Round 3-Napoleonic Bracket

[Didz]

Why are Lee and Frederick in the Napoleonic Bracket anyway?

[Didz]

You know, I voted Wellington because on the only occasion he and Napoleon slugged it out man-to-man he came out on top.

Well almost. I think it would be safer to claim that he managed to avoid being beaten. I think there is a serious doubt that he would have won had Blucher not ignored Gneisenau's advice and marched on Waterloo as he had promised.

If this was a question of better statesmen, leaders, and shapers of world history it would of course be Napoleon. But it isn't. Napoleon was a good general, I don't dispute that, but he wasn't quite on par with some of his rivals, or own subordinates. If you can prove me wrong, please do. I'm not 100% sure of anything in pre-Great War modern history.

If I had to classify the difference between Napoleon and Wellington I would argue that:

Napoleon: Was the better strategist.

Wellington: Was the better tactician.

Napoleon: Was the better statesman.

Wellington: Was the better diplomat.

Napoleon: Was the better leader.

Wellington: Was the better manager.

I think the saddest thing about Wellington is that he was lionized so effectively by pro-British historians that most of his greatest accomplishments and abilities have been buried under a mountain of propaganda.

In my opinion his greatest acheivement in the 1815 campaign was not his efforts in wandering up and down the ridge at Mont Saint Jean but in making sure that there was an army on the ridge with him at the time, and persuading Blucher to ignore the best interests of his own country and come to his aid out of shear loyalty, comradeship and mutual respect.

No other general of the time could have acheived such a level of mutual co-operation, and yet his efforts are just ignored by most histories of the campaign.

[CountArach]

Why are Lee and Frederick in the Napoleonic Bracket anyway?

It is the same time period. They don't fit into any others.

[Didz]

It is the same time period. They don't fit into any others.

Pretty big time bracket, then. Perhaps this ought to be the Horse and Musket time bracket, assuming it doesn't cover the Franco-Prussian War and the Crimea.

[CountArach]

There isn't that time bracket. There are already 5 time brackets and a general naval one as well. The Ancient Era is far larger. This one is aboutthe same size as the Modern one.

[Incongruous]

The fact that Napoleon managed to turn half o Germany against the other half is due to the massive amount of French troops swarming across them.
His very megolomania is why he was aterrible statseman, he blead France white, why they think of him as national hero I do not know.

His brutal ocupation of Spain, hardly the mark of a great stateseman, he didn't have the time or troops to contend with a countryside in arms.

Napoleone had very capable leaders, because they turned against him after ge lead them to defeat, they were bad? I don't think so.

Napoleones invasion of Russia was idiotic because it was so badly planned, he was also constantly outfought by the Russians.

Napoleone was also, as said, a bad loser, didn't he will his fortune to the man who attempted to assasinate Wellington at one point?

Propoganda, in the absolute.
The wars were not even named after him at the time, it was known as the Great War.

[Didz]

The fact that Napoleon managed to turn half o Germany against the other half is due to the massive amount of French troops swarming across them.

There was no such thing as Germany at the time, and most of the states which would later form it had only just finished slaughtering each other over the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War. I hardly think Napoleon can be blamed for the fact that Prussia and Austria were bitter rivals and his expliotation of that rivalry was a major act of statesmanship.

His very megolomania is why he was aterrible statseman, he blead France white, why they think of him as national hero I do not know.

And they loved him for it, his occupation of Spain was master stroke which only went sour because his subordinates didn't have a clue. Napoleon did have a few capable leaders but most of those were dead and gone long before 1815.

The staff that went with him to Belgium were completely incompetent and the troops did not trust them.

Napoleones invasion of Russia was idiotic because it was so badly planned, he was also constantly outfought by the Russians.

To be fair nobody had invaded Russia before, therefore it was difficult to anticipate the problems which would have to be faced. Also the weather that winter was freakishly bad, far worst than anyone could have planned for even if he had anticipated a winter campaign.

Propoganda, in the absolute.

All history is propaganda.

[Tristuskhan]

To be fair nobody had invaded Russia before

Subotai did, and he did it during a winter campaign! But anyway, all your statements are accurate.

[Didz]

Subotai did, and he did it during a winter campaign! But anyway, all your statements are accurate.

I did actually hesitate when I wrote that Napoleon was the first person to try and invade Russia, as I fgured that the Mongols must have done, and I was also uncertain how far Charles XII got towards Moscow in the Great Northern War as his army was decimated by one of the most severe winters of the 18th Century during its march.

But I doubt that Napoleon would have gained much understanding of the problems he was going to face from either of these previous operations. His operation actually began in the oppressive heat of June 1812 which encouraged soldiers to discard layers of clothing they would desperately need later in the campaign. There are first hand accounts of soldiers discarding their underwear during the advance to try and reduce their burden. These unusually extreme weather conditions seem to be linked to earthquakes in several locations round the world and were reported in the 1812 campaigns in the American War too, and in both cases the extremes of heat followed by extremes of cold caused excessive losses to both desease and hypothermia. It has also been noted that 1811 was an El Niño year that transitioned to a La Niña in 1812, such transitions are marked in Eastern Europe and Russia by bitterly cold winters and Norwegian farming records show 1812 as year with coldest average temperature for the period from 1740-2000, despite the fact that some historians claim it was a mild winter.

It was the same combination which was destined to defeat the Germans in WW2, proving the maxim that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Hitler contriving to time his invasion with another transition year.

[Trax]

Also the Crimean khan burned down Moscow in 1571 and during the time of troubles the city was under Polish occupation for quite some time.

[The Stranger]

Napoleon all the way... and the reason he was defeated in russia wasnt military... not really... scorched earth, cold winter and underestimation led to his defeat... he attacked at the wrong time and underestimated the russians, so he wasnt done in time, the winter kicked in while the russians werent broken... they were prepared france wasnt... hitler made exactly the same mistake... not the legacy of russia's invicibilty but its underestimation led to their fall... both napoleon and hitler were defeated in russia, and all the same russia barely gets the credit for it.