Yes he was !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He was much much shorter !!!!!!!!!!
Printable View
Yes he was !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He was much much shorter !!!!!!!!!!
Russia is the greatest. It has, ever since its existance, had to fight for its independence, and when they had freed themselves, they carved out an empire to (nearly) match the British. The Russians defeated Napoleon, suffered a Revolution and a civil war, recovered, beat the full force of the Nazi war machine, and despite having to oppose the whole world in the cold war, even now leads in military fields such as rocketry. Modern military might can and is measured in nuclear capability. Russia has the most capable and largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
Before anyone attempts to claim that Russian victories result from the cold winters, let me say this: The temperature is the same for the Russians AND its been the same for the past, hmmm, several millenia, so all invaders had plenty of time to prepare, as such. Its not like they got there, and then winter came, and they're like "Holy Cow guys! Its winter and its snowing! Who could've guessed? Its only been this cold here for the past 50,000 years! Why didn't we think of it been the same this year around?!"
May I ask how many people died during your civil war ? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Wasn't it the winter that defeated Napoleon, just as any army that invaded Russia (Mongols excepted) ?Quote:
The Russians defeated Napoleon
As usual, the Mongols get my vote.
Edit : I feel someone is gonna say "Alexander wasn't greek" ~D
And yeah, the germans deserved to be an option in the poll, probably much more than the French.
Germans ? lost 2 WW's , won in 1871 but against who ? ~D ~D ~D
At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:
Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222
The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:
Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000
The leading authority on casualties of the war, Thomas L. Livermore, admitting the handicap of poor records in some cases, studied 48 of the war's battles and concluded:
Of every 1,000 Federals in battle, 112 were wounded.
Of every 1,000 Confederates, 150 were hit.
Mortality was greater among Confederate wounded, because of inferior medical service.
-- Obviously, this is taken from a website on U.S. Civil War Casualties.
Winter is, actually, a good time to fight in Russia. It is cold, but the ground is solid and armies can move and fight well provided they are clothed etc. for the weather. Oct/Nov and April/May are actually more problematic due to the rain and mud coupled with Russia's unimproved road system prior to 1960 (and possibly still -- don't know about this).Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Napoleon's great problem was not so much the winter as the lengthy supply lines which he could not keep secure (raiding cossacks).
Hitler lost Barbarossa when he halted Hoth & Guderian and then diverted them AWAY from a thrust on Moscow to encircle already crippled formations to the North and South. By the time they were done with this, the mud was upon them. The Germans were not unaware of the severity of a Russian winter, and had intended to have their troops halted before its onset to shift supplies/uniforms/etc. They ran out of time and were still attacking -- in winter -- when the Siberian forces arrived to bolster the line.
SF
For the third and final time, Napoleon outnumbered Wellington, 72,000 versus 55,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Yes, Napoleon's tactics were simple at Waterloo, but they had become exceedingly simple well before that point in time.
Well, it is still not true, at all. I can say, for the fourth and final time, Wellington outnumbered Napoleon 55 000 against 1,000. It doesn't make it true... ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey_Fox
My numbers come from 'Napoleon & Wellington' by Andrew Roberts. 17,000 men from Wellington's army WERE stationed at a crossroads a dozen miles from the battle. The numbers you give are the overall numbers that were in his army, and not the ones that were at Mont St. Jean itself.
Source: www.napoleonguide.com
French forces at start of campaign = roughly 105k
Prussian Forces at start = roughly 102k
British & Allied forces = roughly 77k
Therefore:
Prussian forces at Waterloo consisted of the Survivors of Ligny less their 3rd corps, which fought a delaying action bringing Grouchy's right wing to a standstill at Wavre. The Prussians could have been fielding no more than 70k at Waterloo, probably less, and these arrived "strung out" after a prolonged march.
British forces were reduced somewhat at the engagement at Quatre Bras on the same day as Ligny, as well as the detachmen noted in earlier posts. It is doubtful if more than 55k were available for the entirety of the engagement.
French forces were reduced by Grouchys detachment to harry the Prussians in retreat as well as the casualties incurred at Ligny and Quatre Bras. The were probably fielding around 65k for Waterloo itself. This gave them a 6-5 advantage, wich was compounded by the poor morale and fighting ability of a percentage of the allies under Wellington.
Wellington chose the defensive for a number or reasons:
1. The defense has the tactical, if not strategic advantage, and Napoleon had to win. Merely surviving as an army-in-being would hamper Napoleon's resurgence.
2. The defense suited British line and fire tactics, irregardless of the nominal range advantage of the Brown Bess. Column attack versus column counter-attack would have favored the French.
3. Attacking with allied troops who, as it turned out, only held their position in square under the threat of British cavalry would have been foolhardy. Wellington was no fool.
4. He believed that he would have enough force, given his relatively passive stance, to outlast Napoleon. Napoleon's favorite approach was to stress test his opponent's line at a number of points, force the opponent to commit his reserves, and then to shatter the line at a critical point. Wellington knew this, and rode back and forth from hot spot to hot spot, making minor adjustments but holding the line, never allowing the development of a spot where a breakthrough could be made (though it came close at La Haye Saint).
Wellington knew himself and his opponent....
Well I have to say the US. No surprise to any of you Im sure. Our military has never lost a war and is now the greatest military power ever known to man.
Didn't the Canadians burn down the White House... either that was a loss or just school kiddies on summer vacation partying like to the max?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
No the British did.Quote:
Didn't the Canadians burn down the White House.
I didnt say we never lost a battle . I said our military never lost a war.Quote:
either that was a loss or just school kiddies on summer vacation partying like to the max?
PS we didnt lose the War of 1812 either.
Seamus Fermanagh, I‘ve got the same source. As I said, I am not a specialist in Napoleon.
So, what the site says is:
“Bonaparte had brilliantly outmanoeuvred both the Anglo-Allied force of (77,000 approx) under Wellington and the nearby Prussian army of Field Marshall Blucher (102,000).
Together the allied forces easily outnumbered France's 72,000 men (Bonaparte) and its detached right-wing corps of 33,000 (Marshall Grouchy), so the French emperor surprised the two by getting in between them and preventing their linking.”
I went to other sites (no French one, to avoid any nationalism) and all agree that the Allies had a bigger army. Even the most English Nationalist (kind of the English won and suddenly were near to run) doesn’t deny this fact. It is because the Prussians arrived, obliging Napoleon to send the Young Guard to keep them aside. Then in a last gamble, he sends the Old Guard against the British to try to win the day then to turn against the Prussians. The plan failed because the efficiency of the British lines. But, without the Prussian arrival, what could happen, with the Old and the Young Guards?
So Waterloo isn’t a British victory, but a combined victory. ~D
Agreed. I've always thought that it was Wellington's tactics that caused the win, but it would have been more of a draw - or at best a marginal victory - without the arrival of the Prussians that afternoon. Wellington prevented Napoleon from winning -- a moderately impressive feat on its own -- but was not in a position to inflict a tactical defeat unsupported.
An interesting possibility would have been to guess Napoleon's next move if Waterloo had been fought to a draw, with the Prussians and English combining, but too late in the day to continue the fight. Wellington would have wanted to take the offensive, but lacked the power to do so on his own, whereas Blucher and Gneisnau were a bit more tentative, especially after Ligny.
SF
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
On the larger question: I do not think of the USA as a military nation, despite our many successes. Our military has, historically, been very marginal to our policies and national efforts. Only the need to oppose the Soviets in the Cold War kept us from completely disassembling our military yet again. In fact, we still have that tendency.
That having been said, I agree more with Gawain than GC as to our success. The conflict of 1812 produced few English victories, all of which were countered by American successes (though our best came after the conclusion of peace). Our effort to conquer Canada was laughable, but in the main we did pretty well.
Korea included one massive mistake -- the failure to predict Chinese intervention, but was ultimately successful. No part of South Korea remained in Communist hands, the North Korean army was demolished following Inchon and the Chinese volunteers left a million dead on the mountains of North and Central Korea. These casualties and Russian attitudes aided in the dissolution of the Sino-Soviet alliance. They remained our opponents, but never truly coordinated efforts again -- a leg up in the Cold War, which was the real conflict anyway.
Vietnam was lost by Walter Cronkite, not by the U.S. Military. After years of frustrating guerilla war, we had finally pushed them into attacking all out in the Tet offensive. We then smashed the entirety of the Viet Cong so badly that NVA regulars were forced to engage merely to hold the "line." General Giap and other leaders beleived that they would have to withdraw -- until Cronkite announced WE couldn't win and spun American opinion the wrong way. THIS gave the VC incentive to hold on and hope that we would undercut our own efforts. We did, we sued for peace, they signed, we left, they ignored the treaty and conquered the south and Cambodia. This lead, quickly, to the deaths of more than 3 million people in those countries under enlightened Communist rule. We had handed our military a difficult and thankless job, and they had DONE it, and THEN we let them twist in the wind. :furious3:
N its not. I didnt say we never lost a war. I said our military never did. If you think our military lost Nam you need to do some research. Militarily we creamed them. People like Walter Conkrite , Jane Fonda and John Kerry lost that war not our armed services.Quote:
To say we've never lost a war is pushing the envelope. Vietnam was a war in all but name, and so was the fact that we didn't succeed. Korea was a draw. So war the War of 1812.
But the question is, would the U.S military have been able to win the peace, i.e hold on to the gains it would have made.
No the question is who is the greatest military nation. ~;) If you mean could our military have held on to the South there is little doubt of that.Quote:
But the question is, would the U.S military have been able to win the peace, i.e hold on to the gains it would have made.
The Original question was the Greatest Military Nation.Not the greatest military in todays world Gawain.US withdraw from Vietnam was largely because of the Anti-War movement inside USA.That doesnt seem like a behaviour of very warlike people.As a Nation US has been more been more like Nation of business rather then military.Your succes has emerged from good trading policy and exploitation of your resources rather then use of your military to conquest over others and exploitation of their resources.
The question wasnt who was the most warlike nation but military. The civilian population is not taken into that equation. Since the US has produced the greatest military in the history of the world and has never been defeated in a war on the battlfield, I still have to say the US is the greatest military nation ever. The fact that were peace loving doesnt change that. ~;)Quote:
That doesnt seem like a behaviour of very warlike people.
Maybe we are reading the question somehow differently. ~;) If you compare US to lets say Mongols whose whole lifestyle was about war,since their own land was so poor that their only chance to collect riches was war.I agree that you have the finest military in the world today,but if we look at the history.Many other Nations have had similar edge against other Nations in the past.I voted for the Germans because their military history from various tribes to WWII is over 2000 years old.They have had many great enemies like Romans,Various Steppe peoples( including Huns,Magyars and Turks.)The Slavs.Celts.French,Russians,Britain,USA.They have fought against various enemies through centuries.And they still have a army worth mentioning.USA have dominated world militarily for couple of decades.That is too little time for me to say that they are the greatest military Nation ever. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
What happened in 'Nam and the War of 1812?
Greatest Military Nation also doesn't mean the number of wars won versus the numbers of wars lost, otherwise Switzerland would be right up there at the top. Otherwise the French wouldn't have a place on the poll. It is about the soldiers that come from that country and their skill. It is about how its military led the nation to great things.
[QUOTE=Gelatinous Cube]To say we've never lost a war is pushing the envelope. Vietnam was a war in all but name, and so was the fact that we didn't succeed. Korea was a draw. So war the War of 1812.
That said, I agree. US is the best, and there is no nation in recent memory that can compete. Europe has gone soft. Asia, Africa, and South America are backwards. Russia came close, but the loss of the Cold War hit them hard. China is the only real up and coming competition.[/QUOTE]
"Russia came close..."
Cone on GC , you are talking about human history , not about some sports competition .
Otherwise the French wouldn't have a place on the poll.
I wonder why France still exist, going for defeat to submission? ~:confused:
She should have disappeared from Earth with all these lost and blunders… Had just the second bigger colonial Empire, spread the Napoleon Code and the metric system every where, and French is spoken on all the continents… And, hello, still exists. Just go to have a look on your books of geography. Not the one where the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade wasn’t on the map, the new edition… ~D
Then again the US wins hands down. ~;)Quote:
It is about the soldiers that come from that country and their skill. It is about how its military led the nation to great things.
We didnt lose the war of 1812 and we never lost militarily in Nam either. Where do you all get this idea we lost the War of 1812? ~:confused: Neither side accomplished its goals. It was a draw , a stalemate shall we say. You are all lucky the US is peaceloving and doesnt use its might like empires of old.Quote:
What happened in 'Nam and the War of 1812?
Mexican War, the wars against the Native American tribes, Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, GW1, Yugoslavia, GW2, Afghanistan. Not to mention the dozens of others 'police' actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
After WWII all hostile militairy actions by the US were "police" actions, as the US has not declared war since WWII.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey_Fox
Also note that although the US often intervened out of self-interest, they usually did not start the wars.
I think that Britain, Germany, Nepal, India, Russia, and goodness knows which other countries have better skill than a US soldier...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Vietnam was lost strategically and politically, not militairily. The war of 1812 was claimed victorious by the British but really it was a stalemate. You could say the US won as they continued to be independant in the end...~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
If the US were like the old imperial powers including the british there would be no doubt as to whether the war in Iraq were about oil. We would just take it and Irans and the rest of the middle east also. We would be paying pennies not dollars a gallon for gas.