Tango01 | 19 Oct 2019 12:54 p.m. PST |
"To some Napoleon Bonaparte was one of the greatest military geniuses of all time. He used the French Army (and those of allies) to spread the French revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity across Europe. His vision was of a united Europe, under the hegemony of France. To others he was a bloodthirsty tyrant, mad with conquest, who simply wanted to rule the world. From the late 1790s to 1815, with only brief periods of peace, Europe, the Indian subcontinent, and the waters of the Caribbean were theaters of war between his French Empire and the coalitions formed to defeat it, financially and militarily backed by Great Britain. The combined wars against Napoleon were known in European history as the Great War until another usurped that title a century later. During those conflicts, innovations in warfare occurred within the contending armies, navies, and in the governments which sent them to the field or to sea. Some were immediately adopted, others were set aside to be further developed until they became assets in later wars…" Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
4th Cuirassier | 19 Oct 2019 2:36 p.m. PST |
Yes, yes. Never mind all that. Who had the second-best artillery system of the era? |
ConnaughtRanger | 19 Oct 2019 4:27 p.m. PST |
Not sure anything the French Navy of the period did was innovative and became an asset in later wars? The casual disregard for the lives of one's own troops did eventually resurface in the "human wave" attacks in the Korean War and the Iran-Iraq war? |
SHaT1984 | 19 Oct 2019 4:40 p.m. PST |
Trite, populist rubbish posted to grab as much advertising trolling as possible. Should be taken down from here! With all the bugs and embeds I had to refuse, non-related and poor graphics its a pseudo-science mish-mash of no worth whatsoever, unless you're an alien visitor boning up on redundant historical achievements. Another 5 minutes of life wasted I could have been painting… d |
Stoppage | 19 Oct 2019 5:18 p.m. PST |
@shat Dark horizons Moody sunsets Tumbleweeds… Thoughts. |
Whirlwind | 19 Oct 2019 10:25 p.m. PST |
He used the French Army (and those of allies) to spread the French revolutionary ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity across Europe. One can stop reading at this point, since he demonstrably did no such thing. |
42flanker | 20 Oct 2019 2:21 a.m. PST |
war between his French Empire and the coalitions formed to defeat it, financially and militarily backed by Great Britain. How could 'Great Britain' be the backer of coalitions in which it was a partner? |
Brechtel198 | 20 Oct 2019 4:05 p.m. PST |
Keep up the good work, Armand. It could help those who are just beginning in the hobby and could lead to more research. |
Brechtel198 | 20 Oct 2019 4:06 p.m. PST |
How could 'Great Britain' be the backer of coalitions in which it was a partner? If you read Guineas and Gunpowder that would answer your query. |
Au pas de Charge | 20 Oct 2019 7:26 p.m. PST |
Tango, can you find an article about why some wargamers get so angry at anything French or Napoleonic? One would think it is personal. |
Tango01 | 20 Oct 2019 11:34 p.m. PST |
Thanks my friend Kevin! (smile) It's pesonal MiniPigs… no doubt of that… (smile)
Amicalement Armand
|
42flanker | 21 Oct 2019 2:23 a.m. PST |
<q<How could 'Great Britain' be the backer of coalitions in which it was a partner? If you read Guineas and Gunpowder that would answer your query. Perhaps, if there is a section dealing with logical contradictiona. |
Stoppage | 21 Oct 2019 2:55 a.m. PST |
i agree… Keep up the good work, Armand. It could help those who are just beginning in the hobby and could lead to more research. |
Tango01 | 21 Oct 2019 12:10 p.m. PST |
Thanks!. Amicalement Armand |
Brechtel198 | 21 Oct 2019 1:03 p.m. PST |
Tango, can you find an article about why some wargamers get so angry at anything French or Napoleonic? One would think it is personal. I would say it is. And those who get so angry cannot stand it when anyone admires the Grande Armee and/or Napoleon. They get equally upset when Great Britain is criticized. |
Brechtel198 | 21 Oct 2019 1:18 p.m. PST |
Perhaps, if there is a section dealing with logical contradictiona. Perhaps this will help: From Guineas and Gunpowder: British Foreign Aid in the Wars with France, 1793-1815 by John Sherwig: 'During the final year of the war, Britain spent L10,000,000 on her allies in a massive aid program which would have astounded Pitt. Nor was this all. In 1808 the British aid program took on a different character when arms and supplies, in addition to money, were sent to support the Spanish and Portuguese uprisings. Four years later, the other European powers rose against France and looked to Britain for weapons as well as subsidies.'-4. '…of more blood is to be shed, it should be other than English blood.'-8.-taken from Parliamentary History, XXXIV, 1045. '…In 1793 the combined armies of all France's opponents numbered about 350,000 men; during the climactic campaign of 1814, Russia and the German powers alone threw nearly twice that many troops against Napoleon. Without British aid in money and arms, this tremendous expansion of the allied war effort would scarcely have been possible.' 'The economic weakness of the continental powers in 1793 made their war with France less of an unequal struggle than it appeared. Prussia was on the verge of bankruptcy, while Austria had to borrow heavily abroad to meet her current expenses. Thanks to Catherine the Great's wars with Turkey, Russia's economic health was even worse than her neighbors'. The Tsarina staved off disaster only by massive loans from Dutch bankers and by flooding her country with paper money.'-11. Like I have said previously, Great Britain was the coalitions' paymaster. |
von Winterfeldt | 21 Oct 2019 1:49 p.m. PST |
Without British aid in money and arms, this tremendous expansion of the allied war effort would scarcely have been possible.' That made Britian such a valuable ally – not a blood sucker like Boney, – of course one should not forget without the British Army and Navy as well. It was an Allied victory and all allies played their part in this victory. |
42flanker | 21 Oct 2019 9:47 p.m. PST |
Perhaps this will help Brechtel, as before, you miss the point. |
foxweasel | 22 Oct 2019 12:06 a.m. PST |
They get equally upset when Great Britain is criticized. Pot/kettle, you get even more upset when the Corsican tyrant is criticised. The rubbish you spouted when I compared him to Hitler was unbelievable, if you can't see the similarities you must have massive blinkers. Let's see Western European Dictator- tick Conquered most of Europe – tick Defeated by the Russian winter despite seeing Moscow – tick Defeated in Africa – tick Desperate to invade Britain – tick Ultimately defeated by a coalition – tick There's plenty more. |
foxweasel | 22 Oct 2019 1:18 a.m. PST |
Sorry forgot to add. Died a pathetic squalid death directly due to fantasies about national superiority and world domination – tick Side of choice for lots of wargamers, generally due to nicer uniforms – tick |
Stoppage | 22 Oct 2019 4:40 a.m. PST |
@foxweasel Congratulations you've gibson-ned this thread. |
Au pas de Charge | 22 Oct 2019 6:45 a.m. PST |
Oh i see, Napoleon was plus Hitler que Hitler? Lol Boo hoo hoo, Napoleon was Hitler, that's why we hate him and here is the highly selective proof. Let's see who else can play this super intellectual game. Reasons why the British Empire and monarchy were the same as the nazis: 1. Enslavement and mass murder of vast numbers of non white or subject peoples 2. Exploiting resources of other countries to enrich their own people 3. Colonzation of other countries as liebensraum 4. Megalomaniacal or mentally ill monarchs 5. Racial laws enacted to create categories of human worth 6. Defeated in Africa 7. Great uniforms for wargamers No world domination to see here. They didnt invade Russia though…thank god Next time, we can compare the British Empire to the mongol hordes… |
foxweasel | 22 Oct 2019 8:37 a.m. PST |
Reasons why the American Empire was the same as the nazis:
1. Enslavement and mass murder of vast numbers of non white or subject peoples2. Exploiting resources of other countries to enrich their own people 3. Colonzation of other countries as liebensraum 4. Megalomaniacal or mentally ill monarchs 5. Racial laws enacted to create categories of human worth 6. Defeated in Africa 7. Great uniforms for wargamers No world domination to see here. They didnt invade Russia though…thank god I could play your boring game all day. Sorry, No 7 should read "dull uniforms for wargamers" |
Au pas de Charge | 22 Oct 2019 10:17 a.m. PST |
Reasons why the British Empire was the same as the Mongols: 1. Both loved to ride horses 2. Both Bent on world domination 3. Both wore fur on their military outfits 4. Both love boiled beef 4. Neither could comprehend irony |
Stoppage | 22 Oct 2019 10:22 a.m. PST |
I'm pretty sure the Brits invaded Northern Russia to support the Whites in 1919. |
Whirlwind | 22 Oct 2019 10:38 a.m. PST |
I'm pretty sure the Brits invaded Northern Russia to support the Whites in 1919. The Americans were there too. And in Vladivostok. |
Gunfreak | 22 Oct 2019 10:43 a.m. PST |
Defeated by the Russian winter despite seeing Moscow – tick Except Russian winter had nothing to do with it. By the time winter set in 80 to 90% of the army was already gone. It was De Tolly's strategic plan that defeated Napoleon |
foxweasel | 22 Oct 2019 10:52 a.m. PST |
Defeated by the Russian winter despite seeing Moscow – tick Except Russian winter had nothing to do with it. By the time winter set in 80 to 90% of the army was already gone. It was De Tolly's strategic plan that defeated Napoleon Fine, defeated by the Russians – tick |
foxweasel | 22 Oct 2019 11:22 a.m. PST |
The problem with these topics (not that it's a real problem, I find them highly amusing) is that most Americans can't accept the fact that most British people see Napoleon as the enemy. This is understandable as France has generally been onside with the States, it could even be argued that it helped create the USA. Even though it was in the distant past and 80 years ago, America hasn't been threatened with annihilation by European dictatorships. To most of us, apart from the holocaust, Bonaparte/Hitler Potato/Potatoe. |
Tango01 | 22 Oct 2019 11:36 a.m. PST |
Spicy thread…. Amicalement Armand |
Au pas de Charge | 22 Oct 2019 1:02 p.m. PST |
4. Both love boiled beef 4. Neither could comprehend irony Two 4's, getting a bit excited aren't you in your hatred of the British.
4A and 4B. Lol, I dont think you even know what's taking place here. Do you have any idea what "irony" means? It proves I dont dislike the British but I think it shows you have a problem with Americans. Oh and 5, Both the British and the Mongols used bows. |
foxweasel | 22 Oct 2019 1:23 p.m. PST |
Lol, I dont think you even know what's taking place here. I do, you think you're being clever. Do you have any idea what "irony" means? Yes. It proves I dont dislike the British but I think it shows you have a problem with Americans. It proves nothing of the sort, if you'd read my last post you'd see I have no problem with Americans. After 2 tours of Afghanistan attached to the USMC I'm the last person to accuse of being anti American. Just anti Napoleon and Hitler, you carry on with your own agenda. |
Jcfrog | 23 Oct 2019 6:22 a.m. PST |
Judgment of History by P.C. Today's standarts. Always both sad and funny. No more dictator than other monarchs of the time. Of the time is the thing. Very different from the ovens salesman: no racial doctrine, other than the normal prejudice of the time ( though he everywhere took off special anti Jews laws for ex.), no doctrine of destroying peoples. Sure megalo, calous at times, etc. |
Brechtel198 | 28 Oct 2019 5:33 a.m. PST |
Pot/kettle, you get even more upset when the Corsican tyrant is criticised. The rubbish you spouted when I compared him to Hitler was unbelievable, if you can't see the similarities you must have massive blinkers. Let's see Western European Dictator- tick Conquered most of Europe – tick Defeated by the Russian winter despite seeing Moscow – tick Defeated in Africa – tick Desperate to invade Britain – tick Ultimately defeated by a coalition – tick There's plenty more. The rubbish being 'spouted' is above. Perhaps this will help you: As for any comparisons between Napoleon and Hitler, intended to tarnish Napoleon's character and rule, the following from a noted Napoleonic scholar is submitted: From The Mind of Napoleon by JC Herold, xxxviii-xxxix: ‘Certain external and by no means accidental similarities between Napoleon's career and that of Hitler have blinded some men to the far more significant contrasts. Unlike Napoleon, Hitler is likely to go down in history as another Attila or Jenghiz Khan. Hitler destroyed the law; Napoleon was a lawgiver whose code spread across continents. That difference alone should be enough to discourage comparison. Hitler was a maniacal crank with an ideology; Napoleon, sane and self-controlled, despised ideologies. Hitler appealed to hatred; Napoleon, to honor. Hitler extolled that dark, instinctual monster which he called the People and which Taine had called the Gorilla; Napoleon had seen the monster in action during the Reign of Terror, and he preferred to perish rather than invoke its power. Napoleon, when he began his career, embodied the hopes of sane and noble minds (not least among them Beethoven's); Hitler began and ended surrounded by a handful of psychopaths. But why insist on the contrast? Perhaps there is no difference between them but the difference between the Age of Reason and the Age of Hatred. It's a substantial difference.' The comparison you're attempting, and failing, to make does nothing but insult Napoleon and is a great compliment to Hitler. Is that what you're attempting to do? For further information, perhaps the following will be helpful: -Napoleon guaranteed basic civil rights. -Napoleon guaranteed religious freedom. -Napoleon ensured basic civil rights and religious freedom were guaranteed to Jews. -Napoleon governed by the rule of law. -Napoleon was not an ideologue. -Napoleon was not a tyrant. -Napoleon did not employ or sanction government-sponsored mass murder. -Napoleon did not employ either concentration or death camps. -Napoleon was a lawgiver. -Napoleon balanced his budgets. -Napoleon established hospitals and orphanages. -Napoleon respected religion and reestablished the Church in France. -Napoleon allowed the emigres to return to France. -Napoleon established an office to protect France's natural resources. -Napoleon established auditors to root out government corruption. To most of us, apart from the holocaust, Bonaparte/Hitler Potato/Potatoe. And the Holocaust, which you apparently are attempting to belittle or cast as insignificant, is a huge difference between Napoleon and Hitler. And it should be noted that the study and writing of history is not a democracy where 'most of us' does not count. It is accuracy determined by historical inquiry that matters, not allied/British propaganda from the period or later on the subject. And you posted no source material at all. Why is that? |
foxweasel | 28 Oct 2019 6:17 a.m. PST |
Blah blah blah I was going to reply properly, but as soon as I saw this I realised it wasn't worth the effort. Your comment about my opinions about the Holocaust is extremely insulting. To suggest I find the deaths of millions of innocent people insignificant is a shocking way of trying to score points.
To most of us, apart from the holocaust, Bonaparte/Hitler Potato/Potatoe. And the Holocaust, which you apparently are attempting to belittle or cast as insignificant, is a huge difference between Napoleon and Hitler.
|
Au pas de Charge | 28 Oct 2019 7:23 a.m. PST |
We really dont know what you think foxweasel…but you did create a checklist about why the two are similar based on very generalized characteristics. Further, you did sidestep the holocaust as if it were a trivial matter. I have seen similar convenient cut and paste comparisons by "historians" on here. You dont like Napoleon for your own personal reasons, maybe you should just admit your personal prejudice and please stop pretending he is who you want him to be. Further, Brechtel is giving you a chance to clarify your postion which you really should be thankful for. However, if you can't answer Brechtel's perfectly reasonable counter question to your somewhat aggressive but vague assertion, why not just admit it rather than feigning indignation? |
Brechtel198 | 28 Oct 2019 9:00 a.m. PST |
Your comment about my opinions about the Holocaust is extremely insulting. To suggest I find the deaths of millions of innocent people insignificant is a shocking way of trying to score points. What was insulting was your apparent matter-of-fact approach to the Holocaust along with your potato comment. That's where the problem lies. Whether or not Napoleon is liked is irrelevant. What is important is being correct as to facts. The old, tiresome, and incorrect of comparing Napoleon to Hitler is historically insulting because it is not even a close comparison. In short, it is historically incorrect and demonstrates an ignorance of Napoleon and his government. In point of fact, Napoleon was much more liberal than his fellow monarchs and his reforms show it. Was he a hard man? Sure was-to be a commander and a head of state requires it. He inherited a mess from the Revolution, particulary on the government side that was rife with corruption and abuse, and he had to reconcile the disparate political factions in France, as well as in the army, to his rule for a stable society. That is why when the marshalate was created the newly promoted marshals represented different armies. |
Asteroid X | 28 Oct 2019 4:01 p.m. PST |
Holy cow and I thought the Science board was bad! Same stuff, different board … |
Chad47 | 29 Oct 2019 3:09 a.m. PST |
"The newly promoted marshals represented different armies" Can you clarify what that means? |
von Winterfeldt | 29 Oct 2019 5:18 a.m. PST |
I cannot agree with Brechtel's assumption of Napoleon, he wasn't any better than any other petty tyrant of other nations of that time, he created a police state to extreme extends, opening letters of even trusted subordinates, because clearly suffering from paranoia and the urge to control everything, the amount of newspapers were reduced dramatically and in the end it was state controlled news of Orwell fame – he got a publisher shot – Palm only because he did not disclose his source about a pamphlet which accoding to Boney the benign, did offent the honour of French officers. I don't know of any other King or Emperor who got a non French citizen executed on such premisses, the jews are not equal to other religions and their rights were constantly reduced and the taxes increase, in other nations they were better off and much more equal than in France. Hospitals and orphanages, what is so special a lot rulers of other nations, even of small German stated did this all the time during their reign, his budgets weren't balanced at all, France was in red ruin when finally he was forced to resign in 1814, Russian officers were shocked how poorly clad and housed a lot of people in France were, even compared to their serfs. The Pope was imprisoned – when he dared to resist the will of almighty Boney. He was a man of the military to execute a military coup and later tried to establish a hereditary regime – destroying other countries and or donating Kingdoms to his brothers, regardless of their capability, in my view – he was one of the worst tyrants of his time. |
4th Cuirassier | 29 Oct 2019 6:01 a.m. PST |
I think a measure of whether a ruler is a person of integrity or a tyrant is whether they personally ordered or organised the murder of individuals and private citizens who disagreed with them politically. Napoleon doesn't look so good by that standard. As someone said of Cromwell, a great, bad man. |
ConnaughtRanger | 29 Oct 2019 6:44 a.m. PST |
"a great, bad man" The late Dr David Chandler's description of Bonaparte – and he had studied the bloke a bit. |
Garth in the Park | 29 Oct 2019 8:16 a.m. PST |
Here's a fun travel game, to keep the kids in the back seat busy on those long drives: Find any Napoleonics thread on TMP that runs to at least 40 posts. Then: find one of those that does not feature the same copy-and-pasted slogans and lists from the same person, which despite having been factually refuted and corrected countless times over the years, always reappears and ends in acrimony, insults, and dawghousing. The first to find such a thread gets to choose where we stop for lunch. |
Whirlwind | 29 Oct 2019 10:53 a.m. PST |
"The newly promoted marshals represented different armies" Can you clarify what that means? This means that the original Marshalate was (apparently, I don't know for certain this was intentional) specifically designed to include generals from all of the French armies of the Revolutionary Wars: Spain, Orient, Italy, the Rhine, the North, the West etc. |
Chad47 | 29 Oct 2019 11:36 a.m. PST |
|
ConnaughtRanger | 29 Oct 2019 3:15 p.m. PST |
"The first to find such a thread gets to choose where we stop for lunch." You obviously don't eat much? |
Asteroid X | 30 Oct 2019 7:32 p.m. PST |
If he's not eating much, it's because he's always buying lunch for his kids and has no money left over … |
Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 12:33 p.m. PST |
. Who had the second-best artillery system of the era? What criteria would you use to determine that answer? And when during the period are you referring? Further, what would your methodology be in even attempting to answer that question and what references would you use? From Ralph Willett Adye, ca 1800; the author of the Bombardier and Pocket Gunner: ‘The French system of artillery was established as far back as the year 1765, and has been rigidly adhered to through a convulsion in the country which overturned everything like order, and which even the government itself has not been able to withstand. We should, therefore, conclude that it has merit, and, though in an enemy, ought to avail ourselves of its advantages. At the formation of their system, they saw the necessity of the most exact correspondence in the most minute particulars, and so rigidly have they adhered to this principle that, though they have several arsenals, where carriages and other military machines are constructed, the different parts of a carriage may be collected from these several arsenals, in the opposite extremes of the extremities of the country, and will as well unite and form a carriage as if they were all made and fitted in the same workshop. As long as every man who fancies he has made an improvement is permitted to introduce it into our service, this cannot be the case with us.' |
Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 12:34 p.m. PST |
Not sure anything the French Navy of the period did was innovative and became an asset in later wars? The French Imperial Navy is the red-headed step-child in the study of the history of the wars of the period. One important ‘innovation' were the tests that Andreossy conducted of using shell fire against ships' hulls and Napoleon also ordered his Minister de la Marine, Denis Decres, to develop an 8-inch naval gun that could fire explosive shells. You might want to take a look at the two-volume study on the French Navy by Rif Winfield and Stephen Roberts, French Warships in the Age of Sail: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates. The first volume covers the period 1626-1786 and the second 1786-1861. Both are excellent references. |
Brechtel198 | 05 Nov 2019 1:00 p.m. PST |
Defeated by the Russian winter despite seeing Moscow – tick Except Russian winter had nothing to do with it. By the time winter set in 80 to 90% of the army was already gone. It was De Tolly's strategic plan that defeated Napoleon Do you actually know what the first strategic plan was to attempt to defeat the French invasion? It was the Drissa camp plan that was an abject failure. And even though the French had catastrophic losses by the time they reached the Berezina, they still fought their way across the river, building two trestle bridges in an assault river crossing, defeating the Russian armies of Tshitshagov and Wittgenstein and got away. Kutusov refused to engage and pursue effectively, making a remark to Yermelov that it was someone else's chance to fight Napoleon. |