Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings

[ktotwf]

This thread has really taken a turn for the ignorant and offensive.

[Paper Tiger]

OK if the modern day French have sold out to the islamic extremists then why is it that in France not only the full veil but even the headscarf is against the law in schools etc?
France is taking it's stand, it is standing up for a seperation of the state and religion, while in the USA George W Bush appears to the rest of the world to be very much in the pocket of the religious right, the Christian fundamentalists.
Personnally I don't care if the French have not produced a great general in the last 100 years, they produced Napoleon who was at the height of his powers and on his day a great general, to me Wellington was likewise, just with a different less showy style.
To me of the great generals the best known are Alexander, Hanibal and Napoleon. The funny thing is both Hanibal and Napoleon were defeated, both by less showy less famous opponents who get I think much less credit than they deserve.
Napoleon failed to adapt to the different styles of warfare in Russia, in Spain and in the middle east, his expeditions into Egypt, Russia and Spain were unmitigated disasters. When up against it Wellington produced Torres Vadres...

[morvwilson]

I hope you are right about modern day France!

As to President Bush, he is not in the pocket of the religious right. He is no conservative! Normally you might say he spent money like a drunken sailor, but I was a drunken sailor! and I only spent my own money!


I think maybe you have put your finger on the one weakness Nappy had. A failure to adapt. By 1815 everyone knew his tactics and had adapted while Nappy had not changed much of anything. Nappy was outmaneuvered by the Welly/Blucher team who had learned their lessons well and would not allow thier armies to be destroyed peicemeal.(BR chit pick-outflank, FR pick - assault?)

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
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!

That's what I said. Osama and the 9/11 attackers are not a threat to western culture, at least not bigger than earhquakes, tornados, floods and plane crashes. The threat comes from the millions of poor who are easily drawn into anti-western riots on the streets were it for Mohammed cartoons or flushing away the Koran. These people (of whon a significant part lives in UK and in Europe) give emotional and less likely active support to terrorists. You may call them so if they are actiing against your own country in your OWN land. If they fight in THEIR OWN land, then you cant really call them terrosists unless you are really biased.

If you fight them by killing those who have chosen to fight armed against occupying forces you fight the fire by the flames instead of killing the nest. But this kind of movement has not spiritual or military center. It comes from their way of life, the difference between our life stlyes and theirs. Therefore you have two options.

1. Kill'em all and let Manitou sort them out. We agreed that this is not a godd idea.
2. Try to find a way to make them understand why is it better to live in peace than in war.

As long as the US policymakers (and their supporters) dont understand that IF YOU KILL PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO DIE YOU MAKE MARTYRS NOT ENEMY LOSSES.
It is a war of attrition which the whole western culture (including us europeans) can onyl lose if we (I mean mostly YOU) dont change our/your strategy.

[morvwilson]

A strong economy raises all boats! I think give them (in the middle east and asia) a taste of capitalism and the radicals will not be able to get thier hooks into them.
 
But on the other side of the coin you have to make it clear that the west cannot be bullied either. (I believe the USMC has a saying "No better friend and no worse enemy!") If some wish to die fighting us, accomadate them. How do you negotiate with some one who's starting position is "I am going to kill all of you!" ?
 
In order to get capitalism to work you have to get rid of the people who stand in the way of the enrichment of their own people. The current leadership in Iran and Syria would be good examples. Do I think we need to invade those countries? I hope not. I think that if we assist the Syrian and Iranian people they are more than capable of fixing thier own problems. This in turn will make these people feel better about themselves because they will have accomplished something on thier own!

[denisonh]

Timothy McVey was a terrorist who committed his acts within the US against the US. You may want to revisit your definition of "terrorist". The victims of these "terorists" in Iraq are thier own people for the most part, not coalition soldiers.

As for being compromising and conciliatory, it is a disaster without showing strength and resolve first. Neville Chamberlain and "appeasement" are the best examples of going down that rat hole. Many in the Arab world despise the west's "weakness", and that undermines peaceful solutions. Deal from a position of strength (or as Harry Truman said "walk softly and carry a big stick"), then talk peace when it becomes more attractive than the alternatives.

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
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!

That's what I said. Osama and the 9/11 attackers are not a threat to western culture, at least not bigger than earhquakes, tornados, floods and plane crashes. The threat comes from the millions of poor who are easily drawn into anti-western riots on the streets were it for Mohammed cartoons or flushing away the Koran. These people (of whon a significant part lives in UK and in Europe) give emotional and less likely active support to terrorists. You may call them so if they are actiing against your own country in your OWN land. If they fight in THEIR OWN land, then you cant really call them terrosists unless you are really biased.

If you fight them by killing those who have chosen to fight armed against occupying forces you fight the fire by the flames instead of killing the nest. But this kind of movement has not spiritual or military center. It comes from their way of life, the difference between our life stlyes and theirs. Therefore you have two options.

1. Kill'em all and let Manitou sort them out. We agreed that this is not a godd idea.
2. Try to find a way to make them understand why is it better to live in peace than in war.

As long as the US policymakers (and their supporters) dont understand that IF YOU KILL PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO DIE YOU MAKE MARTYRS NOT ENEMY LOSSES.
It is a war of attrition which the whole western culture (including us europeans) can onyl lose if we (I mean mostly YOU) dont change our/your strategy.

[Ursa MAior]

Well we can talk about definitions (btw no one has ever come up with a viable and all inclusive definition for terrorism), but believe me living outside the traditional powercenters (ie US/UK, Germany, France, Russia etc.) I see things more complex than you.

Reagan managed to beat the russians. Did they hate the US? They still do, but they went bankrupt end of story. Cold war? Tick. BUT if you would have tried to invade them would have had fought till the very last man. 'Cuz they dont fight as we think they should. For us (including me) it is hard to believe that they would sacrifice one or two divisions to make a counterfeit. They would have had done it without second thought.

Appeasement is not a good example (although it is used on a regular basis), cuz the nazis had a mastermind, who was always one step ahead of the allies, at least until sept 1, 1939, when he draw a card on 19. The moslims (not only arabs check Indonesia!) do not have one. At the moment (check Simon Pearson: Total War 2006)!

They strive for our way of life. Social security, stability, richness (cuz that's what they see in Hollywood movies they are not weel informed enough to know that it is not average!). And their leaders use the old principle. Give them an enemy and they will hate them more than they hate you. If you think by killing the leaders it can be solvesd you are wrong. Cuz the system will reproduce them again. You have to change the entire system. It is hard and long work, brings no flashy results, it wont be breaking news in CNN but IT IS THE ONLY WAY (except for nuking them all). In almost 4 years (or 5 in case of Afghanistan) the 'firepower' concept have miserably failed to produce any lasting result. When will you realize? Even the much less scrupulous russians failed in Chechnya, and the chechens have no foreign superpower behind them.

Of course you have to show strength but it should be also in restraining ourselves, knowing that kicking the hut's door in would bring the whole thing trembling down on our heads (not yours only ours too!).

It's easy to win wars, but building a lasting peace is difficult, because it cannot be achieved without understanding and respecting the defeated enemies' values.

It is in my signature for a reason. You have won WWI WWII. Which traties after them have produced lasting peace? The versailles ones whcih indeed were humliating for the loosers ie "cease fire for 25 yrs", or the ones after WWII which brought 60+ yrs of peace?

Most of the western people dont respect the moslims, but peace is about mutually accepting something. As long as you dont accept them as equal (see the problems with congressman or who with the Koran in his hand, while making hi vow) there wont be peace.

Why is it so difficult to treat them as equal? (of course not terrorism, or despotic systems etc.)

[malcolm_mccallum]

Gosh.
 
I can understand Bush not having read his Sun Tzu and Clauswitz but you folks?
 
The important issue coming out of this ridiculous 'war on terrorism' (which in reality is a war on Fundamentalist Islam) is that for the first time since 1648, Nation States are no longer the sole participants in war. The increase in global communications and the capability of individuals to wield much more powerful wepaons has allowed war to be carried out by and against ideas. 
 
The idea of Nation States conducting controlled and cohesive wars against one another with central governments may soon be relegated to history. With it goes the idea that a side can surrender.
 
So if religions, philosophies, businesses, and crime leagues can all freely engage in war it is critical that we go back to Sun Tzu and Clausewitz to get back to understanding what war is.
 
How does one defeat Fundamanetal Islam? You destroy their will to fight. You use politics and compromise to take the anger out of them at least until they despair as using violence as an option. The 'war' is not won by trying to destroy everyone who holds an idea because ideas are stronger than that. The Catholics tried it against Protestants several times. 
 
The war will end when politics, communication, and compromise ends it. That can only start to happen when we look to understand the enemy, the truth of the conflict, and perhaps more importantly, ourselves.
 
 

[Murat]

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior
Well we can talk about definitions (btw no one has ever come up with a viable and all inclusive definition for terrorism),

Attacks for the purpose of causing terror in a population.

Appeasement is not a good example (although it is used on a regular basis), cuz the nazis had a mastermind, who was always one step ahead of the allies, at least until sept 1, 1939, when he draw a card on 19.

I don't know what you mean with the card reference but Hitler let us basically wage war on him for 2 years without a declaration - not exactly a mastermind. Just because he convinced your people to get drawn into his national suicide does not make him brilliant.

They strive for our way of life. Social security, stability, richness (cuz that's what they see in Hollywood movies they are not weel informed enough to know that it is not average!). And their leaders use the old principle. Give them an enemy and they will hate them more than they hate you. If you think by killing the leaders it can be solvesd you are wrong. Cuz the system will reproduce them again. You have to change the entire system. It is hard and long work, brings no flashy results, it wont be breaking news in CNN but IT IS THE ONLY WAY (except for nuking them all). In almost 4 years (or 5 in case of Afghanistan) the 'firepower' concept have miserably failed to produce any lasting result. When will you realize? Even the much less scrupulous russians failed in Chechnya, and the chechens have no foreign superpower behind them.

Didn't you say your way of life sucked and you came from a poor country and could sympathize with why the terrorists were doing what they were doing? The Russians did not use flat out genocide. We have the ability to use bio warfare (which we have antidotes for in sufficient quantities) to pretty much decimate any nation without a first rate medical structure.

Of course you have to show strength but it should be also in restraining ourselves, knowing that kicking the hut's door in would bring the whole thing trembling down on our heads (not yours only ours too!).

It's easy to win wars, but building a lasting peace is difficult, because it cannot be achieved without understanding and respecting the defeated enemies' values.

Only necessary if you are trying to bring them into agreement with you. If your goal is destruction (theirs is with us, why shouldn't ours be with them?) then you only need to kill them, not convert them.

It is in my signature for a reason. You have won WWI WWII. Which traties after them have produced lasting peace? The versailles ones whcih indeed were humliating for the loosers ie "cease fire for 25 yrs", or the ones after WWII which brought 60+ yrs of peace?

Well Germany France Britain and Russia are not fighting each other which was our goal in WWII. I would almost say that we have done a little too well in Germany and France due to their heavy pacifism.

Most of the western people dont respect the moslims, but peace is about mutually accepting something. As long as you dont accept them as equal (see the problems with congressman or who with the Koran in his hand, while making hi vow) there wont be peace.

Why is it so difficult to treat them as equal? (of course not terrorism, or despotic systems etc.)

We have never had a problem with MOST of Islam (we count Indonesia, largest Muslim nation, as an Ally). As a matter of fact, in the US we could give a rat's ass what religion you are. We have a problem with anyone who says their goal is our destruction. Personally I do not think there is anything "religious" about their attacks. They have no basis for a Jihad (so moderate Moslems say), Islam preaches peace (yes, I know people will cite the Koran where it tells Moslems to pick up their guns and fight for Islam, but the Bible tells Christians to pick up their swords and fight as well - main point is try to win by peaceful means but do not just roll over), and Radical Islam has perverted the religion for secular purposes.

I know [>:] and I probably should not have even responded since this has nothing to do with Nappy or Wellington [:-] but crap like this drives me crazy [:@] especially from a nation that believed in genocide for its enemies for a significant part (over a milennia) of its history.

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: Murat
especially from a nation that believed in genocide for its enemies for a significant part (over a milennia) of its history.

May I ask what this means? What does MY NATIONALITY HAS TO DO WITH ANYTHING? You are getting really low an arguements if you have to resort to RACISM in your argumentation. You spit hatred with every word you say on issues which are beyond your understanding and on the top you threaten to with bio attack an entire RELIGION????

This statement is a very high ball from a place where a Gen Sherman had a famous saying about good indians... BUT I wont go insulting a whole nation cuz of one whom I dont agree with (kinda you did it).

Yeah one more thing

russians did not use flat out genocide

?

Well they decimated every nation which were unlucky to fall under their feets (ask germans, poles, bulgarians etc.) of course including their own brethen. Have you ever heard of Gulags? Solzhenicin (sp?) They sent to concentration camps of their own (called Gulags) people who barely survived Auschwitz, people who have fought for them ever since 1917 basically everybody, with your words flat out.

Your knowledge and the style of your post speak for themselves I dont need to comment further hasta la vista Klan boy!

PS

Attacks for the purpose of causing terror in a population.

You just called Spaatz, Harris and the 8th AF terorists. Nice job dude!

[Ursa MAior]

ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum

The war will end when politics, communication, and compromise ends it. That can only start to happen when we look to understand the enemy, the truth of the conflict, and perhaps more importantly, ourselves.

Amen to that.

[Erik Rutins]

Please keep this thread on topic. Diversions to current events and politics will get it locked up. Thanks.

[Ursa MAior]

Murat
Cuz I dont agree with you does not mean I hate you or your country. Not all people are as simple as a stick to only think in black and white.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Joisey

ORIGINAL: morvwilson

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

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

Wellington>French army.
Wellington>Napoleon.

Case closed.

I am with ktotwf here. What makes Nappy significant to me is that he was the most recent French leader to actually win some wars! The next previous time I can think of when France won anything was during the time of Henry VII. And that was because the King of England was insane!
After Nappy I have a hard time coming up with a war they won with out major assistance from the USA. Their most famous unit, The French Foriegn Legion, lost to machete weilding Mexican peasants!
The British army in my opinion have never understood how to wage a war on a continental scale. Their performance in the world wars still reflected their strategy in the Napoleonic wars. Nibble around the edges and leave the major work to their allies.

I have to agree with this. While the French won WWI, it was not due to French generalship but to the bravery, courage, and honor of the French rank and file soldiers (The Battle of the Somme comes to mind). Such were the losses incurred by the French during WWI, it appears that such traits were literally bled out of the French gene pool since.

The British Army has always understood how to fight on the continent, given the microscopic size of the army for 99% of history (WW1 is the only time Britain has raised mass continental sized armies). The army was always small because the Navy took the lion's share (and was bigger than most of the rest of Europe for most of the last 300 years). You cannot do other than 'nibble around the edges' when your entire deployable field force is about equivent to a couple of French Corps most of the time, and there are huge overseas possessions to defend (not to mention capture!)

On the subject of WW1, you need to read some history - the French didn't win the war - they fought bravely and were ground down to a far greater extent than the UK (or of course the US). The Somme has a small French involvement; it is a Britiah battle. The one you want is Verdun, which showed the best and the worst of the French Army - it defeated the German army tactically, at the expense of the morale of the army, and was a direct cause of the collapse (mutiny) of 1917. The British, and to an increasing degree the US 'won' the war, the French and Germans fought eachother to a standstill.

[Roads]

The Germans hadn't been fought to a standstill by the spring of 1918. Their offensives showed a lot more imagination and sucess than anything the allies put together. (The fall offensives were against an German army that was in the process of collapse.) Still I agree that the French sucess in WWI was one of negation, the army survived and that was all it needed to do. And the military leadership in WWI, French and British, was abysmal.

As to Wellington being only able to act defensively, I don't understand why this keeps coming up. What about Assaye, Vittoria, and even Porto. When it was called for he was more than able to fight an offensive battle.

[Joisey]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Please keep this thread on topic. Diversions to current events and politics will get it locked up. Thanks.

Yeah, you know, some actual news about the game would go along way to giving us something to talk about OTHER than current events and politics. [8|]

[Hoche]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Please keep this thread on topic. Diversions to current events and politics will get it locked up. Thanks.

I see the ghost of the "Art of Wargaming" forum still haunts matrix. Actually that forum had a funny name because its threads had nothing do with art, wargmaing of even the art of wargaming.

[The Almighty Turtle]

Ok than, I am sick of this BS and I HAVE to clean up here or simply go mad. Firstoff, I must say that Wellington was (in my estimation) not as good as Nappy at both their peaks, but he was more careful with being able to not be caught with his pants down and at the same time getting his enemy in the most disadvantegous position possible.

That said, even though he was not on Napoleon's skill level, he WAS quite skilled. Malcolm, you are being a @%@$#) Idiot. You complain about him not taking a fortress because he outnumbered the Fronsay in that area. You are delieratly ignoring the main picture of the Iberian at that time:

1. THE FRENCH HAD MORE MEN IN THE PENNINSULA AT THAT TIME!!!! 2. MOST OF WELLINGTON'S MEN WERE EITHER SPANISH OR PORTUGUESE OF LARGLY ABYSMAL QUALITY AND TRAINING. 3. THE BRITIsH WERE AT LARGE THE ONlY QUALITY TROOPS AND OFFICERS ON THE IBERIAN FOR THE ALLIANCE (not 100%, but sure as hell the vast majority of the time) 4. WELLINGTON WAS UNSURE OF THE LOYALTIES OF MANY SPANIARDS, WHO HAD SO RECENTLY FOUGHT ALONGSIDE THE FRENCH. 5. THIS WAS NOT THE FRENCH ARMY OF THE 1814 CAMPAIGN! THESE MEN WERE WELL TRAINED, EQUIPPED, AND MANY HAD SERVED IN THE WARS OF THE "GLORY YEARS"! IF THEY CAN BRING YOU TO BATTLE ON SOMETHING THAT IS FAVORABLE TO THEM, THEY ARE GOING TO BLAST THE SHIT OUT OF YOU, BLOW YOU TO BITS, AND IN GENERAL F*CK YOU UP. BADLY.

AND YOU ARE HERE WHINING AND BITCHING ABOUT AN "AGRESSIVE" GENERAL COULD BE AT THE PYRENEES BY 1810. At the Latest.

YOu forget that the Britishmen were only a relatively small portion of the Allied force, most are Spaniards and Portuguese, who are at large abysmal.

And I am also sick about the colonial fanboyism about those who defeated France.

Firstoff, I must say that I am a US Diehard Conservative. I May support some issues that are traditionally Left-wing, like Gay Marriage, but on the whole I am a die-hard neocon and dedicated Bushite. Thus, there is little good will between myself and the French of today.

However, that does not pardon myself from cleaning up some factual errors stated here.

1. The insurgents (the Mexican Nationalists) were outnumbered by the Fronsay. TRUTH: the French and Interventionist forces had around 18,000+ men in Mexico more or less throughout the intervention. The Nationalist numbers are quite a bit more vauge, but it is estimated that there were about 26,000 in arms at the start of the crisis and they recruited at roughly 3,000 per month.

2. The Mexican Nationalists defeated the French in combat. TRUTH: This is likely due to the fact that the only major battle of the intervention known in most of the West is Cinco De Mayo. This was by all means a spectaculor feat of arms. It was also by all means an exception: the majority of battles were won by the French, usually against far superior numbers. People conveniently ignore the true reason that the French went:

The US of A, on the basis of the Monroe doctrine, and afraid of Napoleon III's ambitions, were largely powerless to do anything due to conflicts in the Civil War. However, in the final two years, the US had defeated the CSA and were moving vast amounts of troops South to subdue the South. These troops were conveniently in springing distance of Mexico. The war was also becoming increasingly unpopular in France, and thus there was much support to fall back out. In 1866, the first real troop withdraws took place, leaving Maximillian at the mercy of the Nationalists.

This is not to say Juarez was not a good general, he was, but dispite his numbers he could not really match the training and equipment of the French, and he largly won because he largly kept his head down and moved around to avoid being pinned and destroyed by numerically inferior but strategically and qualitivly superior forces. And he did this. But Mexico ultimatly became free because the French were worried about having their isolated, weary troops being impaled on the bayonettes of the US, who were far closer to the homeland and thus capable of getting reserves into action.

3. The French did nothing in WWII. TRUTH: As much as it pains me to admit, the French, however poor they did in 1940, was largly caused not due to the quality of troops, but to German numerical superiority and agility. The Germans took larger losses than the Allies (despite what German propaganda would lead you to believe) but they used their armor and numerical superiority to demoralize and cut off the French. In translation, the reason for the 1940 disaster was not due to the French being absolute cowards, but due to the fact that French Command was dumber than a bag of bricks and they were still rooted in the olde days of war, and the Germans being NOT as dumb as a bag of bricks, and being able to bring to the field more men than the Allies and more manuverablility. Most of the French surrenders came in situations that are considered "hopeless capituations" were refusing to surrender will in all probaility merely result in no useful strategic or military value and in general serve no effective purpose.

And after 1940, they played a valuble role avenging what had been lost due to Allied and German leaders thinking and planning on two different levels.

The World knows Rommel, the Desert Fox, the man who had sent the dispersed British Army scattering East back to Egypt in spite of numerical disparity, was defeated at the Second Battle of El Alamein, despite his forces getting large renforcements both from Germany and from Nationalist rebels in Africa fighting the Western Allies to the point that he outnumbered the Western Allies.

Few people seem to take any note of the Battle of Bir Hakeim. However, without the latter, it is entirely possible the Western Allies could not have consolidated the line enough to face numerically superior German forces and defeat them in the former.

At Bir Hakeim, Rommel was chasing the Western Allies who he had sent running to Egypt once again, and seemed poised to conquer the land of Pyramids and the Nile. On the road, standing in his path, was the fort of Bir Hakeim, manned by 3,700 soldiers of the Free French. The Germans needed to continue the charge across Africa, and in order to do that, they needed to seize this fort. The French, despite being outrageously outnumbered, were better armed, trained, and in better positions than their German foes, and they held the line with only periodic aid from the RAF and supplies via Western Allied Armor FOR 16 DAYS! The Germans eventually overran the position, but only after great loss of life, and were delayed long enough for Rommel to meet his Waterloo at El Alamein.

And this is but one example out of millions.

The French also participated in Italy, Greece, the retaking of France and the Low Countries, and finally revenge in Germany itself, and the Franco-Benelux Corp raised near Leizpig dealt with more than a few Soviets in the December 1945 Incident.

4. The Viet Mihn defeated the French. TRUTH: The French public defeated the French. The much-hyped VM had massive numerical advantage, aid from China, Russia, and even as far away as Algeria and Egypt. And yet they failed to defeat the French. Instead, they suffered constant setbacks, defeats, and misery. And the Much-acclaimed Vietnamese victory at Dien Bien Phu?

Didn't happen. At least as the current Vietnamese regime said. The Vietnamese took groteque losses in the battle, had much of their experienced soldiers, officers, and foreign aid killed, and even Ho Chi Mihn's brother, Ho Ngo Dihn (or something similar, I will not pretend to be an expert in Vietnamese) killed and he himself barely escaping the same fate when he was personally scouting with a small entourage the airfield.

The result of Dien Bien Phu was largely a signed ceasefire allowing the evacuation of the French troops along with the (quite few) French prisoners taken by the VM. This granted was when the French were on their last forts, but the VM had taken massive losses and were bleed of their best men. Had French reinforcements arrived and counter attacked, history would have been different. Yet Ho Chi Mihn covered the details of the battle up, and largely painted it as a brilliant victory to cover the awful, bloody nature of it. It recieved credence in the West when another Western domocracy tried to destroy the communist monstrocity in Hanoi. In that, the biased and often treasonous media and protesters took the inaccurate Vietnamese assesment of Dien Bien Phu and made it "Fact."
History repeated itself with Algeria, including the movie the Battle for Tunis, which featured the leader of the rebels comparing Allied bombings of towns where armed rebels had set up shop with the deliberate homicide of innocent people who might have even agreed with the struggle against French "Opression," in suicide bombings. The fact that both in Algeria and Vietnam, healthy slave trading networks backed the rebels because those eeevvvill Western Allies tried to impose via force the ideals of "Democracy, freedom, Capitalism, and Liberty." "Freedom" Fighters indeed.

Again, I am not fond of the French, but I just don't think that the stereotype Frenchman does justice to the French. I do laugh like hell at French jokes, and I probably know half of them by heart, but the jokes have more to do with the De Gaullist split in the 60's and with French refusal to combat terror in the now than with any actual realities on how the French fared.

But back on topic.

I have already said tat Wellington was an excellant general, taking on and defeating the French despite numerical inferiority and the fact that most of his soldiers were Spaniards and Portuguese who often were operating NO WHERE NEAR the level the French and English were dueling on. However, I doubt that he could beat Bonny even if he were to rise on his best day.

But Wellington probably paid more attention to detail than Napoleon, at least by the time of the 100 days. He knew that most of his army was not the excellant British 'Scum of the Earth' that he had dealt with in the Iberia, but were Dutch, Belgian, and Germanic troops. The Dutch-Belgians were troops that, despite the fact that many had fought with Bonaparte, were far from keen with him after his annexation of Holland, and thus they were largely considered trustworthy. The Germans, on the other hand, were quite different. Many of them had served with Napoleon, were of quizzical quality, and dubious loyalties.

This is likely the reason that the French went after Wellington instead of the larger but less-than-expert Prussians: To defeat and destroy Wellington's army and thus cause a defection of the non-British troops into French Ranks. And after that, they would deal with the lesser Prussians and crush them with no true conceivable problem, and than get into position to hope to defeat the Austrians and Russians, or get them to sign peace.

The British held the high ground, and had the French been able to seize said ground, the British and Wellington would do the only real choice they had: fall back like hell and abandon Brussels. This is not due to any shortcoming on Wellington's side, but his force was far to small to take the heat of the French without Blucher to act like a pin-cushion and inflict some losses on the French.

As for Napoleon, he was demoralized after 1812, 1813, and 1814, and he openly said in his private writing that he believed that fate had turned against him. That destiny, which he believed favored him since way back in Lodi, had finally deserted him. He was also faced with two opponents: one with a small force but on the whole was expertly led and most of the British, Dutch, and Belgians were well equipped and trained, and commanded the high ground, and the other, the one that was less than expertly led, was lacking in true quality, but could field many men and were not lacking for will to fight. He also faced the decline of the French Army. The men who had beaten the snot out of the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Russians, the Austrians, the Prussians, and the various German states countless times were gone. Finito.

So ultimatly, I would say that the decline of Napoleon and should be based not on any given time but rather on confidence, as in how victories are going etc. And one should also be able to alter the doctrines and quality of the armies under their control.

And, to sum up the Wellington V Nappy situation, here is my take:

Wellington < Napoleon
But
Wellington > French Army

[Ursa MAior]

Well Turtle the cascadores and most of the portugals were as good as the brits. The spaniards are a different story.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[The Almighty Turtle]

Indeed, the famed devils of the rifle. However, the majority of the Portuguese were not cascadores, and many indeed were of quite poor equipment and training because their docrtines and training were based on experiences in the Portuguese Revolution against Spain, which was quite outdated. Again, the Portuguese were not completely without redeeming value, but than again neither were the Spaniards, and look at what happened when those two tried to take on the French without the English unless either A. The French Commander was an idiot. B. The French Troops were idiots. C. They were being lead by a damn good general, like San Martin. D. A & B, E. All of the Above. It was usually not pretty. There were exceptions, but they were usually not pretty.

My point is that I believe that the Iberian was one of the most difficult strategic situations for England, and yet the British pulled it off. Could the Spaniards and Portuguese achieved victory by themselves? It is possible. But I doubt it VERY VERY VERY HIGHLY. And I doubt that they could have pulled of it anywhere NEAR as well as with Wellington and the British.