Napoleon's Biggest Mistake
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Early Modern & the Imperial Age
Forum Discription: World History from 1500 to the end of WW1
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14617
Printed Date: 06-Jun-2024 at 08:10
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Napoleon's Biggest Mistake
Posted By: Majkes
Subject: Napoleon's Biggest Mistake
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2006 at 03:04
| What do You consider Napoleon's biggest mistake? |
Replies:
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2006 at 03:27
|
Invasion of Russia, of course.
------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2006 at 04:01
|
Invasion of Russia, agree with you I can, Constantine XI. It is very probable that if he hadn't gone to Russia, he had ruled happily (bloodily) ever after. ------------- |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2006 at 04:30
| In my opinion it is war with Spain. War with Russia was inevitable. Maybe the way he conducted war with Russia was a big mistake but not the war with Russia itself. He should have done the war with Russia like Stefan Bathory in 1579-82 - invade part of Russia one year, another next year and finish in the third year. |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2006 at 05:23
|
The invasion of Russia without providing the necessary logistical support, which can not be even probably provided in modern era :D ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2006 at 07:59
He couldn't swallow whole Russia in one campaign but in few well prepared campaings it was possible, at least He could have conclude very favourable peace treaty if total victory wouldn't be possible.
|
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2006 at 08:27
|
Yeah Majkes, you have a point out there...Maybe a few planned campaigns would help Napoleon get a favourable treaty with Russia...But there are a several factors:
If he was to make such a large plan, would he really be able to arrange logistics of such a huge attack? Would he be able to resist against Russian winter?How would he supply the army?And he had to divide the army to pieces to make a campaign of that scale...Russian army, who was also a real formidable force, would they allow the operation to be successful in this case? French army was already short of reserves and would have even more harder time replacing the losses.How would the reactions of Austro-Prussian forces be? Would there be an attempt to surround the French army?
After all, I think this still seems impossible. ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2006 at 10:41
|
Nope, the Steppes would melt and become a huge marshland. The Germans faced the same problem and I do not remember how the snow-coming and melting were called in Russia, but Stalin said that they were 'two generals that Russia could always count on'. ------------- |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2006 at 11:58
Nothing is impossible
 . |
Posted By: maria d.
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2006 at 20:47
|
The sale of Lousiana to the newborn United States of America.
As Churchill said, this sale "gave the future" of the world domination to the english speaking people.
The little State that Washington has been able to create in 1776, after a few years DOUBLED in size (because of the Lousiana purchase) with all the richness of the Mississippi plains.
Napoleon had a mind "Eurocentered" and was not able to understand that a new continent (North America) was going to outgrow the old Europe (with its old colonial politics). He did the Louisiana purchase for peanuts: let's imagine what would have happened if France had maintained this huge Mississippi area....Maria d.
|
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 06:37
|
Do you think he could hold on out there while fighting with the rest of Europe if USA was to use military force?
I don't think so... ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 06:38
I'd manage to do the "tough", the "impossible" would take time  ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 07:09
|
Continental System...
Eventually when Napoleon invaded Russia,he used the argument that Russia did not keep her promise and traded with Britain. ------------- ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever! |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 08:17
He already had a very favourabls peace treaty in 1807 at Tilsit, when the Tsar agreed to join the war against Britain. It didn't last very long, any more than any other 'favourable treaty' would probably have done. ------------- |
Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 08:21
Exactly, the status quo would be soon broken after the French retreat, even if Napoleon had managed to bring Russia to its knees..Like what happened after Tilsit. ------------- We gave up your happiness Your hope would be enough; we couldn't find neither; we made up sorrows for ourselves; we couldn't be consoled; A Strange Orhan Veli |
Posted By: maria d.
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 09:31
|
Well, let's remember that the Louisiana purchase was a simple sale, there were no threats of military intervention. It was considered as a "Gift" from revolutionary France to the revolutionary Americans (even because both revolutions were against the British empire). Indeed, the newborn United States were too weak to fight a new war, after having just finished their bloody independence war.
Furthermore, my opinion is based on historical consequences, not the momentaneous victory/defeat in european battles. Even if Napoleon would have been able to maintain his empire and had never attacked Russia, after one century the growth of America would reduce France (and Europe) to a second level power, like it is today. That is the reason why I consider the Lousiana purchase as his biggest mistake. A theoretical Louisiana State would have assimilated the West of North America, blocking the expansion of the thirteen ex-colonies toward California! And the United States would have been more or less the size of Quebec, with reduced population and industrial power. Maria d.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 13:18
|
To assess whether someone made a mistake, you have to consider what he was trying to do.
I doubt that Napoleon now (if he's looking down on us from somewhere) cares very much about what happened after he died. However, I bet he cares very much about what happened before he died.
He lost his Empire because he invaded Russia. He didn't lose anything of value to him by selling Louisiana, no matter what the effect was on France a hundred or two hundred years later. ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 15:15
|
The war with Spain. Napoleon made the mistake of opening a southern front that did nothing but drain manpower and resources. As they call it Napoleon's bleeding ulcer. Although great points about the Louisiana purchase, continental system and of course Russia. Napoleon was a great (if not the greatest) tactical general but he left something to be desired in the strategic arena. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: maria d.
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 18:57
|
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. |
Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 19:16
|
I agree with you, Maria.
Your points of view on Napoleon's biggest mistake are perfect.  Bruno------------- |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 20:34
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" |
Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 21:33
Gundamor, you write in an english very difficult to understand.
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.
I believe Maria d. is totally right! Bruno ------------- |
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 01:14
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.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 04:51
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.
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
 )By the by it wasn't Caesar's invasion that had the consequence you mention, it was Claudius', a century later. ------------- |
Posted By: brunodam
Date 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). ------------- |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date 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. |
Posted By: Peter III
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 22:17
|
Timo I think we are all looking a little too hard to find |
Posted By: maria d.
Date 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.
|
Posted By: brunodam
Date 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 ------------- |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 14:57
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. ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: brunodam
Date 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 ------------- |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 16:07
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 |
Posted By: maria d.
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 17:31
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 Quebec
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.
|
Posted By: Mosquito
Date 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 |
Posted By: Peter III
Date 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.
|
Posted By: maria d.
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 19:18
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.
|
Posted By: brunodam
Date 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 ------------- |
Posted By: Peter III
Date 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. |
Posted By: Peter III
Date 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?
|
Posted By: brunodam
Date 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. Bruno------------- |
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2006 at 21:47
|
Nappoleon just didn't know where to stop. He'd go on and fight war after war untill, at some point, someone would defeat him. It was the same with Hitler; if Alexander had lived longer and continue conquering he too would've been defeated regardless of the fact that he might reach the shores of Japan before that happened. In short, it is the usual bug that all conquerors exhibit. For, if you stop conquering, what do you become then? ------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: maria d.
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 08:43
Yes, you are right. But you have to judge the big conquerors mainly by
the LEGACY that they give to their own people, not only by their battles and wars.
Don't forget that we are talking of men who change the course of history. Caesar gave to the Romans the legacy of the Roman Empire, Alexander gave to the Greeks the legacy of the Hellenism, but Napoleon what gave to the French people?
He spread the ideals of the French revolution to all Europe (as Bruno said), but France in the next generations simply disappeared as european superpower. After just fifty years from Napoleon's death, France was humiliated by Germany and had lost the worlwide leadership to the British empire.
We have to wonder what would have happened to France if Napoleon had not sold the Louisiana territories to the newborn US (and had done his planned campaign in the new world). Maria d.
|
Posted By: Peter III
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 18:38
|
Finally, the reference to the "fear of british invasion" was related to the answers to the forumer "Mosquito".
My point is, he never mentioned that either.
|
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 23:58
Simplicity never equals wrongness. The fact is, he overstretched himself, and that's why all the Hungarians don't speak French. You don't have to write a master's dissertation to find out that Napoleon was too greedy and thereby lost his career. Maybe what you're trying to find out is which actions of Napoleon's had the greatest impact on history. The question at hand is what was his biggest mistake? What caused him to lose? Why did he, who was such a genius, lose an empire? Why did Napoleon meet his Waterloo? Think about it... |
Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 10:23
|
The famous historian A. J. Toynbee wrote that the biggest mistakes in history are those that have the greatest impact. So consequently, I agree with Maria d. who says that the biggest mistake of Napoleon was the Louisiana sale to the newborn US. Bruno ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 13:16
|
In Timotheus' view, the sale of Lousiana did nothing and therefore any other EUROPEAN event should have been more important, as they contributed to Napoleon's losses. But Maria's view is correct in the way that the sale was wrong for the French Republic and could have stopped the US expansion for some time. ------------- |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 09:39
|
He chose a wrong way to retreat in Russia. As far as I know If he retreat in the Souther way, he could find supply and his men would have been saved from cold. But his scouts reported a big Russian army there (In fact there was no army there) and he chose a much harder way.
Correct me if I wrong, but as far as I know US was an agressively expansive state in the first half of the XIX. century. I don't think that France could have kept Louisiana in any case.
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 15:58
I'm just thinking how France would keep Louisiana after Napoleon's being defeated. How would it help France in a lost war with Prussia 1870 and both World Wars. America helped France anyway. If US would be splited in two they could have been much weaker and possibly even not take part in any of World Wars. If US wouldn't be so powerful the main winners would be Japan, Germany and Russia. So I agree with Raider.
|
Posted By: maria d.
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 18:13
|
Thank you, Bruno, for your support in this forum. But I am afraid the argument is going too much in the HYPOTHETICAL.... History is not made of "IF"...
Anyway, if the Louisiana had remained French, thanks mainly to the newborn US (worried by expansion of the British in north america), certainly would have benefited from the nineteenth century mass emigration from Europe. This would have increase the power of this Louisiana nation, that could have expanded to the Pacific ocean, becoming a very powerful state CERTAINLY CAPABLE of helping France against Germany in 1870. Consequently, France, maintaining the central role in Europe (as has happened since Charlemagne times), would have jeopardized the growth of other european countries (like Russia).
But, as said before, history is not made of "IF"....... Maria d.
|
Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 20:12
|
You are right ! Furthermore, Maria d., most forumers seems to be repeating the same opinions......unfortunately for the forum.
Bye bye to everybody  Bruno------------- |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2006 at 18:06
|
Dude, I just totally ate the crispy, custard-filled desert called the "Napoleon" today, since my European Military History professor was passing them out in class today. Who thought Napoleon would taste so good? Lol. You could argue that Napoleon's march into Russia and the timing of it was the greatest mistake. In my opinion, his second greatest was leaving his troops in Egypt to fend for themselves and for the British to capture.
Eric ------------- |
Posted By: maria d.
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 10:54
Sincerely, I don't believe that the french Lousiana State only "could have stopped for some time the US expansion": IN MY OPINION COULD HAVE DAMAGED DEFINITIVELY THE GROWTH OF THE US, FOLLOWING THE CIVIL WAR.
In 1860 there was the terrible war between the South and the North of the United States, that nearly destroyed the newborn US.
If there would have been the french Louisiana State at the time, it could have jeopardized (with a military intervention) the defeat of the Confederates and so the "South" could have remained independent to our days.....Think of it! Maria d.
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 12:52
|
Well, if there we to be Lousiana, it would have been a Franco-US War as most of the western Confederate States were a part of the Louisiana..
------------- |
Posted By: maria d.
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 17:31
I am sorry, but I disagree with your affirmation.
Indeed, the Confederate States would have not included, OBVIOUSLY, the States west of the Mississippi (that would have been part of the french Louisiana State, not sold by Napoleon in his biggest mistake). Maria d.
|
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 12:05
|
Well, but the French would have interfered into the conflict!!! And having the Mid-West and the western gold mines, they could have been the dominant power and striken Germany first with the GB helping Germany and US being destroyed by France. ************************Text deleted*********************** ------------- |
Posted By: maria d.
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 15:23
Hey, hey !
This is not a polite answer!
If you are a moderator, then I am GLADLY out of this forum AND OUT FOREVER OF THE ALLEMPIRES SITE !
Learn the education!!!!!!!!  Maria d.------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2006 at 13:43
|
Maria d., I apologize of what I said to you, but I might have misunderstood the use of English language once more. So, I DO hope that you don't leave this forum NOR the All Empires site for forever. Not for a little time even. Thanks, NOTE: You quoted me wrong, I fixed it. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 10:01
|
Personally I think that He should try to rech some diplomatic compromise with England (Mayby for the cost of Spain) Th continental blocade was absolutly devastating for him. |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2006 at 10:47
|
I would like to state that a recent continental divide between rider and maria d. has been bridged. As of now, all forms of communication have improved.
Thanks to both maria d. and rider for their kind understanding towards eachother for a peaceful resolution. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2006 at 23:43
|
Actually if Napoleon didn't sell Louisiana it wouldn't have made 2 cents of difference. Napoleon sold it because he couldn't defend it, his navy was destroyed by England, he couldn't get there. Spain, lost all of latin america for the same reason. It was better for him to sell it before the British took it. The British did attack it in 1814 anyway remember. I think the English would have taken it from the french, and ruled it for a few years, at the outbreak of the 1812 war (US varient), the US would've attacked and (unlike Canada) the local population would support the US not england. The US would take Lousiana, the english would attack it in 1814, and loose just like real life, and today, we wouldn't even notice the difference. (Hell, some americans already think they won 1812). Napoleon was a wise man for selling that land. ------------- |
Posted By: unicorn
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2006 at 23:53
|
>Napoleon sold it because he couldn't defend it, his navy was destroyed >by England, he couldn't get there.
The most valid point of view IMO. Trafalgar meant loss of sea control. Without that, it was impossible to think to take a profit from a remote overseas colony.
France was in no position to invest in both a continental army and a fleet at the same time. Napoleon had quite some hard time to put taxes in order for only the first goal, and without a continental army he'd have been doomed way before a naval defeat would cause harm.
I think that to a certain extent some steps he made were not "mistakes" but "bad solutions which occurred inevitably due to the context". I think that a mistake, if any, was not something he did but something he did not. Austria was treacherous under the terms of the treaties in 1809. Napoleon scored a difficult victory (which amongst other costed him the life of marechal Lannes, one of his most competent lieutenants). He should have crushed Austria into annihilation, simply dismantling the ex-Roman Empire. Instead, he hoped that a mere alliance through matrimony will turn Austrians into loyal allies. He then went for a double adventure : in Spain and in matrimony. He thought that finally they will leave him alone, and that his father-in-law Francisc will be benevolent to an heir who would be his own blood. Nothing more wrong.
A subsidiary mistake - his thirst for power enraged some of his ex-loyal men, amongst all Talleyrand. Alexander of Russia was still keen to fall to terms when, instead of negociating peace under harsh terms, Talleyrand had a discussion which rather made him Austria's plenipotentiary than France's. Napoleon found Alexander suddenly changed and stubborn after Talleyrand had talks with him. Russians understood that they can't afford Napoleon as ally but they need to resume the duplicitary policy. Thus a rancorous Austria and a duplicitary Russia joined together AND Napoleon, for a first time in his life, underestimated severely the consequence of this secret alliance.
It was said that Napoleon made somehow the same mistake as Hitler. With a difference. Hitler made peace with Stalin (Ribbentropp-Molotov pact) AND was the first to break it. Napoleon made peace with Alexander and was actually PUSHED into breaking it, also relying on the doubtful allegiance of the Austrians. Thus, at Leipzig, he not only faced treachery but in fact Austrians were the "fer de lance" of the campaign.
A subsidiary mistake : the Bernadotte incident. Bernadotte was appointed king of Sweden through the extinction of the former dinasty, and his successors are the single ones still ruling amongst all the houses deriving from Napoleon's appointees. Napoleon was reluctant to appoint Bernadotte, but finally allowed it to happen. Bernadotte provided all Napoleon's foes with not only good advise about warfare tactics, but also with troops.
Third mistake : he crushed Prussia but also humiliated the German princes. At Leipzig this paid severly back. They refused to fight compatriots and turned weapons against Frenchmen at the climax of the battle.
Resuming, it becomes apparent that it was not a mistake in itself but a certain pattern of thought which led into chains of mistakes coming from a tendence to overestimate one's own actions and neglecting that other people will deffinitely not deem them as one wishes. I would still point that the peace concluded with Austria in 1809 was establishing a precedent : Napoleon's own plenipotentiary Talleyrand decided (it seems also that he reached terms on this with his former longstanding enemy Fouche) that France is something, Napoleon is something different. And he proceeded as such. This actually makes for the breakpoint between Napoleon representing France and Napoleon representing only his own (demesurate) ambition. But I reckon Talleyrand was not alone in thinking this. His gesture reflects something many more thought without being able or affording to express. In fact there was no room for negociation with Austria. The imperial house regarded Napoleon as a opportunistic scum and would have never conceived to come to terms with him otherwise than for buying time and better circumstances. Austria proved after Napoleon's downfall the most stubborn adept of conservatorism and reactionary behavior, to such extent that the British had to moderate (ironically) such tendences. At the verge of his echafaudage being shaken, Napoleon thought that showing magnanimity will make him more palatable to the rigid Austrians. He proved utmostly wrong.
------------- At corpus non terminatur cogitatione, nec cogitatio corpore (Spinoza, Etica) |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 17:20
Napoleon wasn't getting peace with the UK short of somehow defeating it. There was a brief period in 1802 when he had beaten the entire reactionary league ranged against revolutionary France, to the point where even the UK saw fit to accept signing a peace treaty. At that point it momentarily looked as if he had gotten away with it. He had secured most of the gains of the French Revolution, of course setting hemself up as the first liberal dictator in history. The future looked bright. And at that point the UK decided this order of things wasn't satisfactory and started the war again. From then on it was Britian feeding the opposition to France. Trafalgar removed any threat of Napoleon taking it on directly. Instead he was forced to fight the British proxies one after the other, including the Russians. That was a mistake first in the sense that Napoleon expected the Russians to march their army out of Russia proper and line up for defeat, like they had done before, and secondly because at the point when he realised the Russians weren't coming, he went in to find them. Otoh, he needed to settle the Russians and playing a waiting game with them seemed just as risky. It might be that his biggest miscalculation was in fact thinking he could ever make himself palatable to the royal houses of Europe by marrying into one of them, making France safe that way. The reactionary monarchies were dead set on crushing the French Revolution and the state it had created, the minder of which Napoleon had become. Spreading the revolution, trying to trigger similar movements in other countries, REALLY overturning the apple cart of the monarchies, could have worked better for him in the end. It would have made the conflicts even more desperate, but it might have turned more of Europe into liberal democracies sooner. In the end he wasn't enough of a radical revolutionary. He kept trying to make peace with the monarchs instead of kicking over their thrones. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 19:23
|
It seems to me that Unicorn and Joinville repeat the "usual history" that can be found in every good history book in a college.
We need innovative (and provocative) opinions like those exposed by Maria d.
I personally agree with her: the Louisiana sale to the newborn US was the biggest mistake of Napoleon! Maria d. has explained (in her posts) very well with convincing arguments her opinion.
I only wonder what would have happened if Napoleon had sold the Louisiana to the Spanish, in order to gain their support in Europe. In this way the Spanish would have been allies of Napoleon and there would NOT have been the terrible war of occupation of Spain by the Napoleonic armies. So, Napoleon would have obtained an additional help to conquer central and eastern Europe. And may be Mexico would have grown to a superpower in the next two centuries............
Of course, histoty is not made by "IF", as Maria d. has written.
But the idea (and possibility) is fascinating.....
Bruno ------------- |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 00:19
Just because it's oft repeated in good books does not invalidate its factual accuracy. |
Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 09:34
|
So, Timotheus, why we post in this forum? Let's go to the "History 101" classroom in a college/university....at least we get good instructions from experienced history professors...
I believe the forums are interesting when we "create" something, not when we "click and copy", as Komnenos writes! Bruno ------------- |
Posted By: brunodam
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 19:53
|
Rider, as a moderator you are a bit rude. First with Maria d., now with me..........I was only "joking" with a forumer about "History 101 classroom"....
 Anyway, because I am entitled to express my own opinions in a forum, I want to repeat that I totally agree with Maria d. on the fact that the Louisiana sale was the biggest mistake of Napoleon ON AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF CENTURIES. And I want to conclude my intervention in this forum with this excerpt:
...."This little event, of France's (dis)possessing herself of Louisiana, is the embryo of a tornado which will burst on the countries on both sides of the Atlantic and involve in it's effects their highest destinies."
President Thomas Jefferson wrote this prediction in an April 1802 letter. Jefferson's prediction of a "tornado" that would burst upon the countries on both sides of the Atlantic and his belief that the affair of Louisiana would impact upon "their highest destinies" PROVED PROPHETIC INDEED.
Gaye Wilson, Monticello Research (2003) ........ " Bruno ------------- |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2006 at 21:09
If innovative history was on order, we shouldn't for the umpteenth time be dragging out the sorry carcass of Napoleon and political history anyway. No one else had posted that specific bit of historical interpretation yet. It might as well be aired by me. And it's not as if the Luisina land-sale is exactly a novelty item either. Innovative and provocative... I don't know... What is it we need them for? Leaving what was done, and might constitute a mistake, for alternative history, interesting prospects open up, had Napoleon gone ahead with some of the naval construction plans intended for breaking the British dominance of the sea. After Trafalgar Napoleon did put in an effort to reconstititute the French navy. Among other things he constructed a huge shipyard and arsenal at Anvers. The British occupied it in 1814, and the admiral in charge, Martin by name, felt compelled to write to lors Castlerach: "We have establisged that the naval installations at Anvers had reached a level of development we, thoug forewarned, had been unable to realise in any way. This establishment would, thorugh its progressive development, in a short time have given the French navy such an augmentation that it would have been impossible for Englad the equal it. We might say that the peace which has reduced this port to a simple commercial role is an occasion as important to us as any other in our history." Now, what if Napoleon had in fact prioritised the navy? ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 00:18
|
Bruno, I was not meaning to disparage thinking, just that we don't have to reject something because it's the commonly held idea. I hold a lot of ideas, more socially than as a historian, that are very anti-Establishment, but I don't just go against the Establishment because it's the Establishment. I have reasons. And I know you've put forth your reasons, I just don't find them very convincing. Now, if Napoleon had prioritised the navy, I think he would have gotten into a naval arms race the same way Britain did with Germany near the start of WWI. (Massie's work is a classic on the matter.) I also think it would have ended the same way as the arms race with Germany did: Britain victorious, though maybe not in so few battles as was done with Nelson. The French had no admiral the equal of Nelson, nor, as Nelson believed, no sailors the equal of British ones. I think it may have prolonged the naval war, but not affected its outcome in any material way. |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2006 at 13:05
Only the hypothesis was that France prioritises the navy after, and as a reaction to, Trafalgar, to recoup its losses . Nelson was killed at Trafalgar... And as for sailors, well, pressgangs, "rum, sodomy and the lash" vs. citizen-sailors, and the likes of Surcouf, insisting the way to fight Britain was through disrupting communication and attrition (not huge escadres battling it out), I'm less convinced the RN would win on points. I.e. of course the British were implicitly convinced of their superiority. But aside from the numerical superiority and vast resources poured into the RN I can't quite see any particular British advantages over the French navy?  ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Celestial
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2006 at 14:47
| To walk into the mosque of Cairo with his shoes on which cost him the Egyptian campaign. Plus the invasion of Russia. |
Posted By: giani_82
Date Posted: 09-Oct-2006 at 07:57
|
Napoleon inherited a large amount of enemies that France had even before the consulate. He is indeed to be blamed for claiming the throne for himself, but he could not prevent another massachre in his own "step" country of the likes that the Revolution and the Jacobine terror did. After all he is one of the first to claim a desire to unite Europe, and as such he somehow appears as a messiah of the Great Revolution, because even when he was defeated he left enough reason for historians to analyze and correct the mistakes of the POLITICAL revolution, and really accpet the appearance of the New World Order. Yes he failed, but he knew he was a messiah of these ideals (or at least he claimed to be one) and with his defeat he left an untorelable echo in history of what really happens when the human socciety is hiding BEHIND Conservative conceptions. Yes, he paid the prize of many lives of his soldiers, but they were eager to follow him anywhere, because they believed he could bring the ideals that the French Revolution failed to KEEP. So if you ask for his greatest mistake - I believe even in this massachre that followed his lead he succeeded, he left a glorious name, but that's a childish story in opposition to the philosophy he succeeded to change.
Still he is may be one of the reasons for the next consequitive World Wars, but he paved the wave of how to justily (if there is justice at all) use war to persue political reasons that he believed and was trusted upon by half of Europe to be moral, and stable. ------------- "Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising everytime we fall." Confucius |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 00:54
|
It's hard to judge Napoleon's biggest mistake, since one mistake usually can't bring the French Empire to her knees. Napoleon's first mistake is having two fronts just before the Battle of Trafalgar. France was planning to cripple Royal Navy by massing the French and Spanish navy (Spain was French Empire's ally). But at that time, Austria and Prussia formed alliance to attack France. Napoleon gathered his troops and suppressed the Austrians/Prussians... but while he was away, Nelson attacked Napoleon's navy in the Battle of Trafalgar... and France was unable to mass another great navy again. In frustation, he introduced Continental System to blockade all British goods in European markets. In the beginning, it was successful. In fact, Imperial Russia, Austria-Hungary and Prussia declared war against Britain. (Though they did not get involved in terms of military since Britain achieved sea supremacy.
Problem with this system is that France merchants secretly traded with Britain anyway since some goods such as sugar just had to be imported from Britain's colonies. Russia found the new trade routes by land quite difficult. Imagine dragging goods by horses from Moscow to Paris? Without railroads (Which is not invented yet) such trade is impossible. Russia was dependent of Western goods, and without sea... they are doomed.
And Portugal refused to join the Continental System. Napoleon attacked Spain in order to get to Portugal. (But Spain was France's ally. What ahppened?
 ) And this caused, as everyone know, The Peninsular War occured. Spainish militants used guerrilla tactics that frustated professionally trained French soldiers (Like America troops in Iraq in worse senerio because French troops did not possess superior technology.) Moreover, Britain under leadership of Wellington reinforced the Spanish militants. Before suppressing Spain for good, Napoleon once again started another front; Russia. He pulled troops out of Spain to form Grand Army and attacked Russia. Unfortunately, Alexander I knew that he could not beat Napeolon by battles. So he used scouraged earth policy by burning villages and leaving no supplies to areas conquered by France. France, despite having low supplies, managed to conquer Moscow... but Alexander I simply moved the capital to St. Petersburg. Expecting a quick victory, Napoleon did not bring a lot of supplies... and Russian winter blockaded the supply routes. Napoleon ordered retreat, but he was not able to pull troops out fast enough because his men was carrying back the pillaged goods and slowed down their march. With his forces weakened (600,000 Grand Army went into Russia, only several thousands came out alive) Furthermore, most of his Grand Army consisted foreign troops. They deserted Grand Army when Russian winter came.
When Napoleon managed to come back to power. He was not able to organize his army in time to win the Battle of Waterloo. Remember that Napoleon fought one enemy at the time and preventing all European powers to fight against France at the same time. No more. Austrian, Prussian, British and Russian armies all joined their forces and attacked at the same time, knowing that other objectives were no longer important. Napoleon must be removed. Napoleon was unable to create strong formation and used the artillery (His forte) similar to WWI tactic. Artillery barge, then infantry storms in and weaken the enemy's center.
Poor Napoleon. He was pretty close.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 15:59
| Has to be the invasion of Russia but on a wider scale he like all major rulers i.e. Alexander the Great and Hitler, overextended his armies to breaking point, and Russia being so large and inhospitable it is not surprising that it brought about this overextension and downfall |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 17:52
|
Hello to you all
Well, I think that Spain not Russia was Napoleon's Bane. He had no reason whatsoever to get involved in that country except Portugal and Spaniards would have been more than happy to join any adventure against it as equals, but to occupy it and commit up to 350 000 men at one point (1810-1811) in what was an obviously futile attempt to pascify the country. His troops were isolated from each other, the people were extremely hostile and no matter how many times he defeated the rebels they quickly find more recruits from the masses of angry and proud Spaniards. I believe that if Napoleon abandoned Spain once the last attempt to invade Portugal failed, France might have continued to be a republic and who knows, he might well have turned all Europe against the one force that kept the alliance alive, Britain.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 18:11
|
Take Napoleon at his word:
"I have made two mistakes with Talleyrand--first, I did not take his good advice, and second, I did not have him executed when I did not follow his ideas."
The Anno Terribilis comes in 1808... ------------- |