If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" ....

[Agathosdaimon]

warspite, indeed napoleon had much to thank for the commanders under him really bringing through victories, and maybe that keen eye for ability was with him early on? but Ney at waterloo was disastrous, so he seemed by waterloo to have lost too many of his skilled leaders.

the battle of Friedland had some skill in it, it was a trap that the coalition fell into, but moreover for many battles and campaigns it was some good fortune that was on napoleons side by just enough . how much he lost in casualties in his battles i am not too sure - did he let his armies suffer too much attrition? in 1813 the coalition knew they could tire napys men out with sending them on wild goose chases, constantly retreating and moving around in circles, avoiding a fight they had the numbers

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Interesting idea but I just don't see it. History tells us that people just fundamentally don't like being told what to do by any foreign invader.

"Hey our king may be a 24-carat twat, but do you know what? He's our twat - and at least he's not [French, German, Spanish, Russian, Italian, Swedish, British, American etc - insert to taste or as befits the scenario]".

You may be taking too modern a take on it. The Austrian and Ottoman Empires were pretty polyglot. Most of Germany was divided up into petty fiefdoms fearful of Prussia. Look how long the Normans lorded it over the English (You could make the case that they're still doing so if you check the pedigrees of British Kings). It wasn't till Edward I that The King of England could even speak English (and it still wasn't his first language).

[Alchenar]

Naples is good example. Where Napoleon overthrew monarchies and replaced them with republican governments (because he'd run out of relatives to hand the throne to) they were typically quite popular.

The Napoleonic Code has also been incredibly influential in the legal and political development of everywhere in the world that wasn't subject to English influence (euphemism for 'Empire').

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Agathosdaimon

warspite, indeed napoleon had much to thank for the commanders under him really bringing through victories, and maybe that keen eye for ability was with him early on? but Ney at waterloo was disastrous, so he seemed by waterloo to have lost too many of his skilled leaders.

the battle of Friedland had some skill in it, it was a trap that the coalition fell into, but moreover for many battles and campaigns it was some good fortune that was on napoleons side by just enough . how much he lost in casualties in his battles i am not too sure - did he let his armies suffer too much attrition? in 1813 the coalition knew they could tire napys men out with sending them on wild goose chases, constantly retreating and moving around in circles, avoiding a fight they had the numbers

warspite1

I think he still had plenty of decent leaders to choose from - the criticism at Waterloo was that he didn't pick them - or had men in the wrong roles. Napoleon had ample warning with Ney - he totally mucked up Quatre Bras thus giving Wellington the ability to choose his ground.

I cannot recall the detail, but for every Austerlitz (a brilliantly worked plan) there seemed to be a Borodino (a charnel house). So yes, attrition was high - and of course in those days that was as much due to conditions - and the French were fighting not just in Russia but were involved in a totally needless war in Spain thanks to Napoleon's treachery.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Interesting idea but I just don't see it. History tells us that people just fundamentally don't like being told what to do by any foreign invader.

"Hey our king may be a 24-carat twat, but do you know what? He's our twat - and at least he's not [French, German, Spanish, Russian, Italian, Swedish, British, American etc - insert to taste or as befits the scenario]".

You may be taking too modern a take on it. The Austrian and Ottoman Empires were pretty polyglot. Most of Germany was divided up into petty fiefdoms fearful of Prussia. Look how long the Normans lorded it over the English (You could make the case that they're still doing so if you check the pedigrees of British Kings). It wasn't till Edward I that The King of England could even speak English (and it still wasn't his first language).

warspite1

Maybe, and there are always exceptions. However, if you look through history, how many invasions and conquests have lasted for any length of time before the natives get restless? It will usually happen eventually - particularly if there is an external party there to help e.g. Britain with Portugal and Spain.

I am not sure I agree re the Normans though. This was definitely one of those exceptions. The Normans won (there was no kicking them out at anytime thereafter) - of that there is absolutely no dispute, e.g. French words are an influence on the language we speak. Interesting observation I heard on that the other day - which I will dig out if you are interested - and shows how English words and French words are used to describe things.

But the idea that they are still "lording over the English"?? and "you could make the case that they're still doing so if you check the pedigrees of British Kings" are strange sentiments.

1066 was a long time ago! I can assure you there is absolutely no sense of the French or the Normans or whoever "lording it over us". We are who we are and William the Conqueror is a big part of that.

The pedigree of British Kings? Well considering we imported the Dutch William and Mary (Charles II was just toooo Catholic dahling) and later the "German" Hanoverians, I think its fair to say the Norman influence, from a Royal perspective, is over [;)]

If your point is that the Dutch and "German" Kings constitute a quasi-invasion then again that is most certainly not the case (and I assume that is not what you are saying). The daily life of your average Briton did not change one iota due to these changes of convenience.

[histgamer]

ORIGINAL: Agathosdaimon

warspite, indeed napoleon had much to thank for the commanders under him really bringing through victories, and maybe that keen eye for ability was with him early on? but Ney at waterloo was disastrous, so he seemed by waterloo to have lost too many of his skilled leaders.

Sounds kinda like Lee in the Civil War after Jackson died, Longstreet was grievously wounded... Starting with the Napoleonic wars as armies got huge I don't think you could have a single great commander and win great victories without exceptional lt's under the commander. Things just got too big for one man to manage.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

ORIGINAL: Agathosdaimon

warspite, indeed napoleon had much to thank for the commanders under him really bringing through victories, and maybe that keen eye for ability was with him early on? but Ney at waterloo was disastrous, so he seemed by waterloo to have lost too many of his skilled leaders.

Sounds kinda like Lee in the Civil War after Jackson died, Longstreet was grievously wounded... Starting with the Napoleonic wars as armies got huge I don't think you could have a single great commander and win great victories without exceptional lt's under the commander. Things just got too big for one man to manage.

warspite1

Quite. It depends on the size of the armies and the wars being waged. For a large set piece battle a commander needs good corps commanders, the corps commander need good divisional leaders etc etc.

[decaro]

BTW, historically, what ever happened to the 33,000 French soldiers -- about one-third of Napoleon's army -- that were supposed to pursue and finish-off Herr Blucher after his Prussians were defeated at Ligny?
 
As we all know, the Prussians managed to rally and return to Waterloo, and the rest as they say, was history

[v.Manstein]

Grouchy with his 33000 men decided against to march to the sound of the guns raging at Waterloo, so he stuck to his original orders to chase Bluecher who they thought were somewhere else.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Interesting idea but I just don't see it. History tells us that people just fundamentally don't like being told what to do by any foreign invader.

"Hey our king may be a 24-carat twat, but do you know what? He's our twat - and at least he's not [French, German, Spanish, Russian, Italian, Swedish, British, American etc - insert to taste or as befits the scenario]".

You may be taking too modern a take on it. The Austrian and Ottoman Empires were pretty polyglot. Most of Germany was divided up into petty fiefdoms fearful of Prussia. Look how long the Normans lorded it over the English (You could make the case that they're still doing so if you check the pedigrees of British Kings). It wasn't till Edward I that The King of England could even speak English (and it still wasn't his first language).

warspite1

Maybe, and there are always exceptions. However, if you look through history, how many invasions and conquests have lasted for any length of time before the natives get restless? It will usually happen eventually - particularly if there is an external party there to help e.g. Britain with Portugal and Spain.

I am not sure I agree re the Normans though. This was definitely one of those exceptions.

I'm just pointing out that Nationalism was a late arrival to the scene. There were inklings of it late in the Napoleonic Wars, but it mostly kicked in later in the 19th Century. I've already mentioned the Austrian and Ottoman Empires as long-lasting examples of multi-national peoples being lorded over. The Normans succeeded because they only had to kick out the Anglo-Saxon lords and replace them with their own guys. The common people didn't really care. And it was a really long time before any Anglo-Saxon blood found its way back into the royal line.

But the idea that they are still "lording over the English"?? and "you could make the case that they're still doing so if you check the pedigrees of British Kings" are strange sentiments.

1066 was a long time ago! I can assure you there is absolutely no sense of the French or the Normans or whoever "lording it over us". We are who we are and William the Conqueror is a big part of that.

The pedigree of British Kings? Well considering we imported the Dutch William and Mary (Charles II was just toooo Catholic dahling) and later the "German" Hanoverians, I think its fair to say the Norman influence, from a Royal perspective, is over [;)]

If your point is that the Dutch and "German" Kings constitute a quasi-invasion then again that is most certainly not the case (and I assume that is not what you are saying). The daily life of your average Briton did not change one iota due to these changes of convenience.

Ok, a bit of hyperbole, but they all trace to the Conqueror and the amount of Anglo-Saxon in them is swamped by French and German. Of course there is no "sense" of it because they don't act foreign, having lived in Britain for centuries. It wasn't just the British - all the royal houses interbred all over Europe. The Russian Tsars were more German than Russian, they married so many German princesses.

[Jagdtiger14]

Decent leaders to choose from: #1= Davout. The campaign in Flanders would have turned out very differently if he had been present, but still would not have changed the long term results. Check out this Marshal...he was the best in the Napoleonic era. Napy was lucky Suverov was too old and was retired...he was the best general of that era.

One thing I never understood was Napy's Continental system. Also...if you go into Spain...finish off the Spanish/Portugese and make it not worth while for Wellington/GB to interfere. It made even less sense for Napy to go into Russia than it was for Hitler...at least Hitler had some reasoning (that the USSR military might crumble).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Decent leaders to choose from: #1= Davout. The campaign in Flanders would have turned out very differently if he had been present, but still would not have changed the long term results. Check out this Marshal...he was the best in the Napoleonic era. Napy was lucky Suverov was too old and was retired...he was the best general of that era.

One thing I never understood was Napy's Continental system. Also...if you go into Spain...finish off the Spanish/Portugese and make it not worth while for Wellington/GB to interfere. It made even less sense for Napy to go into Russia than it was for Hitler...at least Hitler had some reasoning (that the USSR military might crumble).

warspite1

Maybe [;)] but remember Napoleon made mistakes too - like the walkabout of d'Erlons corps....

As for paragraph two, maybe he wasn't the total "genius" that he is made out to be.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




You may be taking too modern a take on it. The Austrian and Ottoman Empires were pretty polyglot. Most of Germany was divided up into petty fiefdoms fearful of Prussia. Look how long the Normans lorded it over the English (You could make the case that they're still doing so if you check the pedigrees of British Kings). It wasn't till Edward I that The King of England could even speak English (and it still wasn't his first language).

warspite1

Maybe, and there are always exceptions. However, if you look through history, how many invasions and conquests have lasted for any length of time before the natives get restless? It will usually happen eventually - particularly if there is an external party there to help e.g. Britain with Portugal and Spain.

I am not sure I agree re the Normans though. This was definitely one of those exceptions.

I'm just pointing out that Nationalism was a late arrival to the scene. There were inklings of it late in the Napoleonic Wars, but it mostly kicked in later in the 19th Century. I've already mentioned the Austrian and Ottoman Empires as long-lasting examples of multi-national peoples being lorded over. The Normans succeeded because they only had to kick out the Anglo-Saxon lords and replace them with their own guys. The common people didn't really care. And it was a really long time before any Anglo-Saxon blood found its way back into the royal line.

But the idea that they are still "lording over the English"?? and "you could make the case that they're still doing so if you check the pedigrees of British Kings" are strange sentiments.

1066 was a long time ago! I can assure you there is absolutely no sense of the French or the Normans or whoever "lording it over us". We are who we are and William the Conqueror is a big part of that.

The pedigree of British Kings? Well considering we imported the Dutch William and Mary (Charles II was just toooo Catholic dahling) and later the "German" Hanoverians, I think its fair to say the Norman influence, from a Royal perspective, is over [;)]

If your point is that the Dutch and "German" Kings constitute a quasi-invasion then again that is most certainly not the case (and I assume that is not what you are saying). The daily life of your average Briton did not change one iota due to these changes of convenience.

Ok, a bit of hyperbole, but they all trace to the Conqueror and the amount of Anglo-Saxon in them is swamped by French and German. Of course there is no "sense" of it because they don't act foreign, having lived in Britain for centuries. It wasn't just the British - all the royal houses interbred all over Europe. The Russian Tsars were more German than Russian, they married so many German princesses.

warspite1

I wasn't particularly thinking about nationialism necessarily - more to do with human's inate desire not to be subjugated. But agree that it would be easier to accomplish (depending on other factors too) if there is a central focus that people can rally around e.g. the flag.

The Anglo-Saxon/Norman thing is interesting and sadly not something I fully understand. I take your point re the nobles. But considering the victory was pretty damn conclusive - why did French not become the language? Why was English able to make a re-appearance and not simply die out? Presumably the lack of a proper education system for the masses - something that makes the original article's supposition that we would all be speaking French within years more than a little ridiculous.

Re the inter-breading yes that is a given, but normally (as far as I know) that is a case of a person marrying into the family. I wonder how many other countries actually "imported foreign Royal Families" [:)] i.e. the husband and the wife? No idea about William and Mary but I believe that George I spoke only German and French - no English!

[Jagdtiger14]

Warspite: Agreed. His campaign of the Orient was not that great either, and he showed a callus regard for his troops...even earlier than that campaign...I think the second coalition?...his invasion over the Alps into Italy didn't go so well initially and he treated his men very poorly then as well. I don't consider him a genius...in fact for that era I would consider Suverov a genius.

[Zorch]

We interrupt this thread to bring you this earth shaking story:

"Belgium defies France as it mints €2.50 coin to mark Battle of Waterloo"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... o-napoleon

[Jagdtiger14]

Cool! I'd like to get one of the silver ones for 40 euros.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

We interrupt this thread to bring you this earth shaking story:

"Belgium defies France as it mints €2.50 coin to mark Battle of Waterloo"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... o-napoleon

warspite1

This could also be filed under the Is the World Potty thread.

Paris objected to the new Belgian coin.....earlier this year, saying it would create tensions at a time when Europe’s unity is under threat.

Belgium was forced to get rid of about 180,000 €2 coins that had already been minted after Paris sent a letter saying they could cause an “unfavourable reaction in France”.

It's hardly a surprise though. A French politician once told the UK - presumably with a straight face and no hint of irony - that we should re-name Waterloo station.

So presumably the French will be re-naming the Pont de Jena then or perhaps dismantle the Arc de Triomphe??

And if inter European wars and battles should not be remembered then perhaps we should all take down memorials to the fallen of two World Wars?

I tell you what is likely to create tensions in Europe - this sort of bilge.

What a load of toss Part II

AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Zorch

We interrupt this thread to bring you this earth shaking story:

"Belgium defies France as it mints €2.50 coin to mark Battle of Waterloo"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... o-napoleon

warspite1

This could also be filed under the Is the World Potty thread.

Paris objected to the new Belgian coin.....earlier this year, saying it would create tensions at a time when Europe’s unity is under threat.

Belgium was forced to get rid of about 180,000 €2 coins that had already been minted after Paris sent a letter saying they could cause an “unfavourable reaction in France”.

It's hardly a surprise though. A French politician once told the UK - presumably with a straight face and no hint of irony - that we should re-name Waterloo station.

So presumably the French will be re-naming the Pont de Jena then or perhaps dismantle the Arc de Triomphe??

And Chicken Marengo can go back to being chicken à la Provençale.

[Agathosdaimon]

all in all too many things in the end were against napoleon long term - i was reading the book by Arnold, Crisis on the Danube and the chapters on the diplomacy leading up to 1809 just highlighted how much Talleyrand was able to work against napoleon surreptitiously while smearing honey round his mouth when speaking to napoleon - napoleon it seemed had an ego that was too easy to stroke and those that knew this could certainly keep the truth of affairs from him

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: v.Manstein

Grouchy with his 33000 men decided against to march to the sound of the guns raging at Waterloo, so he stuck to his original orders to chase Bluecher who they thought were somewhere else.

If Grouchy "lost" Bluchers' army and was chasing a ghost, he wasn't exactly following his orders.

How could the French cavalry lose contact with an entire army and all its stragglers?