Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Migawd, how could you dislike the RN ?? [;)]

Warspite1

Well he is Danish - perhaps he has a hang up about Copenhagen 1801 [;)]

we will never forget 1805.

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


we will never forget 1805.

Warspite1

1805? - do you have French/Spanish blood too?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


we will never forget 1805.

Warspite1

1805? - do you have French/Spanish blood too?

ahhh it was 1807 ...

the British steal the Danish fleet.

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


we will never forget 1805.

Warspite1

1805? - do you have French/Spanish blood too?

ahhh it was 1807 ...

the British steal the Danish fleet.

Warspite1

So you did forget [;)]

As for stealing the fleet, that's what happens when you get into bed with Napoleon [:'(]

i´m not going to answer that

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


i´m not going to answer that

Warspite1

[;)]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Warspite1

1805? - do you have French/Spanish blood too?

ahhh it was 1807 ...

the British steal the Danish fleet.

Warspite1

So you did forget [;)]

As for stealing the fleet, that's what happens when you get into bed with Napoleon [:'(]

Or when the British said that they owned the seas... Wasn't there something like Chatham, where the Dutch did steal and burned British warships, I believe? Only the fact that De Ruyter choose the wrong inlet to sail in for, did mean that that Island accross the North Sea didn't end up as part of the Dutch Republic at that time...
By the way: the Dutch invented the marines in that war (1667...).

I'm not sure that there was ever a possibility that the Dutch would conquer England. Nor do i think the Royal Navy claimed to own the seas that early in our history. However, the Dutch certainly inflicted a very heavy defeat upon the English in the Medway.

The Dutch were a very advanced nation - I think I'm right in saying we nicked not only your navy later on but also your financial system - sadly for the Dutch, geography was against them - imagine what they could have done with a great big moat around their nation?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Warspite1

1805? - do you have French/Spanish blood too?

ahhh it was 1807 ...

the British steal the Danish fleet.

Warspite1

So you did forget [;)]

As for stealing the fleet, that's what happens when you get into bed with Napoleon [:'(]

As I understood it Denmark wanted to stay neutral in this conflict. The main part of the Danish army was located at the German border to defend against Napoleon. And wether France or United Kingdom where the villians during the Napoleon Wars I suspect is in the eye of the beholder or as always the one who lost is the villain.

After the bombardment more than two thousand civilians had died and large portion of Copenhagen was in ruins. One could even claim that that as a consequence of the borbardment of Copenhagen 1807 Denmark was more or less forced to join Napoleon and in the end it led to that Denmark lost Norway and a Danish state bankruptcy.



I am sorry for beeing so . [:(]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur




ahhh it was 1807 ...

the British steal the Danish fleet.

Warspite1

So you did forget [;)]

As for stealing the fleet, that's what happens when you get into bed with Napoleon [:'(]

As I understood it Denmark wanted to stay neutral in this conflict. The main part of the Danish army was located at the German border to defend against Napoleon. And wether France or United Kingdom where the villians during the Napoleon Wars I suspect is in the eye of the beholder or as always the one who lost is the villain.

After the bombardment more than two thousand civilians had died and large portion of Copenhagen was in ruins. One could even claim that that as a consequence of the borbardment of Copenhagen 1807 Denmark was more or less forced to join Napoleon and in the end it led to that Denmark lost Norway and a Danish state bankruptcy.



I am sorry for beeing so . [:(]

Warspite1

Do you not see Napoleon as a villain Orm?

the villain is defined by the number of war criminal acts ...

so every sides in a war is the villain

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


the villain is defined by the number of war criminal acts ...

so every sides in a war is the villain

I find that it is most often the loosing side that are the villains.

Edit: Not that your statement do not have merit.

Warspite1

Do you not see Napoleon as a villain Orm?

I am not quite sure what he did that makes him qualify as a villain. He was involved in numerous wars but alot of them was more of a reaction that most of Europe did not accept revolutionary France (or Napoleon). It might be that he is a villian but so far he seems, to me, as bad (or good) as his contemporary statesmen in other countries.

I do, however, confess that my knowledge on Napoleon and his actions are not as complete as I would like. So I would appreciate if someone could educate me to why Napoleon is considered a villain.

ORIGINAL: Orm

Warspite1

Do you not see Napoleon as a villain Orm?

I am not quite sure what he did that makes him qualify as a villain. He was involved in numerous wars but alot of them was more of a reaction that most of Europe did not accept revolutionary France (or Napoleon). It might be that he is a villian but so far he seems, to me, as bad (or good) as his contemporary statesmen in other countries.

I do, however, confess that my knowledge on Napoleon and his actions are not as complete as I would like. So I would appreciate if someone could educate me to why Napoleon is considered a villain.

Warspite1

Congratulations on your fifth star!!

Warspite1

Congratulations on your fifth star!!

Thank you. [:)]

Time for a celebration.

ORIGINAL: Orm

Warspite1

Do you not see Napoleon as a villain Orm?

I am not quite sure what he did that makes him qualify as a villain. He was involved in numerous wars but alot of them was more of a reaction that most of Europe did not accept revolutionary France (or Napoleon). It might be that he is a villian but so far he seems, to me, as bad (or good) as his contemporary statesmen in other countries.

I do, however, confess that my knowledge on Napoleon and his actions are not as complete as I would like. So I would appreciate if someone could educate me to why Napoleon is considered a villain.

Warspite1

I don't think it's education - it's only opinions after all.

FWIW I believe Napoleon was very much a villain. He dragged Europe into a prolonged series of conflicts that cost millions of deaths from Spain to Russia, Poland to Egypt and colonies all over the world. He believed in the revolution but crowned himself emperor with all the trappings. He stabbed Allies in the back when it suited him - the Russians and in particular, the Spanish, being prime examples. He supported slavery in his
colonies.

In addition to the misery he foisted on the armies of Europe, his armies lived off the land - essentially plundering whatever they required from civilians that were unlucky enough to be in his path.

He was probably not as bad as Hitler or Stalin in terms of sheer scale, but that does not excuse his actions in my book.

ORIGINAL: Orm

Warspite1

Do you not see Napoleon as a villain Orm?

I am not quite sure what he did that makes him qualify as a villain. He was involved in numerous wars but alot of them was more of a reaction that most of Europe did not accept revolutionary France (or Napoleon). It might be that he is a villian but so far he seems, to me, as bad (or good) as his contemporary statesmen in other countries.

I do, however, confess that my knowledge on Napoleon and his actions are not as complete as I would like. So I would appreciate if someone could educate me to why Napoleon is considered a villain.

To a large degree, one's perception of Napoleon depends on one's country of birth.

For instance, I just started reading Churchill's 6 volume set on WWII and I am struck by his opinion that a major difficulty for Germany in the years between the wars was that they did not have a monarch to serve as a unifying element for the populace. Being an American, it would never have occurred to me that lack of a monarch could be a fatal omission in a government. Churchill was a wise and very knowledgeable politician during those years, so his opinion can not be dismissed out-of-hand. But clearly he had a strong bias on this subject. Astonishingly so to me.

EDIT: And to bring this post back on topic, Churchill personally and the Admiralty in general were very concerned about the Italian navy versus the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean prior to WWII. Churchill gives that concern (that the Italians might have been able to defeat the RN in the Med) as one of the reasons that the British did not intervene militarily with the Italian conquest of Ethiopia.

Churchill was quite a reactionary conservative really. The blood of innocent civilians in his Empire mattered little to him at times, much as Warspite commented on Napoleon. The freedom and democracy he triumphed was more for English people like him. Residents of other countries under British control weren't so lucky.

His 6 volume set on the war is a must-read for students of WWII history, imo. I think I've read it three times in my life. When my local library decided it no longer had enough activity to keep it on the shelves, I bought their set at the book sale.....for all of $6. It is a pretty common collection, easy to acquire usually.

Before WWII, no one knew for sure how air-power would work with ships. Carriers were developed of course, and specialized aviation squadrons and such, but it was all theory with no combat experience. So I have long thought that Italy's real failure was in the air, given their excellent access to land bases. I understand Italian aircraft designs were good, and I think WiF reflects that in the counters. But I think the Luftwaffe might have sunk more ships in the Med than the Regia Aeronautica, with less planes in theater. But I'm not sure and I have a lot to learn on the history of the air war in the Med. WiF certainly will lead you to an interest in that.

Churchill, on the other hand, probably looked at it more from the prism of Battleship #s and the balance of power therein, demonstrated so lamentably at Mers-el-Kebir in early July 1940....a sad part of the war that long-time WiF players can't quite grasp if they have played the game a lot before they ever learn about it.

Churchill was quite a reactionary conservative really. The blood of innocent civilians in his Empire mattered little to him at times, much as Warspite commented on Napoleon. The freedom and democracy he triumphed was more for English people like him. Residents of other countries under British control weren't so lucky.

His 6 volume set on the war is a must-read for students of WWII history, imo. I think I've read it three times in my life. When my local library decided it no longer had enough activity to keep it on the shelves, I bought their set at the book sale.....for all of $6. It is a pretty common collection, easy to acquire usually.

Before WWII, no one knew for sure how air-power would work with ships. Carriers were developed of course, and specialized aviation squadrons and such, but it was all theory with no combat experience. So I have long thought that Italy's real failure was in the air, given their excellent access to land bases. I understand Italian aircraft designs were good, and I think WiF reflects that in the counters. But I think the Luftwaffe might have sunk more ships in the Med than the Regia Aeronautica, with less planes in theater. But I'm not sure and I have a lot to learn on the history of the air war in the Med. WiF certainly will lead you to an interest in that.

Churchill, on the other hand, probably looked at it more from the prism of Battleship #s and the balance of power therein, demonstrated so lamentably at Mers-el-Kebir in early July 1940....a sad part of the war that long-time WiF players can't quite grasp if they have played the game a lot before they ever learn about it.