Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Ahmed The Fighter
Chieftain
Lion of Babylon
Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Napoleon Posted: 06-Jul-2005 at 15:51 |
All Europe against him but he like a rock
Russia the graveyard of all greatest
Russian have the power of motherland
|
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
|
|
vulkan02
Arch Duke
Termythinator
Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: U$A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1835
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Jul-2005 at 15:54 |
he was the same deluded megalomaniac like Alexander, Ceasar, Attila, etc. He was a great general though.
|
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao
|
|
Ahmed The Fighter
Chieftain
Lion of Babylon
Joined: 17-Apr-2005
Location: Iraq
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1106
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Jul-2005 at 16:10 |
Bonaparte was a brilliant military strategist, able to absorb the substantial body of military knowledge of his time and to apply it to the real-world circumstances of his era. Though he was known for his creative use of artillery in a mobile role, he owed much of his great success not to innovation, but rather to his encyclopedic knowledge and superior application of conventional military thought; as he put it himself, "I have fought sixty battles and I have learned nothing which I did not know at the beginning."
|
"May the eyes of cowards never sleep"
Khalid Bin Walid
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 01:32 |
Bonaparte was a brilliant military strategist, able to absorb the substantial body of military knowledge of his time and to apply it to the real-world circumstances of his era. |
Bonaparte didn't invented any new strategy, he only inherited the system of the revolution It is true he improved the system, made it more efficient. But the revolution in strategy was due to the french revolution, with the metric systems and setting of new standard. The tactics of Napoleon weren't developed or even pioneered by the Emperor by the revolutionary army. What napoleon did was repeating the Battle of tourcoing over and over, those tactics were develop by Moreau. It was moreau in exile who told the allies not to confront Napoleon but exhaust him. Basically Moreau was a superior strategist to Napoleon, it was the allies who weren't able to find out Napoleon was using the same strategy over and over at different positions on different terrains. Overhall Napoleon was very innovative he was just capable of exploiting a system that was already there.
During the 100 days, Napoleon made a terrible mess, he couldn't chose the right person for the right job. This can only show the men can create but used what was created. For me the greatest was Moreau. France would have been the ultimate victor without Napoleon.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 03:17 |
Napoleon wasn't that megalomanical, he was just forced to be the consul by his brother then he won a victory then the next then another one until finally he was emperor. Btw, how come the hussars during the napoleonic age wore their jackets only on one side.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 17:00 |
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Bonaparte didn't invented any new strategy, he only inherited the system of the revolution It is true he improved the system, made it more efficient. But the revolution in strategy was due to the french revolution, with the metric systems and setting of new standard. The tactics of Napoleon weren't developed or even pioneered by the Emperor by the revolutionary army. What napoleon did was repeating the Battle of tourcoing over and over, those tactics were develop by Moreau. It was moreau in exile who told the allies not to confront Napoleon but exhaust him. Basically Moreau was a superior strategist to Napoleon, it was the allies who weren't able to find out Napoleon was using the same strategy over and over at different positions on different terrains. Overhall Napoleon was very innovative he was just capable of exploiting a system that was already there.
|
now finally back up your dull argument and give us details on your weird theory so we can attack this stupid argument or rest your case once and for all, I'm sick of reading that sh*t over and over again!
Originally posted by Makros
Btw, how come the hussars during the napoleonic age wore their jackets only on one side. |
it was simply a fashion.
Edited by Temujin
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 23:40 |
Napoleon was a bit of a megalomaniac in that he was enchanted with his own glory. This is a guy who hired the artist David to paint his portrait standing over references to men like Caesar and Charlemagne. However, in other ways he was a man of the people, or at least of the infantry, which explains in part why his soldiers fought so hard for him (also because the seeds of 19th century nationalism were sprouting). Yes, he brought certain facets of the revolution and the enlightenment to Europe, but he also ruled with an iron fist, crowned himself emperor, and ranks among the best (or worst) of history's conquerors. A bloodthirsty dictator? No. A legendary emperor? No. A short guy with something to prove? Perhaps. An enigma? Definitely.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 07:14 |
Originally posted by Achilles03
However, in other ways he was a man of the people, or at least of the infantry, which explains in part why his soldiers fought so hard for him (also because the seeds of 19th century nationalism were sprouting).
Napoleon was an artilleryman.
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 10:40 |
Yes, he began as an artilleryman. However, I imagine he widened his scope a little when he became the conqueror of most of Europe.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 16:52 |
|
|
minchickie
Shogun
Joined: 03-Jul-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 241
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 20:41 |
Originally posted by Temujin
Originally posted by Mixcoatl
but at the same time was responsible for millions of deaths |
again, what millions?
|
Yea he took out corrupt catholic priests that hundreds of woman and children killed for being accused of being "witches". his views on those rediculous BARBARIC acts by the catholic church were brilliant! They deserved to be killed!
|
|
|
Arn de Gothia
Janissary
Joined: 07-Jul-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 10:26 |
Originally posted by Makros
Btw, how come the hussars during the napoleonic age wore their jackets only on one side. |
In close combat when it came to swordfights against other horsemen or
so on, the Hussar could use the "hanging part of the jacket" and swing
it up on his arm as protection if necessery. The jackets were
reinforced with metal as you can clearly see in pictures. Thou I would
guess such a protection wouldnt work well against piercing swords like
a rapier but only against sabres wich you usually slash with.
Im not 100% sure of this, but Im sure read something about it a long time ago.
|
|
Temujin
King
Sirdar Bahadur
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jul-2005 at 16:58 |
that is a myth, because they used the Dolman as normal jacket in winter time.
|
|
Arn de Gothia
Janissary
Joined: 07-Jul-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 27
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 06:35 |
ok thanks for the info but, "Dolman"?
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jul-2005 at 08:07 |
maybe it has some kind of special use, or maybe it's easier to manipulate their sabers, like when samurai take off their other sleeve when fighting.
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jul-2005 at 07:22 |
now finally back up your dull argument and give us details on your weird theory so we can attack this stupid argument or rest your case once and for all, I'm sick of reading that sh*t over and over again! |
What about you open a history book perhaps it would help you. If you can't find anything to attack then you certainly know jacksh!t about the Napoleonic era and the formation he used was already developed. If you can't understand then their nothing you can understand.
|
|
TheOrcRemix
Consul
Joined: 28-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 00:37 |
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
now finally back up your dull argument and give us details on your weird theory so we can attack this stupid argument or rest your case once and for all, I'm sick of reading that sh*t over and over again! |
What about you open a history book perhaps it would help you. If you can't find anything to attack then you certainly know jacksh!t about the Napoleonic era and the formation he used was already developed. If you can't understand then their nothing you can understand.
|
LOL
|
True peace is not the absence of tension, but the presence of justice.
Sir Francis Drake is the REAL Pirate of the Caribbean
|
|
Hushyar
Consul
Joined: 16-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 01:05 |
Sorry just a question , what were the innovations of Napelon (or revolution generals) In tactic and strategy that distinguished them from 18th centuty style of war and their commanders like Ferderick?
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 15:51 |
Hushyar:
In the Revolutionary Wars, the nature of the army changed....theorists like Jomini called for the "levee en masse" as the basis of the manpower of the army, and the military logic of overwhelming force could be implemented. There was almost no technological change, and weapons and tactics were not much different than in 1750. Strategy was different.
The much larger armies fielded by France were motivated by a revolutionary zeal (sound familiar?). This helped generals to attempt to destroy the enemy's ability to continue the fight by overwhelming them in a decisive battle that would truly end a campaign or a war, and not let the decision go undecided. At least this is what they tried.
There were "decisive" battles won by the French in the Napoleonic era.... Marengo, Austerlitz, Jena, Wagram.....but as all the other powers, except Britain, began to raise and learned to use larger and larger armies, the French fell victim to their own strategy.....the battle that would destroy the opponent's ability to fight further.
Leipzig (1813) and Waterloo (1815) turned the tables, but the "new" type of warfare had come to stay. Now the entire manpower of the nation was considered as potential soldiers.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 17:01 |
I should also add that there WAS a tactical change in the use of massed artillery and of a very large reserve of artillery to support the other arms at any crucial pont on the battlefield. The very large number of guns was new, but they were still the Gribeauval system guns from the 1770s/80s.
In addition, artillery was more often permanently attached to infantry formations (2 or more brigades) to create the 'division.' Of course, Bonaparte was trained as an artilleryman.
|
|