Off-Topic > The Lounge

Napoleon Bonaparte

<< < (6/7) > >>

RedRoach:

--- Quote from: Indreams on November 24, 2014, 04:05:59 pm ---But no ground army can reach Moscow before winter (unless your entire army is OP archers on horseback). So, that's why I think, if Napoleon had airships, he would have been victorious.

--- End quote ---

Pfft. Civ 5 Warrior Army Rush can do dat!

In real era though, I think he did have a choice. Again, Mother Russia's massive amounts of man power was powerful, but it wasn't them who killed the soldiers. Winter is a fighter that you can't fight. Try as you might, Mr. Frost won't die no matter how many cannon volleys you fire at the snowbanks across the street. Maybe set up defensive positions around WARMER CLIMATE ZONES on the borders between France and Russia to hold them off? If I recall, his army was pub stomping a lot of other powerful nations, so it'd make sense that with fortifications and a well placed area, they'd be able to punch back enough to make Mother Russia go away.

Indreams:

--- Quote from: RedRoach on November 24, 2014, 06:28:29 pm ---Maybe set up defensive positions around WARMER CLIMATE ZONES on the borders between France and Russia to hold them off? If I recall, his army was pub stomping a lot of other powerful nations,

--- End quote ---

Well, that was sort of my point. A massive defensive line on long Russian border would have been almost impossible and expensive. And since his army was pub stomping everybody else, Napoleon probably thought the same applied to Russia.

And a massive defensive line wasn't the norm in European battle fields until trenches and WWI. Maybe diplomacy could have worked, but Napoleon allied with the anti-Russian Poles.

So, Napoleon's downfall was probably more circumstance than choice. But than, if Napoleon didn't pursue his imperial ambitions, he would have stayed on the throne, and we might have had a Bonaparte on the French throne for several Republics. (I think the French divide their post-revolution history into Republics, similar to German Reich. Current France is the fifth Republic)

Jester Schulz:
Napoleon had one of the most powerful armies in the world at that time. He already conquered almost all of Europe. But he was greedy and wanted more. He wanted to have the largest empire there ever was. He wanted it to be bigger and better than what the Roman Empire had. This is what his major flaw was. He was power hungry. He wanted to be the greatest Emperor there ever was. He pushed his limits and suffered because of it. He got cocky and bit off more than he could chew.
His mind set was probably, "If i took this much of Europe through invasion with sheer power, then i can surely do it with Russia."

Indreams:
Time to revive this post.

After studying the first French revolution (and the second in 1830, third in 1848), I've come to a conclusion.

Napoleon's life, and anybody else's life, can be simplified to a few paragraphs, but that would not do justice. Studying him, I found both admirable and objectionable qualities about him.

To unjustly simplify his life through the lens of my opinion, his success and his failures were both grounded in his resolute and stubborn characteristic.
Napoleon was able to succeed because he was able to persevere through his impoverished, persecuted youth. Napoleon was able to move up the ranks because he was a steadfast officer in a time of chaos. Napoleon was able to crown himself emperor because he was unfaltering in his ambitions.
In Russia, his character failed him. Although he did not lose a battle until occupying Moscow, he had pushed his soldiers through the vast Russian lands too hard. Russians had used the Scorched Earth Strategy. Instead of wisely backing off, Napoleon stubbornly sat in now inhospitable, burning Moscow, arrogantly waiting for the Tsar Alexander's surrender. His veteran army, exhausted and demoralized by Napoleon's stiff-neck, was Routed when the winter came.
And now, Napoleon's uncompromising fiber became tight noose around his neck. An alliance of Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Britain contested him. He did not concede to an agreeable term presented to him. He stubbornly gave battle after battle without the tact and the knack of his youth. He constantly sought that one battle which would restore his invincibility.
He rose by an iron-will. He fell by that same iron-will. Iron-ic.

That's my opinion on Napoleon. I still want to hear yours.


@Schwalbe
I'm probably being completely ignorant here, but I thought the Polish liked Napoleon. Am I wrong?

Schwalbe:
tl;dr : Most admire him, but I'm a cold-blooded strategic mind, not a sentimental idiot.

Most do admire him, but taking a closer look, well... sorry for my poor vocabulary... he gave us ILLUSION of hope, freedom, an as illusive was that... goddammit, I lack words in english. Herzogtum Warschau. Completely artificial, in terms of politics, entity without any serious influence, without a chance to stand against the tides of Napoleonic Wars. Actually, it looks to me, that he only create that "entity" to give Polish soldiers hope for freedom, to manipulate them to serve as his puppets. It took some territory, and as far as I remember, was burdened with supporting french troops, stationed on it's territory. So Napoleon earned ally with territory, who had absolutely nothing against serving under his commands, both with fodder, land, supplies, therefore - strategic assets, it had no threatening power itself.\

That's as far as I remember from what I learned like, 3 years ago?
Now is the middle of the night, in the middle of pre-exams period, so I might not be a reliable source.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page