"Walcheren to Waterloo: The British Army in the Low...." Topic
7 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please avoid recent politics on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Media Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
|
Tango01 | 14 Mar 2018 10:14 p.m. PST |
…. Countries during French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars 1793–1815 "The military success achieved by the Duke of Wellington casts a long shadow over the history of the British army in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. The popular account of Britain's military record in the great struggle against Napoleonic France is chiefly one of glorious victories, with Britain cast as the saviour of Europe from the Corsican 'monster'. Most British historians have focused on retelling stories of British success, notably Wellington's, in Spain, Portugal and during the Hundred Days campaign and tend to pay little attention to British military defeats. But is the focus on Wellington's successes really an appropriate way to understand the performance of the British army in a conflict which lasted over twenty years? And what about the army's poor record in the Low Countries, where it suffered defeats and sustained crippling losses during the same period? In this perceptive and highly readable study Andrew Limm answers these questions and provides a more balanced account of the British contribution to the downfall of Napoleon." Main page link Amicalement Armand |
Artilleryman | 15 Mar 2018 2:15 a.m. PST |
Interesting history. Just shows that even in the high days of the British Army's achievements, especially in 1814, it could still all be a complete cock-up (a la New Orleans). Makes you appreciate the influence of the great Duke. |
Brechtel198 | 15 Mar 2018 6:45 a.m. PST |
Apparently, the British Army didn't do well if Wellington wasn't present. |
Michael Westman | 15 Mar 2018 8:35 a.m. PST |
Most armies didn't do well when the subordinates were in charge. Not necessarily picking on the French, but Spain and Germany in 1813 revealed the same problem. It's probably the best testimony to the "great" generals like Napoleon and Wellington. |
Tango01 | 15 Mar 2018 10:31 a.m. PST |
Glad you enjoyed it my friend!. (smile) Suchet did well alone… (smile)
Amicalement Armand |
Fatuus Natural | 18 Mar 2018 3:01 a.m. PST |
Apparently, the British Army didn't do well if Wellington wasn't present. Rise above it, Kevin. You don't have to turn every napoleonic thread into an anti-British whine. You can beat this obsession. I'm sure you're a bigger man than this. |
Supercilius Maximus | 18 Mar 2018 12:48 p.m. PST |
Apparently, the British Army didn't do well if Wellington wasn't present. Really? Perhaps you should read up on these – other than the three marked * (where he was only a subordinate commander) he was absent from all of them:- Third Anglo-Mysorean War, 1789-1792 Capture of Cape Colony and Ceylon, 1795 Irish Rebellion, 1798 * Fourth Anglo-Mysorean War, 1798-1799 Egypt, 1801 * Second Anglo-Maratha War, 1803-1805 West Indies, 1804-1810 Sicily, 1806 South Africa, 1806 * Copenhagen, 1807 Indian Ocean, 1809-1811 I'm sure if we looked at campaigns where defeat was due primarily to an ally collapsing, or weather/illness, rather than any military incompetence by a British commander, we could come up with some more where the British Army actually did quite well, despite the absence of the greatest Irishman in British history. |
|