Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

The entire Battle of Waterloo was a simple smash job. He was either extrememly overconfident or his health impaired his judgement. Either way, though he still displayed evidence of the old spark, he was definately in decline and far from his peak at the end. The man was a military genious and I defer to his wisdom when he predicted that he would decline well before the time of the Campaign in Russia. I certainly don't think he ever thought that he would still be opposed by most of Europe after 1807.

I agree which goes with the "brute force" argument.

However, besides the loss of Berthier as a chief of staff (or whatever his title was), one factor not discussed yet is the lack of quality horseflesh after the debacle in Russia. The French calvary arm never recovered after that.

Jason

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

I always laugh when passions for ones heroes overcloud the reality of the facts.

Wellington>French army.
Wellington>Napoleon.

Case closed.

What? Absolutely not.

I have no passion for anything other than clear history. Seeing that you are from England, I can only assume your ignorant statements are your own form of hero worship.

Wellington was simply an above average General with a well disciplined army, who won some battles in a minor theater of war.

The French army was a massive force that conquered most of Europe, and Napoleon was the general that led them there.

To compare Napoleon or the French Army unfavorably to Wellington, especially since ever since Waterloo there has been a veritable British conspiracy to overstate Wellington and the British Army's importance to the Napoleonic Wars is absurd, and quite honestly simplistic thinking that I wouldn't expect on a site like this.

Wellington would have lost Waterloo without the Prussians. Considering he was up against equal numbers with great defensive terrain, I say that means nothing but mediocrity. And I say THAT is case closed.

Ignorant statements? I'm not from England and don't "worship" Welly. My favs are Kutusov and Blucher. Both eccentric and middle of the range (K) to better than middle (B). So, I don't fall into the "worship" Wellington arena. As a side note, as stated before I think that his ratings should be 453 in EIA, but partly because of the super ability to withdraw (so game mechanics) rather than just thinking that he's overrated.

Denegrating someone who doesn't agree with you doesn't make your argument stronger, but weaker. So, rather than that I'll disagree with your arguments, which are IMO false.

See my next post (from the English Generals list) for my "defense" of Wellington being "average".

Some battles?: Griogo, Vimeiro, Porto, Tallavera, Lines of Torres Vedras, Fuentes de Orono, Ciudad Rodrigo, Salamanca, Vitoria, San Sebastion, Pyrennees, Nivelle. More than just a few, I'd venture.

A minor theater of war? Though it was not the battlefields of Central Europe, this "bleeding ulcer" was a total disaster for the French. Welly beat a series of French generals including Junot, Soult, Massena, Marmont, Joseph Bonaparte, Soult again (shades of the Union commanders in the ACW?). So, one could say that Davout was never there, but he couldn't be everywhere.

Regarding your comment about the French taking over most of Europe. So. Did they hold it? No. So, tactically it was very good early on, but in the end was not as good. That's ok. It doesn't take anything away from them as a fighting force. But they were beaten, even by the "unreliable" Dutch-Belgians of Waterloo. (I understand as part of a "coalition".)

So, you accuse ASHBERY76 of being partisan because he's English, and then you launch into an anti-English conspiracy theory. Hmmm. Seems to not measure up to your desire for "clear history".

On the other hand, the victors get to write history and since overall since the 19th Century belonged to the Brits, I can somewhat understand your bias. (Heck, they didn't like Kutusov either and thus he gets a lowered reputation today.) But, what is the difference between what you claim for them (inflating Wellington) and what you are doing now (deflating him)?

Wellington would have lost Waterloo without the Prussians. Considering he was up against equal numbers with great defensive terrain, I say that means nothing but mediocrity. And I say THAT is case closed.

Uh, well your case might be closed, but that means nothing for the rest of us. Wellington COULD have lost without the Prussians. I think that Blucher did an outstanding job of outfoxing Grouchy and then Gneisenau (who allegedly attempted to hinder Blucher's linking up with Wellington) to keep his word in showing up. He was the hammer to W's anvil. (It is interesting that English sources give W all of the credit, while German sources give B all the credit. I think that the truth was somewhere in the middle.)

So, back to disagreeing with your last statement. Equal numbers if you count about 72,000 Fr vs. 68,000 ... OH YEAH, except that NINE of 26 brigades were British + more than 1/2 of the cavalry. The rest were Dutch, Brunswickers, Hanoverians, and Nassauers, many of whom were recent French subjects. So, not quite the "equal numbers" that you say.

Defensive terrain. First, W had the foresite to pick the place sort of on the run. Then brilliantly defending great defensive terrain doesn't diminish one's stature. On the other hand, the attack launched by Nap against the area, shows a poor choice on his part.

Finally, see my next message about mediocrity and your argument is not so solid.

In conclusion, I say the case is still open, significantly. Wellington is better than you say (mediocre), but perhaps worse than EIA ratings. In his prime, I think that Nap was better than W, but that is shown by the numbers on the counter.

Jason

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

I always laugh when passions for ones heroes overcloud the reality of the facts.

Wellington>French army.
Wellington>Napoleon.

Case closed.

What? Absolutely not.

I have no passion for anything other than clear history. Seeing that you are from England, I can only assume your ignorant statements are your own form of hero worship.

Wellington was simply an above average General with a well disciplined army, who won some battles in a minor theater of war.

The French army was a massive force that conquered most of Europe, and Napoleon was the general that led them there.

To compare Napoleon or the French Army unfavorably to Wellington, especially since ever since Waterloo there has been a veritable British conspiracy to overstate Wellington and the British Army's importance to the Napoleonic Wars is absurd, and quite honestly simplistic thinking that I wouldn't expect on a site like this.

Wellington would have lost Waterloo without the Prussians. Considering he was up against equal numbers with great defensive terrain, I say that means nothing but mediocrity. And I say THAT is case closed.

FROM THE ENGLISH GENERALS THREAD

ORIGINAL: morvwilson


quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

Combat is funny thing, and evaluating leadership with respect to combat puts a premium on results.

Be in charge long enough and a general will experience setbacks, but the best generals will not lose thier commands in the process. I would say Wellington would rate as an effective general as any, given the results achieved with the forces given and the conditions he fought under. Not an overabundance of examples where numerically inferior forces defeated a numerically superior French Army, and he is associated with many of them.

His leadership style suited the British needs, as he was bold without being stupid, patient without being tentative, and determined to win. He was a micro manager, and the difficulties at Waterloo to a certain extent bear that out. He rarely fought a field battle in a location that he did not choose. He was great with a small disciplined Army, and most accurate modeling of his leadership will reflect that (limited span of control).

To write him off as something simply adequate is a bit of a mischaracterization of what he achieved. Let us remember that the British government's tendency to marginalize thier general's ability to operate was almost a bigger problem to overcome than the enemy itself at times!

I know you are trying to defend Wellington, but it seems to me your defense merely exposes his short commings.

You began talking about his leadership style, bold etc. This is just good sense when you are outnumbered. Nothing outstanding there.

You correctly point out that he was a micromanager. This is a sign of a poor executive. The main job of an executive is to pick the right man for the job and them let him do it. A micromanager or someone who constantly shuffles his staff proves himself to be incapable of this function.

You say correctly that he was great with a small disciplined army. Why do you suppose that junior officers are put in charge of platoons, companies and batalions? Because it is easier than running a regiment or division.

So again, Wellington seems to be simply adequate for the job he had.

I disagree with you on several points.

Firstly, he rallied a nation (or their army) and gave them victories. Consistently. He did this with poor allies (sorry), with poor governmental support, generally bad supply, in bad terrain, and often outnumbered. Doesn't sound like "mediocre" to me.

Secondly, I disagree the "good sense when outnumbered" stuff. You work with the hand your dealt. To not lose an army (John Moore) that is outnumbered is GOOD. To win with them and win consistently is better than good.

Thirdly, micromanagement is a modern term and applied in a modern business sense, you are correct. The goal is the get good people under you to do the job. That is not always the case though, and definitely not NECESSARILY true for combat. As another poster stated, Napoleon was an EXTREME micromanager. If this is the sole or main consideration, then he is a bad general too... So, if Welly didn't have good Generals under him and had to deal with what he had to deal with, then this makes him BETTER not worse. BTW: he did have good generals under him. He put together a good Brit fighting force, despite the fact that people could buy an officership.

Thus, I disagree with your assessment that he is "adequate". Adequates don't win EVERY BATTLE THAT THEY FIGHT. Period. PERSONAL OPINION TIME: Louis Frederick, Mack, Bernadotte, any Spanish leader of the time would be "adequate" or worse. Wellington does NOT fall in that category.

As a side note, hi, I'm Jason. I'm a Yank living in the UK and my favorite general of the Napoleonic period is ... (putting flame retardant suit on) ... Suvarov followed by Kutusov. Fire away! Kutusov is a bit "above average", but Wellington is a much better commander.

Jason

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

No doubt! look at how much use the French have been recently!

By this do you mean that they are busy doing their own thing for their own national interests??????????

Hmmm, couldn't use that description for ANY OTHER country, huh?

Jason

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: Murat

ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com

Little Afghanistan kicked out the USSR.

Little Vietnam kicked out the USA.

In both cases your 'kicked out' nation left voluntarily, unwilling to wage total war (nuke Hanoi, begin genocide, Vietnam capitulates, USSR may retaliate OR offer China a protectorate over Vietnam that we help them achieve, same result). Mexico did not have a well supplied partisan group, nor did they even have localized superiority in numbers (there were more French troops in Mexico than partisans). The French got their butts kicked - more casualties, more losses (same in Vietnam by the way). US and USSR in your examples actually had numerical inferiority in their respective endeavors and caused extremely higher casualties than they received.

Isn't a loss a loss? So, what if you killed more than you lost? If you "have to leave" (whether by choice, lack of political will, or whatever), you still lose. Call it what you want. So, we lost better than the French in Vietnam? Come on, that's absurd.

Jason

[morvwilson]

Welcome Jason!

A couple of things you may want to check out.

Firstly, delegating authority(finding someone who can handle responsibility and letting them do the job) is a basic leadership in the military as far back as the ancient Romans. Take it from a former Petty Officer from the USN (me[;)]). Many of the business practices today such as: chain of command and delegating authority originated in the military.

Secondly, Vietnam. I am sure some one will correct me if I am inacurate in my dates[:D] but in 1972 the US bombed the snot out of North Vietnam with B-52's and got them to the negotiating table. Shortly afterwhich, with the exception of a routine marine guard at the embasy, US troops were withdrawn and the fighting was left to the ARVN (Vietnamization of the war). 1975 NVA invades the south in a conventional tank/inf. attack. US congress yanks foriegn aid to South Vietnam (because the democrats hated Nixon because he was the one who nailed Alger Hiss, a KGB spy in the democrat party) and South Vietnam falls. The mission of the US military in Vietnam was to stabilize the country and train their army. Both missions were accomplished. It could be argued that Vietnam was not a loss for the US.

Thirdly, as to the French loss in Vietnam, check out the battle of Dien Bien Phu. The old military addage is to take the high ground first! The French in this battle decided to try to hold the floor of a valley while leaving the surrounding mountains to the enemy. That does not make a lot of sence to me. The French lost battles in Vietnam, the US did not.

Forthly, check out what is happening in France today. They have virtually surrendered to militant islam with out even a fight! There are sections of Paris where the Paris PD dares not go! Maybe you recall some recent riots that happened in France that were pushed by militant islam?

Bottom line, in any contest be it political, sports or war, your biggest blessing or curse can be who you are up against. During the Napoleonic era you had a contest between one nation who would promote officers based on ability(the french) and the others who required that thier senior officers be of noble birth. It could be argued that Nappy was not that good of a leader but if the others are even worse.....

As I have heard it said befor, no country ever wins a war. One country or the other makes one to many mistakes and loses!

In EiA I don't realy have any favorites, I just like to see a good fight!

[megalomania2003]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

Welcome Jason!

A couple of things you may want to check out.

Firstly, delegating authority(finding someone who can handle responsibility and letting them do the job) is a basic leadership in the military as far back as the ancient Romans. Take it from a former Petty Officer from the USN (me[;)]). Many of the business practices today such as: chain of command and delegating authority originated in the military.

Secondly, Vietnam. I am sure some one will correct me if I am inacurate in my dates[:D] but in 1972 the US bombed the snot out of North Vietnam with B-52's and got them to the negotiating table. Shortly afterwhich, with the exception of a routine marine guard at the embasy, US troops were withdrawn and the fighting was left to the ARVN (Vietnamization of the war). 1975 NVA invades the south in a conventional tank/inf. attack. US congress yanks foriegn aid to South Vietnam (because the democrats hated Nixon because he was the one who nailed Alger Hiss, a KGB spy in the democrat party) and South Vietnam falls. The mission of the US military in Vietnam was to stabilize the country and train their army. Both missions were accomplished. It could be argued that Vietnam was not a loss for the US.

Thirdly, as to the French loss in Vietnam, check out the battle of Dien Bien Phu. The old military addage is to take the high ground first! The French in this battle decided to try to hold the floor of a valley while leaving the surrounding mountains to the enemy. That does not make a lot of sence to me. The French lost battles in Vietnam, the US did not.

Forthly, check out what is happening in France today. They have virtually surrendered to militant islam with out even a fight! There are sections of Paris where the Paris PD dares not go! Maybe you recall some recent riots that happened in France that were pushed by militant islam?

Bottom line, in any contest be it political, sports or war, your biggest blessing or curse can be who you are up against. During the Napoleonic era you had a contest between one nation who would promote officers based on ability(the french) and the others who required that thier senior officers be of noble birth. It could be argued that Nappy was not that good of a leader but if the others are even worse.....

As I have heard it said befor, no country ever wins a war. One country or the other makes one to many mistakes and loses!

In EiA I don't realy have any favorites, I just like to see a good fight!

1. The US have lost wars before Vietnam (war of 1812) and while they may have won all the battles in Vietnam they lost the war PERIOD.

And back to the topic

I do believe that Wellington was a great leader, while Nappy was brilliant. One can argue about the exact details of Wellingtons stats in EIA bur I feel that he definetely deserves a 5 for strategic.

Reason - strategic rating is used for outflank/reinforce, which Napoleon did a lot and withdrawel which Wellington did a lot.

[Paper Tiger]

morvwilson, please do not degenerate into mud slinging and nationabalistic insults. These have NO place on this board, and along with racism should be kept in a tightly sealed box marked "SO NOT EVER OPEN" placed at the bottom of the dirty sock pile...

Wellington NEVER lost, he took on a demoralised, disorganised losing army and transformed it into an effective winning force, he put the right man in place to organise an effective intelligence ring, he created the first british military police force, he put a subordinate in charge of the defence of southern Portugal while he commanded the army in the north, he put a subordinate in chage of forming the potugese into an effective fighting force, and in all these cases the men chosen did a good job. Wellington oversaw the introduction of rifles in place of muskets, and of the correct tactics for the use of rifles, tactics that neither Robert E Lee nor U S Grant had managed to get fully to grips with by the end of the ACW. Wellington was not the man who came up with the tactics fo using rifles, as a traditionalist he was't even keen on them to start with, but he saw the effect and he addapted to it. That does not sound like micro management to me. To me Wellington picked his men, he picked his ground, he picked his battles and he evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of his opponents and then he used everything he had and everything he knew to give himself the best CHANCE of victory he could, whilst at the same time attempting to secure a way out to prevent a tactical defeat should one come to pass from degenerating into a decisive one.
On the other hand, Napoleon never gave overall command in the peninsular to a single subordinate, he would not trust them with the power. Napoleon never dealt with the constant bickering and infighting between the marshalls in Spain, he never even took the difficult decision and chose to pull out of Spain when he could have made peace. In all this he compounded one error on another. Napoleon may well have been tactically brilliant on the battlefield but in Spain and Russia his grand strategy was badly flawed, and in Russia even while he was in personnal control he stuck his head firmly into the noose that eventually strangled the live of the Napoleonic empire.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
Forthly, check out what is happening in France today. They have virtually surrendered to militant islam with out even a fight! There are sections of Paris where the Paris PD dares not go! Maybe you recall some recent riots that happened in France that were pushed by militant islam?

It's always a blessing to see how well informed one can be in California [X(].

[morvwilson]

"morvwilson, please do not degenerate into mud slinging and nationabalistic insults. These have NO place on this board, and along with racism should be kept in a tightly sealed box marked "SO NOT EVER OPEN" placed at the bottom of the dirty sock pile..."(quote from paper tiger)
 
No offence or mud slinging was intended. Last I looked France was a republic. If the people there don't like the way their government is handling things, they can change it at the next election. It has been my experience that those who have weak or no arguements to raise usually resort to being insulted in order to silence debate. The moment you start worring if some one else is going to be offended by what you have to say (especially if offense is not your intention) you have handed your free speach rights over to the polically correct crowd.
 
Further, the French military have proven their courage and skill time and again on may battle fields and have achieved victory when properly lead.
 
If I have anything wrong in my facts, I would love for you to point it out![:)] However, none of this has any bearing on EiA.
 
Interesting points on Welly, that points to the original design group having their numbers right. 

[ktotwf]

1. The USA did not lose the War of 1812. The war ended Status Quo Antebellum. In other words, it was a draw.

To call Vietnam a "loss" is overstating it. It was a strategic failure, but to call it a loss is overstating its importance in the long run. It was not really a lost war, but more of a "mistake" really.

2. Wellington did indeed lose a few battles, including: Battle of El Bodon, Battle of Torquemada, and the Siege of Burgos.

The whole undefeated thing is a myth.

He had also been described as "overly cautious and defensive minded" and it has been said about him that none of his victories could be considered "great."

3. Wellington was strategically outmaneuvered at the outset of the Waterloo campaign, which he had no excuse for. He was also on the verge of losing at Waterloo before the Germans arrived.

[iamspamus]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

Welcome Jason!

A couple of things you may want to check out.

Firstly, delegating authority(finding someone who can handle responsibility and letting them do the job) is a basic leadership in the military as far back as the ancient Romans. Take it from a former Petty Officer from the USN (me[;)]). Many of the business practices today such as: chain of command and delegating authority originated in the military.

Secondly, Vietnam. I am sure some one will correct me if I am inacurate in my dates[:D] but in 1972 the US bombed the snot out of North Vietnam with B-52's and got them to the negotiating table. Shortly afterwhich, with the exception of a routine marine guard at the embasy, US troops were withdrawn and the fighting was left to the ARVN (Vietnamization of the war). 1975 NVA invades the south in a conventional tank/inf. attack. US congress yanks foriegn aid to South Vietnam (because the democrats hated Nixon because he was the one who nailed Alger Hiss, a KGB spy in the democrat party) and South Vietnam falls. The mission of the US military in Vietnam was to stabilize the country and train their army. Both missions were accomplished. It could be argued that Vietnam was not a loss for the US.

Thirdly, as to the French loss in Vietnam, check out the battle of Dien Bien Phu. The old military addage is to take the high ground first! The French in this battle decided to try to hold the floor of a valley while leaving the surrounding mountains to the enemy. That does not make a lot of sence to me. The French lost battles in Vietnam, the US did not.

Forthly, check out what is happening in France today. They have virtually surrendered to militant islam with out even a fight! There are sections of Paris where the Paris PD dares not go! Maybe you recall some recent riots that happened in France that were pushed by militant islam?

Bottom line, in any contest be it political, sports or war, your biggest blessing or curse can be who you are up against. During the Napoleonic era you had a contest between one nation who would promote officers based on ability(the french) and the others who required that thier senior officers be of noble birth. It could be argued that Nappy was not that good of a leader but if the others are even worse.....

As I have heard it said befor, no country ever wins a war. One country or the other makes one to many mistakes and loses!

In EiA I don't realy have any favorites, I just like to see a good fight!

Greetings,

But there is a difference between delegating authority and micromanaging. I understand about delegating authority and the military. But micromanaging goes a step beyond and is almost the OPPOSITE of delegating. Micromanaging involves the higherup personally directing things. Can be good at certain times, Napoleon with the cannons in Paris (?), but is often stifling of initiative in juniors. Delegating is great with a strong supporting cast: Davout, Massena, etc.

I'm not really up on Vietnam, but other than an uberpatriot, I'm not heard anyone say in any sense that Vietnam was a win for us. Sorry.

Thirdly, re: Dien Bien Phu - so there have not been any bad generals for the US or other countries, just the French? Come on. Patton blundered at Kasserine Pass. MacArthur bulndered by going near the Yalu. All kinds of wars have moron leading battles or the whole schebang. It is just fashionable at this time to ding the French. I don't care perse, but let's do it for the right reason.

Are you really serious about Paris? I've been there 5 times in the last 6 years. I felt safe the whole time. I've lived in LA, been to Atlanta, Seattle, NY, Boston, Philly. I think that I'd put some of those as much worse than Paris. In MANY US cities there are areas that the cops don't go into. So, what is the difference, except that in Paris or France the "bad" areas are Muslim?

As a side note, how many "muslim" attacks have happened in France?

RE: your bottom line. This is a very dualistic view. That the contest was only between France and England. Not the case. There were others involved as well. Most of the other countries (except France) were all monarchies (generally) with leaders based on rank rather than merit. THAT was part of what they were fighting for.

Well, have a good one.
Jason

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
war. Guerilla type warfare only works if there is outside assistance from a friendly government.

Yeah something like spaniard guerliias vs Nappy (not Wellington's army but in the middle of the country), or malaysian commies. They HAVE NOT recieved ANY outside help.

As far as Hezbollah goes it is only political correctness, dictated by the press, and incompetant leadership at the highest levels that holds back the modern armies from wiping them out.

You mean press rulez the world? Maybe in CA but not in Israel. A country fighting fo survival cannot allow such things. Regular armies HAVE no means to terminally defeat insurgents, rebels, guerillas, freedom fighters terrorists you may call them whatever you like. Unless you want "Kill 'em all and let god sort them out!" Which is a civilized way of warfare.

[Murat]

I was about to point out that iamspamus and paper tiger have been smoking something but ktotwf did it for me. As for France, I seriously hope next war we tell them to go to hell because without us, they will lose, as they have been doing since they got rid of Nappy. As for "mudslinging" "nationalistic insults" and "racism" I do not understand how pointing out France's current weaknesses get categorized this way. If you mean we are racist to radical islam, then at least concede that it is mutual and they began the fight. I am almost willing to accept genocide to get rid of it and the last time someone evoked that reaction in a nation it was Germany. Anyone that preaches my destruction cannot reasonably expect me to just say 'well golly, I am sorry you feel that way, please come over here and kill me". If that is racist, then I am a racist and damn proud of it. Radical islam chose to play a dangerous game. We fundamentally believe in freedom of religion, they do not. We hold several freedoms to be fundamental to humanity, they do not. I am confident our position (that of the Democratic nations) is correct. Radical islam will reap what it has sown. As a matter of fact, they are already doing it. Ethiopia is not the US, they will execute a policy of extermination in Somolia and we are most likely even now shipping them ammunition and supplies, as we should be. Israel is reversing their policy and resettling the West Bank, because Hezbollah has recanted the peace accords. Saddam is going to be hung and once we leave, you can expect Iraq to institute a purge of its own. The simple fact is radical islam is a disease and it needs to be cured. It may require a new crusade and we will need another attack on us before we launch it but I doubt the next one will be for 'restoring democracy', most likely it will be to defeat the forces of evil.

[Froonp]

As for France, I seriously hope next war we tell them to go to hell because without us, they will lose, as they have been doing since they got rid of Nappy.

As a frenchman, I seriously hope that there won't be any war to get involved in.
This said, I'm tired of reading US people always pointing at how bad we French are, and how good they are.
You seem to have forgotten the French involvement in the creation of your own country, your memory seem to begin in 1917 when the USA finaly managed to get out of their beloved isolationism (to stay polite).
It's not fair from you US people to screen that part of your story, to just keep the part that brang you fame.

[morvwilson]

Froonp, it is not the french people that are bad it is the french policy makers. The french military, in my opinion, tends to perform better when it does not have a Paris based government to take orders from. (Maybe you have the same problem we do in the US, we elect people that seem to have back bone and as soon as they get to Washington DC the back bone turns to jello! Trust me we have our own political problems here too! Our state department is still sending $ to the Palestinians who are then giving the money to Hamas and Islamic Martars Brigade but the press refuses to publish this because it would hurt our enemies!)
Check out how LeClerk(sp?) did with an armored division or how the french units performed in the italian campaign during WWII, no Paris based government to take orders from the they performed magnificently!

"You mean press rulez the world? Maybe in CA but not in Israel. A country fighting fo survival cannot allow such things. Regular armies HAVE no means to terminally defeat insurgents, rebels, guerillas, freedom fighters terrorists you may call them whatever you like. Unless you want "Kill 'em all and let god sort them out!" Which is a civilized way of warfare." (from Ursa MAior)

No the press does not control the world but they do have a lot to do with public opinion which a popular government has to have the approval of. 
Take a look at how their coverage has been. In the last round between the IDF and Hezbo's they complained about how the IDF were killing inocent civillians but fail to mention that the Hezbo's were hiding behind these civilians and would not allow them to leave the combat area. Nor woud the press point out that all of those rockets that the Hezbo's fired were aimed at Israeli civilians!
I had heard that the IDF general staff had a plan to send an ampib. assault up the letani river on the first day and cut off the Hezbo's escape but a liberal prime minister would not allow it because he feared what the press would say.

In the US, we have the New York Times publishing how we were tracking the terrorist finances. (conclusive proof of giving aid and comfort to the enemy!) And how come in all the time we have been fighting (Iraq, Afganistan and many other places) there has not been one story in the press about some courageous feat accomplished by one of our coalition troops? It is clear what side the press is on.

But on one point I do agree, we can not afford to worry about political correctness when survival is on the line!

ktotf, yes the US has had some underperforming generals, MacClellan for example. BTW Patton had not yet taken command at the time of Kaserine, in fact that engagement is what finished the carrer of Patton's predecessor.

Jason, during the Napoleonic era, you are right it was not just a contest between England and France. France pretty much fought every one at one time or another. The practice of buying a commision was used by all european armies at the time with the exception of the French which is why they tended to have better leadership.

Also Jason, maybe you remember that two or three years ago there were riots in several major french cities? I had heard that these riots were started because the Paris PD were trying to arrest a couple of "Muslim youths" for some violation of the law or other and these "youth's managed to get themselves killed. The riots, in my opinion were meant as a show of polical power.

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Murat
The simple fact is radical islam is a disease and it needs to be cured. It may require a new crusade and we will need another attack on us before we launch it but I doubt the next one will be for 'restoring democracy', most likely it will be to defeat the forces of evil.

There are forces you cannot defeat with raw firepower. Radicalism is one of them. It feeds on poverty and lack of education. No matter how big guns you use you wont be able to conquer these. Are the radicals (including the Paris ones) poor? Yes. Are they uneducated? Yes. It is one of the reasons they are poor and can be easily misled. If you have something to lose (say a normal life with some posessions and not a wooden hut in a 'hood) and you kow that the cleric in the church, mosque whatever it is, is not always telling the whole truth, you wont go kamikaze. But as long you can choose between a miserable life and a heroic death of a martyr what would you do?

Do I support terrorists? Absolutely NOT. Do I understand their motivation? Yes. Living in a poor country, I think I do much more than most of you.

Why could have the brits defeated commie terrorists in malaysia? 'Cuz they thought like their opponents. They knew what was important for those tribes who were supporting them and systematically proved them with medical support education and rebuilding their agriculture that it is much better to be on their side than on the commies'. winning hearts and minds is the key. But the current leaders (and their supporters) are blinded by their own greatness.

To make it short you cannot force EVERY men, women and children living in a country to think the way you do. You can convince them, prove them and persuade them with achievements but you cannot BOMB them to agree. Of course there is always the final solution (ENDLÖSUNG) but it is not a civilized thing to do. Is it?

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

ORIGINAL: Murat
The simple fact is radical islam is a disease and it needs to be cured. It may require a new crusade and we will need another attack on us before we launch it but I doubt the next one will be for 'restoring democracy', most likely it will be to defeat the forces of evil.

There are forces you cannot defeat with raw firepower. Radicalism is one of them. It feeds on poverty and lack of education. No matter how big guns you use you wont be able to conquer these. Are the radicals (including the Paris ones) poor? Yes. Are they uneducated? Yes. It is one of the reasons they are poor and can be easily misled. If you have something to lose (say a normal life with some posessions and not a wooden hut in a 'hood) and you kow that the cleric in the church, mosque whatever it is, is not always telling the whole truth, you wont go kamikaze. But as long you can choose between a miserable life and a heroic death of a martyr what would you do?

One small problem with this supposition. If you check into the 9/11 hijackers you will find that they all came from middle class families and were well educated. It does take some brains to fly jet aircraft. And what about Osama? I hear he has a few pennies to rub together! We are not facing an enemy that has its motivation rooted in poverty or lack of education. The enemy is well educated in the Madrassas (sp?)! In short we are in a religious war and until our respective governments are willing to admit this I will have a hard time believing they are taking the war seriously.
Do I think we should slaughter every muslim? Of course not!
But when the pope merely quotes a former pope who said that islam is too violent and the reaction from the islamic world is "we will kill you for saying that!" I think that something is wrong in their thought process!

[megalomania2003]

ORIGINAL: ktotwf

1. The USA did not lose the War of 1812. The war ended Status Quo Antebellum. In other words, it was a draw.

To call Vietnam a "loss" is overstating it. It was a strategic failure, but to call it a loss is overstating its importance in the long run. It was not really a lost war, but more of a "mistake" really.

2

1. US (not USA) began the war to gain part of Canada. They fought against a GB whom only ever regarded this part of the world as a side show in commitment of forces. Against a GB where the most prominent commander (Wellington if you have heard of him) declined to go there because of its lack of imåportance. - I call that a loss

Regarding Vietnam I call a strategic failure like Vietnam a loss. True USA leaders (Presidents and generals) made lots of mistakes but that is part of lossing the war. Their opponents also made mistakes.

[malcolm_mccallum]

on the subject of Napoleon's stats dropping 1812+, I think the game already takes this into account. 1809, in fact, is where his battlefield brilliance begins to settle into frontal assaults and I think this entirely has to do with the vast size of armies he had under him.
 
In truth, as much as I am a fanatic of the man, I don't put much stock in his battlefield command. Marengo? Jena? Wagram? Aspern-Essling? Friendland? Eylau? His 'great' battlefield victories are very much coloured by mistakes and disorganized forces.
 
His only brilliant examples of battlefield management , IMO, were Rivoli and Austerlitz and really those were won due to Weyrother.
 
But still, his imagination tended to fail more when he was forced to sit atop a massive stack of chits. His six days of glory had him acting very much like a corps commander and that, IMO, is why it hearkens back to his maneuvering in Italy.