as you well know. It was his Marshals who really failed in Spain. Had he returned to Spain and failed I would have given you that, but he didn't. And, of course, look how many years it took the British to force the French out of Spain, and that did not involve fighting Napoleon himself.

Still haven't grasped the fact that Napoleon never drove the British out of Spain or Portugal. And even when he was there at the head of a huge army, he failed in his plan to drive the British from the continent

And it took the French forces who were at times, up to 5 times the size of the British army, six years and to fail (there's that word again that comes up frequently when Nappy is debated )to beat them and get beaten in every major battle and to suffer the ignominy of France being invaded.

Hitler has nothing at all to do with Napoleon, so it is rather pathetic to mention him. And I don't think he would have had the opportunity to abdicate, do you? And if he knew his life could be spared, I doubt very much he would have, as you disturbingly term it, 'had the decency' to shoot himself.

When it comes to comparisons, It's not for you or anyone else to tell me or others who we can compare Nappy to. That you don't like it is a normal reaction of a Nappy lover with a Suzi Seitz fixation

But old Adolf stayed till the bitter end when he could have been spirited away whereas Nappy ran away (more than once) when he should have stayed.

I find it more disturbing that you take umbrage to my posting that Hitler ‘had the decency to shoot himself'.

All Nappy ever did was to attempt suicide but end up with the guts ache. In those days, It wasn't unusual for those who lost everything, to end it all. Nappy even failed at that.

Yes, I agree, Russia was a failure. But after such a failure and heavy losses, the allies still struggled for a further two years to defeat him.

It's a natural phenomenon like when people who are dying rally before the inevitable.

Alexander, Frederick, Alfred and all the other greats are not demoted. What an absurd statement to make. The great family of greats have been extended by the inclusion of Napoleon.

I didn't say that those actual greats were demoted and you know it! But they would be if Nappy 'the greatest failure since Charles the Bold' was included

Dear oh dear, how blinkered you are dibble.

So much better than being led around by the bridle.

ps: yes, Copenhagen was very successful. It turned a neutral country into an enemy and involved a deliberate terror attack against civilians. And by the way, the terror term is not looking at it with a modern viewpoint, that was the intention of the British in 1807. They wanted to terrorise the civilians into forcing their military to surrender, which worked, so yes, on that basis, it was a success.

The raid on Copenhagen was very insignificant in comparison to what Nappy and his pixies unleashed on Europe and north Africa in the republican and 11 years of his despotic, tyrannical reign.

Paul :)

A raid that lasts three weeks on the ground? How about three months? The Chindits. You did acknowledge and indeed lecture on the topic of lengthy raids in this thread, when they were pointed out to you: TMP link

Why can't a siege operation be part of a larger expedition (in pre-railway and motorised eras particularly), i.e. a raid, especially when we have a definition that sums up British aims?

‘Although raids also divert the enemy, they are primarily sudden attacks intended to destroy resources or disrupt lines of communications. In raids, there is no intention of holding the attacked position.'

The British turned up (not entirely out of the blue, but suddenly), fought a battle and after a short siege and bombardment nullified an identified threat. That they were left unmolested, with time to remove the Danish ships and stores rather than sinking or burning them, is neither here nor there.

If you still insist, then the unsuccessful Viking siege of Paris 885-886, part of a raid on the Seine. :)

You did start to then adding in 'characteristics' of raids and included mobility. I would say the use of the British fleet to transport the required forces is an excellent example of mobility.

I didn't state that the Copenhagen operation was not a success.
But you did.

Yes you did!

To re-quote you and to make you feel better:

I posted:

The raid on Copenhagen was a success militarily regardless.

You posted:

If you're referring to the 1801 operation you are correct. If you are referring to the 1807 attack and siege of Copenhagen then you are wrong.
This has already been succinctly demonstrated on this forum and the British themselves called it a siege.

I stated you were wrong because you insist it was a raid when it was not.

But it's you that is wrong Kevin.

It was a siege, not a raid, both for how the operation was conducted and how long it took. I find it incredible that you believe a siege can also be a raid.

And it is too bad on your part that you cannot post material without being both disingenuous and insulting. That is pathetic.

If you're referring to the 1801 operation you are correct. If you are referring to the 1807 attack and siege of Copenhagen then you are wrong.
This has already been succinctly demonstrated on this forum and the British themselves called it a siege.

which still reads that I was wrong to call the 1807 raid a military success. But it was a raid also

Oh! and it seems that Edward of Woodstock, Prince of Wales, could siege Romorantin and Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester could take in a siege of Nantes during their raids.

And like Charles William Pasley RE, they didn't call them raids either but they ,like Paisly, would have remarked that what they were doing was embarking on a siege. (even though they were doing so during a raid)

Paul :)

In an attempt to add something to knowledge of the era, rather than merely re-treading past ground, I did actually email the author of the website which dibble linked to last year, to ask about the discrepancy between the official Danish figures and those quoted by Munch-Petersen and others.

Henrik was extremely helpful, identifying the accuracy of Danish sources which he listed on the site, which were published in a Danish journal in 2007 by Michael Jelsdorf: "Hospital Emergency and medical care during the siege in 1807" from "Krigshistorisk Tidsskrift" 2007 (Journal of War History).

This data is based on the original work of Danish surgeon Heinrich Callisen, who listed the casualties in his book "Physisk-Medizinske Betragtninger over Kiøbenhavn" from 1807 ("Physical-Medical Reflections on Copenhagen").

Henrik did point out that it may have been in the interests of certain Danes to exaggerate how 'devastating and scandalous' (his words) the bombardment was, but feels that this wasn't actually the case (on the website he lists damage from one of the 18th century fires which was far more destructive). He merely points out that Munch-Petersen had used different sources (yet apparently listed Henrik's own journal entries in his select bibliography), which given that the journal came out in 2007, as did the book, could explain it.

I would recommend a look at this PDF link as even if you don't speak Danish, there is a nice picture of one of the Danish gunboats that they were forced to rely on.

Interestingly, he notes that although Denmark lost out financially due to no longer being involved in the slave trade, a 'Golden Age' of culture came about, leading eventually to constitutional change and the removal of a 'despotic' king from political life.

I was unable to ask Dr Munch-Peterson if he would revise his casualty figures in the light of the journal's publication, as unfortunately he died in February.

Ah, the Brechtel has re-booted.

I discovered earlier this year that I could just click and paste bits of his writing and find it – unaltered and unvarying – all over the internet in scores of arguments across a number of forums for more than a decade. It is essentially just the same four dozen sentences, repeated ad nauseam, utterly invulnerable to any sort of factual correction.

So let me get this straight Brechtel. You posted a quote from a source (Van Loon) which you did not read, but only posted because it was supposedly an idolization of your fantasy. Then you rad the source, saw it was out of context and then you condemned the source you yourself quoted.

Yes, Essential Brechtel. Like this thread:

TMP link

…in which he refuses to admit that Napoleon took away the rights of Jews with the Infamous Decrees, he Huffs and Puffs and Insults and Bloviates and does the usual: "You ought to read some real books, like A, B, and C…"

— So Garth reads them. They clearly show that Napoleon took away the rights of Jews with the Infamous Decrees. Garth cites pages in the very books that Brechtel just recommended.

Brechtel switches to: "Well, we need to look at why Napoleon did that…" and immediately has two or three fictional excuses and justifications at the ready…. to justify something that one day earlier he was refusing to admit had ever happened.

In my profession such charlatanism would end a career. Why anybody would consider such a person to be a reliable expert on any topic is beyond me.

(Cue the pedantic retort about the meaning of the word "charlatan" in 4…3…2…1…)

Dear Garth in the Park

Yes, you have diagrammed "the act" down to each motion. Once you've seen it once, you've seen it all. It's like Newspeak in 1984, no matter how much idolized yesterday, once the mistake is found the historical record is ignored and rewritten to the pleasure of Big Brother Napoleon, along with comments not seen in scholarly debate since, oh, the show-trials of the Great Purge of 1939.

I should stop replying but I confess to a bit of schadenfreude, and … it's so easy!

I remember the maxims of my grad school studies for the PhD. They emphasized that to be a historian at all you have to examine ALL the sources and ALL the arguments both favorable and unfavorable. As a Director of Planning, woe betide the person who came forward with an idea that was a shoddily supported or done so in the manner we discuss.

Vischinksy… that's the name I was searching for. He's the prosecutor at the show trials of the Soviet Union.

Anyway, I'm done with him. There's no point talking to him, only talking at him.

I would like to continue the 'discussion' with all four of you but that would be akin to engaging in a battle

'House!'

ottathome

I found your last post very sad. You appear to think life and history, and in this case, the Napoleonic Period, is all black and white, the goodies and the baddies, and if someone is a baddy in your opinion, you really believe those who think otherwise are monstrous. That is utterly absurd and suggests you deliberately ignore the reality of history and events completely, because that would make life, the historical events, and the historical characters complex, and to accept that would obviously mean having to challenge your own viewpoints.

Anyway, although I respect other people's viewpoints, I have little respect for those who pathetically attempt to match Napoleon with Hitler. That shows a lack of knowledge, if not pure ignorance on their behalf. But that is the way people are, so I accept they are out there and will voice their biased and bigoted viewpoints whenever they can. That's life.

In short, I think Napoleon is great, you don't. So what? Get over it man! Life is too short.

Ben Avery

The British military may well have been fooled into thinking they were undertaking a quick 'raid' in which they would 'quickly' capture the 'seaworthy' Danish ships and sail away, possibly without a shot being fired because the neutral Danes would not dare resist such a large military force, and especially such a large 'raiding party' that consisted of a massive fleet, well over 20,000 troops, infantry and cavalry, plus a massive number of field and SIEGE guns. But as you know, the reality was twofold.

Firstly, hardly any of the Danish ships were seaworthy. The British 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' type of intelligence proved totally false and incorrect. So they either had to sail home with their tails between their legs or 'persuade' the Danes to hand over their fleet before either an 'enemy' relief force or winter arrived.

Secondly, the neutral Danes did resist. This meant the British knew they had to capture Copenhagen as quickly as they could, in order to remain there for the long time it would take them to make the Danish fleet seaworthy. After surrounding and laying siege to Copenhagen, they decided to undertake a terror bombardment of the civilians in order to terrify them into forcing their military to surrender, which, as we know, worked. Well done the British, eh?

There is also the fact, mentioned and proved in other various Copenhagen debates that the British government had been considering staying in Denmark. I am sure you know that means they had intentions to 'occupy' Denmark or at the very least, areas of it.

And why you keep mentioning the Chindits defeats me? They were specially trained troops undertaking guerrilla warfare against an enemy, the Japanese. They did not attack a neutral country, they did not turn that country into an enemy or make it an ally of Japan, in the same way the British 'victory' turned Denmark into an enemy and ally of the French. And I believe the guerrilla force attacking the Japanese, included Burmese troops. I don't recall the massive British military force at Copenhagen including any Danish soldiers, do you?

Gazzola, I mention the Chindits because they are a 20th century example of a prolonged raid. If you want to start considering several additional qualifiers now an example (one of many) has been provided, perhaps you should share it with Kevin before he posts. Otherwise it gives the impression that you're moving the goalposts.

As for the 'government' intentions you have indeed raised (yet again) an intriguing point. On the one hand you congratulate French intrigue for causing Britain to act precipitously, yet at the same time continue to maintain that Britain has an intrigue of its own, namely the intention to maintain forces in Denmark. I'm not sure how both can really be true, particularly when it was not shared with commanders before they were dispatched and no orders were given for occupation.

An intrigue which is not yet proven. These 'intentions' are indeed so firm that asking the questions such as 'is it possible to maintain forces in Zealand?' aren't asked by Canning until the force is at sea. Note, questions, rather than orders.

Letters from a couple of ministers (and nothing from cabinet or the prime ministers) after the mission do not constitute 'government' intentions to me, but rather opportunistic thinking by a man who even had designs on the Russian fleet after the success at Copenhagen. If he truly had convinced the cabinet that staying was a good idea, why were the original orders not superseded before the capture of Copenhagen, or indeed after the treaty had been signed? After its actions against an originally neutral country, I'm sure that suddenly insisting on a garrison after the treaty couldn't do that much more harm to Britain's reputation?

It would seem on the evidence provided thus far that *some* British politicians had ideas of 'mission creep' and do indeed looked for justification but that wiser counsel prevailed in cabinet. Otherwise, surely orders would have been changed and if necessary, commanders replaced.

Canning was not in command of the raid. The commanders were given orders, they followed them and withdrew.

dibble

Nice to see you admitting they were still so afraid of the 'has-been', as you termed him, that they had to stick him on a remote island. A 'has-been' that can still scare the hell out of the allies, amazing, eh? And he was also a 'has-been' that had a period of history named after him.

Your excuse for your silly error of 11 years is hysterical. You made a mistake, admit it. No one will think the worse of you, well, I don't think they will. LOL

So obviously you don't think amazing historical characters like Hannibal are great because they lost in the end. I am surprised by that.

'Never drove the British out of Spain'. What an absurd and ignorant statement to make! I can't believe you have said it. Have you never heard of the British army jumping on their ships and sailing away (from Spain) as quickly as they could after the battle of Corunna 1809? They ran. They had to. Admit it. But if you don't believe me, how about the historian Philip Haythornthwaite-'In four or five days the fleet carried home about 26,000 men of Moore's army….' (page 87; Corunna 1809 Osprey Campaign 83) In case you are still confused, 'home', means Britain?

Please point out where I said you should not compare Napoleon to Hitler. You are free to compare anyone with anyone. What I said was I think it is pathetic to do so, and I still do. And 'old Adolf' as you termed him, which makes him sound like an old friend, had to stay. I doubt he could have been 'spirited' away, as you put it. And, as to your other questionable terminology 'had the decency to shoot himself', no, Hitler shot himself out of fear not decency.

Wow, you do realise by saying that what the British did at Copenhagen 'was very insignificant' when compared to everything else that happened during the period, is an admittance that what they did was bad and wrong, but to you, just 'insignificant' in the greater scheme of things. That is really hilarious.

I don't think I have to say anymore. LOL

Gazzola,

The basic issue as I see it is that some cannot believe that others would admire the Emperor and the Grande Armee and don't rely on period propaganda (British and allied), personal prejudice, and quite simply poor material to support that view.

Instead of attempting to contradict opposing views, the quartet above instead make personal attacks on the knowledge, abilities, and character of those that oppose them. That is nonsense and is both stupid and ahistorical.

And it seems to me that material posted is deliberately misrepresented by such as the quartet in order to prove whatever point they are trying to make. And if they are disagreed with they immediately accuse those with whom they disagree of conducting personal attacks when it is they who are doing it. One has only to review the threads to see who usually begins the too-often posted streams of personal abuse.

It is very easy to make fun of and denigrate others from behind the safety of a keyboard and I would be willing to bet that those that do haven't the character to do so in person.

Gazzola

I don't think I have to say anymore.

At last! You are thinking before posting. Shame it came at the end of the post.

Where you get your Ideas on the Peninsula wars I don't know. But it seems that what you think about the campaign makes you feel good, a sort of comfort blanket, so I won't deprive you of it. Philip Haythornthwaite is an Excellent starting point though.

I suggest you have a read of sir John Cradock and his command of the army between January and April 1809 and the fact that he had a rather active roll to play and always kept a British military presence in Spain, by garrison and maneuver. Poor Cradock, a terribly overlooked commander both in his own time and in history.

If I made any mistakes in my posts above, I would be sure to let you know. I haven't so I won't.

And you do realise that I have never ever said that the raid was anything other than what it was. My thoughts on it have always been of not being happy with yet another silly expedition to the continent and I have never felt comfortable about it. But in the end it was a raid and it did succeed militarily.

As for Hitler and Nappy, It shows in your last post and in others what you think which is damning enough thank you!

I do so hope you are still 'thinking'

Paul :)

"Instead of attempting to contradict opposing views, the quartet above instead make personal attacks on the knowledge, abilities, and character of those that oppose them. That is nonsense and is both stupid and ahistorical.

So, to be clear, the following "personal attacks on the knowledge, abilities, and character of those that oppose" are bad, right?

That is the nature of your basic problem on this and other forums. You're not historical in any way, but merely someone who lacks the ability to formulate a logical argument in anything akin to a civil manner.

So your assertion that the wars were Napoleon's fault is ludicrous…. both ahistorical and nothing but psychobabble.

You speak in platitudes and psychobabble and apparently have not studied the period from both sides. Otherwise your rants and diatribes might be much more balanced.

Perhaps you ought to stick with what you know. Why do you insist on being a marplot?

You've been jumping up and down and screaming about the subject but have not supported your contention at all. You should actually do some research, read the references tendered, and at least attempt to be civil. You used to be an excellent poster, but all I see now is a marplot.

All you are doing is engaging in the usual ad hominem nonsense that others are and have no actual desire to engage in any historic discussion.

your 'view' comes in a very poor second consistently.

You have absolutely no idea of what you're trying to convey. In short, you are incorrect yet again.

Historical inquiry is the assembly of facts and then coming to a logical conclusion based on those facts. You and a few others haven't done that and whatever 'methodology' you might be using is greatly flawed as both inaccurate and illogical.

I'll give you one guess as to who wrote all of those, and literally hundreds more like them.

I am shocked, I tell you, shocked.

Brechtel.

It is very easy to make fun of and denigrate others from behind the safety of a keyboard and I would be willing to bet that those that do haven't the character to do so in person.

If you would like to come over and see me to thrash out a few problems then I would be only too pleased to oblige you. Unless that is, you wish to pick your one-on-one from a huge cast of which you have lots to choose from. But like I say, I'm game. It will lay to bed your nasty ideas of the size of my library and my knowledge of the subjects in which I partake on these forums, and if you have other motives for visiting me, I will again, be be most obliging.

And just an add-item. You asked for examples of sieges during raids. I and others have given them, mine are just a few examples, but I'm sure that if you look beyond Nappy and delve a lot more in European and middle eastern warfare, you will find other examples.

PS A raid can only be conducted at the speed of the fastest computer, fastest jet, fastest aeroplane/helicopter, fastest ship, fastest vehicle, fastest horse or fastest man. The ability to launch raids faster than by ship have only been feasible over the past 175 years.

Paul :)

up so far I was under the impression that
propganda made Napoléon great, I have to revise, seemingly more than enough people looking through this, he failed here as well, exceptions proove the rule.

"Instead of attempting to contradict opposing views, the quartet above instead make personal attacks on the knowledge, abilities, and character of those that oppose them. That is nonsense and is both stupid and ahistorical.
So, to be clear, the following "personal attacks on the knowledge, abilities, and character of those that oppose" are bad, right?

That is the nature of your basic problem on this and other forums. You're not historical in any way, but merely someone who lacks the ability to formulate a logical argument in anything akin to a civil manner.

So your assertion that the wars were Napoleon's fault is ludicrous…. both ahistorical and nothing but psychobabble.
You speak in platitudes and psychobabble and apparently have not studied the period from both sides. Otherwise your rants and diatribes might be much more balanced.
Perhaps you ought to stick with what you know. Why do you insist on being a marplot?
You've been jumping up and down and screaming about the subject but have not supported your contention at all. You should actually do some research, read the references tendered, and at least attempt to be civil. You used to be an excellent poster, but all I see now is a marplot.
All you are doing is engaging in the usual ad hominem nonsense that others are and have no actual desire to engage in any historic discussion.
your 'view' comes in a very poor second consistently.
You have absolutely no idea of what you're trying to convey. In short, you are incorrect yet again.
Historical inquiry is the assembly of facts and then coming to a logical conclusion based on those facts. You and a few others haven't done that and whatever 'methodology' you might be using is greatly flawed as both inaccurate and illogical.
I'll give you one guess as to who wrote all of those, and literally hundreds more like them.

Perhaps you can adjudicate where the following came from? Glass houses, etc.:

Far be it from me to argue with someone happy in his dream world.

Not at all Brechtel. I don't have to support a historical argument to effectiveness but the moral bankruptcy and to the most casual and uninformed obseerver. You are the one who has to prove his achievements dwarf his morally evil nature, which of course, is impossible

You're not a fan of historical references when they don't tell you what you want to hear. I've learned from experience not to bother.

Throughout all of it, you respond to every challenge with insults and rudeness. What is to be gained from engaging with you? And who in his right mind would bother trying to persuade you with facts?

Go on, push the complaint button again, and then piously claim that you never do. (And then another round of platitudes on what a "shame" and "pity" it is that others are so rude…)

You idolize and adore, worship and grovel at the feet of, as Van Loon said and you quoted "A most contemptable person."

Fawners gotta fawn. You do that very well. I feel very sorry for you.

Idolisers gotta idolise. You do that very well. I feel very sorry for you.

Being branded a hater by the likes of you is high praise indeed.

People who have monstrous opinions do not deserve respect "just because." By your logic I should respect Adolf Hitler's opinions and those who think he was a great man too.

I have no compulsion to be generous and respectful of reprehensible people, or those who make bloody murderers their heroes.

In fact, they deserve nothing but contempt. If you hold an iditotic opinion you are an idiot. If you lionize and adore bloody tyrants and make excuses for them you are a person with as little moral sensibilities as they and in fact want to be just like them. Any excellence of their achievements is vacated by the fact that these achievements were made in the service of evil and in harming and destroying their fellow man.

To your deluded and warped idea's it may have but unfortunately for you, not to others.

This makes all your bloviation and fetish about sources quite whimsical and buffonesque.

As I said before, you are your own caricature.

You have a habit of being wrong so this one is just another of your 'par for the course' episodes.

I suppose that in your Nappy parallel existence your alternate spin should be expected.

I appreciate it serves as a way to take threads on the topic of Bonaparte of on a tangent when you don't like the way they're going.

You were either demonstrating breathtaking ignorance, for someone who claims to have a good understanding of military history, or disingenuous.

And you have a habit of being wrong so this one is just another of your 'par for the course' episodes.

I counter the diatribe and base rudness you espouse.
This is your problem. You expect to pay out without receiving the same coin.

I discovered earlier this year that I could just click and paste bits of his writing and find it – unaltered and unvarying – all over the internet in scores of arguments across a number of forums for more than a decade. It is essentially just the same four dozen sentences, repeated ad nauseam, utterly invulnerable to any sort of factual correction.

Brechtel Huffs and Puffs and Insults and Bloviates and switches to: "Well, we need to look at why Napoleon did that…" and immediately has two or three fictional excuses and justifications at the ready…. to justify something that one day earlier he was refusing to admit had ever happened.
In my profession such charlatanism would end a career. Why anybody would consider such a person to be a reliable expert on any topic is beyond me.

Yes, you have diagrammed "the act" down to each motion. Once you've seen it once, you've seen it all. It's like Newspeak in 1984, no matter how much idolized yesterday, once the mistake is found the historical record is ignored and rewritten to the pleasure of Big Brother Napoleon, along with comments not seen in scholarly debate since, oh, the show-trials of the Great Purge of 1939.

There's no point talking to him, only talking at him.

The term hypocrite comes to mind as does the old comparison of whose dog is bigger.

42Flanker,

There's actually a better one that I found when in the Marine Corps:

'Arguing with some is akin to wrestling with a pig-you both get dirty and the pig loves it.'

I would submit that if I were more of an admirer of Wellington and the British and did nothing but concentrate on denigrating Napoleon and the French, as is done here more often than not, I would receive little, if any, criticism.