"Who is better.....Napoleon or Coalition?" Topic

I'm sure that there are some opinions out there. Let's hear them. I for one have no preference..kind of like the Nazi-Soviet conflict in WW2, or the Norman Invasion. Who do you favor?

It depends on which coalition we're talking about. In 1813 the coalition was better most other times it was Napoleon.

Errrm, not quite so sure you're comparing apples with oranges here.

Anyway, thank the Lord for SI units. If I have to work anything out nowadays in BTUs per pound foot, bucket of gravle I just give up. I can't do it, so hurray for Napoleon there.

For the greater good I think it worked out okay (ish).

Cheers.

Coalitions are always a problem. There is problems of supply, political differences and great inefficiency. Napoleon lost because he was not realistic and had awoken nationalistic spirit combined with the Holy Crusade of Tsar Alexander.

Previous coalitions to 1813 fell to pieces on the Alta of self interest.

Stephen

"better" in what sense? morality? efficiency? what?

What I meant, is do you see one side as "morally" better than the other or find your self siding with one or the other?

Morally I don't see a whole lot of difference between them. Autocrats all. If I'm not mistaken, the Allies started the whole round of wars by attacking revolutionary France, did they not? (A pre-emptive war?) If so, they were the aggressors.

One can't help but admire the ability of Napoleon and several other French generals of the time, compared to their opponents from other countries, and I would prefer to play the French on the wargame table, simply because their aggressive style of warfare would be more fun to play than the defensive and/or stumbling styles of the other armies. But this has nothing to do with morals or even politics.

As an American I can refer back to how my country felt about the two sides (or specifically the French and the British) at the time, but that is little help. The U.S. was very upset with both powers for how they treated U.S. ships and U.S. citizens. That it was Britain that the US finally declared war on in 1812, not France, probably was determined mostly by the proximity of Canada, which gave us something to gain by going to war against Britain and a way to hurt it; there wasn't much we could do against France at the time. It also gave us an excuse to take Florida from Spain, which was a British ally against France (though, technically, not against the U.S.).

I find it funny when these questions arise about the "best armies" or the "best generals" and then all the ensuing escuses. All factors involved determine "the best". Why are the armies talked about the most,French napoleonic ,confederates,and the nazis the hands down losers. Total losers brought on by endless variables, but none the less "LOSERS"

Morally, about the same. The revolution may have started for good reasons, but quickly degenerated back into a dictatorship. What were the causes of the various wars? Gain and power by one or the other or both sides. But then again, are not all wars like that in some form or fashion?

To gaming, I can play any force on the board. Each has strengths and weaknesses.

I have to slightly disagree with donlowry concerning why the US choose one side or the other to go to war with in 1812. The US did fight France in the 1790, a naval war. The US history with France had been one of conflict, since we were British colonials until 1776. The French did not help us out of the goodness of their hearts. They saw a chance to stick their finger in the Brits eye, otherwise why not join us in 1775. Why? politics, not goodness.
We fought the British and Spanish because they were here, the French were not and were not going to be in North America anymore after 1803.
The causes of the war of 1812 are numerous and not the simple fare given in most college courses. Spain was unfortantely a British ally. From her territory in Florida, the British armed the Indians to strike against Alabama, Georgia etc. The Spanish only supplied them enough to slightly harass the Americans. The British went further and light the frontier into a bloody war. The Shawnee did not help by causing a Creek Civil War that spilled over and got the US involved. The Creek Civil War did not end until after the ACW! In the north, additional factors to add to the Indian situation for causes.

What a stupid question. Just like most of the questions of this ilk…..much like "Bravest man of WWII" the other day……shows a complete lack of understanding of it all, as well as a silly modern sensibility brought on by "black or white" American-style TV.

No TNP – dont be coy. Call it as you see it.

donlowry wrote: "the Allies started the whole round of wars by attacking revolutionary France, did they not?"

No the Republic started it by 'exporting the revolution', first to the Netherlands, then to Germany and Spain. The other powers fought back in self-defense.

No no no. You are both wrong.

Clearly the chicken came first.

"TNP1939 12 Aug 2005 9:12 p.m. PST

What a stupid question. Just like most of the questions of this ilk…..much like "Bravest man of WWII" the other day……shows a complete lack of understanding of it all, as well as a silly modern sensibility brought on by "black or white" American-style TV".

We got color T.V. Do the U.S still have Black and white?

When I joined T.M.P. no one told me that answering, or even reading, board questions was compulssory. If you do not like the question, stay away.

"We fought the British and Spanish because they were here, the French were not"

Isn't that what I said? As in "there wasn't much we could do against France at the time."

I recently read 1812: The War That Forged a Nation by Walter R. Borneman. Not a great book, but a pretty good overview.

I don't understand the question but whatever the question is I don't imagine it's related to the AWI.

The question is meant to be real simple:

Do you have a preference or do you take sides with either Napoleon or the Coalition?

I have never followed any discussions on this matter and was curious as to what people thought of these two sides.

donlowry and Davoust gave the kind of answers I was looking for. There are no WRONG answers. Thank you.

Morally?

Well, certainly Napoleon was 'better' than the Coalitions.

Napoleon struggled for glory and human achievement. Napoleon struggled for the destiny of mankind and to shape history.

The coalition fought for the Divine Right of Kings and through the course of the conflict had to admit to the bankruptcy of that notion.

That the Hundred Days campaign could even happen showed the ascendency of individual glory over divine right.

Napoleon pushed man's glory to greater heights and that, in the grand story of mankind's existence in this cold, dark and vast universe makes him the 'better' of the two.

"All factors involved determine 'the best'. Why are the armies talked about the most,French napoleonic ,confederates,and the nazis the hands down losers. Total losers brought on by endless variables, but none the less 'LOSERS'"

Small minded approach to history and humanity.

Spartacus was not a loser.
Hannibal was not a loser.
Napoleon was not a loser.

No matter that they were brought down in battle in the end, the place they earned in the imaginations of mankind and the heights that they rose to on the bold gambles that were their lives are not something that can ever be taken away in an afternoon on a battlefield.

Sure, it is ridiculous to ponder which was the best or better of two forces but it is equally ridiculous to suggest an answer to this ridiculous question can be found looking at score sheets of battles.

Losing a battle or war does not a 'total loser' make. Napoleon's aim was never to conquer Europe but rather was to achieve great glory. He won such a victory in that account that nothing can ever diminish it (except maybe finding out that he was in reality a 21st century history teacher for Kentucky who used a time machine).

"Napoleon pushed man's glory to greater heights" ???

Napoleon pushed his personal glory. And at what cost to his soldiers? General Sherman defined military glory as dying of the field of battle and having your named spelled wrong in the newspapers!

The whole problem is that they didn't have professional sports in those days, or even college football! So war was the "only game in town."

In the grand scheme of things, personal Glory and the Glory of man can be paved in corpses and suffering. Nobody has to apologise for the Pyramids of Egypt. All those who died at the command of Napoleon and/or the coalition would be dead by now in any case. Life and death is meaningless. The achievements of Man in all endeavours are what defines us.

Who was better is purely relative. To those who benefitted from Napoleon's rule (and conquests) N is good and morally superior. To those who suffered, Napoleon is bad and morally inferior. so to the Poles he is a hero, to the Spanish a demon.

I personally have trouble reconciling "glory" with the human suffering the quest for glory imposes on others.
The morally good rarely achieve much glory.

And your argument that they would all be dead by now anyways is a dangerous argument. Why not genocide? They will all be dead eventually. Why not slavery? Once they are dead who cares about their suffering? As I recall Charles Manson had similar views about life and death being meaningless. Your argument can be used to excuse entirely any manner of atrocity, which I find unacceptable. If you are talking *morality* then these issues have to be taken into consideration. Morality and glory too often are in direct conflict with each other.

As for Napoleon's achievements, there are many that are notable and many more that are the result of the preceding revolutionary governments far more than his own ideas and efforts. Untangling these from re-imposing monarchy on France and a number of other republics, annexing foreign peoples against their will and other "regressive" achievements of Napoleon becomes complicated and in the end Napoleon looks a lot like the folks that were fighting him. Military achievement and glory go to Napoleon, no question. But equating this to the only thing of value that defines humanity is something I have problems with.

Of course, I'm mostly just playing with the silly question.

From an existentialist viewpoint, yes, Napoleon is 'better'.

Now yes, if the question was which of the 'two' got to sit closer to a Christian God in heaven it might be a more difficult puzzle and dependent on which God Variant rule is in play.

If instead the question which is the better army to play in miniatures then again the answer is Napoleon (the French). He gets the upper hand in most scenarios and rules, has forces involved in every major battle, has a good variety of troops available, has some very nice uniforms indeed, and are available in all miniature lines. There is also much more information out there about the French than about the others so research for this army is child's play.

'There is also much more information out there about the French than about the others so research for this army is child's play.'

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. :)

The whole of Europe was full of the moraly reprehensable bleeding dry the socially repugnant. The majority were low life's so it seems best that they died in their droves, particulalry as it was the catalyst to rapide social reform and better times. I would go so far as to say that being Emperor of Europe is a bit like being King Sh-1-t of turd island.

The best bit is the legacy British and French citizens have been left with; basically they can freely insult each other in a thoroughly racial and offensive manner without any penalty at all something which would not be allowed against any other racial group in either country. Both the frogs and the occupiers of perfidious Albion are throughly delighted about this and it has been going on for so long now that an odd bond of shared experience is slowly forming between the two. Ultimately that which could not be achieved by War or politics may actually come to pass throught the medium of both verbal and graphic representations of thoroughly unfounded insults and abuse.

So thankfully neither side is any better than the other which is why Europe is, and has always been a fascinating place for the historian.

;)

[If instead the question which is the better army to play in miniatures then again the answer is Napoleon (the French). He gets the upper hand in most scenarios and rules,]

Ah, but that's why it's more fun to play the Allies. They're the underdogs. I always gravitate toward the underdog.

Yes, well it would be hard to improve on Napoleon's performance is most historical scenarios (except Waterloo!) but not hard to do better than the Allies, so to that extent, I'd have to agree with Sam. But with rules that rate the subordinate commanders' abilities, you'd usually be better off with a French army (again with the possible exception of Waterloo; I mean, Ney and Grouchy? c'mon!)

OK so, most interesting/best armies. Particularly from a wargamers point of view ?

Well if your French you have everyhing: Line; light, guards, lesser guards & elite, many different uniforms, greatest variety of troop types varied but generally good quality and so on. Biggest advantage in my opinion is abundance of good skirmishers, plenty of cavalry, well organised divisions and corps and enthusiastic conscripts.

Most of the Allies don't have this variety (a disadvantage)but they usually have one or two particular features which make them different and potent in a particular area (frequently with some defficiency making them the reverse too)

So Russians musketeers can't hit a barn door, their battalions are small and their skirmishing very limited and badly distributed but they have a vast number of guns and high morale. If you like blasting cannon and slow but forgiving infantry formations Holy Russia is for you.

Austrians have few elites and no guards and to a lesser degree poor skirmishers too but they do have some very big, tough battalions and although short of cavalry those they have are pretty good. Organisationally from 1809 you also get similar divisional set-ups to the French; easy to paint too.

Prussia is interesting late war since it's combination of good solid regulars mixed with plentiful reserves and Landwehr gives a large variety in troop qualities and uniforms it is also the most evolving too so the shortages of guns and low levels of training improve throughout the period while the French tend to decline relatively. Also excellent skirmishers, good regular cavalry and plenty of cheap rubbish to throw in too. Best of the allied command and control late war.

The minor German states principle advantage is that you can build the entire army in table top form. Some have 4 company battalions and some 6 but they all centre around a handful of infantry regiments a couple of usually light cavalry regiments and some guns. The interesting bit is that few people have them and few people recognise them.

What else, well the Saxons infanrty are thoroughly out of date although they do have grenadier battalions and some Jager later on; their cannon are also poor but they have about the best (non-guard) cavalry regiments in the world. Nice if you like that sort of thing.

Bavaria has a neat little army from a gamers point of view, with each brigade having it's own light battalion (so you don't need to lose fighting power from the battalions themselves {France} or have your lights all stuck in the same brigade {Russia}) and in 1809 for example the infantry divisions each have a cavalry brigade too; all very neat. On the other hand the troops themselves are generally not as good as their French comrades and there is little variety in troop types (although their unifrom is pretty)

So it's kind of difficult to answer that question. The allies don't form one single army so it's more a case of comparing France to each of the allied armies as above (and I know I have missed out many)

I don't think there is an answer to who was best. Best for what?