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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Napoleon's Biggest Mistake
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Gundamor View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568 		  Quote Gundamor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Napoleon's Biggest Mistake
    Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 20:34
Originally posted by maria d.

The Forum is aboutNapoleon's biggest mistake, not about what made him lost his empire. Napoleon lost his empire at Trafalgar, because after that naval battle his empire was doomed. But he did not make a mistake at that battle: he was not directly in charge of the French navy at that battle. England after Trafalgar waited for him to fall slowly - year after year and local war after local war!                                                                     Historically his biggest mistake was the Lousiana purchase, something minor at that moment, but that has proved to be extremely important in the next century. For example, the Caesar's military conquest of southern England was totally secondary at the moment, but historically changed the direction of the Roman conquest from Germany toward the British Isles. The consequences of this "little" change: Germany was never conquered, while England received the presence of the Roman civilization for five centuries and, so, later created succesfully a worldwide empire on the model of the Roman empire.    Maria d.




How did Trafalgar 1805 doom his empire? It had more lasting effects after Napoleon was dethroned then when he was in control. England wasnt sitting to pretty after tilsit 1807. Even though the system damaged the mainland European econimies more it still damaged Britains pretty good as well. They constantly pressured the rest of europe and constantly dumped money to finance foreign armies. They hardly waited for anything. Just because they controlled the seas didnt make them in overall better shape there was nothing they could do to remove Napleon. He dug his own grave to lie in.

Napoleons empire was never econimically stable he needed conquests to sustain his army and control. This pretty much would of resulted in the eventual doom of it no matter what outcomes of such and such battle. Russia was more of his worst miscalculation then mistake. Had he planned it better and not let his ego take over the results may have been different. He should of crushed spain and portugal personally first. Order of battle may have been his biggest mistake. He should of gone Spain then Russia.
    
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
Back to Top
brunodam View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 29-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136 		  Quote brunodam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 21:33
Gundamor, you write in an english very difficult to understand.Confused
Anyway, allow me to advise you the book "The influence of sea power on history" of Chester Starr (Oxford University Press, 1989). It explains in detail why Napoleon started to lose his empire in consequence of Trafalgar. If you live in the United Kingdom you'll find the book easily in any public library.Wink   
I believe Maria d. is totally right!  Bruno

Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 01:14
Originally posted by maria d.

The Forum is about Napoleon's biggest mistake, not about what made him lost his empire. Napoleon lost his empire at Trafalgar, because after that naval battle his empire was doomed. But he did not make a mistake at that battle: he was not directly in charge of the French navy at that battle. England after Trafalgar waited for him to fall slowly - year after year and local war after local war!                                                                     Historically his biggest mistake was the Lousiana purchase, something minor at that moment, but that has proved to be extremely important in the next century. For example, the Caesar's military conquest of southern England was totally secondary at the moment, but historically changed the direction of the Roman conquest from Germany toward the British Isles.  The consequences of this "little" change: Germany was never conquered, while England received the presence of the Roman civilization for five centuries and, so, later created succesfully a worldwide empire on the model of the Roman empire.    Maria d.

 
1. If Napoleon didn't sell Lousiana Americans would take it sooner or later, without paying.
2. US helped France in WWI and WWII so it's not that bad for France that they became superpower
3. France would lose its status of superpower anyway to Germany or Soviet Union.
 
So it defenetly wasn't worts Napoleon's biggest mistake.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 04:51
 
Originally posted by maria d.

Historically his biggest mistake was the Lousiana purchase, something minor at that moment, but that has proved to be extremely important in the next century.

It may well have been the decision of Napoleon that had the greatest historical consequence in the long term.
 
But you can only call it a 'mistake' if it negatively affected his own ambition. Napoleon wasn't trying to establish a 1000 year Reich. His interests were purely short term (from a historical point of view).
 
The question therefore resolves to "How far did selling 'Lousiana' prevent Napoleon from attaining his goal?" And that of course means speculating about what his goal was. I certainly don't think he had the long-term status of France as a power in mind.
 
For example, the Caesar's military conquest of southern England was totally secondary at the moment, but historically changed the direction of the Roman conquest from Germany toward the British Isles.  The consequences of this "little" change: Germany was never conquered, while England received the presence of the Roman civilization for five centuries and, so, later created succesfully a worldwide empire on the model of the Roman empire.    Maria d.
 
But that, of itself, would have nothing to do with evaluating Caesar's (very temporary) occupation of part of Britain as being a mistake or not. It was in fact essentially irrelevant to Caesar's success. (Actually Caesar didn't make many mistakes - the only serious one was ignoring the soothsayer Smile)
 
By the by it wasn't Caesar's invasion that had the consequence you mention, it was Claudius', a century later.


Edited by gcle2003 - 12-Sep-2006 at 04:53
Back to Top
brunodam View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 29-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136 		  Quote brunodam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 13:01
. If Napoleon didn't sell Lousiana Americans would take it sooner or later, without paying.
2. US helped France in WWI and WWII so it's not that bad for France that they became superpower
3. France would lose its status of superpower anyway to Germany or Soviet Union.
 
Sorry, but I don't agree with anyone of your above answers to Maria d.
1) there is no reason to believe that the ex-thirteen colonies would have "taken" the french Lousiana against the will of France (they needed France in order to survive the coming attacks from England).
2) a (french speaking) Louisiana powerful state could have helped more France against the following German invasions.
3) France would have received the help from a theoretical Lousiana state to remain a powerful superpower, like the help England received from the United states to win the wars against Germany in the following century. 
Allow me to advise you to read the famous "History of the English speaking people" of W. Churchill, about the importance of being the FULL northamerica continent in the anglo-saxon hands.
Bruno
 
P.S.    Gcle 2003: Claudius landed in south Britain fifty years after Caesar, because he believed it was going to be an easy military campaign (but proved difficult: remember the Boudicea revolt).
Without Caesar, probably Claudius would have attacked the Marcomanni in southern Germany (as the famous historian Mommsen wrote).

Back to Top
Timotheus View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 478 		  Quote Timotheus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 21:32
Napoleon's great mistake was that made by Hitler, Tamerlane, Louis XIV of France, and an infinitude of other military leaders. It's a very classic mistake. He overextended himself. He went too far, too fast, chiefly by delving into Russia and not making peace with England. Same thing that Hitler did. They both could have ruled a continent -- but they each had to rule a little bit more, and their empires crashed and burned because of it.
Back to Top
Peter III View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 159 		  Quote Peter III Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 22:17

Timotheus has summed it up perfectly. It wasn't a single battle or campaign; it was the fact that he overextended his army to such an extent, that it would be impossible to achieve his goals.

 

I think we are all looking a little too hard to find the answer, in reality it is a much simpler explanation.



Edited by Peter III - 13-Sep-2006 at 22:18
Back to Top
maria d. View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 80 		  Quote maria d. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 12:37
Timotheus, the answer is too much elementary....Nearly all the great military leaders, who lost their conquests, overstretched for some reason!
We have to enter in a detailed analysis in order to answer correctly the question about the "biggest mistake" of Napoleon. Maria d.
Back to Top
brunodam View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 29-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136 		  Quote brunodam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 13:42
You are right, Maria d.
What has made ultimately great Napoleon has been his spread all over Europe of the ideals of the french revolution (egalite', fraternite', liberte'), not the bloody battles he did (and he never overstretched outside Europe, even if he planned a campaign to India and the new world).    His only big mistake, FROM A SECULAR POINT OF VIEW, is to have lost the north american continent with the Louisiana sale.   But he lost that for France and the latin-european people........for the english speaking people the sale was a lucky strike! 
Now the world would be centered around S. Louis/New Orleans and Paris, not around Washington/New York and London!!   Bruno

Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537 		  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 14:57
Originally posted by brunodam

. If Napoleon didn't sell Lousiana Americans would take it sooner or later, without paying.
2. US helped France in WWI and WWII so it's not that bad for France that they became superpower
3. France would lose its status of superpower anyway to Germany or Soviet Union.
 
Sorry, but I don't agree with anyone of your above answers to Maria d.
1) there is no reason to believe that the ex-thirteen colonies would have "taken" the french Lousiana against the will of France (they needed France in order to survive the coming attacks from England).
2) a (french speaking) Louisiana powerful state could have helped more France against the following German invasions.
3) France would have received the help from a theoretical Lousiana state to remain a powerful superpower, like the help England received from the United states to win the wars against Germany in the following century. 
Allow me to advise you to read the famous "History of the English speaking people" of W. Churchill, about the importance of being the FULL northamerica continent in the anglo-saxon hands.
Bruno
 
 
No, if Nepoleon wouldnt sell Luisiana, the Brits would have take it. Just as they did with Canada earlier and other French colonies all over the world during napoleonic wars.


Edited by Mosquito - 14-Sep-2006 at 14:57
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
brunodam View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 29-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136 		  Quote brunodam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 15:44
The Americans were ready to fight against the British in case of invasion of the French Lousiana: don't forget it!   Simply they (the ex-thirteen colonies) could not afford to be encircled by the British, from Quebec to New Orleans.  Probably the war between England and the Americans of 1812 would have happened some years before.  Bruno

Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537 		  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 16:07
Originally posted by brunodam

The Americans were ready to fight against the British in case of invasion of the French Lousiana: don't forget it!   Simply they (the ex-thirteen colonies) could not afford to be encircled by the British, from Quebec to New Orleans.  Probably the war between England and the Americans of 1812 would have happened some years before.  Bruno
 
So what. They would fight and would have been defeated just like in 1812. USA was still a young country and not experienced enough to fight against european powers. The war for independence was won just because of French support and european officers who were training american farmers.
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
maria d. View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 80 		  Quote maria d. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 17:31
Originally posted by Mosquito

Originally posted by brunodam

The Americans were ready to fight against the British in case of invasion of the French Lousiana: don't forget it!   Simply they (the ex-thirteen colonies) could not afford to be encircled by the British, from Quebec to New Orleans.  Probably the war between England and the Americans of 1812 would have happened some years before.  Bruno
 
So what. They would fight and would have been defeated just like in 1812. USA was still a young country and not experienced enough to fight against european powers. The war for independence was won just because of French support and european officers who were training american farmers.
 
Well, you just said it: because of french support the americans won their independence war.....so the (anticipated)1812 war was probably going to be won by the french/american troops (like the independence wars)! And may be the English would have lost QuebecWink to the French....
But we are now in the world of theoretical possibilities.  Let's go back to our central topic: Napoleon' s biggest mistake.
 
Anyway, imagine a Louisiana State in British hands: what do you believe wolud have happened to the United States in the nineteenth century?
A U.S. east of the Mississippi was going to be asfixiated in his growth and was going to be a relatively little State that was not going to help too much England during the two world wars against Germany (and even this Louisiana State was going to grow, without big importance, more or less like Canada or Australia under the British sovereignity)......That is why I am sure that the Americans would have fought the British in order to "survive the encirclement" of their country.
As Bruno correctly has said in the forum, a French Lousiana state would have changed the history of the French and English speaking people in the following century.   Maria d.
 
Back to Top
Mosquito View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537 		  Quote Mosquito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 17:45
Yes, as long as it would have remained French. I see no reason why Brits after taking most of French colonies shouldnt take thisone. Because of supremacy of British fleet the French wouldnt be able to sent any troops from France.
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
Back to Top
Peter III View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 159 		  Quote Peter III Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 18:40
His only big mistake, FROM A SECULAR POINT OF VIEW, is to have lost the north american continent with the Louisiana sale.   But he lost that for France and the latin-european people........for the english speaking people the sale was a lucky strike!
 
I can't bring myself to believe this at all.
 
First of all, the benifits of having the Louisiana territory wouldn't do anything to improve Napolean's situation in Europe. He couldn't reap the benifits of an undeveloped territory while he was still fighting the most powerful nations in Europe. How would Napolean be able to industrialize Louisana, Missouri, etc. and get major economic pursuits underway when he was in a major war with practically every country in the European continent?! Another point. Napolean would have to bring those reasources hundreds of miles across the Atlantic to France, benifits (or at least decent sized benifits) of this new source of resources wouldn't be seen for years. In reality, Lousiana and the other midwest states would do nothing to further Napoleans interests in Europe.
 
This brings me to another point; in order for St. Louis and New Orleans to become equivalent to today's London and Washington D.C., Napolean would have to win the war in Europe. The Louisiana purchase did nothing to affect that outcome. All that would of happened if Napolean held onto the territory would be him divvying it up to other European nations during peace talks.
 
Finally, at the time, Napolean was only worried about short term problems (and rightly so). The money was much more important than land an ocean away.
 
 
Back to Top
maria d. View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 80 		  Quote maria d. Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 19:18
Originally posted by Mosquito

Yes, as long as it would have remained French. I see no reason why Brits after taking most of French colonies shouldnt take thisone. Because of supremacy of British fleet the French wouldnt be able to sent any troops from France.
 
The reason: the army and fleet of the newborn United States. 
The US paid a fortune of that time to buy the Louisiana AND THE MAIN REASON FOR NAPOLEON TO MAKE THE SALE WAS TO GET NEEDED MONEY TO PAY FOR HIS WAR AGAINST THE BRITISH EMPIRE.  Money, not fear of a (difficult because of the american army) british conquest of Louisiana, was the culprit of the biggest HISTORICAL mistake of Napoleon.  Maria d.
Back to Top
brunodam View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 29-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136 		  Quote brunodam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 19:38

We are talking of HISTORICAL OR SECULAR point of view, Peter III.   The word "secular", as you know, is referred to "century".  The Louisiana sale at the time of Napoleon was not important: it was done only to get money for the Napoleon armies.     But in the long run it proved to be what the same W. Churchill called "the fact that opened the future" to the anglosaxon domination of the north american continent....and consequently of our contemporary world.                                                 Let me explain with an example: Germany started to grow after the victory in the French-Prussian war, when France was left alone to face the Prussians.  But if there was a Louisiana french-speaking state, probably France would have received (from this state) the same help that the United States gave to England in the two world wars.   France (because of Germany) in the nineteenth century started to lose his status of european superpower.....Bruno

Back to Top
Peter III View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 159 		  Quote Peter III Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 19:52

Well my point is that the Louisana Purchase couldn't have been his biggest mistake. Napolean's biggest mistake would have caused him to lose the war, and selling Louisana definately wasn't the cause of his downfall. If you read my whole posting you would have a better understanding of what I am saying. Napolean would have lost Louisana one way or the other, it was just a matter of time.



Edited by Peter III - 14-Sep-2006 at 19:54
Back to Top
Peter III View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 159 		  Quote Peter III Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 19:56
THE MAIN REASON FOR NAPOLEON TO MAKE THE SALE WAS TO GET NEEDED MONEY TO PAY FOR HIS WAR AGAINST THE BRITISH EMPIRE.  Money, not fear of a (difficult because of the american army) british conquest of Louisiana
 
Another thing, who ever mentioned that France was fearful of a British Invasion?
Back to Top
brunodam View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 29-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136 		  Quote brunodam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 20:38

Not necessarily the biggest mistake of Napoleon has to be related to his final defeat.  As Maria d. has correctly stated (and I have repeated)  the Lousiana sale and the related historical consequences ARE the biggest mistake (independently from the Napoleon wars & campaigns).    May I repeat for the last time that the sale gave to the anglosaxon people the control of the north american continent (as Churchill wrote in his "History of the english-speaking people") and consequently the control of the contemporary world. 

Finally, the reference to the "fear of british invasion" was related to the answers to the forumer "Mosquito".   Have you all a happy weekend. Smile  Bruno

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

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 0.063 seconds.