View Full Version : Napoleon
eddie0909
02-09-2003, 01:00
Napoleon's words of wisdom.Even when I am gone, I shall remain in people's minds the star ot thar rights,My name will be the war cry of thar efforts,The motto of thair hopes ++ Napoleon the greatest of them all +++ by Eddie Frey http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
eddie0909
02-09-2003, 03:46
napoleon is the best of all of the milatry stagest he just pad the pice for not puting the rushen winter into his stratagy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
props2me
02-09-2003, 05:36
I think that Erwin Rommel was one of the greatest generals of all time. He won battles and territory without even trying sometimes. Though he did try to kill his leader unsucsussfully. It would have ended the war earlier but would he stll be looked at the same way.
Every Body give props 2...
me
Gregoshi
02-09-2003, 06:14
First, I'm a casual fan of the Napoleonic wars. From what I recall, Napoleon was ahead of most generals of his day in strategy and tactics. But Wellington figured out his methods and was able to counter them. Didn't Wellington beat Napoleon a few times in Spain aside from Waterloo? Funny thing - Napoleon was sucessful because few generals of his time could adapt to his methods and in the end Napoleon was defeated because he couldn't adapt his methods to Wellington's counters.
An Napoleonic experts out there: please excuse the above commentary. I feel like a 1st grader trying to explain World War 2 (very poorly).
Gregoshi
02-09-2003, 06:17
Oops Hi props2me Welcome and thanks for joining in the fun that is the Org. Do you live in Gettysburg or are you just attending the college? I go the the battle reenactments every July for the past 4 years. This year's is gonna be a biggie again Can't wait.
Napoleone was a midget with a perverted taste for massed cannon fire
And yes old 'Welly Boot' did beat him in Spain but mainly in defence...as was Waterloo.
To answer this question you must look much further back and to the Steppes of Asia for the (yes THE) greatest general of all time..this includes battle and campaign...
Another clue will be given...the only man to conquer Russia with an invading force...(unless this old man is wrong?)
now you do the rest little pup.
p.s. eddie, Monsta is not sure of your origin but he will advise you to slow down when posting...your second effort was nearly in Russian..no offence m8.
Basileus
02-09-2003, 23:48
One thing im sure of is that monsta cagan holds a record http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
129.21 posts per day, hehe
My pick would be Alexander the Great as the greatest of them all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
wrong but a nice choice... young Alex was a fine general.. but look into what he inherited. was his old man not a major influence in the military tactics and systems of the army...
anyway...try again.
p.s. the posts..Monsta is indeed a magical creature isnt he... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif
Magyar Khan
02-10-2003, 03:28
i am aiming for Subudei
oblivious maximus
02-10-2003, 04:12
You guys should steppe down from your high horses.
Max infact they are small horses...and to quote the Khan (Magyar not the other one) More like large hairy dogs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif
Magyar, Monsta predicts a top score for you... congratulations you are able to see past this nonsense about Rommel, Patton and such small minds of military history.
Gregoshi
02-10-2003, 05:15
I never thought of you as a brown-noser, Monsta Cagan...until now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
As for being a magical creature, it's all CGI. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Brown Noser..is that not worthy a demotion to junior muppet.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif my my admin and insults whatever next will the admin do (dont worry I wont go there..MUAHAHAHA http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif )
Monsta asked for an answer ( a correct one) and marked accordingly..although other efforts would have been rewarded....unless somebody said 'Motors was a great General'.
Gregoshi
02-10-2003, 06:58
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif I'd not even notice a demotion. I rarely get out of the Entrance Hall as it is.
BTW, I'm not an Admin, Tosa and barocca are the Admins. I'm just a mere Moderator and my name is Greg. Please address me by that name unless Greg means something really terrible in your magic language. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Jeroen Hill
02-10-2003, 07:12
Quote[/b] (Wolf Monsta Cagan @ Feb. 09 2003,21:22)]Max infact they are small horses...and to quote the Khan (Magyar not the other one) More like large hairy dogs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif
Magyar, Monsta predicts a top score for you... congratulations you are able to see past this nonsense about Rommel, Patton and such small minds of military history.
Kahn? Wrong. This is the same problem as with Napoleon. Regular army could not act to the ways of Kahn. Kahn did not fight a conventional war of that time.
oblivious maximus
02-10-2003, 07:52
Monsta, http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif you know i know they had small horses.. its a figure of speech. Napoleon of course used a big horse to compensate for his short stature that you previously pointed to.
Funny tho.. he probably wouldn`t have been considered that short if he had made it to your lands.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
redrooster
02-10-2003, 08:49
from what i have read, a lot of commenteries blame Ney for the defeat at Waterloo.
and monsta, welly did not beat Napoleon in spain, but just a french army under somebody else
Napoleon was also distainful of British troops and therefor tried to plough into the british lines(abandoning his tactical astutity) to try to break them before Blucher arrives.
but again i am also just another casual reader of that period and what i mentioned above could be very far from the facts
i Pick King Philip II of Macedon
He conquered alot of Greece and was able to get the greeks to work together and was about to invade asia Minor before he was asssasinated http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
I'd still have to vote for a ancestor, that norse peep that got off the invasion of northern Britanny, waaaay too underappreaciated
Knight_Yellow
02-10-2003, 11:40
emmm genghis or watever wasnt a great general he just used blitzkrieg all the time. doesnt make him great.
id say greatest general ever is either Rommel or W. Wallace
Brutal DLX
02-10-2003, 13:22
How do you define greatness in this context, I wonder...
Most battles won? Best use of tactics? Invention of new tactics? Most respected? Just won one big battle we all heard about? Best in one era? Of all eras? Can you compare eras? .....
I guess we all have different ways of evaluation, that's why so many different names are mentioned. That's why I won't say this guy or that guy is the greatest general ever.
Quote[/b] ]
emmm genghis or watever wasnt a great general he just used blitzkrieg all the time. doesnt make him great.
Yellow
Nobody said the Khan...your right using Lightning War does not make you great...but conquering the largest land mass empire in fine style does..can you imagine the logistics of planning a campaign in eastern Europe the same time you plan one in SEAsia...even today...(did I mention russia?)
Quote[/b] ]
id say greatest general ever is either Rommel or W. Wallace
Indeed..you get a point or Rommel...but he was just a student of Subudei's. As for William Wallace..arf..turn of the movies and read a book Yellow...he may ranks as the best Scot Genereal..but that claim would also be a stretch of the imagination.
Quote[/b] ]i Pick King Philip II of Macedon
He conquered alot of Greece and was able to get the greeks to work together and was about to invade asia Minor before he was asssasinated
Panther
Was this Alex the Greats Dad?...if so he was a great general.revolutionised the warfare but still he is not the greatest.
Quote[/b] ]and monsta, welly did not beat Napoleon in spain, but just a french army under somebody else
Red
Your right, Monsta meant in general not as a 1v1...and the Ney theory is another Napoleone 'groupy' idea...Monsta thinks that it may have been Napoleones delaying advance at Waterloo..and of course lots of rain and failing health.
Quote[/b] ]Kahn? Wrong. This is the same problem as with Napoleon. Regular army could not act to the ways of Kahn. Kahn did not fight a conventional war of that time.
Hilly
So you mean to say because they did not play by the rules of the ers they were not really any better just...different??..hardly qualifies as a judgement does it..
Quote[/b] ]and my name is Greg
What a surpirse
Quote[/b] ]Please address me by that name unless Greg means something really terrible in your magic language
Did somebody call you something else?
Greg careful you may be turning this into an argument/flame...and that would ruin it for the little cubs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
Quote[/b] ]Funny tho.. he probably wouldn`t have been considered that short if he had made it to your lands.
Max..he didnt have the skill..unlike Subudei.
So far we have some interesting generals.
(not in any order)
Subudei
Napoleone
Alexander
William Wallace (arf!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
King Philip II of Macedon
Rommel
Ney (whp was infact a great general and the Waterloo issue is just Napoleone propaganda)
We can put them in 3 groups -Battle-Campaign-Battle and Campaign.
Napoleone, Alexander and Subudei can sit nicely in Battle+Camapign..
Shall we say they are in the final throd for the punch up...we must then match land taken/battles won....etc..will be interesting...anymore entries..state your case.
Shall we say they
Hi all students of military history.
I felt i needed to contribute to this subject because i find it interesting, though highly hypothetical.
Being a Swede i think that the list of great generals/commanders/conquerers is somewhat shorter then should be the case. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I would like to point out of course Gustavus II Adolphus, probably the most famous Swedish general of all times. He sat a new standard for European warfare (with a little help from the dutch i think) and used it successfully in campaigns in Poland, the Baltics and of course Germany during the thirty year war. Main new thing in his battlefield tactics was thin lines with musketeers and light artillery that joined the infantry battalions in the battlefield. This crushed the old spanish school at Breitenfeld 1631. The conquests made were no where near as great as those of the mongols but looking at Swedens resources at that time one can not be less then impressed. Had he not been killed, at the battle of Lutzen 1632, he might have taken the crown as emperor of a large united Germany together with the Swedish-Finnish kingdom - at least that plan was in his mind.
There is much more to say of him of course but i also want to point out a few other Swedish generals. Gustavus followers were during the next century allmost all great wariorkings. (This was Swedens primetime when speaking of international power) Charles X, Charles XI and Charles XII were all great battlefieldcommanders, allmost allways fighting against foes who had much more resources and allmost allways prevailing against them.
Finally, after many victories and campaigns against Danes, Polish, Russians, Sachsen and so on, as im sure you know Charles XII lost to Peter the great of Russia at Poltava in 1709. Thats when Russia became one of europes great powers and Sweden diminshed, though the peacetreaty were far away the battle decided the outcome of the war. (Same mistake as Hitler and Napoleon) In this period many speaks of the british army and its commander, whos name has slipped my mind, as the best fighting force but then they forget the Swedes who under Charles XII surely would have beaten them should they have met. (The great nordic war took place roughly during the same time as the war of the spanish succession which the brits were involved in)
Oh, it comes to my mind when speaking of this that the only foregin general who has taken Moscow, besides the mongols i guess, was a Swedish general named Wrangel, it happened in the early 17th century during Russias period civil strife.
Finally i would like to mention Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, one of Napoleons finest commanders who was elected king of Sweden when the old line of kings died out. Sweden wanted him to take revenge on Russia but instead he teamed with Russia and Britain and commanding swedish and allied troops greatly helped in defeating his former lord Napoleon. Leipzig 1813 i think was one of the battles he won against Napoleon, not sure of this though.
Well, to the list of greatest generals of all time i would hereby like to add Gustavus II Adolphus, the rest of the ones mentioned all lacked something to make it to that list i think, shortly one could say that the others often were good at making war but not in making peace, thereby unable to gain from their military victories, and the greatest commanders of all times can not have such faults.
Kalle
oblivious maximus
02-10-2003, 16:12
Hannibal...
eddie i think it would be hard, almost impossible to come up with one best because they all faced different enemies while using different technologies.
Napoleon,Alexander never beaten/tactical,Subudei with a long career and underated are impressive but there is over a 2,000 year time span and they faced different logistics.
I would go with the best of different periods as:
ANCIENT
CLASSICAL
DARK
MEDIEVAL
RENAISSANCE
IMPERIAL
..and so on.
Julius Caeser,Barbarossa,Manstein and GUDERIAN should be mentioned.
Wallace? go read a book?
the Wallace i read about warred with the English for many years, fought 3 major battles in 24 hours against 3 English armies all of which outnumbered his own, he was trying to prevent them linking up and annihilating the main Scots army, he succeeded...
The movie covers very little of his campaigns, as do most historical accounts...
It's one thing to win time and again when speed and numbers are on your side, it's entirely different to win numerous victories when you are constantly outnumbered and have no tactical advantages,
Wallace may have had schiltrons to deal with the heavy cav, but he was still always outnumbered by men on foot...
Orda Khan
02-10-2003, 23:09
Subedei in my mind would probably share the role of best ever strategist. He masterminded possibly the most ambitious campaign ever.
When you mention Russia, Monsta, be sure to explain also that the invasion took place in winter ( the one general that defeated Napoleon and Hitler ) and the winter was a particularly cold one.
Equal in my opinion to Subedei was Jebe. As I have posted before, this great Noyan was snatched away before he could forge the kind of reputation Subedei did. His achievements in his short life were incredible nonetheless and I still think that he and Subedei worked best when they worked together.
Their reconnaisance of the Caucasus and Russia is THE most amazing military embarkment.
.........Orda
Winters allways seem to be especially cold in Russia when they are being invaded http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Same is true for Charles XII campagin in Russia 1708 -1709. His main army counting about 40000 men, mainly Swedish- and finnish farmers but none the less for the moment the best fighting force in Europe - was well fed and strong after good rest in Sachsen where they had beaten Charles cousin August the Strong. Now only the russians remained of the allience that in the year 1700 had attacked Sweden.
The danes had been beaten before they could attack by landings of Swedish troops in their country. They quickly and wisely sued for peace again. Then the Russians were dealt a crushing blow at Narva (in todays Estonia i think - then part of Sweden). Charles with 10000 men (he was only a tennager at the time) beat the russians 40000 that besieged Narva. Possibly the greatest victory in Swedens military history. Peter who was on his way there to take command of his troops quickly turned back into Russia.
Next of the aggressors to be dealt with was August ruler of two mighty countries Poland and Sachsen. For six years (big mistake) Charles ran around northeastern Europe crushing army after army of Poles and Russians. Finally August had to give up, and a man favoured by the Swedes was elected king of Poland instead.
In the meantime Peter of Russia had founded ST Petersburg 1703 on Swedish soil. He had been busy laying waste to Swedens baltic possessions while the Swedish army was further south.
So in 1708 the Russian campaign began. The offenseminded Swedish king chose to drive deep into Russia instead of driving them out of the baltics. The question of why is very complicated and connected to Charles personality so I wont dwelve into that here.
It began with another glorius victory at Holowczyn where the Swedes with brilliant tactics outmanouvered and crushed a much larger russian force. But then... came nothing. Endless forests, steppes and marches took its toll on the Swedes while the russians burned the ground and operated on all sides of the army. Then came the winter and you by now know what the Russian winter does. It halfed the Swedish army that had to turn south and next summer was beaten by superior Russian forces at Poltava.
Charles then fled for Turkey where he with 1500 men at one occasion fought the entire Turkish army and ... lost of course. But thats another story.
Maybe the mongols succeded because they came from the other way http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Orda Khan
02-11-2003, 18:20
No the Mongols succeeded because of their ability, you don't conquer that much territory by pure chance. They were an organised military machine led by well trained commanders, their speed was awesome.
Winters cold......when the Volga and Danube freeze over it must be quite chilly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
For both Russia and Europe, the Mongols chose to begin their campaign in winter
....Orda
Jacque Schtrapp
02-11-2003, 18:47
Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Feb. 08 2003,23:14)]First, I'm a casual fan of the Napoleonic wars. From what I recall, Napoleon was ahead of most generals of his day in strategy and tactics. But Wellington figured out his methods and was able to counter them. Didn't Wellington beat Napoleon a few times in Spain aside from Waterloo? Funny thing - Napoleon was sucessful because few generals of his time could adapt to his methods and in the end Napoleon was defeated because he couldn't adapt his methods to Wellington's counters.
Gregoshi I thought Napoleon lost at Waterloo (after Wellington refused to take the bait) because something like 20k Prussians finally showed up and piled onto his backside. I am by no means an historian by the way. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Napoleon lost Waterloo even before the Prussians showed up. Basicaly he had no idea how to break up Wellington's defenses. All he did was to order an en masse charge a la Napoleon http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif when this failed he was out of ideas.
Yes Orda, i totally agree with you that the mongols succeeded thanks to their ability, that much i know of them but they are far from my field of expertise so i cant really discuss their strategies or battlefieldtactics in any detail, at least not for now.
As I see it though, where the mongols did best must have been against China, Persia and other countries in the east that really were great kingdoms. The european kingdoms and the Russian ones for sure must have been easier conquests at that time as their states were not so well organised. The thing making the mongols impressive in their easterneuropean campaigns was more the logistics - being able to wage war that far away from home - then the actual fightingability though that ability sure was great to but as i said better needed in their other campaigns.
Absolutely not saying that i`m correct on this matter merely presenting a theory that would be nice to see some comments on.
My little comment on the end of my last post was of course nothing more then a little joke http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Hm, should I tell you more of the Swedish generals? Nah, i´ll give you all a brake from them
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
newey1815
02-12-2003, 00:05
The Prussians certainly had more of an influence at Waterloo than is usually acknowledged in England. They may not have been fighting until about 4pm, Napoleon was aware of their presence before this and was forced to retain VI Corps (Lobau's) as well as the Guard in reserve anticipating an attack on his right wing. This left him with little but cavalry with which to seek to break the Anglo-Allied squares. And when the Guard attacked at the end of the battle, this was much weakened by the commitment of the Young Guard and some of the Old Guard at Plancenoit to fight the Prussians.
Longshanks
02-12-2003, 05:24
Quote[/b] (Orda Khan @ Feb. 11 2003,11:20)]No the Mongols succeeded because of their ability, you don't conquer that much territory by pure chance. They were an organised military machine led by well trained commanders, their speed was awesome.
Winters cold......when the Volga and Danube freeze over it must be quite chilly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
For both Russia and Europe, the Mongols chose to begin their campaign in winter
....Orda
The Mongols also weren't facing a unified Russia, like Charles or Napolean did.
Gregoshi
02-12-2003, 07:42
Greeting to Kalle and newey1815 Welcome to the Org and the hot topic Napoleon: A Little Corporal or Just Non-Corporeal? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif
Quote[/b] ]Maybe the mongols succeded because they came from the other way
I've been thinking the same thing Kalle. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Pity the dutch brought for more excellent admirals than generals http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Can only think about Maurice and Frederic Henry of Orange-Nassau to be honest.
I think any general who managed to radically change the way warfare was fought at that time should be considered amongst the greatest.
Oh well off to library to come up with new names, since everyone i remembered the names off are already mentioned http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Napoleon wasn't so great as he is described. What about Hannibal, Genghis khan and Tamerlan, Alexander from Macedonia?
As for me I think the greatest general of Europe was russian general Suvorov. He wom ALL the battles he was engaged in. Even Rommel and Napoleon lost several battles so they cannot be regarded as the greatest ones.
Showed Ninjakilla this thread, he wanted me to post this:
--------------
Greg, Wellington was successful against the French in Spain, however he was fighting Napoleons senior generals, rather than the man himself.
Wellington, didn't figure out Napoleon's method, rather Waterloo was lost because D'Erlon was unable to keep the Prussians and Allies from joining up.
Although Napoleon was a remarkable (the greatest) general, Napoleonic warfare was most defined by the introduction of popular warfare which was brought about by the French revolution. The sucess of the Italian campaign, despite the poor state of the French army highlights the extent of the advantage that French forces enjoyed over the ancien regimes.
The rest of Europe attempted to emulate these changes, though without the social consequences. By 1815, the Prussians had most success and it is fair say that their's was the most effective army in Europe and contributed to the foundations of modern Germany.
I think its important to dispell the over-emphasis that is put on the failure of the Russian campaign. In my forthcoming dissertation I intend to argue that the Napoleonic system of warfare - that of 'absolute' warfare, where destruction of the enemy is the dominant concern - inevitably leads to goal inflation and escalation on an international scale. In other words, Napoleon success was his own undoing and he was doomed to failure from the outset.
----------
First of all; thanks Gregoshi for warm welcoming. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Second; Tempiic, yes, the dutch navy had more impact on history then its generals i guess, but, nonetheless they were battling the spanish in late 16th century - early 17th century to become free, aint exactly sure of the timeframe, damn i miss my books. As you all now they beat the spanish (who were europes leading power at the time though allready starting to decline) and laid a small foundation for Gustavus II Adolphus tactics. Think their leader was Wilhelm of Oranien - thats whats he is called in Sweden - dont now his english name though it might be Orange as i think you wrote before.
Third: I wanna make a contribution to the discussion of Waterloo (another great Swedish landmark through ABBA this time not the generals http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif ).
The prussians sure had a deep impact on the battle. If I am not totally mistaken Napoleon before the battle ordered off one of his finest commanders (maybe it was Ney, dont remember) with a large portion of his army with the mission to try and find Blucher and the prussians. That french force never found the prussians and didnt make it back to the battle. The prussians on the other hand showed up at the battle. So at least they made Napoleon divide his forces and im pretty sure they had an impact on the actual battlefield itself though im not quite as certain of this.
JANOSIK007
02-12-2003, 15:47
So what does everybody think of the poll? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
JANOSIK007
02-12-2003, 15:53
Lord of the rings, as you all probably know, is winning. If CA was to make this game it would loose one of its oldest fans. ME I fell in love with Total War ever since the release of Shogun:Total War Demo. I just want them to keep it historically aimed. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
JANOSIK007
02-12-2003, 15:57
It's kind of ironic that I am one of the oldest fans, yet I am a junior member on this site. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
JANOSIK007
02-12-2003, 16:02
Wern't the british the main allied force on the batllefield of Waterloo. I've read somewhere that a British general, who,s name I can't remember, was in charge of the allied force. Correct me If I am wrong.
JANOSIK007
02-12-2003, 16:05
How do you become a member? Does anybody know? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
newey1815
02-12-2003, 16:07
Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, did indeed command the Anglo-Allies at Waterloo, but his force was made up of British, Dutch-Belgian, Brunswick, Nassau and Hanoverian contingents. The Prussians also participated in the battle under the command of von Blucher, although not until later in the day.
hm
Quote[/b] (Rath @ Feb. 12 2003,07:17)]Showed Ninjakilla this thread, he wanted me to post this:
Wellington, didn't figure out Napoleon's method, rather Waterloo was lost because D'Erlon was unable to keep the Prussians and Allies from joining up.
Was not it D'Erlon who led the big infantry charge vs Wellington's line? That is, he could not be the one who was sent after the Prussians http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif or could he? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Quote[/b] ] I think its important to dispell the over-emphasis that is put on the failure of the Russian campaign. In my forthcoming dissertation I intend to argue that the Napoleonic system of warfare - that of 'absolute' warfare, where destruction of the enemy is the dominant concern - inevitably leads to goal inflation and escalation on an international scale. In other words, Napoleon success was his own undoing and he was doomed to failure from the outset.
----------
I think it was Napoleon's pride and stubbornes which caused his downfall. With somewhat moderate aims he could have consolidated his gains, but he went for the highest stake and lost.
Quote[/b] (newey1815 @ Feb. 11 2003,17:05)]The Prussians certainly had more of an influence at Waterloo than is usually acknowledged in England. They may not have been fighting until about 4pm, Napoleon was aware of their presence before this and was forced to retain VI Corps (Lobau's) as well as the Guard in reserve anticipating an attack on his right wing. This left him with little but cavalry with which to seek to break the Anglo-Allied squares. And when the Guard attacked at the end of the battle, this was much weakened by the commitment of the Young Guard and some of the Old Guard at Plancenoit to fight the Prussians.
There is no doubt the fact that Napoleon had to divide his forces was a disadvantge for him. So, I agree with you on this. But, I still have the impression http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif that Napoleon had no idea how to break up Wellington's defenses.
InsaneApache
02-12-2003, 17:27
Well as I understand it Napolean lost at Waterloo because of several factors that combined to cause his last defeat in battle. One of the first factors was the fact that he split his army after Quatre-bras, sending 1/2 his force to chase the Prussians, who he had routed, before meeting Wellington. Then he made the mistake of allowing Wellington to choose the place of battle. Wellington had previously reconoitered the area and had formed the opinion that it was a good defence area, with its reverse slopes etc. that hid his main force from the French and also gave his troops some degree of safety from cannon fire. Also when battle was commenced a diversionary attack on Hougomont, by his nephew Prince Jerome, gained a momentum all of its own, when, most probably because of Jeromes ego, he kept pouring more and more troops into the melee that seriosly began to weaken the French infantry on the French left/centre of the field. Also, has as been previously pointed out, he was aware that the Prussians were moving in a giant arc towards Wellingtons left flank and he therefore had to keep several divisions in reserve to deal with the Prussian threat if and when it appeared. Also his commander chasing the Prussians, even though urged by his officers to 'march to the sound of the guns' (unquote) refused such urging and followed his orders to the letter, that of chasing down the enemy. As for Marshall Ney....well it is generally considered that he was made a scapegoat for the loss of the battle, because it wouldnt really have made much difference to the outcome, given the problems already dicussed. Another thing that isnt generally considered is the state of Napoleans health at the time of the battle, indeed during the height of the fighting he had to leave the front and rest for a few hours. Hence Neys maniacal attack on the British squares. Given all these factors put together he was the victim of bad luck, poor leadership from his senior officers, ill health and the fact that Wellington had devised a repost to the advance of the French column.(the thine red line). Even so at the end of the battle Wellington himself said that 'it was a damn close run thing'.
InsaneApache
Yes, Apache, your post reminds me of what i have learned before to. I thank you for this good and clear answer.
Gregoshi
02-13-2003, 04:13
I think it was Grouchy that was sent to chase the Prussians.
Quote[/b] (Kalle @ Feb. 12 2003,15:45)][...]Tempiic, yes, the dutch navy had more impact on history then its generals i guess, but, nonetheless they were battling the spanish in late 16th century - early 17th century to become free, aint exactly sure of the timeframe, damn i miss my books. As you all now they beat the spanish (who were europes leading power at the time though allready starting to decline) and laid a small foundation for Gustavus II Adolphus tactics. Think their leader was Wilhelm of Oranien - thats whats he is called in Sweden - dont now his english name though it might be Orange as i[...]
Exact time frame would have been from 1568-1648, known as the 80 year war. Yup their leader was William of Orange-Nassau (using a rough english translation) but he got murdered in 1584. He was a decent general i think but not an outstanding one. Unlike his sons, Maurits and Frederik Hendrik van Oranje-Nassau (using dutch names and yes they are ancestors of our monarchy) who continued the war and had won many victories. They were known to play often with tin soldiers (since childhood) and read lots about the roman armies. Don't think we have had any excellent generals after these two http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
InsaneApache
02-13-2003, 20:47
Thnx Greg I seem to remember it was Grouchy who was the chasing general....or was it Harpo? or Zeppo? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
InsaneApache
Yes, Tempiic, i have now been at home for a week and had time to study a little. The general i mean would be this Moritz that you mention and he was a good general indeed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
The Napoleonic period has always been the era of warfare that has most interested me and the French army my favorite of those at the time, but I confess I have never quite seen why people rate Napoleon so highly. As a battlefield general, he often seems to have performed in a rather uninspired way (Eg Borodino & Waterloo). He won some campaigns by speed and flair, but often had an advantage of numbers and arguably superior troops for much of the time. Wellington's record, however, seems almost too good to be true.
redrooster
02-24-2003, 16:55
waterloo was an off-day on a day he could not had afforded to be off.
you could read about his better battles too like austerlitz, marengo and that one fought over the danube.
Yes, Austerlitz was audacious and amazingly successful. It is hard to replicate in a wargame, where often the Allied left steamrollers the French right. I suspect it relied a lot of the quality of the French infantry and the ineptness of the Allied command.
Not so sure about Marengo or the one over the Danube (Wagram?). IIRC, there was an element of Napoleon being caught of his guard in some of these and being rescued by the quality of his army.
I am not an expert, but I am inclining to the view that Napoleon was a very bold and able general whose great victories were at least equally attributable to the relative quantity or quality of his armies. (Although I confess this is probably true of most great generals from Alexander to Patton). When the Allied armies started to match him for quality (both general and troops) and supercede him in quantity, he was could not overcome the odds.
In addition, Napoleon's boldness often came unstuck - most spectacularly in his invasions of Spain and Russia.
Brother Derfel
02-24-2003, 18:11
Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Feb. 24 2003,09:34)]The Napoleonic period has always been the era of warfare that has most interested me and the French army my favorite of those at the time, but I confess I have never quite seen why people rate Napoleon so highly. As a battlefield general, he often seems to have performed in a rather uninspired way (Eg Borodino & Waterloo). He won some campaigns by speed and flair, but often had an advantage of numbers and arguably superior troops for much of the time. Wellington's record, however, seems almost too good to be true.
I must disagree about Napoleon's abilities. During the campaign of 1813 he managed to run rings around the numerically superior and more experienced allies with mostly conscript troops and a few brigades of the Young Guard. it was one of the most inspired campaigns ever fought by a general under the circumstances.
Knight_Yellow
02-24-2003, 18:19
wallace is great for practicly inventing guerilla warfare and id say rommel should get it for inventing the 88mm anti tank gun he just took them off the aa guns and put them on a tank *say good bye allied tanks*
the mongols wherent out to make an empire nor did they plan to conquer anything they where nomads and just pillaged then moved on.
henry v was pretty damned good as well
realisticly u cant compare generals since warfare has evolved so mutch that trying to generalise all of warfare is impossible.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Rommel did not invent the anti-tank role for the 88, it had already been used in the Spanish Civil War for that (though I can hardly see the point or need in that). After that the crews were trained to a degree to act in an anti-tank role.
What Rommel did was to speed up the affair a great deal. He proved the 88 could be used aggressively (lure-hook-pull-catch) and that more consideration should be put into the training of the men in an anti-tank role.
He did devise a specific tactic for the 88 when he and a column of troops were caught without armour facing British tanks storming at them. The crews began to furiously try to unpack the guns on their carriages, but all knew they did not have the time. Rommel saw this and barked at them that they should fire as it was, no regard to the stability... It was a stunning success. After that the crews trained in this too and it became the best way to use the gun as stability was less important as an anti-tankgun than as Flak.
BlackWatch McKenna
02-25-2003, 01:36
You can compare generals / captains across time.
Just imagine yourself in the old Seven Samurai village and say, who would I hire to get me out of this situation..
Hannibal is the guy I would choose - you know he would make do with what he had or otherwise improvise something brilliant.
~BW
Brother Derfel,
Strangely, it was the 1813 campaign that first led me to question Napoleon's abilities. I was interested to play it using Avalon Hill's board wargame War and Peace. It was one of the most well-balanced campaigns, but generally the French player had the edge. Maybe the game was inaccurate, but numerically the French could muster a stronger army than the Prussians & Russians until the Austrians intervened after the summer. The 1805 campaign appears to have been even more numerically unbalanced - apparently, they did not call it the Grande Armee for nothing
You might be thinking of 1814, where Napoleon was very outnumbered and is reputed to have fought an impressive campaign, although it was ultimately well countered by the Allies who, IIRC, avoided giving battle to the Emporer and kept plowing on to Paris.
Was it Napoleon who said God is on the side of the big battalions? If not, it appears an apt comment for much of the Napoleonic wars. (I vaguely remember something about demographics imply France was relatively large at the time, not to mention the Revolution enabling it to call out an unusually large citizen army).
I am not trying to disparage Napoleon, as clearly he was an outstanding General, but merely questioning whether he was in the top one or two of all time, as he is often portrayed.
redrooster
02-25-2003, 11:43
Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Feb. 24 2003,11:19)]the mongols wherent out to make an empire nor did they plan to conquer anything they where nomads and just pillaged then moved on.
an empire that lasted several generations could hardly be mentioned as pillaged and moved on
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.