Printable View
A guerrilla campaign with no casualties if you mean the battle where general Carl (something something) led the Austrians. Napoleon split his forces and isolated Carl north of the peninsula and cut off the Russians while, at the same time, cutting off the Austrians' retreat to the peninsula. He took about (I *think*) 60,000 prisoners in a campaign where no blood was shed.
Hence the quote: Separate and live, unite to fight
There were no Russians in the peninsular war. Which campaign are you referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
The one where the Austrians formed an alliance with the Russians, but the Russians never really participated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
Napoleon's columns were designed to hold young, unblooded and unskilled troops to begin with. In a column only the men on the front or on the sides can see anything. The men in the middle therefore are less likely to panic and will keep marching forcing the ones on the front to keep marching. When the column wins the men get more confident.
This is also the columns greatest weakness however. Obstacles aren't seen, ie trenches, leading to injuries. More importantly only the front two or three ranks can fire back. This is how a small professional army (ie. the British army, at the time the quickest in the world firing more than three rounds a minute regularly) could easily defeat the much larger armies of France.
That said Napoleon only faced the British personally once the rest of the time it was his marshalls (Jourdan, Soult, Massena etc.) who had to deal with this problem. Napoleon was a brilliant tactician and it is my belief that, given time and forced to fight the British, he could have done much better than any of his Marshalls managed.
http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~dves...des1/horse.jpg
Napoleon crossing the Alps. This painting of the emperor, done by David, is a unmatched beauty, however, it is what turns the man into superman, Napoleon is shown sitting on a rearing horse, his clothes and hair flying in the wind, his finger points to the sky, he himself looks as if he is reaching for the sky, standing at the edge of a cliff.........
When a layman thinks of Napoleon, this is the first image that comes to his mind, one who has read little of but his victories, and seen little but this painting, will of course think of him as a hero........now wonder his reputation is so extraordinary.....
A cunning tactitian and a great general he was, the greatest of them all of his own times, but as great as he is often portrayed today, he wasn't.
Napoloene 's only great shows of manouvre were really, his Italian campaign and his defence of France when he was leading small armies, Marengo was not a great or decisive victory either, the Austrians were able to remove themselves and join with the rest of their forces.
Austerlitz however was great, but that was it. Austerlitz. One Battle, at Borodino his lazy tactics summed up to nothing more than march foreward and shoot.
The Spanish ulcer was always going to be his biggest mistake, an act of idiocy rarely seen in history. It was a certain defeat front and Napoleone knew this, thus left it to his generals. It was thus due to both the viscious skirmishing with the Spaniards and through the genius of Wellesley's planning and execution of his battles.
He was also a very bad plotitician and diplomat, constantly bullying the nations of Europe, very foolish.
That could explain it!:beam: With the Spanish guerrillas, the (admittedly small) British army, and a British-trained Portugese army, all working together under a system, the Peninsular war would have been much harder to win than the war in Eastern Europe. No wonder he left it to his marshalls!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Actually, he crossed the Alps riding a pony. Not only he was a great politician and general, but also a master of propaganda, thanks to awesome artists such as David.Quote:
Originally Posted by asj_india
In other words, he created compelling spectacles of himself, this is how he stands out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
This was not new. Many before and after Napoleon used a leadership cultus as a tool. This doesn't discredit him more than the fact that he used the military for his conquests.
Welcome to Caesar's life. :tongue2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
How does that contradict what I said?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peasant Phill
Ahh, yeah, the picture of the guy holding a sphere and running over everyone with his horse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
At least to me, that sentence gave the impression that Napoleon only excelled at making a personal cultus; that he's remembered only or at least mostly because of the propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahad I
I tried to point out that his use of propaganda was not unheard of before or after Napoleon. Propaganda should be seen as a tool in a leaders toolbox and using this tool masterfully should also credit the leader. We credit leaders for being able to muster a large fighting force, well propaganda is amongst others a means to this.