Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

truce of Poischwitz

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: truce of Poischwitz
    Posted: 01-Feb-2008 at 15:20

Originally posted by Temujin

you selectviely pick answers i gave and ignore other, for example i didn't heard you comment my list about Austria and France, which support my standpoint. also you convieniently agree what i wrote first and accidentally deleted, that the Opolchenye (~100.000) troops were demobilized, so Russia actually decreased in strenght in the given time period, despite those few new regular troops. finally, before i drop out of this nonsentical discussion with you, i recap my initial standpoint from the top 100 generals thread:


I respond 'immediately' to your incorrect statements which I know are false and / or can quickly and easily provide cites which demonstrate that your statements are false. The fact is that it is easier for you to simply type false statements 'off the top of your head' than it is for me do the research to provide the contradictory cites. To top it off, you then refuse to accept well respected historians, each of whom has published multiple books on the topic (e.g. Chandler, Connelly, Schom, Headley). Regarding what you posted about France and Austria, I didn't comment because it was practically meaningless and worthless as far as 'proving' anything about the point being discussed. You haven't given dates for all of the 'units' that you claimed were raised. Many of the dates are prior to the armistice, which means nothing. I never denied that Napoleon raised a large number of troops BEFORE the armistice. Practically his entire army had been wiped out in Russia, and obviously he raised a large number of troops early in 1813 that is what he used to fight the largely successful pre-armistice phase of the 1813 campaign. The point of the argument was about who increased their forces, and by how much, DURING the armistice. Furthermore, you failed to include any manpower figures. As I previously stated, many of 'new troops' raised during the armistice were absorbed into existing formations to bring them up to full strength. If one were to use your flawed methodology of simply 'counting' new formations and ignoring manpower, one would come to the conclusion that Germany actually gained an advantage over their opponents towards the end of WWII, on the basis of the number of new formations that they raised. I simple dismiss your claim that the only increase in Austrian forces was a single regiment of Uhlans as being ridiculous. Your point about me not responding to something that you say you deleted yourself is bizarre to say the least. If you're claiming that the Russians 'demobilized' militia that was still back in Russia and had not joined in the 'pursuit' of the French into Germany, then I say it is irrelevant as it had no effect on the forces that were actually fighting the French. If you're claiming that the Russians actually decreased the size of their forces facing the French in Germany by 100,000, then I simply say that you are making yet another false claim.

Originally posted by Temujin


Napoleon won 2 victories with heavy losses that recuired the naming of phyrric, another one might as well had gone the other way, other than that due to the lack of cavalry he wasn't able to fully exploit any victory anyways. therefore, it was not dumb to take some time to get more troops to the important front and raise new ones, which were apparently there. Austria, well, it was a spent force, it could be defeated again, and Dresden just prooved that. armistice or not, Austria could join any day and the armistice at least was some sort of gurantee they would rather join later than earlier. of course Prussia also could mobilize up, but their regular troops number was still less than half of the 1806 army and considderign the ill performance of the Austrian Landwehr and the Russian Opolchenye, the Prussian Landwehr was not considdered reliable enough to make a difference. so at this point, ignoring everything thereafter, it was a reasonable thing to do for Napoleon.


The fact that you don't seem able or willing to grasp is that France's resources were seriously drained. What you continue to ignore is that money was a major factor, not just men or horses. That France was weakened is evidenced by the fact that after his defeat at Leipzig, Napoleon was forced to 'spend' his own accumulated wealth in order to raise another army with which to defend France, because the public treasury was bankrupt from his expenditures to rebuild the army in 1813. During the armistice, Britain was involved in the 'negotiations' with Russia, Prussia and Austria and provided Russia and Prussia with large subsidies, and offered the same to Austria if they joined in the fight. Although it is true that Napoleon had been frustrated during the pre-armistice phase of the campaign in trying to win a crushing victory over the Russians and Prussians with his deficiency in cavalry playing a significant role in that failure the fact is that he had defeated his opponents on the battlefield, repeatedly and had them 'on the ropes'. The armistice allowed the Russians and Prussians to reorganize and strengthen their own forces as well as develop a better strategy for their campaign (thereafter they sought to defeat Napoleon's subordinate commanders while attempting to avoid a decisive battle against Napoleon himself). Furthermore, agreeing to the armistice at all made Napoleon appear 'weak'. Then of course on the political front, Sweden as well as Austria joined the coalition against Napoleon. I never claimed that Napoleon was 'stupid' for agreeing to the armistice. However, both militarily as well as politically it was obviously a bad move, which Napoleon himself realized in retrospect. So if one is considering Napoleon's decision AT THE TIME that he made it, I would still say that he failed to sufficiently consider the weakness of the Russians and Prussians and focused too much only on 'fixing' his own problems. He also failed to factor the political considerations into the equation. Although Napoleon did no doubt improve his own situation during the armistice, the Russians and Prussians also improved theirs as well as bringing Austria and Sweden into their camp. In terms of an analysis of the 'at the time' decision of Napoleon to accept the armistice, I would still say it was a mistake, albeit not a completely obvious one (there being good arguments on both sides). With hindsight, it is completely obviously that it was a serious error that cost Napoleon any chance of being victorious in 1813 on this terms.



Edited by deadkenny - 01-Feb-2008 at 15:22
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2008 at 18:11
you selectviely pick answers i gave and ignore other, for example i didn't heard you comment my list about Austria and France, which support my standpoint. also you convieniently agree what i wrote first and accidentally deleted, that the Opolchenye (~100.000) troops were demobilized, so Russia actually decreased in strenght in the given time period, despite those few new regular troops. finally, before i drop out of this nonsentical discussion with you, i recap my initial standpoint from the top 100 generals thread:

Napoleon won 2 victories with heavy losses that recuired the naming of phyrric, another one might as well had gone the other way, other than that due to the lack of cavalry he wasn't able to fully exploit any victory anyways. therefore, it was not dumb to take some time to get more troops to the important front and raise new ones, which were apparently there. Austria, well, it was a spent force, it could be defeated again, and Dresden just prooved that. armistice or not, Austria could join any day and the armistice at least was some sort of gurantee they would rather join later than earlier. of course Prussia also could mobilize up, but their regular troops number was still less than half of the 1806 army and considderign the ill performance of the Austrian Landwehr and the Russian Opolchenye, the Prussian Landwehr was not considdered reliable enough to make a difference. so at this point, ignoring everything thereafter, it was a reasonable thing to do for Napoleon.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2008 at 00:29
Originally posted by Temujin

Russia didn't raised any new troops after 1812 at all.
 
Originally posted by Temujin

Russia
Borodino Infantry Regiment (newly established spring 1813)
Tarutino Infantry Regiment (newly established spring 1813)

summer 1813:
Krasnoie Infantry Regiment (later 54. Jger)
Rostov Infantry Regiment (later 55. Jger)
Izmail Infantry Regiment
Bender Infantry Regiment (later 56. Jger)
51.- 53. Jger
those units were created from 12 Zapasnyi batt. and 8 reservnyi batt. from the 8., 10., 12. & 22. Divisions = already existing)

Well, thanks for doing the 'leg work' to prove that your own statement is false.  Not that I would have much confidence that you have done a complete or thorough job of researching the increase in Russian forces during 1813.  However, you have definitely provided enough to clearly demonstrate that you were wrong in what you stated previously. :)

 


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Jan-2008 at 00:17

Originally posted by Temujin


because Mikaberidze gace a nice overview over different estimates from different authors from different ages. it is just a sample how "reliable" Chandler is.

another display of yourself not actually reading what i wrote. i really explained it in detail above, the range of French numbers (both underlined in the table) give the highest and lowest possible numbers. Chambray took the numbers when the roll was called 4 days before Borodino, it can't be higher than that by simple physical improbability. Chandler apparently just decided to ignore this, note the dates, Chandler is the ONLY one of the more recent authors to claim such a high number. (30.000 is about a whole new army corps)

to me it seems that at one point you decided to get Chandler and declare it your bible and ignore everyhting that has been written in the last 40 years since. Chandlers "methodology" is obviously guesswork, looking into crystal balls and other witchery... obviously he also got Grogrschen and Dresden wrong. oh and you also assumed the Old Guard "fought" at Reichenbach with Bessieres just because he was the commander of the Old Guard. you didn't admitted yourself wrong until this point, which doesn't really make you look like soemone you want to discuss smth with....


OK, let's see what Chandler actually has to say about the Borodino.


Originally posted by Chandler

Napoleon finally made up his mind on August 24, and the following day the Grande Arme resumed its eastward march, although conditions in its rear remained extremely confused and there was an even greater shortage of supplies. The corps moved in three parallel columns within easy marching distance of each other, for Napoleon anticipated that the Russians would stand and fight in the near future now that Kutusov was reported to be on his way to assume control of the Russian forces. The central column followed the main post road from Smolensk towards Moscow, led by Murat's over-employed and rapidly tiring cavalry, with the Guard, the Ist and IIIrd Corps in support. On the left marched Viceroy Eugene; on the right, Prince Poniatowski. All in all, some 124,000 infantry, 32,000 horsemen and 587 guns were on the move.

...

The afternoon and evening of the 5th saw a fierce struggle for possession of the outlying Schivardino Redoubt and various neighboring hamlets.

...

The greater part of the 6th passed in a state of unreal calm, both sides being fully occupied making plans and calling up outlying formations. The French patrols were soon reporting the approximate dispositions and strengths of Kutusov's forces. The Russians had at their disposal some 17,000 regular cavalry, all superbly mounted, 7,000 Cossacks, 72,000 infantry, possibly 10,000 militia and 640 pieces of artillery (14,500 gunners), a total of not less than 120,800 combatants.

...

An hour before dawn on September 7, the five infantry corps, the Guard and the four formations of the reserve cavalry, a total of 103,000 infantry and gunners, 28,000 cavalry and 587 guns, moved off to take up their assigned positions.


So, the figure of 156,000 for the French forces is NOT in fact what Chandler says was present at Borodino. The figure of 156,000 is in fact what Chandler says the French had when they left Smolensk on August 25. The figure Chandler gives for the French forces that were actually available for the Battle of Borodino is actually 131,000. Hmmm, looks pretty good compared to the others, doesn't it? So your source took the WRONG figure for Chandler's estimate of French forces at the Battle of Borodino. Regarding the figure for the Russian forces, note that Chandler says they had a total of not less than 120,800. In particular he says possibly 10,000 militia. So it is clear that the real question mark here is the number of militia. In fact, many of the sources may have similarly been uncertain about the exact figure for the number of militia, and also uncertain regarding the extent to which they should be counted at all (as some of them were semi or untrained and armed with pikes, lack in artillery or firearms). So much for the accuracy of your source, or the criticism of Chandler's work.



Originally posted by Temujin


its not "my source" i only used it in this particular case because it has an actual hsitorical quote with it. "your source" doesn't bother to go into details, which id id. based on this, i can "proove" that the Old Guard fought at any battle it was in by using its battle flag which has inscriptions of every battle it was present at, including Borodino where it famously did NOT fought. however i won't lower myself on the level of Chandler and his "methodology"


Oh, so when I quote Chandler, then you claim that Chandler is 'my god' or that his book is 'my bible'. But then you proceed to quote a fragment from some source which appears to superficially support your claims, then I quote from that very same source to prove your claims regarding the Old Guard are false then it's 'not your source'. Regarding methodologies, you would have to raise yours several orders of magnitude to be anywhere near that of Chandler. You've made so many glaring errors and omissions at this point that you somehow imagining that you are in a position to 'lower' yourself to Chandler's level is simply at best delusional.



Edited by deadkenny - 29-Jan-2008 at 00:19
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 23:55
Originally posted by Temujin

 
... my claim was not that Russia got all of Warsaw, and your map doesn't show Cracow.
 
Umm, no your claim was (in your own words so you don't accuse me of changing it):
 
Originally posted by Temujin

...
what are you talking? Prussia got all German territories they wanted and Russia got all Polish territories they wanted...
    (emphasis added)
 
and the point is that claim is false.  Russia initially wanted all of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and had to settle for part of it.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 18:14
Originally posted by deadkenny

 
Here is an interesting 'animated' map which shows how Austria (re)gained considerable territory from Bavaria (an ally of Napoleon) in Germany at the Congress of Vienna, which clearly contradicts your previous claim (incidentally it also shows how Prussia got a piece of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, which contradicts your claim that Russia got all of Poland). 
 


1. i already said pre-1809 in one of my previous posts. Austria didn't gained considderable territory from bavaria since Tyrolia was given to Italy after the 1809 uprising by Andreas Hofer. only the Innviertel and Salzburg were retrieved from Bavaria.
2. my claim was not that Russia got all of Warsaw, and your map doesn't show Cracow.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 18:07
(i added Russia to my post above)

Originally posted by deadkenny

 First, what on earth does Borodino have to do with it?


because Mikaberidze gace a nice overview over different estimates from different authors from different ages. it is just a sample how "reliable" Chandler is.

Secondly, Chandler's figures are neither the highest, nor the lowest, in either column. Chandler shows 120,800 for the Russians, which is the same as many others and slightly below the average of all estimates shown for the Russians.  For the number of French troops, Chandler is a bit above the average, but is not the highest.  If you actually knew much about such estimates, you would know that there is always a range of numbers. 


another display of yourself not actually reading what i wrote. i really explained it in detail above, the range of French numbers (both underlined in the table) give the highest and lowest possible numbers. Chambray took the numbers when the roll was called 4 days before Borodino, it can't be higher than that by simple physical improbability. Chandler apparently just decided to ignore this, note the dates, Chandler is the ONLY one of the more recent authors to claim such a high number. (30.000 is about a whole new army corps)

As long as one's estimate is not seriously divergent from the others, there is no reason to believe that there is anything 'wrong' with it.  Different methodologies will produce different figures.  This is no way 'discredits' Chandler's work.  In fact if anything it tends to reinforce its validity, as it is more or less in agreement with the figures many others have derived.


to me it seems that at one point you decided to get Chandler and declare it your bible and ignore everyhting that has been written in the last 40 years since. Chandlers "methodology" is obviously guesswork, looking into crystal balls and other witchery... obviously he also got Grogrschen and Dresden wrong. oh and you also assumed the Old Guard "fought" at Reichenbach with Bessieres just because he was the commander of the Old Guard. you didn't admitted yourself wrong until this point, which doesn't really make you look like soemone you want to discuss smth with....

Your own source :

 
has this to say regarding the Old Guard:
 

There were two regiments of the real Old Guard, the oldest of the old and the bravest of the brave.

1er Grenadiers-?Pied de la Garde (1er Guard Grenadiers)
1er Chasseurs-?Pied de la Garde (1er Guard Chasseurs)


  • The Grenadiers and Chasseurs did fight in numerous battles; Eylau (1807), Wagram (1809), Dresden (1813), Leipzig (1813), Hanau (1813), Brienne, La Rothiere (1814), Paris (1814), Ligny (1815), Waterloo and Plancenoit (1815), to name only the biggest battles. Actually they participated in more combats and campaigned on more theaters of war than the Prussian, British and Russian foot guards



  • In 1812 the Old Guard fought at Krasne.




its not "my source" i only used it in this particular case because it has an actual hsitorical quote with it. "your source" doesn't bother to go into details, which id id. based on this, i can "proove" that the Old Guard fought at any battle it was in by using its battle flag which has inscriptions of every battle it was present at, including Borodino where it famously did NOT fought. however i won't lower myself on the level of Chandler and his "methodology"



http://www.drapeaux.org/Accueil.htm

note how it prominently says MOSCOU (=Borodino)
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 20:37
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by deadkenny

Regarding Austria - ... as they had clearly shown over and over again, since 1797, they would always fight again against Napoleon to try to regain their positions in Germany and Italy.


no they didn't. they didn't reclaimed ANY of the territories in Germany taken by either Napoleon or his allies. ...
 
Here is an interesting 'animated' map which shows how Austria (re)gained considerable territory from Bavaria (an ally of Napoleon) in Germany at the Congress of Vienna, which clearly contradicts your previous claim (incidentally it also shows how Prussia got a piece of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, which contradicts your claim that Russia got all of Poland). 
 


Edited by deadkenny - 27-Jan-2008 at 20:39
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 20:25
 First, what on earth does Borodino have to do with it?  Secondly, Chandler's figures are neither the highest, nor the lowest, in either column. Chandler shows 120,800 for the Russians, which is the same as many others and slightly below the average of all estimates shown for the Russians.  For the number of French troops, Chandler is a bit above the average, but is not the highest.  If you actually knew much about such estimates, you would know that there is always a range of numbers.  As long as one's estimate is not seriously divergent from the others, there is no reason to believe that there is anything 'wrong' with it.  Different methodologies will produce different figures.  This is no way 'discredits' Chandler's work.  In fact if anything it tends to reinforce its validity, as it is more or less in agreement with the figures many others have derived.

Originally posted by Temujin

... the Old Guard at Waterlo hasn't had a real fighting since ages, bascially Marengo was the last tough battle they were in. that is the reason they borke at Waterlo, ...

Your own source :

 
has this to say regarding the Old Guard:
 

There were two regiments of the real Old Guard, the oldest of the old and the bravest of the brave.

1er Grenadiers-?Pied de la Garde (1er Guard Grenadiers)
1er Chasseurs-?Pied de la Garde (1er Guard Chasseurs)


  • The Grenadiers and Chasseurs did fight in numerous battles; Eylau (1807), Wagram (1809), Dresden (1813), Leipzig (1813), Hanau (1813), Brienne, La Rothiere (1814), Paris (1814), Ligny (1815), Waterloo and Plancenoit (1815), to name only the biggest battles. Actually they participated in more combats and campaigned on more theaters of war than the Prussian, British and Russian foot guards



  • In 1812 the Old Guard fought at Krasne.


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 19:29
you failed to live up to my requests, i however was busy myself:

first, discrediting Chandler:

this is from Alexander Mikaberidzes new book about the battle of Borodino where he enters detailed discussion about army numbers:



he included this table for reference to other historians and their claims as well as the date etc. i udnerlined Chandler in red and the numbers accepted by Mikaberidze as most valid. as for the French army, the number given by Chambray in 1825 is the most accurate, however it was taken 4 days before Borodino and doesn't take into account the losses at the battle of Shevardino, other losses in between and troops detached for auxiliary services, so he argues the actual number of French troops was closer to the number given by Hourtoulle. i also have Hourtoulles book, which enters detailed discussion about unit strenght and meticulous research about the actual strenghtes invovled there, so either way, the numbers given by Hourtoulle and Chambray are closest tot eh truth. note how in the table Chandlers numbers is farthest off the real number (excluding Buturlins and Mikhailovsky-Danilevskis massive exaggerations). all other modern authors are more or less within the realistic range. as for the Russian Army he is again far off, this time however he is not alone. Mikaberidze used the study undertaken by Vasiliev which gives much higher number than usually accepted, however it is now prooven the Russian army was larger than previously thought (and larger than the French, which is the main point). for example Marbot with his slightly higher numbers gets about the correct ratio and Marbot is well known and most used reference for any Napoleonic study.

now as for the Young Guard (beware, your dear friend CHandler again takes a beating):

those are two pages from Philip Haythornthwaites book about Napoleons Young Guard, the pages in question are intersting for us for two reasons: 1. reference to famous combat achievements of the Young Guard and 2. numbers and references to numbers & units raised 1813-14. for quick reference, i underlined again the essential parts:





and as final blow to the Old Guard at Grogrschen (Ltzen) myth, here is from another source:

The Young Guard were in the forefront of Emperor's juggernaut, surging on to the bullet-swept fields of Lutzen and Leipzig, and wreaking havoc on every enemy that tried to stand before them. Chlapowski writes: "More and more battalions arrived in our front line, and the Emperor ordered them to direct all their fire at the village. ... the Emperor drew his sword, placed himself between the two columns of Young Guard, and advanced through the resulting gap toward Kaja. The Young Guard stormed the vilage without firing a shot and ejected all the enemy with the bayonet." (Chlapowski, - p 135)

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/IMPERIAL_GUARD_infantry_1.htm

as for units raised by Austria & France:


Austria

4th Uhlans

France

Line Regiments:
134-156 Regiments (22). the 134th was raised from the Garde de Paris (already existing) and the rest from cohorts of Garde Nationale, which also already existed but had to be mobilised.

Young Guard Regiments:
7. Tirailleurs (Pupilles of the Guard = already existing)
7. Voltigeurs (National Guard of the Imperial Guard= already existing)
8. Tirailleurs & Voltigeurs (newly raised march 1813)
9.-13. Tirailleurs & Voltigeurs (newly raised in April 1813)
14.-15. Tirailleurs & Voltigeurs (former Spanish Guards of Joseph = already existed)
16.-19. Tirailleurs & Voltigeurs (newly raised in January 1814)
Flanquers-Grenadiers of the Guard (newly raised May 1813)

25 new regiments, 19 of them new formations

additionally, 4 regiments of equippage de haute-borde (naval artillery regiments) which already existed, though were only mobilized now for active battlefield service.

Cavalry:
12. Hussars (9ieme bis Hussards = already existing)
13. Hussars (newly raised in Italy Jan 1813)
Hussars Jerome Napoleon (newly raised to serve in the Westphalian Army, later became 13. Hussars after them suffering heavy losses)
14. Hussars (newly raised in Italy Jan 1813)
4 Regiments of Garde d'Honneur
3 Regiments of Eclaireurs of the Guard

effectively, 10 (!) brand new cavalry regiments

Prussia

Infantry Regiment 12 (2 batt. Life-Regiment & 1 batt. 1. West-prussian = already existing)
2. Guard Infantry Regiment (Normal batt. & Colberg batt. & 1 batt. Life-Regiment = already existing)
Light Guard cavalry regiment (dragoon guard sqdn., hussar guard sqdn., uhlan guard sqdn., Cossack guard sqdn. = already existing)

East-Prussian National Cavalry Regiment (newly raised spring 1813)
Silesian National Cavalry Regiment (newly raised summer 1813)
Pommeranian National Cavalry Regiment (newly raised summer 1813)

Landwehr in general, heavy re-organization throughout the period, allegedly half of the Prussian army and over 100.000 men)

Russia
Borodino Infantry Regiment (newly established spring 1813)
Tarutino Infantry Regiment (newly established spring 1813)

summer 1813:
Krasnoie Infantry Regiment (later 54. Jger)
Rostov Infantry Regiment (later 55. Jger)
Izmail Infantry Regiment
Bender Infantry Regiment (later 56. Jger)
51.- 53. Jger
those units were created from 12 Zapasnyi batt. and 8 reservnyi batt. from the 8., 10., 12. & 22. Divisions = already existing)


Edited by Temujin - 28-Jan-2008 at 17:47
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 00:39
 

Originally posted by Temujin

nothign over, what you do is a. fail to understand what i write and b. claiming stuff doen by me that i didn't do. if you continue with poitn b further i will brign this up at the mdoerators room as violation of the AE CoC because i'm seriously pissed by your attitude now.
all references i gave about the Old Guard fighting are from German books (not prussian) which details all those battles quite clearly. Chandler doesn't give any details at all about battles, only random refernces to "Old Guard fought their" while inf act it is clear from the soruces that they did not but instead it was mostly the Young guard or simply an error ma de by your dear Chandler. anyone familiar with the battles we discuss here would laugh at your ridiculous claims. if you don't believe me, feel free to go to napoleon-series.org to verify my claims.


I am not pleased with your attitude either. When you bring up my behaviour with the mods be sure to mention that you were the first one to accuse me of 'lying' about what I said about the Vendee (which I most certainly did not) and referred to my reference as 'crap'.

What references did you give previously, alluding to sources in German is not a proper cite? I quoted both author and book title previously. The question was What battles did the Old Guard fight in between Marengo and Waterloo? I answered that question based on properly cited references. You did not provide references that stated the contrary. Your claim that you could not find any mention of fighting by the Old Guard in your unspecified sources, and further your assumption that the absence of any such mention constitutes a refutation of my claim, is a flawed methodology and makes your argument invalid. Either back up your claim properly or drop it.

Originally posted by Temujin

i didn't excluded new units from new territories and PoWs for obvious reasons, that is they were not available to Prussia & Russia during the armistice. what we were talking about was the armistice. just a remidner for your apparently overwhelmed mind. you failed up to this point to provide the new regiments raised in this period. all you gave are worthless numbers that follow your usual pattern: no details, just general references from general history books. the Landwehr already existed before the armistice and was still in the process of full mobilization. also i wodner how "what are Prussian sources"-Chandler can provide those numbers of the Prussian Landwehr at all. oh if orgott, Chandler is god to you and Prussian primary sources only exist in my mind...

See, this is typical of your 'technique'. Now you are talking about forming new units. You did not say previously that they did not form 'new units', you said that they did not raise new troops. New troops might be used to form new units, or they might be used to bring existing formations back up to strength. Chandler is not 'God' (nor even a god) to me. He is a well respected historian who has researched the period in question. When there is some doubt about his accuracy, I have cross referenced his claims with other sources. In each of the instances I have discussed here, Chandler has been consistent with other sources.

Originally posted by Temujin


even primary sources are either pro or anti-napoleon. however i can easily dismiss new secondary literature at will because of this because secondary literature is supposed to be objective and this book in particular is not cosniddered good reference work.

Here is info on the author of the reference that you dismissed, based on nothing more than the title

http://www.sc.edu/usctimes/articles/2005-08/connelly_owen.html

I will leave it to other fair minded readers to decide for themselves whether your viewpoint trumps that of Prof. Connelly.

Originally posted by Temujin

well its exactly the point being debatted, soemthing your confused mind hasn't realized up until now. do you think operation Barbarossa was a good idea? in hindsight? or Hannibals war with Rome? or do you really believed for one second i argue against established facts? this was about the truce of Poischwitz, not what happened after. theres no point arguing obvious facts (but don't tell that to the Hannibal lovers...)
also, you accused me of complete lack of knowledge on the diplomacy going on. then i requested you to provide me the original soruces of the diplomacy in French and German, which you refused to do. therefore you have no idea about the diplomacy yourself.

Well, it appears to me that you are in fact arguing against established facts (e.g. whether Spanish forces crossed the border into France, whether Austria made demands of France during the armistice, whether Austria, Prussia or Russia raised new troops during the armistice, or even during all of 1813 at all). While we are arguing about the armistice, obviously what happened after is relevant in assessing the impact of the armistice. French and German sources in particular are not necessary to have a knowledge about the history of the period. I knew before posting that the Austrians made certain demands during the armistice. You incorrectly claimed that they made no demands (see the quote of what YOU posted previously in this thread at the bottom of this post).



Originally posted by Temujin

ic an't proove the non-establishing of troops. the burden to proove anything is upon you. give me the names of new untis raised during and after the armistice not recruited from Germany or PoWs. good luck!

Again, you try to change the point being discussed from the raising of additional troops to the forming of new units.

Originally posted by Temujin

you didn't provided any sources, i have yet to see somethign in French and German...

Yes, I did. I referenced Chandler, Schom and Connelly. All of them are well respected historians who have written multiple books on the Napoleonic era. In case you didn't realize it, this is an ENGLISH website. I do not speak or read French or German well enough to do research in either of those languages. On the other hand a large number of historians can and have read French and German source documents and written works in English, which are themselves entirely legitimate (secondary) sources. I have no interest in or respect for your linguistic bigotry. If you want to reference French or German language sources, go ahead.

Originally posted by Temujin

nothing of this has anything to do with this topic. the horses do.

Once again you delve into minutia rather than actually addressing the point being discussed. YOU were the one who claimed that Napoleon could have accessed additional forces by, for one method, abandoning Spain (which was lost anyway) and taking those forces for the fighting in Germany. I made the point that Napoleon had already taken what he could afford to from the Spanish front and that stripping the front further wasn't a realistic option because the British / Spanish forces would simply invade SW France. That was when YOU made the false statement that the Spanish stopped at the border. You still haven't explained how those Spanish forces that you claimed didn't cross the border into France actually participated in the Battle of Toulouse (Toulouse is in France, or do you deny that as well?).


Originally posted by Temujin


then let your "historians" provide the numbers and names of corps as i have demanded. btw you really make yourself look like a complete idiot by now to refute accepted and well-researched OoBs of actual army strenghts....

you have only a few general books about general events and try to have an in-depth discussion. before any of this goes on, in your next post i want to see the following:
- names of new units raised by Russia and Austria in 1813
- franco-Austrian diplomacy during the armistice from primary sources
- the corps names of the forces opposite Austria in 1813

Now don't forget, when you are 'reporting' me to the mods, to mention that you have now called me an 'idiot', in addition to accusing me of 'lying' and calling my references 'crap'. The problem with your approach is that you want to try to look at everything with a 'microscope', but you're unwilling to put in the effort to be thorough enough to come up with the correct picture. If one is trying to identify an elephant, it's a lot easier to stand back and look at the entire animal with your 'naked eyes' than it is to jump in and look at it with a 'microscope' from the start without taking in the big picture. If I want a 'rough' idea of the forces that Napoleon allocated to Italy after the truce in 1813, then a total figure, such as 100,000 men, is perfectly fine. An exact Order of Battle is no doubt useful in certain contexts, but your approach of insisting on such precision in all cases is ridiculous and unproductive. Do you understand the different between accuracy and precision? You insist on extreme precision, but your accuracy is out to lunch. My references are to well researched books written by well respected historians. Anyone can go out and access these books themselves. Your internet links are just a fragment of information with no context. What are they based on? How are we supposed to know if they are well researched or not? What other forces, not mentioned, were also in Italy? How is anyone supposed to trust the total figure given of 35,000 for Austrian in Italy when YOU provided the much larger figure of 75,000 yourself previously? Which is it now? Were there 75,000 Austrians or only 35,000?

In any case, and this is the critical point that you continue to miss, the figure given for Austrians in no way contradicts the figure I previously gave for the FRENCH. You are the one making a ridiculous argument. To paraphrase I say, 'the French had 100,000 troops in Italy following the armistice in 1813'. You respond, 'no you are wrong, they only had 50,000 troops in 1814' then 'no, you are wrong the Austrians only had 75,000 in Italy' and then 'no, in fact the Austrians only had 35,000 troops in Italy' . Can you understand that when I make a statement about the number of troops the French had in Italy in 1813 following the armistice, that you stating the number of troops they had in 1814, or the number of troops that the Austrians had does not refute my claim regarding the number of troops that the French had in 1813, immediately following the armistice?



Originally posted by Temujin


and just for the record, you never mentioned the territory lost in 1809, you claimed that Austria demanded the French 1792 borders and nothing else.

You have the nerve to 'accuse' me of 'changing' what you said, yet here that is exactly what you do to me. 'For the record'? Lol. Show me, in my own words quoted from this thread, where I have said Austria demanded during the armistice that France return to pre-1792 borders. I said nothing of the sort. I said Austria demanded certain territories (e.g. Illyria) and the dissolution of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and Confederation of the Rhine. Below are quotes of your own words regarding your incorrect claims that Russia and Prussia got all they demanded in the peace treaty, that the Spanish did not invade France, that Russia raised no new troops (note not units but troops), and finally that Austria did not make any demands during the armistice.



Originally posted by Temujin

what are you talking? Prussia got all German territories they wanted and Russia got all Polish territories they wanted



Originally posted by Temujin

also i never claimed the british would stop at the pyrenees, however the Spanish did.



Originally posted by Temujin

Russia didn't raised any new troops after 1812 at all.

Originally posted by Temujin

Austria was absolutely in no position to ask for anything during the armistice. your idea on the other hand that they demanded something from Napoleon is highly laughable.

Originally posted by Temujin

Viceory Eugene had 50.000 troops in 1814 under his command, Bellegarde had 75.000

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 17:59
Originally posted by deadkenny

 

No, we've been over all this before. Chandler et al make it absolutely crystal clear that it was the Old Guard (variously described as such, or as 'these veterans of 10 campaigns' for instance). If Chandler and other actual historians say they did fight, and you say no it was only the Young Guard not the Old Guard, well I know which claim I believe (hint: it's not yours). Your 'methodology' (and I use the term loosely) is laughable. Your argument is that you didn't find any mention of the Old Guard fighting in your 'Prussian' sources, and you assume any action by the Old Guard 'must have been recorded' in your sources if it happened, so therefore you believe it didn't happen. Well, unfortunately for you, that just doesn't work (well, other than inside your head perhaps). The sources that need to be referenced in order to determine where the Old Guard did or didn't fight are (not surprizingly, except perhaps to you) FRENCH sources. The FRENCH sources will specify where and when the Old Guard engaged in fighting. Chandler, and others, have referenced those sources, you have not. Done. It's over. Slam dunk.

nothign over, what you do is a. fail to understand what i write and b. claiming stuff doen by me that i didn't do. if you continue with poitn b further i will brign this up at the mdoerators room as violation of the AE CoC because i'm seriously pissed by your attitude now.
all references i gave about the Old Guard fighting are from German books (not prussian) which details all those battles quite clearly. Chandler doesn't give any details at all about battles, only random refernces to "Old Guard fought their" while inf act it is clear from the soruces that they did not but instead it was mostly the Young guard or simply an error ma de by your dear Chandler. anyone familiar with the battles we discuss here would laugh at your ridiculous claims. if you don't believe me, feel free to go to napoleon-series.org to verify my claims.

Yes, and you falsely claimed that Russia and Austria did not raise any more troops after 1812. You also (pathetically) tried to claim afterwards that additional troops raised from territories newly (re)conquered by Prussia, or from liberated PoW's shouldn't count (for some reason). As per Chandler (which is a source infinitely above the crap you have offered on the topic), the actual fact is that Prussia and Russia did also make gains during the armistice, which you have tried to contradict by nothing by your own unsubstantiated claim (which is worth just about nothing).

By mid-August the Allies had almost completed their preparations and plans. The pause had enabled them to swell the ranks of their armies to truly formidable proportions. Russia had no less than 184,000 men under arms by this juncture; Prussia was mobilizing a vast number of Landwehr which would in due course reach a total strength of over 160,000

i didn't excluded new units from new territories and PoWs for obvious reasons, that is they were not available to Prussia & Russia during the armistice. what we were talking about was the armistice. just a remidner for your apparently overwhelmed mind. you failed up to this point to provide the new regiments raised in this period. all you gave are worthless numbers that follow your usual pattern: no details, just general references from general history books. the Landwehr already existed before the armistice and was still in the process of full mobilization. also i wodner how "what are Prussian sources"-Chandler can provide those numbers of the Prussian Landwehr at all. oh if orgott, Chandler is god to you and Prussian primary sources only exist in my mind...

You pathetically claim that a book is not a 'valid' reference because you deem it to be 'anti-Napoleon'? Well, in fact Schom's work is also rather 'anti-Napoleon', whereas Chandler's work is far more favourable in tone. Yet they all agree on the facts as I have stated them. Yet you continue to deny the truth based on nothing but your 'say so'.


even primary sources are either pro or anti-napoleon. however i can easily dismiss new secondary literature at will because of this because secondary literature is supposed to be objective and this book in particular is not cosniddered good reference work.

You are contradicting yourself. How can Napoleon have benefited more from the armistice at the time, but it was a 'bad idea' in retrospect? Clearly it 'appeared' to Napoleon to be a 'good idea' at the time, but in fact it was not (at the time or later). Perhaps Napoleon couldn't have know that at the time, or perhaps he could have. Either way, that's not the point being debated. Once again you clearly demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge regarding the 'diplomacy' going on during the armistice. The only 'mistake' Napoleon made was in refusing the terms offered. Austria was willing to take what they (and Prussia and Russia) wanted without having to fight for it, if Napoleon accepted the terms. Otherwise, they were going to fight for it.

well its exactly the point being debatted, soemthing your confused mind hasn't realized up until now. do you think operation Barbarossa was a good idea? in hindsight? or Hannibals war with Rome? or do you really believed for one second i argue against established facts? this was about the truce of Poischwitz, not what happened after. theres no point arguing obvious facts (but don't tell that to the Hannibal lovers...)
also, you accused me of complete lack of knowledge on the diplomacy going on. then i requested you to provide me the original soruces of the diplomacy in French and German, which you refused to do. therefore you have no idea about the diplomacy yourself.

No, you've said that the Prussians and Russians didn't raise any new troops, you haven't 'proven' anything at all. Since you've now demonstrated repeatedly that you have no idea what you are talking about, your unsubstantiated word has just about zero credibility at this point.

ic an't proove the non-establishing of troops. the burden to proove anything is upon you. give me the names of new untis raised during and after the armistice not recruited from Germany or PoWs. good luck! Smile

I never said that the Austrian demands / offer during the armistice consisted of the pre-1792 borders. I said they wanted Illyria, and for the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and Confederation of the Rhine to be dissolved, along with return of territory to Prussia. Yes, that demand / offer was made during the armistice, as per sources previously provided. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.


you didn't provided any sources, i have yet to see somethign in French and German...

At this point you have no credibility whatsoever, so I don't accept anything you claim at face value. However, that was simply part of your misguided argument that Napoleon raised additional forces, particularly cavalry (which I never denied) and that Prussia didn't (which you have not demonstrated). What does this in particular have to do with my statement that you don't know what you're talking about because of your apparent ignorance of the facts regarding Prussian and Russian demands at the Congress of Vienna, or the Spanish front and the invasion of France from Spain?

nothing of this has anything to do with this topic. the horses do.

Hmmm, before YOU stated that the Austrians had 75,000 men. Now you claim they only had 35,000? Those links you posted are a good example of total crap. Really completely useless and irrelevant. I originally stated the number of troops that France had facing the Austrians other than on the 'main' front in 'central' Germany. The French had 100,000 in Italy and 150,000 in the (Bavarian) Alps immediately following the armistice in 1813. Your claim that the French had 50,000 in Italy in 1814 does not refute my claim (based on actual historians, not random internet pages). Your crappy links provided above giving the claimed Austrian strength does not refute my claim. If you cannot understand that simple fact then I'm afraid I cannot help you and further.



then let your "historians" provide the numbers and names of corps as i have demanded. btw you really make yourself look like a complete idiot by now to refute accepted and well-researched OoBs of actual army strenghts....

you have only a few general books about general events and try to have an in-depth discussion. before any of this goes on, in your next post i want to see the following:
- names of new units raised by Russia and Austria in 1813
- franco-Austrian diplomacy during the armistice from primary sources
- the corps names of the forces opposite Austria in 1813

and just for the record, you never mentioned the territory lost in 1809, you claimed that Austria demanded the French 1792 borders and nothing else.


Edited by Temujin - 26-Jan-2008 at 18:01
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 01:48
 

Originally posted by Temujin

no, not at all, most of those engagements were fought by the Young Guard, those who were fougth by the Old Guard i gave exact numbers of Old Guard troops involved (company, batallion). Chandler gave nothing of the sort. other than cavalry i somewhat fancy the Young Guard therefore i know about that, be sure. and btw i didn't used "Prussian" sources, i used regimental histories and be sure they would write if they would eb defeated by the Old Guard...

No, we've been over all this before. Chandler et al make it absolutely crystal clear that it was the Old Guard (variously described as such, or as 'these veterans of 10 campaigns' for instance). If Chandler and other actual historians say they did fight, and you say no it was only the Young Guard not the Old Guard, well I know which claim I believe (hint: it's not yours). Your 'methodology' (and I use the term loosely) is laughable. Your argument is that you didn't find any mention of the Old Guard fighting in your 'Prussian' sources, and you assume any action by the Old Guard 'must have been recorded' in your sources if it happened, so therefore you believe it didn't happen. Well, unfortunately for you, that just doesn't work (well, other than inside your head perhaps). The sources that need to be referenced in order to determine where the Old Guard did or didn't fight are (not surprizingly, except perhaps to you) FRENCH sources. The FRENCH sources will specify where and when the Old Guard engaged in fighting. Chandler, and others, have referenced those sources, you have not. Done. It's over. Slam dunk.

Originally posted by Temujin

that was not my claim, i said Napoleon would have gained more if it was not for the Austrians. i was merely comparing France to Russia & prussia.

Yes, and you falsely claimed that Russia and Austria did not raise any more troops after 1812. You also (pathetically) tried to claim afterwards that additional troops raised from territories newly (re)conquered by Prussia, or from liberated PoW's shouldn't count (for some reason). As per Chandler (which is a source infinitely above the crap you have offered on the topic), the actual fact is that Prussia and Russia did also make gains during the armistice, which you have tried to contradict by nothing by your own unsubstantiated claim (which is worth just about nothing).

By mid-August the Allies had almost completed their preparations and plans. The pause had enabled them to swell the ranks of their armies to truly formidable proportions. Russia had no less than 184,000 men under arms by this juncture; Prussia was mobilizing a vast number of Landwehr which would in due course reach a total strength of over 160,000

Originally posted by Temujin

what kind of crappy reference is this? England was already part of the Coalition for much longer than even Russia. Prussians & Russians already outnubmered him before that.

It is a reference from an actual historian who has researched and written a book on the topic - which puts it several orders of magnitude above the 'crap' that you have offered so far. Earlier 'coalitions' had collapsed when the continental powers (Austria, Prussia, Russia) had quit the fight. Although Britain was continuously at war with France, that does not mean that they were part of the same formal 'coalition' during the entire period. It was during that armistice that formal arrangements were made, with English subsidies for Prussia and Russia and offered to Austria if they joined the coalition.

Originally posted by Temujin

anti-napoleonic book, what you expect? not considdered a valid reference.

You pathetically claim that a book is not a 'valid' reference because you deem it to be 'anti-Napoleon'? Well, in fact Schom's work is also rather 'anti-Napoleon', whereas Chandler's work is far more favourable in tone. Yet they all agree on the facts as I have stated them. Yet you continue to deny the truth based on nothing but your 'say so'.

Originally posted by Temujin

i was never disagreeing with that, i said "in hidnsight it was a bad idea but at the time fo the truce Napoleon benefitet much more from it". thats from where we went off. besides i am familiar that Napoleon later said the truce was a big mistake, however he could only know that in hindsight. at the time he concluded the treaty it was a good idea to do, that's what i've been arguing all along. i was arguing the mistake Napoleon made was not the truce itself, but his shitty diplomacy with Austria which made them join the coalition. you seem to argue the truce itself was makign Austria join the colaition which is of course not true.

You are contradicting yourself. How can Napoleon have benefited more from the armistice at the time, but it was a 'bad idea' in retrospect? Clearly it 'appeared' to Napoleon to be a 'good idea' at the time, but in fact it was not (at the time or later). Perhaps Napoleon couldn't have know that at the time, or perhaps he could have. Either way, that's not the point being debated. Once again you clearly demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge regarding the 'diplomacy' going on during the armistice. The only 'mistake' Napoleon made was in refusing the terms offered. Austria was willing to take what they (and Prussia and Russia) wanted without having to fight for it, if Napoleon accepted the terms. Otherwise, they were going to fight for it.

Originally posted by Temujin

because those sources were only made available AFTER napoleon was driven from Germany. we discussed who would gain more form the armistice and i accurately claimed Napoleon was able to raise new troops durign the armistice (particularly much needed cavalry) while his opponents were not able to raise new troops. therefore i excluded them because they could not be accessed during the armistice. remember, we are ONLY talkign about the situation at the time of the armistice, not what happened after.

No, you've said that the Prussians and Russians didn't raise any new troops, you haven't 'proven' anything at all. Since you've now demonstrated repeatedly that you have no idea what you are talking about, your unsubstantiated word has just about zero credibility at this point.

Originally posted by Temujin


don't jump on conclusions yet again, i was never saying that there were not some Spanish elements with wellington, however none of the Spanish armies made it to france, so what i said was completely valid. besides Wellingtons army was not unopposed, there was still Soult and Suchet.



Right, you said the Spanish didn't cross the border into France, and that is completely false which demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about. There were Spanish and Portuguese contingents with Wellington at the Battle of Toulouse. Last time I checked Toulouse was well inside France. Of course there were French forces defending. The origin of this entire thread of argument was that you claimed Napoleon had additional forces he could have accessed, from Spain for example, by simply 'giving up' the lost cause in Spain. I stated that Napoleon had already taken what he could afford to from Spain, and simply retreating out of Spain was not a 'solution' because the British / Spanish forces could have / would have / did historically invade SW France.



Originally posted by Temujin

why you need to provide sources? because Chandler et al are all generalizing. only the actual documents are facts. i never said Austria eventually didn't asked for the pre-1792 borders, but not durign the armistice, this is what we are talking about. you seem to be constantly avoiding the topic.

I never said that the Austrian demands / offer during the armistice consisted of the pre-1792 borders. I said they wanted Illyria, and for the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and Confederation of the Rhine to be dissolved, along with return of territory to Prussia. Yes, that demand / offer was made during the armistice, as per sources previously provided. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Temujin

sicne you avoided adressing it, you apparently agree with me and my Lithuanian and Portuguese horses...talking about gaps here...

At this point you have no credibility whatsoever, so I don't accept anything you claim at face value. However, that was simply part of your misguided argument that Napoleon raised additional forces, particularly cavalry (which I never denied) and that Prussia didn't (which you have not demonstrated). What does this in particular have to do with my statement that you don't know what you're talking about because of your apparent ignorance of the facts regarding Prussian and Russian demands at the Congress of Vienna, or the Spanish front and the invasion of France from Spain?

Originally posted by Temujin

you never said that, you clearly said in your last post "royalist" so don't start lying facts! also the earlier invasion is completely relevant because it was an utter failure which makes a second try rather unlikely to happen. or why didn't the Entente charged Gallipoli yet again in 1918?

You wanna talk about 'lying', for instance your pathetic lame claim that you momentarily 'forgot' that Prussia had initially demanded all of Saxony but had to settle for only part of it. Or that Russia originally demanded all of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and had to settle for only part of it. I said that the Vendee supported the (Bourbon) monarchy and was therefore hostile to Napoleon's regime, so if the British had advanced into the region they would have met with local support rather than resistance. The situation with the British advancing into SW France overland from Spain was totally different from the (much) earlier intervention. Gallipoli is just (yet another) totally irrelevant tangent.


Originally posted by Temujin


Ok than tell me which corps made up those 250,000 troops in 1813. note that corps will suffice. as i said there was no major battle and neither the italian nor the Bavarian army exceeded corps level. even with additional French troops you get nowhere near 250.000 soldiers. here are some interesting links as to what number of troops opposed the French in italy:

1813:
http://home.arcor.de/hemmann/zf/oob/1813-08-OOB-Austria-Italy.html
~35,000

1814:
http://home.arcor.de/hemmann/zf/oob/1813-08-OOB-Austria-Italy.html
~70,000

yeah sure, 250.000 troops vs 35.000 Austrians....



Hmmm, before YOU stated that the Austrians had 75,000 men. Now you claim they only had 35,000? Those links you posted are a good example of total crap. Really completely useless and irrelevant. I originally stated the number of troops that France had facing the Austrians other than on the 'main' front in 'central' Germany. The French had 100,000 in Italy and 150,000 in the (Bavarian) Alps immediately following the armistice in 1813. Your claim that the French had 50,000 in Italy in 1814 does not refute my claim (based on actual historians, not random internet pages). Your crappy links provided above giving the claimed Austrian strength does not refute my claim. If you cannot understand that simple fact then I'm afraid I cannot help you and further.

Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 19:19
Originally posted by deadkenny

 

First, regarding the Old Guard fighting in battles between 1800 and 1815, I provided 3 sources which were consistent with each other. Two were 'narratives' which explicitly mentioned the Old Guard engaged in fighting in a number of battles from the retreat from Russia in 1812, through the 1813 campaign and into the 1814 invasion of France itself. The quotes from Chandler were not 'vague' at all, they were quite clear about the Old Guard engaging in battle. Contrast that with your claims that you could find no reference to the Old Guard fighting in your 'Prussian' sources. I put my trust in the ability of established historians to find evidence of what actually happened over anything you claim.

no, not at all, most of those engagements were fought by the Young Guard, those who were fougth by the Old Guard i gave exact numbers of Old Guard troops involved (company, batallion). Chandler gave nothing of the sort. other than cavalry i somewhat fancy the Young Guard therefore i know about that, be sure. and btw i didn't used "Prussian" sources, i used regimental histories and be sure they would write if they would eb defeated by the Old Guard...

Your claim (I remind you yet again) was that Napoleon improved his position more than his enemies during the armistice, and thereby gained more by it. Here is yet another quote, this time from Alan Schom in his book Napoleon Bonaparte

that was not my claim, i said Napoleon would have gained more if it was not for the Austrians. i was merely comparing France to Russia & prussia.

... the Armistice of Pleiswitz began on June 4 and extended ultimately until August 10. It was another great lack of judgment on Napoleon's part, for not only were more Prussian and Russian troops advancing westward to meet him, but England was in the process of joining the coalition along with Austria. Alan Schom, Napoleon Bonaparte

what kind of crappy reference is this? England was already part of the Coalition for much longer than even Russia. Prussians & Russians already outnubmered him before that.

In addition to Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon I also reference Blundering to Glory: Napoleon's Military Campaigns by Owen Connelly.

anti-napoleonic book, what you expect? not considdered a valid reference.

All of the sources are consistent in this regard. I did not say that Napoleon did not improve his position, or increase his forces, at all during the armistice. Obviously he did. However, the key point, the point which you have consistently failed to address, is that he opponents gained even more by it. Therefore it was a mistake on Napoleon's part. He no doubt had reasons for believing it was a good idea at the time, however, in retrospect even Napoleon himself recognized that the armistice had not been to his advantage and was therefore a mistake.

The quote you gave by Napoleon in no way supported your claim. You are arguing the wrong point in any case. Of course Napoleon believed, at the time, that he had benefited from the armistice. However he realized himself, after the fact, that his opponents had in fact gained more and therefore that the armistice had been a mistake.

i was never disagreeing with that, i said "in hidnsight it was a bad idea but at the time fo the truce Napoleon benefitet much more from it". thats from where we went off. besides i am familiar that Napoleon later said the truce was a big mistake, however he could only know that in hindsight. at the time he concluded the treaty it was a good idea to do, that's what i've been arguing all along. i was arguing the mistake Napoleon made was not the truce itself, but his shitty diplomacy with Austria which made them join the coalition. you seem to argue the truce itself was makign Austria join the colaition which is of course not true.

It appears that, contrary to your previous position, the Prussians and Russians did in fact raise more troops, but the sources were newly conquered (liberated) territories or freed PoW's. Why should those sources be excluded? All sources should be considered when analyzing who gained, and how much, during the armistice. Prussia had been under strict limits on their military since the defeat in 1807. Although they had found ways around it, the fact is after joining the fight against Napoleon they were freed from any restrictions. Furthermore, you appear not to appreciate the significant impact that English subsidies had on the ability of Prussia and Russia to raise and maintain forces.

because those sources were only made available AFTER napoleon was driven from Germany. we discussed who would gain more form the armistice and i accurately claimed Napoleon was able to raise new troops durign the armistice (particularly much needed cavalry) while his opponents were not able to raise new troops. therefore i excluded them because they could not be accessed during the armistice. remember, we are ONLY talkign about the situation at the time of the armistice, not what happened after.

I'm not sure what to say, other than you don't know what you're talking about. You didn't realize initially that Spanish forces had participated in the invasion of France. We're not talking about 'some guerrillas', in addition to the British forces, Spanish and Portuguese 'regulars' participated in the invasion of France. What is equally obvious to anyone with the slightest appreciation of the strategic situation, the French could not afford to allow Wellington's army to operate unopposed in SW France.


don't jump on conclusions yet again, i was never saying that there were not some Spanish elements with wellington, however none of the Spanish armies made it to france, so what i said was completely valid. besides Wellingtons army was not unopposed, there was still Soult and Suchet.

Why do I need to provide French or German sources? Check Chandler, Connelly or Schom to name a few. All agree that the demands I mentioned were presented to Napoleon, he categorically refused them and that led to the end of the truce and the entry of Austria into the fight against France. Once again you have clearly demonstrated a huge gap in your knowledge of the history of the period.

why you need to provide sources? because Chandler et al are all generalizing. only the actual documents are facts. i never said Austria eventually didn't asked for the pre-1792 borders, but not durign the armistice, this is what we are talking about. you seem to be constantly avoiding the topic.


Lol. All I can say to that is it appears that you have 'forgotten' much important information at one moment or another.

sicne you avoided adressing it, you apparently agree with me and my Lithuanian and Portuguese horses...talking about gaps here...

First, I didn't address the source of the unrest in the Vendee, or why they were opposed to Napoleon's regime. There were numerous reasons for the unrest in the region and it was much more complicated than you have made it appear. However, even if I accept your claim at face value, the key point is that the region was hostile to Napoleon's regime. Your point about the failure of the (much) earlier attempt at intervention is (yet again) irrelevant. The fact that the Vendee remained loyal to the restored Bourbon monarchy during the Hundred Days clearly shows that the attitude in the region was still anti-Napoleon late in the war.

you never said that, you clearly said in your last post "royalist" so don't start lying facts! also the earlier invasion is completely relevant because it was an utter failure which makes a second try rather unlikely to happen. or why didn't the Entente charged Gallipoli yet again in 1918?


All you've demonstrated with this 'argument' is that you are woefully ignorant of the strategic attrition rates in Napoleonic campaigns. I quoted a combined figure of 250,000 men for the Alpine and Italian fronts combined as of the end of the armistice in 1813. You quoted a figure for Italy only in 1814. You assuming that the French had 50,000 troops in Italy in 1813, and still had 50,000 in 1814 simply demonstrates your complete lack of comprehension of the issues.



Ok than tell me which corps made up those 250,000 troops in 1813. note that corps will suffice. as i said there was no major battle and neither the italian nor the Bavarian army exceeded corps level. even with additional French troops you get nowhere near 250.000 soldiers. here are some interesting links as to what number of troops opposed the French in italy:

1813:
http://home.arcor.de/hemmann/zf/oob/1813-08-OOB-Austria-Italy.html
~35,000

1814:
http://home.arcor.de/hemmann/zf/oob/1813-08-OOB-Austria-Italy.html
~70,000

yeah sure, 250.000 troops vs 35.000 Austrians.... Ermm
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 08:26
Oh and by the way the Allies had far more to gain than did Napoleon by the truce. They needed to get themselves soundly organised and that is not just about manpower, but all the organisational requirements for conducting a war.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 08:23
AS has been stated the French in SW France had no love of Napoleon. So who was going to threaten Wellington's communications ? There wasn't anyone.
 
Wellington paid the inhabitants for his supplies, they weren't going to jeapordise that!!
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 02:40
 

Originally posted by Temujin

you seriously start to piss me off. why don't you start to back up your claims? you failed to post details about those battles the Old Guard supposedly fought, just refering to vague quotes by Chandler. you failed to explain where all the trained horsemen and horses came from that were rode by the Gardes d'Honneur and the Eclaireurs. you failed to explain why Prussia had so much less cavalry than before. and tell em which new untis were raised by Russia, Prussia and Austria after 1812 that were NOT from newly conquered territories (Germany, Italy) or PoWs....

First, regarding the Old Guard fighting in battles between 1800 and 1815, I provided 3 sources which were consistent with each other. Two were 'narratives' which explicitly mentioned the Old Guard engaged in fighting in a number of battles from the retreat from Russia in 1812, through the 1813 campaign and into the 1814 invasion of France itself. The quotes from Chandler were not 'vague' at all, they were quite clear about the Old Guard engaging in battle. Contrast that with your claims that you could find no reference to the Old Guard fighting in your 'Prussian' sources. I put my trust in the ability of established historians to find evidence of what actually happened over anything you claim.

Your claim (I remind you yet again) was that Napoleon improved his position more than his enemies during the armistice, and thereby gained more by it. Here is yet another quote, this time from Alan Schom in his book Napoleon Bonaparte

... the Armistice of Pleiswitz began on June 4 and extended ultimately until August 10. It was another great lack of judgment on Napoleon's part, for not only were more Prussian and Russian troops advancing westward to meet him, but England was in the process of joining the coalition along with Austria. Alan Schom, Napoleon Bonaparte

In addition to Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon I also reference Blundering to Glory: Napoleon's Military Campaigns by Owen Connelly.

All of the sources are consistent in this regard. I did not say that Napoleon did not improve his position, or increase his forces, at all during the armistice. Obviously he did. However, the key point, the point which you have consistently failed to address, is that he opponents gained even more by it. Therefore it was a mistake on Napoleon's part. He no doubt had reasons for believing it was a good idea at the time, however, in retrospect even Napoleon himself recognized that the armistice had not been to his advantage and was therefore a mistake.

It appears that, contrary to your previous position, the Prussians and Russians did in fact raise more troops, but the sources were newly conquered (liberated) territories or freed PoW's. Why should those sources be excluded? All sources should be considered when analyzing who gained, and how much, during the armistice. Prussia had been under strict limits on their military since the defeat in 1807. Although they had found ways around it, the fact is after joining the fight against Napoleon they were freed from any restrictions. Furthermore, you appear not to appreciate the significant impact that English subsidies had on the ability of Prussia and Russia to raise and maintain forces.

Originally posted by Temujin

btw, i was using "my german officers memoirs" for Prussia, not france. i made it clear above that i used Napoleon hismelf as reference for his manpower situation. if you can't "find" the correspondence, i will help you with that, because it totally supports me...



The quote you gave by Napoleon in no way supported your claim. You are arguing the wrong point in any case. Of course Napoleon believed, at the time, that he had benefited from the armistice. However he realized himself, after the fact, that his opponents had in fact gained more and therefore that the armistice had been a mistake.



Originally posted by Temujin

LOL? indefensible position? i already explained that losing spain wasn't an immediate threat, Wellington was in so position to threaten Paris without risking his lines of communications cut off. he had just one army in hostile territory, remember that some "guerillias" also supported regulars in 1814 battles. hence my comparison with eugene.
the only one in an indefendable position is you, because you cannot proove any of the above.



I'm not sure what to say, other than you don't know what you're talking about. You didn't realize initially that Spanish forces had participated in the invasion of France. We're not talking about 'some guerrillas', in addition to the British forces, Spanish and Portuguese 'regulars' participated in the invasion of France. What is equally obvious to anyone with the slightest appreciation of the strategic situation, the French could not afford to allow Wellington's army to operate unopposed in SW France.



Originally posted by Temujin


no way this did not happen. give me the original sources of the diplomacy in french and german. if you have them that is.



Why do I need to provide French or German sources? Check Chandler, Connelly or Schom to name a few. All agree that the demands I mentioned were presented to Napoleon, he categorically refused them and that led to the end of the truce and the entry of Austria into the fight against France. Once again you have clearly demonstrated a huge gap in your knowledge of the history of the period.



Originally posted by Temujin

i was aware of saxony but i didn't remembered it that moment.



Lol. All I can say to that is it appears that you have 'forgotten' much important information at one moment or another.


Originally posted by Temujin


on the other hand. what i've also forgotten to adress in my last post was the Vendee. that was never a royalist rebellion as you inaccurately claimed. the rebellions in the Vendee were entirely religiously motivated, due to the anti-clerical policy of the revolutionary government & later napoleon. also the british early in the rev wars supported this uprising with Emigree troups, this expedition however ended in total disaster, so it is quite urnealistic toa ssume Vendee was a weak spot for Napoleon that could eb exploited by foreign powers. you didn't knew that, eh?



First, I didn't address the source of the unrest in the Vendee, or why they were opposed to Napoleon's regime. There were numerous reasons for the unrest in the region and it was much more complicated than you have made it appear. However, even if I accept your claim at face value, the key point is that the region was hostile to Napoleon's regime. Your point about the failure of the (much) earlier attempt at intervention is (yet again) irrelevant. The fact that the Vendee remained loyal to the restored Bourbon monarchy during the Hundred Days clearly shows that the attitude in the region was still anti-Napoleon late in the war.


Originally posted by Temujin


it is ridiculous to say the bavarians had close to 200,000 forces, not even Italy & bavaria combined. where should all those troops come from? now you ultimately ridicule yourself with such an astronomic figure...there was no major battle on this theatre, 200,000 troops do not simply go away by desertion and there where no italian forces fighting with Napoleon.



All you've demonstrated with this 'argument' is that you are woefully ignorant of the strategic attrition rates in Napoleonic campaigns. I quoted a combined figure of 250,000 men for the Alpine and Italian fronts combined as of the end of the armistice in 1813. You quoted a figure for Italy only in 1814. You assuming that the French had 50,000 troops in Italy in 1813, and still had 50,000 in 1814 simply demonstrates your complete lack of comprehension of the issues.

Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jan-2008 at 17:53
Originally posted by deadkenny

What on earth would contemporary German source know about the resources available to Napoleon? Or to the Tsar for that matter? As for a Napoleonic 'subculture' rejecting Chandler, I suppose that might be true if you define the 'subculture' as consisting of yourself. Of course it is a rather strange 'subculture' that seems ignorant of such basic facts as all of the battles that the Old Guard fought in between 1800 and 1815. Or ignorant of such basic information as the demands of Prussia and Russia at the Congress of Vienna. Once again, it's not a matter of Napoleon 'lacked' cavalry, but whether he had improved his position relative to his opponents. Obviously he did not. Napoleon himself realized this in retrospect. Only you appear to be arguing that Napoleon was better off due to the armistice. I have no idea what your Austerlitz quote has to do with the situation, or how it supports your argument. Your claim that Russia and Austria didn't raise any new troops after 1812 is ridiculous.

you seriously start to piss me off. why don't you start to back up your claims? you failed to post details about those battles the Old Guard supposedly fought, just refering to vague quotes by Chandler. you failed to explain where all the trained horsemen and horses came from that were rode by the Gardes d'Honneur and the Eclaireurs. you failed to explain why Prussia had so much less cavalry than before. and tell em which new untis were raised by Russia, Prussia and Austria after 1812 that were NOT from newly conquered territories (Germany, Italy) or PoWs....

btw, i was using "my german officers memoirs" for Prussia, not france. i made it clear above that i used Napoleon hismelf as reference for his manpower situation. if you can't "find" the correspondence, i will help you with that, because it totally supports me... Wink

Can't you finally realize the ridiculous position you're defending? I am making a very straightforward point, which you continue to dodge, because you have no answer. Stripping the 'Spanish front' wasn't an option it would have lead directly to a much earlier invasion of S.W. France from Spain. Again, you've painted yourself into an indefensible corner, but simply refuse to admit you're wrong.


LOL? indefensible position? Confused i already explained that losing spain wasn't an immediate threat, Wellington was in so position to threaten Paris without risking his lines of communications cut off. he had just one army in hostile territory, remember that some "guerillias" also supported regulars in 1814 battles. hence my comparison with eugene.
the only one in an indefendable position is you, because you cannot proove any of the above.


No, once again you are simply wrong. Austria made such 'demands' in the negotiations during the armistice. The rejections of this 'offer' led directly to the end of the armistice and the entry of Austria against France. Once again you've clearly demonstrated your ignorance of Austrian diplomacy during the period in question.


no way this did not happen. give me the original sources of the diplomacy in french and german. if you have them that is. Smile

Whether or not it was 'unrealistic' for Prussia to demand all of Saxony is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that Prussia did just that, and you were apparently unaware of that fact (you now appear to admit your error). Similarly, the composition of the local population in the Posen region is irrelevant, the fact is that Russia initially demanded that territory, along with the rest of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, but agreed to Prussia getting Posen as compensation for settling for less of Saxony, again which you previously denied. I never said that Russia 'got' all of Poland, I said that they demanded all of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. That they got less than they initially demanded supports what I said previously and contradicts what you said. At least it appears that you've now looked up the information which you were previously unaware of.

i was aware of saxony but i didn't remembered it that moment. Cry

on the other hand. what i've also forgotten to adress in my last post was the Vendee. that was never a royalist rebellion as you inaccurately claimed. the rebellions in the Vendee were entirely religiously motivated, due to the anti-clerical policy of the revolutionary government & later napoleon. also the british early in the rev wars supported this uprising with Emigree troups, this expedition however ended in total disaster, so it is quite urnealistic toa ssume Vendee was a weak spot for Napoleon that could eb exploited by foreign powers. you didn't knew that, eh? Tongue

The figure of 250,000 which I gave was the combined total of forces in Italy and Bavaria, defending against the Austrians in 1813 immediately following the armistice. How on earth do you believe the figure you give for Italy only in 1814 somehow refutes what I said? Gee, what happened between 1813 and 1814? Could it be that there were losses from fighting? Desertions? Perhaps the defeat at Leipzig which left France itself vulnerable to invasion meant that some forces needed to be taken to help defend the Rhine front?



it is ridiculous to say the bavarians had close to 200,000 forces, not even Italy & bavaria combined. where should all those troops come from? now you ultimately ridicule yourself with such an astronomic figure...there was no major battle on this theatre, 200,000 troops do not simply go away by desertion and there where no italian forces fighting with Napoleon.


Edited by Temujin - 24-Jan-2008 at 17:59
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 20:59

Originally posted by Temujin

this is getting ridiculous, why should i dismiss contemporary German primary sources and believe a british lunatic that never bothered to read up German sources. if you look into the napoleonic "subculture", you will find out Chandler is easily dismissed for his oversimplifications and generalizations. the information in question (horses) is in Napoleons own correspondence (i found it online, you can too) as well as Scharnhorst (iirc). in his correspondence Napoleon clearly states that before the armistice he lacked cavalry and artillery. after the armistice he claimed he was still lacking in artillery but not cavalry. in his memoirs, Napoleon said: "if i had 1000 shells at Austerlitz, i would be master of the world now". both the warrior book by Hofschrer and the other on the Russian infantry make it clear that Russia and Prussia both had recruited all their available forces. we can see that the only new Prussian troops came from the German dominions of Napoleon, same goes for Austria. Russia didn't raised any new troops after 1812 at all.

What on earth would contemporary German source know about the resources available to Napoleon? Or to the Tsar for that matter? As for a Napoleonic 'subculture' rejecting Chandler, I suppose that might be true if you define the 'subculture' as consisting of yourself. Of course it is a rather strange 'subculture' that seems ignorant of such basic facts as all of the battles that the Old Guard fought in between 1800 and 1815. Or ignorant of such basic information as the demands of Prussia and Russia at the Congress of Vienna. Once again, it's not a matter of Napoleon 'lacked' cavalry, but whether he had improved his position relative to his opponents. Obviously he did not. Napoleon himself realized this in retrospect. Only you appear to be arguing that Napoleon was better off due to the armistice. I have no idea what your Austerlitz quote has to do with the situation, or how it supports your argument. Your claim that Russia and Austria didn't raise any new troops after 1812 is ridiculous.


Originally posted by Temujin

well can't you finally realize defeat in Spain was already reality? the coalition forces on the peninsula weren't particularly strong in cavalry themselves so he could easily afford stripping it off its cavalry. the defeat was certain, with or without cavalry. Wellington had over 100.000 troops, Soult had 60.000 and Suchet 25.000.


Can't you finally realize the ridiculous position you're defending? I am making a very straightforward point, which you continue to dodge, because you have no answer. Stripping the 'Spanish front' wasn't an option it would have lead directly to a much earlier invasion of S.W. France from Spain. Again, you've painted yourself into an indefensible corner, but simply refuse to admit you're wrong.

Originally posted by Temujin

Illyria, Dalmatia and Tyrolia were all taken in 1809, hence i said "pre-1809"....Austrians only started to make such demands AFTER they joined the coalition, before they joined the colation the best they could do to ask the reinstallation of their borders pre-1809. Austria was absolutely in no position to ask for anything during the armistice. your idea on the other hand that they demanded something from Napoleon is highly laughable.


No, once again you are simply wrong. Austria made such 'demands' in the negotiations during the armistice. The rejections of this 'offer' led directly to the end of the armistice and the entry of Austria against France. Once again you've clearly demonstrated your ignorance of Austrian diplomacy during the period in question.



Originally posted by Temujin


it was completely unrealistic to ask for all of Saxony, it was an old established principality. Poznan had significant German population, so it was not given to Russia. Russia didn't even got all of Poland, they only got Congress-Poland in personal-union. Cracow remained as free city.
as for your funny numbers. Viceory Eugene had 50.000 troops in 1814 under his command, Bellegarde had 75.000...i wonder where did the other 200.000 troops went to?



Whether or not it was 'unrealistic' for Prussia to demand all of Saxony is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that Prussia did just that, and you were apparently unaware of that fact (you now appear to admit your error). Similarly, the composition of the local population in the Posen region is irrelevant, the fact is that Russia initially demanded that territory, along with the rest of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, but agreed to Prussia getting Posen as compensation for settling for less of Saxony, again which you previously denied. I never said that Russia 'got' all of Poland, I said that they demanded all of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. That they got less than they initially demanded supports what I said previously and contradicts what you said. At least it appears that you've now looked up the information which you were previously unaware of.

The figure of 250,000 which I gave was the combined total of forces in Italy and Bavaria, defending against the Austrians in 1813 immediately following the armistice. How on earth do you believe the figure you give for Italy only in 1814 somehow refutes what I said? Gee, what happened between 1813 and 1814? Could it be that there were losses from fighting? Desertions? Perhaps the defeat at Leipzig which left France itself vulnerable to invasion meant that some forces needed to be taken to help defend the Rhine front?

Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2008 at 18:54
Originally posted by deadkenny


Why would I throw Chandler 'out the window' when he is a renowned and authoritative source on the topic?  If anything, you should throw your officers' memoirs in German out the window.  I never said that Napoleon was unable to improve his forces at all during the armistice.  You were the one who claimed that he had more capacity to gain by it than the Russians and Prussians, which you have failed to back up.  After the truce, the French were still at a great disadvantage in the cavalry arm.  The only 'reality check' that you have delivered is in your own mind. 

this is getting ridiculous, why should i dismiss contemporary German primary sources and believe a british lunatic that never bothered to read up German sources. if you look into the napoleonic "subculture", you will find out Chandler is easily dismissed for his oversimplifications and generalizations. the information in question (horses) is in Napoleons own correspondence (i found it online, you can too) as well as Scharnhorst (iirc). in his correspondence Napoleon clearly states that before the armistice he lacked cavalry and artillery. after the armistice he claimed he was still lacking in artillery but not cavalry. in his memoirs, Napoleon said: "if i had 1000 shells at Austerlitz, i would be master of the world now". both the warrior book by Hofschrer and the other on the Russian infantry make it clear that Russia and Prussia both had recruited all their available forces. we can see that the only new Prussian troops came from the German dominions of Napoleon, same goes for Austria. Russia didn't raised any new troops after 1812 at all.


No, the Spanish did not 'stop' at the border.  Wellington 'sent them packing' after they had crossed into France.  If he had 'needed' them, i.e. if the British forces had been unable to 'handle' the French forces facing them, then the Spanish would no doubt have stayed, their lack of discipline notwithstanding.  The Vendee region was in constant 'rebellion' against Napoleon's rule, remaining quite 'pro-Monarchist'.  If unopposed the British would have found support in that region, as well as Atlantic ports to provide an easier supply route and reinforcements.  The French simply could not allow the British to operate completely unopposed - it could easily have developed into a threat to Paris from the west.

well can't you finally realize defeat in Spain was already reality? the coalition forces on the peninsula weren't particularly strong in cavalry themselves so he could easily afford stripping it off its cavalry. the defeat was certain, with or without cavalry. Wellington had over 100.000 troops, Soult had 60.000 and Suchet 25.000.


No, that's simply not true.  The Austrians 'sold off' Marie Louise after their defeat in 1809 in order to avoid an even more punative 'peace' treaty from Napoleon.  Further the Austrians gained far more than just Venice, they also wanted and gained other territories taken from them (e.g. Illyria, Dalmatia, Tyrol).  Although the Austrians did not regain territory in Germany, it doesn't mean that they didn't desire it.  They had to be content with the 'presidency' of the Germany Confederacy as a substitute for their former position as Emperor of the HRE (an 'organization' that no one particularly wanted to resurrect), as well as regaining territory in Italy and elsewhere.  Your interpretation of the diplomacy during the armistice is laughable.  The Austrians 'demanded' a settlement that amounted to 'surrender' by Napoleon.  Essentially it amounted to giving up all of the territory he had won since 1805.  There was no 'diplomacy' for Napoleon to 'botch up', he was never in the running.  He was faced with 'surrender' or having to fight Austria again.
 

Illyria, Dalmatia and Tyrolia were all taken in 1809, hence i said "pre-1809"....Austrians only started to make such demands AFTER they joined the coalition, before they joined the colation the best they could do to ask the reinstallation of their borders pre-1809. Austria was absolutely in no position to ask for anything during the armistice. your idea on the other hand that they demanded something from Napoleon is highly laughable.


What I am 'taking about' are facts that you are apparently ignorant of.  Prussia 'wanted' all of Saxony, Russia wanted the entire 'Grand Duchy of Warsaw'.  As it was Prussia was 'forced' to settle for only a portion of Saxony, and in compensation got part of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, i.e. specifically the Posen region.  After the armistice, Napoleon had 400,000 infantry and 40,000 cavalry on the 'main' front in Germany.  There were a further 250,000 troops defending the Italian and Alpine fronts against Austria.  That's not exactly insignificant now, is it?


it was completely unrealistic to ask for all of Saxony, it was an old established principality. Poznan had significant German population, so it was not given to Russia. Russia didn't even got all of Poland, they only got Congress-Poland in personal-union. Cracow remained as free city.
as for your funny numbers. Viceory Eugene had 50.000 troops in 1814 under his command, Bellegarde had 75.000...i wonder where did the other 200.000 troops went to? Disapprove
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.