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

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
Poll Question: Who was really Napoleon Bonaparte?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
21 [19.44%]
31 [28.70%]
55 [50.93%]
1 [0.93%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Napoleon
    Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 21:33
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

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.   

 

 Excellent reply I would say. I'll further add that the formations also became more fluid rather rigid. Prior to that soldiers were trained over and over for drills, they were mere automatons and could hardly think by themselves on a company lvl, some of them will stay under enemy artillery waiting for orders. But the revolution brought a change, they hardly have time and money to spend on training mass of soldiers, so they developed a more fluid formation and one that can adapt itself a lot battelfield scenario. Of course it took some time for the tactics to work, the rookies got scared at their baptism of fire and fled the battlefield in panic. but at Valmy, those soldiers stood their ground and the opponents were dismayed. it was all the start of a military revolution. more fluid, dynamic and adaptable formation that could  achieve localised superiority at a critical point.

 these tactics also worked fine when the soldiers became more experienced, at Tourcoing the revolutionary army were seriously outnumbered, yet they managed to outmaneuver the allies, faking attack on one flank and drawing the mass of the enemy to reinforce that particular flank. Then a more massive force will attack the coalition weaken Flank, this has some kind of domino effect, where the flank roll onto the coalition columns. The centre there was a stalemate until french forces from the flank come into action. Only the coalition flank that was previously reinforced would remain intact but they have to flee the battlefield simply because the other flank and centre have crumbled.  otherwise they would be surrounded and annilated. Basically revolutionary tactics being more fluid and dynamic could dictate the opponent behaviour also. this has been done before but never with modern equipments.

 

Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2005 at 21:35
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

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.   

 

Also reduction of the number of types of artillery gun to a handful few. this facilitates logistic and manufacturing.

Back to Top
Hushyar View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 16-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 301
  Quote Hushyar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2005 at 03:49

pikeshot1600 and Quetzalcoatl

your comments not only was informative but also excellent and professional and like a textbook.
Thanks.


Originally posted by pikeshot1600


sound familiar?

yes! certainly!!!

Back to Top
Vamun Tianshu View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 15-Dec-2004
Location: Japan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
  Quote Vamun Tianshu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jul-2005 at 03:52
Ah yes,Napoleon Bonparte.A military genius who had Europe fall to its knees and fight France as one,truly a remarkable strategist and commander.I vote A Legendary Emperor.

In Honor
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2005 at 15:39
I didn't vote because I admire him more as military genius than as statesman (emperor). Thus the avilable options weren't satisfactory for me. 
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: 16-Jul-2005 at 14:56

Originally posted by Arn de Gothia

ok thanks for the info but, "Dolman"? 

Dolman is the elaborate overcoat of the Hussars we talk about...

Originally posted by Makros

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.

as said, there was no special purpose, just a fashion.

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 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.

the only reasoning you ever gave is "i like Moreau", thats the arguing of a child. you're knowledge of the period in question has already been  ridiculed elsewhere when we did talk about the 1770-80 period, want to catch a bloody nose again?  I would be surprised if you find a book from a reknown author that supports your ridiculous claim in the least.

Originally posted by Hushyar

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?

1. Total war. forced conscription as opposed to hire mercenaries.

2. decisive battles. the use of masses of conscripts allows for a more offensive art of warfare, instead of outmarching the enemy the commanders seek for battle.

3. Tirailleurtactics. highly maneuverable operations in loose skirmishing formation are superior to locked linear tactics.

4. requisitioning. the troups live of the land instead of being supported by long supply lines.

5. promotion based on valor and performance instead of noble birthright.

Originally posted by pikeshot1600

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.   

that was not a fundamentaly new invention, the massive use of artillery in batteries has already been establsihed in the 7 years war, especially due to Russian pressure, Russians have a special affection with artillery going back to Peter I. at least and since Suvorov the latest, massive use of artillery was the trademark of Russian warfare.

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

these tactics also worked fine when the soldiers became more experienced, at Tourcoing the revolutionary army were seriously outnumbered,

French forces 70.000, allies 74.000 ... i can clearly see a HUUUUUUUGE numerical superiority of the allies...besides, where does Moreau come in here? it was Pichegrus army and that day Souham was in command, please enlighten us...on a second thought, don't...



Edited by Temujin
Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2005 at 00:50

the only reasoning you ever gave is "i like Moreau", thats the arguing of a child. you're knowledge of the period in question has already been  ridiculed elsewhere when we did talk about the 1770-80 period, want to catch a bloody nose again?  I would be surprised if you find a book from a reknown author that supports your ridiculous claim in the least.

 I never said I like Moreau in my post , I said Moreau was a better strategist. It is up to you to prove the contrary, I've given my reasons why already basically Tourcoing and how he advised the coalition to let Napoleon marched his troops to exhaustion by avoiding battle. And funny, you seem confuse here, you've never given me a bloody nose (perhaps only in your dream), simply it is you who are vague and vain. I've made my claim quite clearly here, I said " Napoleon didn't invent anything ground breaking militarily speaking, he simply tuned a system already  developed by the revolutionaries". It is clear enough why aren't you attacking this. You are simply confuse.

 

French forces 70.000, allies 74.000 ... i can clearly see a HUUUUUUUGE numerical superiority of the allies...besides, where does Moreau come in here? it was Pichegrus army and that day Souham was in command, please enlighten us...on a second thought, don't...

LOL, have you been surfing the internet for info, didn't you. This just show how ignorant you are on the matter. The internet sources are usually of a general nature and most of the time are innaccurate and made incorrect conclusion. Most of the time sources repeat each the original mistakes which is hilarious to some degree.

French forces at the battle tourcoing was 60,000 vs 74,000 coalition forces. 10,000 french forces were sent as reinforcement but never arrived in time for battle. Similarly 20,000 coalition forces reinforcement didn't engage in battle but simple retreated with the main forces in disarray.

 So 60,000 french forces and 74,000 coalition participated in the battle.

But 70,000 french soldiers and 94,000 coalition forces were to be involved.

 Look like anglo-saxons sources, took the 10,000 reinforcement that never took part in the battle in the calculation and never took the 20,000 coalition  reinforcement in the consideration.

 Where did Moreau come into, hahahahah, that is the funniest part, Moreau was the hero of Tourcoing, he was the one that fake attack on the austrian flank thus diverting coalition forces onto that flank at the same time weakening the other flank where the main french attack would come.

 Biography of Moreau

http://jean-victor-marie-moreau.biography.ms/




Edited by Quetzalcoatl
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: 17-Jul-2005 at 09:59

What Nelson introduced into naval strategy was the concept that you did not fight just to win the battle, but to go on and destroy the enemy.

Didn't Napoleon do something similar on land? I don't know enough land warfare history to argue.

 

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: 17-Jul-2005 at 17:19
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 I never said I like Moreau in my post , I said Moreau was a better strategist.

you actually said both just in different posts.

It is up to you to prove the contrary, I've given my reasons why already basically Tourcoing and how he advised the coalition to let Napoleon marched his troops to exhaustion by avoiding battle.

rephrase, that sentence has no grammar and is not understandable

And funny, you seem confuse here, you've never given me a bloody nose (perhaps only in your dream), simply it is you who are vague and vain.

in the thread about most influental peopel you were claiming "French always were at top militaricaly in every period". that statement alone is laughable at best, i have disprooved you and made a better list which nations were on top and which not, and the French were certainly not.

I've made my claim quite clearly here, I said " Napoleon didn't invent anything ground breaking militarily speaking, he simply tuned a system already  developed by the revolutionaries". It is clear enough why aren't you attacking this. You are simply confuse.

no, you never backed that up, napoleon wasn't even present at this battle, and how come this battle you mention so often does resemble dozens other battles before and after Tourcoing? perhaps Moreau had a time machine and told them all  plus, you never gave ANY battle of Napoleon which did resemble Torucoing AT LEAST.

LOL, have you been surfing the internet for info, didn't you. This just show how ignorant you are on the matter. The internet sources are usually of a general nature and most of the time are innaccurate and made incorrect conclusion. Most of the time sources repeat each the original mistakes which is hilarious to some degree.

oh, you're sooo smart, you don't even know that numbers of battles are given always in FULL (ie all units strategically present) but never numbers of how many troops were actually involved...LOL, "you know nothing about the period" anyone?

 Where did Moreau come into, hahahahah, that is the funniest part, Moreau was the hero of Tourcoing, he was the one that fake attack on the austrian flank thus diverting coalition forces onto that flank at the same time weakening the other flank where the main french attack would come.

now you're totally retarded, Moreau was NOT the one in charge (as opposed to napoleon) so how can napoleon somebody who wasn't even in charge? if anyting, napoleon would have copied Souham and not Moreau who did only carry out orders...or do you think Dessaix was a better commander as Napoleon just because his arrival saved Napoleon at Marengo?

 

oh yeah, and you have not even mentioned any book title or author that would confirm what you said...

Back to Top
Winterhaze13 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 716
  Quote Winterhaze13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 12:41

How do you view Napoleon? He is without a doubt a giant in history. A man that changed the course of history like few before him and after. I would like to discuss many of the issues surrounding his remarkable life. Here are a couple to consider:

1. Was Napoleon the child of the revolution or did he betray it?

Napoleon did reinstate a monarchy and France, however let's not forget that he spread enlightenment ideas about liberty and equality and likely saved France from being invaded in 1795 by Austria and Prussia. If they had done so, the revolution would not have spread throughout the continent.

2. Can he be described as a benevolent dictator?

I think you could describe Napoleon as a benevolent dictator. In fact he is the only real dictator to be given this distinction. Napoleon was very popular in France because he gave the people want they asked. Domestically Napoleon was very successful.

3. Was he good for France or did he harm the country more than he contributed?

In approaching this question it is very difficult to ignore his actions militarily. But, Napoleon created an efficient bureaucracy in France and emplemented the Code Napoleon which still exists today in some forms in many places in Europe. Napoleon created the first modern state. After 1815 Wellington visited France and admitted that his enemy had been largely good for France.

4. What is his greatest battle? What was his greatest defeat?

His greatest battles were Elyau and Austerlitz. His greatest defeat was definately Waterloo. At Waterloo Napoleon was just a figment of his former self. He had gotten sick and old in exile and made mistakes that he normally would not have made. Although Wellington deserves credit for the win and so do the Prussians.

5. Can he be held in the same company as Hitler and Stalin or was he more benevolent?

Napoleon cannot be compared to Hitler or Stalin. He was ruthless but he never practiced genocide, nor was he seen as an anti-Christ by the people that lived in his period. He was however not perfect, but will more accurately be compared to Alexander the Great, Hannibal or Julius Caesar who were in their own right ruthless and cruel as well. But history does not always concentrate on that.

 

Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.

-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
Back to Top
Winterhaze13 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 716
  Quote Winterhaze13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2005 at 12:41

6. Why was he ultimately defeated?

I think Napoleon was defeated because of his over-confidance and pride which lead him to do foolish things. His first mistake was to invade Spain and then neglect it, and finally by invading Russia. He did not plan for the events that unfolded in Russia. Shakespeare, if he had lived after Napoleon would have written a play about him and not Caesar.   

7. What is his legacy in history?

 Napoleon is seen by history as a great military ruler who set out to solidify his place in history, and succeeded in the most part. Although he had his flaws, it is undeniable the benefit of his reign in France which shaped the society we live today.

8. Is he the greatest military general in history?

Napoleon was without a doubt a brilliant military leader who is owed recognition along side Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great and Hannibal as the greatest of all time. However he is hurt by the fact that he was eventually defeated. But no one faught as many capable armies as he did, he probably ammassed the greatest European Empire since Rome and he wasn't always privileged with the best troops.

9. What is his greatest accomplishment?

His greatest accomplishment has to be the development of the modern state in France with its efficient bureaucracy and national army. I know it is often overlooked by many people, but military success could only last so long. He said it himself: "Glory is fleeting, obscurity is forever." This has proved to be his most enduring legacy, along with the Napoleonic code.

10. Who would play him in the motion picture on his life? 

My favourite filmmaker is Stanley Kubrick, he wanted to make a film about Napoleon in the 70s but his script was deemed to expensive to be made into a film and it was never made. Although the script survives today. I would like to see Russell Crowe as Napoleon with Peter Jackson directing.

Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.

-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
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: 19-Jul-2005 at 15:34
Originally posted by Winterhaze13

1. Was Napoleon the child of the revolution or did he betray it?

Both. He didn't only become emperor, he restored or established monarchies all over the place.

2. Can he be described as a benevolent dictator?

Possibly. But then all dictators are benevolent to their followers. Even Saddam.

3. Was he good for France or did he harm the country more than he contributed?

On the whole good.  Apart from the Code Napolon and othe constitutional arrangements, he had a beneficial influence on scientific and intellectual development. Unusual for a dictator.

4. What is his greatest battle? What was his greatest defeat?

Pass on one, but Waterloo must be the greatest defeat. The final one alwas is isn't it? (For Lee, was Appomatox worse than Gettysburg?)

 

5. Can he be held in the same company as Hitler and Stalin or was he more benevolent?

He was nowhere near as malevolent. I don't really like the comparisons to Hannibal, Alexander or Caesar, though.  I'm stuck for a comparison really. If you added together Caesar and Augustus with a touch of Justinian you might get close.

 

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: 19-Jul-2005 at 15:51
Originally posted by Winterhaze13

6. Why was he ultimately defeated?

Ultimately France wasn't strong enough.  Russia was too immense, and Britain controlled the sea and France's access to it. And someone sooner or later would have developed the tactics to defeat his columns, even if Wellington hadn't.

You left the sea out of it completely. But it was crucial, and I don't think Napoleon realised it. Napoleon's failure to invade Britain was as significant a milestone as Hitler's (or Philip's) failure to do the same thing, no matter what land victories followed later.

Shakespeare, if he had lived after Napoleon would have written a play about him and not Caesar.   

Very true.

7. What is his legacy in history?

France's pride?

8. Is he the greatest military general in history?

Pass. But he must be close.

9. What is his greatest accomplishment?

His greatest accomplishment has to be the development of the modern state in France with its efficient bureaucracy and national army.

...

This has proved to be his most enduring legacy, along with the Napoleonic code.

 Throw in the higher educational system as well, no?

10. Who would play him in the motion picture on his life? 

Rod Steiger did very well in 'Waterloo'. Crowe is too handsome and macho - not Napoleonic qualities. Kevin Spacey would probably do it better, but surely there must be a Frenchman somewhere?

Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
General
General

Suspended

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
  Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jul-2005 at 22:45
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 I never said I like Moreau in my post , I said Moreau was a better strategist.

you actually said both just in different posts.

It is up to you to prove the contrary, I've given my reasons why already basically Tourcoing and how he advised the coalition to let Napoleon marched his troops to exhaustion by avoiding battle.

rephrase, that sentence has no grammar and is not understandable

And funny, you seem confuse here, you've never given me a bloody nose (perhaps only in your dream), simply it is you who are vague and vain.

in the thread about most influental peopel you were claiming "French always were at top militaricaly in every period". that statement alone is laughable at best, i have disprooved you and made a better list which nations were on top and which not, and the French were certainly not.

I've made my claim quite clearly here, I said " Napoleon didn't invent anything ground breaking militarily speaking, he simply tuned a system already  developed by the revolutionaries". It is clear enough why aren't you attacking this. You are simply confuse.

no, you never backed that up, napoleon wasn't even present at this battle, and how come this battle you mention so often does resemble dozens other battles before and after Tourcoing? perhaps Moreau had a time machine and told them all  plus, you never gave ANY battle of Napoleon which did resemble Torucoing AT LEAST.

LOL, have you been surfing the internet for info, didn't you. This just show how ignorant you are on the matter. The internet sources are usually of a general nature and most of the time are innaccurate and made incorrect conclusion. Most of the time sources repeat each the original mistakes which is hilarious to some degree.

oh, you're sooo smart, you don't even know that numbers of battles are given always in FULL (ie all units strategically present) but never numbers of how many troops were actually involved...LOL, "you know nothing about the period" anyone?

 Where did Moreau come into, hahahahah, that is the funniest part, Moreau was the hero of Tourcoing, he was the one that fake attack on the austrian flank thus diverting coalition forces onto that flank at the same time weakening the other flank where the main french attack would come.

now you're totally retarded, Moreau was NOT the one in charge (as opposed to napoleon) so how can napoleon somebody who wasn't even in charge? if anyting, napoleon would have copied Souham and not Moreau who did only carry out orders...or do you think Dessaix was a better commander as Napoleon just because his arrival saved Napoleon at Marengo?

 

oh yeah, and you have not even mentioned any book title or author that would confirm what you said...

 

if only I had time for fools, I would bother reply.

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-Jul-2005 at 17:04
fine, so you finally gave up...thats good, i'll bookmark this thread and post it whenever you bring up that bullcrap again. if you would really be interested in discussing history and not national pride you would take the time, you have just shown your real face...

Edited by Temujin
Back to Top
Winterhaze13 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 716
  Quote Winterhaze13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jul-2005 at 12:02
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

 I never said I like Moreau in my post , I said Moreau was a better strategist.

you actually said both just in different posts.

It is up to you to prove the contrary, I've given my reasons why already basically Tourcoing and how he advised the coalition to let Napoleon marched his troops to exhaustion by avoiding battle.

rephrase, that sentence has no grammar and is not understandable

And funny, you seem confuse here, you've never given me a bloody nose (perhaps only in your dream), simply it is you who are vague and vain.

in the thread about most influental peopel you were claiming "French always were at top militaricaly in every period". that statement alone is laughable at best, i have disprooved you and made a better list which nations were on top and which not, and the French were certainly not.

I've made my claim quite clearly here, I said " Napoleon didn't invent anything ground breaking militarily speaking, he simply tuned a system already  developed by the revolutionaries". It is clear enough why aren't you attacking this. You are simply confuse.

no, you never backed that up, napoleon wasn't even present at this battle, and how come this battle you mention so often does resemble dozens other battles before and after Tourcoing? perhaps Moreau had a time machine and told them all  plus, you never gave ANY battle of Napoleon which did resemble Torucoing AT LEAST.

LOL, have you been surfing the internet for info, didn't you. This just show how ignorant you are on the matter. The internet sources are usually of a general nature and most of the time are innaccurate and made incorrect conclusion. Most of the time sources repeat each the original mistakes which is hilarious to some degree.

oh, you're sooo smart, you don't even know that numbers of battles are given always in FULL (ie all units strategically present) but never numbers of how many troops were actually involved...LOL, "you know nothing about the period" anyone?

 Where did Moreau come into, hahahahah, that is the funniest part, Moreau was the hero of Tourcoing, he was the one that fake attack on the austrian flank thus diverting coalition forces onto that flank at the same time weakening the other flank where the main french attack would come.

now you're totally retarded, Moreau was NOT the one in charge (as opposed to napoleon) so how can napoleon somebody who wasn't even in charge? if anyting, napoleon would have copied Souham and not Moreau who did only carry out orders...or do you think Dessaix was a better commander as Napoleon just because his arrival saved Napoleon at Marengo?

 

oh yeah, and you have not even mentioned any book title or author that would confirm what you said...

 

if only I had time for fools, I would bother reply.

Fools, I've read many books on Napoleon. He is my favourite historical figure and I'd love to have a discussion with you if you feel up to it. If not, I'll assume you don't have the knowledge.



Edited by Winterhaze13
Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.

-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
Back to Top
Gavriel View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 17-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151
  Quote Gavriel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jul-2005 at 06:21
Didnt Bonaparte leave his Army to starve to death in Russia?
doesnt sound like a great leader to me.
Back to Top
Winterhaze13 View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 716
  Quote Winterhaze13 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 17:59

Originally posted by Gavriel

Didnt Bonaparte leave his Army to starve to death in Russia?
doesnt sound like a great leader to me.

No, not really. He tried to bring his army back to Poland. Well, I'm not surprise that this is coming from a Brit. But if you contrast Napoleon will Caesar, Alexander and Genghis Khan he was the most benevolent ruler among them If you don't believe me read Steven Englund's Napoleon: A Political Life.

Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.

-- Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)
Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

Suspended

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
  Quote Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Aug-2005 at 22:00
I found it amazing how the Europeans were so easily able to rebuild their armies after terrible battles. France especially. Documentation of logistics is not so readily available as I would like, but from things I have read, the French were supposed to have mobilized two million men in response to the Austrian invasion right before Napoleon's ascension. Some of the reasons for this huge number have already been discussed, but there is also the fact that population, especially in France, had risen to unprecendented heights. Before the Revolution, France was reputed to be populated by 30 million people.

I respect Napoleon only for his tactical ability. Other than that, in my book, he falls in with the other tyrants lusting for empire.
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: 05-Aug-2005 at 16:37
Originally posted by Winterhaze13

Originally posted by Gavriel

Didnt Bonaparte leave his Army to starve to death in Russia?
doesnt sound like a great leader to me.

No, not really. He tried to bring his army back to Poland. Well, I'm not surprise that this is coming from a Brit. But if you contrast Napoleon will Caesar, Alexander and Genghis Khan he was the most benevolent ruler among them If you don't believe me read Steven Englund's Napoleon: A Political Life.

He certainly abandoned his army in Egypt after the battle of the Nile. Still ... he was still working his way up then

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>

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 0.098 seconds.