Russia > France

[Sheogorath]

I cant really find an argument against the UK getting the best advanced troops. They were the pinnacle of excellence . The Austrians, Prussians and Russians were not at the meeting to decide Napoleon's and France's fate due to the quality or ability of their troops. They were already relics when 1800 rolled around. Spain was a dump.

Ummm, you DO know who it was that broke the back of the Grand Army and led the march into Paris, right?

You DO know who fought against Napoleon's France the longest, right?

I'll give you a hint. The 'The British' is not the answer to either of these questions.


And, good sir, you discount Spain rather lightly. They carried on a war against the French even after their government was beaten, and managed quite well.

While it is certainly true that the British financed many of the major players against Napoleon, this is hardly evidence of military excellence, and their involvement 'on the ground' was minimal until late in the wars, and generally not a whole lot better than everybody elses.

Now, of course, this is all rather late in the game. We should be looking earlier, right?

Well, Russia...that'd be Peter the Great right now. Built himself an army and navy from scratch and took on the Ottomans and Swedes...at the same time.

Prussia, well, they're not so hot right now, but Frederick the Great will show up pretty soon and be ready to take on pretty much everybody at once, while simultaneously revolutionizing military thought on the continent, although arguably not in a good way.

Austria...just their existence alone is a testimate to national identity. Considering 'Austrians' were about twenty different groups, all of whom spoke a different language and most of whom hated each other to some degree. Austria maintained a cohesive army and even managed to win on occasion.

Spain, which you so happily discount as a 'dump' was, in fact, reaching the peak of its territorial expansion, and would not lose that territory until the 1820's. True, they were not the power they once were, but you can hardly expect anybody in such close proximity to France with Spain's monetary problems and monarchical issues to put up a straight-up military fight and win.


I do find it irritating when people spout about the British being the official 'best of everything'. I suppose it's because most English speakers read textbooks based chiefly on British sources. It's like there's this concept going around that the British COULD have taken over the world, but didn't really want to, since there wasn't enough tea.

I have said it many times, and I will say it again, the balance of power in Europe was such that there was no 'best of everything'. If there WAS a 'best of everything' the other European powers would not exist, because the 'best of everything' would annex them.

Napoleon tried, and tried hard, and nearly managed it, but in the end proved decisively that, even under one of the most brilliant military minds of all time could not defeat everybody.

Oh, look, I've started ranting. Dont mind me