This is about a mixture of ability to efficiently run the army, and how efficient the army was in battle. This isn't about the maddest barbarians, its about disciplined soldiers and Generals tactics, etc.
Printable View
This is about a mixture of ability to efficiently run the army, and how efficient the army was in battle. This isn't about the maddest barbarians, its about disciplined soldiers and Generals tactics, etc.
British Empire, 18th-20th centuries
mabey but they damn near got there heads ripped off by napoleon.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilverKnight
i voted ceasers legions, desciplined, brutal, loyal to the very end. also his battles were well thought out and well applicated upon the guals and later the romans.
after that i'd have to say ghengis khan
after that probably hannible
No they didn't. The English didn't fight an extensive land war like the rest of the Europeans did. The only land war the English fought was the Peninsular War (1808-1814), and we did not nearly get our heads ripped off.Quote:
Originally Posted by master of the puppets
Romans, they were warlike in nature and the way they made their army by borrowing bits of tactics, equipments from their enemies was pretty ingenious.
No Germany? Hmmph.. :no:
Well I've made my vote (I went for other, by which I'm thinking of the british empire, It was, I think the greatest empire the world has ever seen).
Theres been an awful lot of these "who was best" threads recently though. The once serene monastery is starting to resemble the backroom.
Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles...
~:cheers: patton Italy Eisenhower France saved you guys from the nazis and russians at the same time and tipped our caps while doing it AMERICA~:cheers:
Note: didnt meen to offend sort of a joke im not funny shouldnt try
iuno if I'm the right person to say this, but please don't be arrogant about your country. They're not always right and not always the best in the world in everything. That's all I'll say about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
Strike edit your post, this is the Monastery which is the politest of the forums.
This site has 10 to 80 year olds, swearing in such a manner is not allowed.
BTW you may want to consider the origins of the people who worked on the Manhattan project...
Scots (William Wallace)
I think you should have used Celts instead of Scots...Quote:
The original form of Wallace meant "Welsh Speaking"
The Romans were the greatest empire, and a group of good soldiers. When well led, few could defeat them.
The Mongols were superb, and had probably the best single general of all time in Sabutai (spellings vary).
As a warring nation, however, I would have to opt for Germany, particularly in WW2. Setting aside the inate evil of the Hitler regime, how well hte Wermacht and associates fought that many quality opponents for so long at such a disparity of numbers is more or less stunning. Following the American Civil War, Germany was the only nation to accurately assess the changes of modern war, becoming the best for nearly a century.
SF
What this is news to me ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by TheSilverKnight
I'd say China produced armies which did well for many years, though internal struggles and other civil war like stuff meant that they never achieved their full potential.
However the mongols had one of the largest empires ever in an age when there was very little in the way of true mechanised transport, achieving speeds a modern army could well be proud of on horseback. They also had supreme tactics for their era, rarely losing a battle or indeed a war. Yes I think they did lose in Vietnam but look at what they achieved...
Germany under hitler must of course get a mention
And of course the British Empire, though I hasten to mention many of the soldiers were scots not english
Thanks strike ~:cheers:
Russians, conquering the former terretory of Russian Empire required some good military ...
I think the British Empire from the 18th-19th Century turned the British the Great Military Nation on earth, but they were far more subtle in their conquests. I should've given the Romans #1 choice because strictly speaking they out endured any empire in History by a long shot.
You sure what about Osmans and Russians.Or do you count Byzantian times as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wazikashi
I hate the reference Byzantine... as they identified themselves as Romans, but in the strictest sense, yes, I believe the 'Byzantine Empire' was just a continuation of the Roman Empire.
One could refer to the Eastern Roman Empire as Byzantine from the reign of Heraclius as he was the one who Hellenised it. My vote would go to the Romans for discipline and quality of training, but the real reason why they conquered most of Europe was because of their technological superiority. Second comes Prussia/Germany for their victories in the Seven Years War, the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, the Franco-Prussian War, WWI and WWII. Thrid comes the British Army from 1704-1914 in the period from the Battle of Blenheim to the Outbreak of the First World War.
I'm sorry, so what was the nationality of the General who beat Napoleon?Quote:
Originally Posted by master of the puppets
Vietnamese? Indian? Egyptian?
nope
British....and so were his troops
Prussia! :charge:
I have to say the Greeks were the best, beating Persia and then more or less forming the thinking in military matters, and most other sides of the culture for a long time. Even beating the Romans in the person of king Pyhrrus (yes I know about the spelling :embarassed: ).
Even I do admitt that they got beaten in the end, just like everyone else.
Actually Wellington was Irish, but that's semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16
Anyways, what happened to the Germans?
WHAT… Americans not always right? Not always the best in the world?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSilverKnight
Well that’s not what the brochure said when I signed up :shocked: .
I chose Mongols. They built things but weren’t builders. Wrote things but weren’t writers. Invented, but weren’t inventors, etc. they were conquers and the… Greatest Military Nation Ever.
With runners up being the English pre WWI and the Romans about ¾ of the way thru their reign.
With honorable mentions going out to Japan just prior to unification. (Honorable mention… Japan, get it, ha, Americans always crack themselves up too :laugh4: .)
I voted for Germany in the 17 th century, for the thirty years war : they managed to kill between one half and two third of the central european populations - mainly themselves - which is much higher anyone else has done.
I think that using Celts would not have been entirely accurate. A good number of towns in the Lowlands from which much of Wallace's army at several battles was mustered were descended from the Angles of Northumbria who used to live there before it was annexed by Scotland in the 11th Century or thereabouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I would have to agree with theSilverKnight and say that 18th - 20th Century Britain was the greatest military nation, especialy that Northern outpost of Britain commonly referred to as Scotland.
Waterloo: French : 72 000 men + 33 000 detached Marshall Grouchy. (never engaged)
English (& Allies): 77 000 men and 102 000 men
"The Duke of Wellington's army was a mixture of Germans (the largest contingent), Netherlanders (often referred to as 'Dutch-Belgians') and British (many of whom hailed from Ireland). The sprinkling of veterans, particularly the British and King's German Legion units, were the corset-stays holding together this volatile mixture of men, some of whom had fought for Napoleon only the previous year"
Size of the armies: 23,000 British troops with 44,000 allied.
So, Wellington wasn’t English (he he) and the heroic troops which defeated Napoleon (total 179 000 allies against 72 000 French) were NOT English. :book: ~:)
Wellington was not Irish. People of his class did not mix with the native Irish. He also said "just because one is born in a stable does not mean one is a horse". The Dutch-Belgian contingent was almost completely useless, most regiments ran at the first sign of gunfire. Others began shooting at the Duke as he was riding past. It was the British troops who formed "the thin red line" which led to the defeat of D'Erlan's corp and the rout of the hitherto invincible Imperial Guard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey_Fox
I'm pretty sure he was Irish.
Why did you put the French up there? If you type "French Military Victories" in Google, then click "I'm feeling lucky" then it comes up with a message saying "nothing found did you mean French military Defeats?"
:)
says somthing doesnt it?
P.S. try it, it actually works
Nuff said
[IMG]https://img58.imageshack.us/img58/5373/image25bu.jpg[/IMG]
I would say Germans.They have been around from Roman times and have been more or less powerfull since then.
Click on "Did you mean French military defeats?". Hilarious website. If the link goes away and you don't get a website about French er, non-victories, just PM me.
Prussian. If Blucher hadn't turned his army around despite the loss at Ligny and crashed into Napoleon's right, all of Wellesley's efforts would have bought him nothing more than a draw [though he was good and a draw against Boney while having to use all those miserable Allied troops actually wouldn't have been all that bad. Jeez, half of Wellington's cavalry spent the whole day standing behind the allied squares so they wouldn't run].Quote:
Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16
SF
Actually he is what was termed "anglo-irish."Quote:
Originally Posted by Wazikashi
This translates, roughly, as "Physically born in Ireland, but pretty snooty about not claiming any true irish ancestry."
Very little of his time was actually spent in Ireland. After fine english schools, he was off to the army first in Holland, then mostly in India.
Dan O'Connell or Sean Breen he was most certainly not.
SF
He sounds a lot like my Anglo-Irish ancestors. When they were rich and powerful (and living in Belfast) they probably never told themselves they were Irish. But when the money ran out, thats when they suddenly got a patriotic Irish bug. My Grandfather would never admit that though ~:)
nm already done
Notice at the bottom of the screen it says "This Parody is not sponsored or endorsed by Google".Quote:
Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16
Also, let's not go any further with the French bashing or any other bashing for that matter. You may refute, but refrain from insulting please.
I wouldnt consider the mongolian conquests an empire. They simply conquerd and very losely "governed" terretories for about 80 years. This is not an Empire. An empire has to stand the test of time for more than just 80 years and also has to impose its legacy to the world. Both of witch, the Mongolian state, did not acomplish in order to reach the status of an empire (even the they controlled the largest territory to date).Quote:
Originally Posted by ah_dut
Roman Empire--> imposed its cultural legacy in europe and any other country with european ancestry.
British Empire--> Held a nation of 1/2 a billion people with 50 000 troops and made their language the most widely spoken.
USA--> currently has the most technologically advanced military in the world. The Us marines are the most advanced infantry unit in the world. US navy is the most advanced in the world.
Soviet Union--> their contribution in the fields of roketry, chemistry, aviation and Nuclear weapons is to this day, uncontested. They created the largest man made explosion aswell as built the most manuvrable jet fighter airplane in the world: the SU-35 "Flanker". Also they have the most advanced heavy lifting rocket in the world: Energia, which is capable of lifting 2 times more than any other stellar rocket.
I have to agree that currently Russia is currently the master of rocketry and avionics and have contributed the most to that certain field than probably any other country. Even the US has a hard time not admitting that. Although Russia will probably be surpassed in the close future, 10-20 years down the road, unless something in their government changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabidGibbon
Oh dear...
I was just having some fun... :embarassed: :embarassed:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
It was an Allied victory. Welllington would not have fought at Mont St. Jean unless the Prussians turned up, and Blucher would have gone back to Berlin if Wellington didn't fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Anyways, Napoleon had almost everything going for him. He outnumbered Wellington's artillery by almost 2:1, his cavalry was superior, he had a homogeneous army unlike Wellington's polyglot force, and his troops were all veterans, unlike the British troops of whom only half had seen combat before.
Actually, these were some of the most favourable odds Wellington ever had to face considering many of his earlier battles.
Wellington did not have 72,000 troops in action at Mont St. Jean. He had stationed a force of 17,000 men at a crossroads about a dozen miles away to prevent a possible French outflanking maneuver, as he had a high opinion of Napoleon's capabilities. This left him with 55,000 troops to face Boney.
The British pretty much beat the Old Guard on their own without Prussian interference (disregarding the group that held the Prussians at Plancenoit).
Also, the term 'thin red line' was not coined until the Crimean War.
Yes, Wellington's troops stopped the Guard without assistance -- a feat thought impossible at the time.
You make a good point that both Wellington and Blucher were counting on one another. The surprise was that it worked. Austerlitz and other "allied" operations of the period were all to often a malf-up.
Wellington is easily the best commander in English history -- any era. Only Cromwell approaches him in savvy and effectiveness. Keegan has an excellent book out wherein he compares the command ability of famous Generals. Wellington receives high praise from him, and Keegan gives strong support for this claim. Interestingly enough, Keegan also had a lot of praise for U.S. Grant, who normally doesn't win a lot of acolades.
Without the combined efforts of Wellington and Blucher, neither alone could best Napoleon with the forces at their disposal. Together, they ended the Corsican's aspirations for good.
The Prussian contruîbution was quite reluctant. Gneisenau, the Chief of Staff of the Prussian army, thought that Wellington would be resoundly beaten and did not want the army intagled in such a disaster. He ordered the divisions at the rear of the army to march first to Wellington's aid. The divisions at the front of the column had to wait until the rearmost had passed.
All stolen or based on stolen German technology. ~;)Quote:
Soviet Union--> their contribution in the fields of roketry, chemistry, aviation and Nuclear weapons is to this day, uncontested. They created the largest man made explosion aswell as built the most manuvrable jet fighter airplane in the world: the SU-35 "Flanker". Also they have the most advanced heavy lifting rocket in the world: Energia, which is capable of lifting 2 times more than any other stellar rocket.
I agree with some of your post but I don’t think of the USA as a military nation. We don’t actively conquer, and even though we are the target of terrorists everywhere the people still wont support any military action (and protest at the Presidents ranch demanding reasons why) only the troops that are sent to war by the “evil” President. Any country with a population that will do this or will put up with its population doing this is sooo not the greatest military nation. We are a great nation and we definitely have a great military but I don’t think of us as being the Greatest Military Nation. I’m still for the Mongols; they wouldn’t stand for war protesters (does make for a fun visual though). ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
"Anyways, Napoleon had almost everything going for him." Tell me, it is a joke. Napoleon had to force the victory. The Russian, Austrians and all the allies are marching against him, and his only chance is to defeat them one after one. The allies’ army, even in Waterloo, are almost double. He has to attack when Wellington, wisely, choose to stay in defensive. So, to attack one against two, knowing that reinforcement for your enemy are on the way is undoubtedly to have almost everything for you…
French: 54 000 infantry, 16 000 cavalry, 246 guns
English & Allies: 54 000 men 13 000 cavalry 157 guns
Prussian: 49 000 infantry, 134 guns, en route to Waterloo: 27 000 men and 106 guns.
So, as you say, Napoleon had all for him.
It still true that only the defence of the British who were able to hold then repulse the French Old Guards (who just defeated 14 Prussian Battalions) give the victory to Wellington, combined with the arrival of Blucher’s army.
Even 10 days after Waterloo, near the river Suffel, near Strasbourg, the French under the command of Gal Jean Rapp defeated the allies (Austrian, Wurttemberg and Hess-Darmstadt) under the command of the Royal Prince of Wurttemberg (20 000 French, 60 000 allies).
The figures show Napoleon couldn’t win, even if he had almost everything going for him.
No way. maybe the early technology but you can't say that post soviet rockets are stolen early German technology. Its like me saying the m16 is the best rifle in the world and you saying that its based on stolen chinese gun powder technology :). Besides that, American rocketry is also based on "stolen" German technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
I was speaking of the Waterloo campaign only.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Napoleon could have beaten the British Army at Mont St. Jean before the Prussians intervened. If you read my previous post, the British did not have all their troops or guns at Mont St. Jean itself, a significant force of 17,000 troops were about a dozen miles away guarding Wellington's lines of communication and prevent an outflanking maneuver, meaning that he had just over 50,000 troops at Mont St. Jean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Right after the fall of La Haie Saint, Napoleon had victory in his grasp. if he had attacked there and then with everything he had left, it is probable that the battle would have been won. Napoleon didn't attack, and therefore he lost.
Only a single battalion of the Old Guard had been committed against the Prussians, the rest of the Guard was entirely fresh and uncommitted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
I would say Japanese or Chinese.
Actually I think the poll is not about a pervertion of history - but the discussion of the individuals so far as only centered around the early industrial age and the Empire Building of the European Countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
That his poll is limited and does not indicate an anti-american sentiment but it shows an indication of baised views toward what he believes to be the time periods in which great military nations were in existance.
Is it an open time period about which is the greatest Military Nation - it would not seem so from the poll nor the discussion.
But accusing a poll in the Monstery as having Anti-American sentiment - when there is absolutely no evidence of such is just an attempt to demonize because the question does not include the United States - nor does the discussion so far seem Anti-American because it seem that the gentlemen discussing their opinions are actually focusing on a single time period of the Industrial Revolution era of history.
Shame on some for bringing current political opinions into a discussion and accusing others of revisionist history.
Exactly, both the American and Russian rocket, space, and jet programs would have been at least 10-20 years delayed if it hadnt been for the technology and scientists they made off with after ww2.Quote:
No way. maybe the early technology but you can't say that post soviet rockets are stolen early German technology. Its like me saying the m16 is the best rifle in the world and you saying that its based on stolen chinese gun powder technology :). Besides that, American rocketry is also based on "stolen" German technology.
If they know they are spouting revisionist history then shame on them also. If that is what they honestly believe to have happened based upon what they have learned - then its only at worst incorrect knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Which shows that Napoleon was merely a meglomaniac who did not care how many lives were lost so long as he remained Emperor of the French and ruler of Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
You tell me, I am not specialist in Napoleon, that 1 battalion of the Old Imperial Guard defeated 14 Prussian Battalions? That is more than heroic… ~:cheers:
Of course, Napoleon could have won, like he won two day before. But he would have lost anyway because like the year before, the Allies armies were marching towards France. It took 7 coalitions to bring Napoleon on the ground, and I don’t think that any King, Queen or Emperor in Europe will allowed him to come back and stay on power.
Napoleon hadn’t all his troops on the battle field. Anyway, the proportion of deployed troops was in favour of Wellington, as the tactical and strategic situation. Just the fact Wellington recognised he was near to loose is a proof of the value of the French troops. Not having a great admiration for Napoleon, I find his tactic a little bit simple in Waterloo. Deployed and charged ahead… Well, if you compare with Austerlitz…
My intervention in this debate is because I don’t think that Waterloo is a great English victory just because the General is English or Irish. There is no genius in Wellington tactic, just wait that the French have no more reserve and attack, knowing that the Brown Bess had a longer range than its French equivalent, there is less French than Allies, and reinforcement will arrive. It was appropriate but it doesn’t need to be a genius to do it. My opinion is in a debate considering the Greatest Military Nation, Waterloo has no place.
The Russian considered that THEY defeated Napoleon, and the English just shot the last bullet and took the glory. ~:)
Note: I won’t have FUN in answering about the stupidity of French Victories things… ~D
Agree with that, but he wasn't different of any other rulers of the time, for what I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
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.