|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 14:33:32 GMT
I've been debating over myself the main reason why Napoleon overall lost the war. Most people say it's because of his campaign in Russia, while some say it's because of the Peninsula war, or some his loss in Waterloo, which is i believe a wrong way of seeing it since it's just a symptom of the true underlying reason of his downfall. I believe the main reason for his downfall wasn't even in the battlefield, rather in his diplomacy and his political maneuvering. Also, one thing i'll note is that Napoleon is pretty much the walking Serial status quo murderer, that's why even if he succeeded politically and diplomatically, there may be some hardcore monarchists that may give him trouble. But still it would give him the peace he needed so he can focus on Britain, or even ally with Britain, if Britain can overlook the indirect threat of the ideals the french revolution had fostered. I'm not sure which blunder weighs more, but i can say that the 2 blunders i will mention are the ones that caused him his dreams of a Powerful and united France: 1. His Carthaginian treaties on Austria and Prussia. The conditions he gave to the Austrians and Prussians were harsh, thus making the Austrians and Prussians resent him. His thought process was that by giving them harsh terms, it would weaken their army and power, and would make them fear him so they won't foolishly wage war against him(it also was a way for him to get revenge for what they have done to the french). Although it did weaken them physically, it strengthened them psychologically, the Prussians being so pissed off that the male Prussians would volunteered to join the army in droves, while the Austrians were motivated to kick France out of power. The terms he gave humiliated them, and when a nation wants to avenge itself, it will do anything to restore its glory. Also, funnily enough most of the people in Prussia saw Napoleon as a great liberator. But because of the way he treated them, that respect turn to great resentment. If he was able to make atleast Prussia as a happy ally, even if he went through his campaign in russia and had the same consequence, he wouldn't have lost the battle of Leipzig, thus no Waterloo. This was a mistake the Austrian Foreign Minister Metternich avoided, and successfully controlled the other European powers through foreign policy (he made sure he didn't offend the person he was dealing with). 2. Napoleon's growing ego. Because of this, it led number 1, which is the harsh terms given to his defeated foes. It also led to him insulting the french diplomat Talleyrand, which planned day and night with the minister of secret police Joseph Fouche, and also with the Austrian Foreign minister Metternich. If he held his tongue and didn't berate and insult Talleyrand, and have temporarily turned a blind eye to his corruption, he would had a great minister that would help manage/prevent other countries from going to war with him when he is on his campaigns and someone that can manage the state while he's gone. He could have had Talleyrand executed or imprisoned later on after he conquers the whole of Europe. If Napoleon wasn't obsessed in leaving an heir or being accepted as a true monarch, he would have seen through the deceptions of Metternich, that the Austrians didn't give two hoots if they didn't have an heir as long as the Monarchy survives. Marrying the Austrian princess was pretty much one of his greatest political blunders(he would later regret this, saying that it would have been a better idea to have married the Russian princess instead). Also, it made him look like a hypocrite, since he promotes meritocracy but he himself practices nepotism, which may cause some doubts in some of his generals. Although i can't really blame Napoleon here, since the only sure way to keep one's ego in check is to have a rival of equal or greater capacity. Had Napoleon encountered another General on the enemy side he can truly call his equal, he may have been able to keep his ego in check, thus preventing his diplomatic and political debacles, but this would make his victory in the battlefield a lot harder. After typing his 2 great blunders, i can confidently say that Napoleon's growing ego was the cause of his downfall. Even if he lost the peninsula war, even if he won a Pyrrhic victory is Russia, and even if Austria still decides to wage war against him, if he didn't let his ego get the better of him, i believe he would still have succeeded. With Prussia in his side, and Diplomacy with Spain and Russia made them allies, no doubt he would be unstoppable. Napoleon is still a great man, and the only way he could have foreseen him was if he was a god or can see the future. If there is one thing we can take away from his defeat, it that never impose humiliating treaties to you opponent, keep your ego in check and realize that some allies are worth betraying while some allies are worth keeping. Note: Also, to those who believe that Napoleon could have won if he won the battle of Waterloo: no, he wouldn't have won. France was in the brink of bankruptcy, his soldiers although loyal and more experienced, weren't the same invincible grandee armee. Napoleon also pretty much lost his tactical flair; he still had it, but not as much as when he was younger. France pretty much wouldn't have any allies if Napoleon returned from Elba. His enemies also adopted his own military strategies, and know all the tricks he had in his sleeves. Some historians debate that his escape of Elba was a trap all along by none other by Talleyrand and Metternich, while some claim it was Tsar Alexander 1. Here are some links to posts where you can read more on this: infograph.venngage.com/p/174494/napoleons-tactical-and-political-mistakeswww.quora.com/What-was-Napoleons-biggest-diplomatic-mistakementalfloss.com/article/75491/7-biggest-political-blunders-all-timeapps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a553128.pdfblog.oup.com/2014/08/napoleon-downfall/www.napoleon-series.org/research/napoleon/c_GeniusLeipzig.htmlwww.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/france/defeat.htmBooks: Talleyrand: The art of survival Metternich: the first european On War by Clausewitz |
|
|
|
Post by Arya Stark on Jan 27, 2019 15:49:32 GMT
I've been debating over myself the main reason why Napoleon overall lost the war. Most people say it's because of his campaign in Russia, while some say it's because of the Peninsula war, or some his loss in Waterloo, which is i believe a wrong way of seeing it since it's just a symptom of the true underlying reason of his downfall. I believe the main reason for his downfall wasn't even in the battlefield, rather in his diplomacy and his political maneuvering. Also, one thing i'll note is that Napoleon is pretty much the walking Serial status quo murderer, that's why even if he succeeded politically and diplomatically, there may be some hardcore monarchists that may give him trouble. But still it would give him the peace he needed so he can focus on Britain, or even ally with Britain, if Britain can overlook the indirect threat of the ideals the french revolution had fostered. I'm not sure which blunder weighs more, but i can say that the 2 blunders i will mention are the ones that caused him his dreams of a Powerful and united France: 1. His Carthaginian treaties on Austria and Prussia. The conditions he gave to the Austrians and Prussians were harsh, thus making the Austrians and Prussians resent him. His thought process was that by giving them harsh terms, it would weaken their army and power, and would make them fear him so they won't foolishly wage war against him(it also was a way for him to get revenge for what they have done to the french). Although it did weaken them physically, it strengthened them psychologically, the Prussians being so pissed off that the male Prussians would volunteered to join the army in droves, while the Austrians were motivated to kick France out of power. The terms he gave humiliated them, and when a nation wants to avenge itself, it will do anything to restore its glory. Also, funnily enough most of the people in Prussia saw Napoleon as a great liberator. But because of the way he treated them, that respect turn to great resentment. If he was able to make atleast Prussia as a happy ally, even if he went through his campaign in russia and had the same consequence, he wouldn't have lost the battle of Leipzig, thus no Waterloo. This was a mistake the Austrian Foreign Minister Metternich avoided, and successfully controlled the other European powers through foreign policy (he made sure he didn't offend the person he was dealing with). 2. Napoleon's growing ego. Because of this, it led number 1, which is the harsh terms given to his defeated foes. It also led to him insulting the french diplomat Talleyrand, which planned day and night with the minister of secret police Joseph Fouche, and also with the Austrian Foreign minister Metternich. If he held his tongue and didn't berate and insult Talleyrand, and have temporarily turned a blind eye to his corruption, he would had a great minister that would help manage/prevent other countries from going to war with him when he is on his campaigns and someone that can manage the state while he's gone. He could have had Talleyrand executed or imprisoned later on after he conquers the whole of Europe. If Napoleon wasn't obsessed in leaving an heir or being accepted as a true monarch, he would have seen through the deceptions of Metternich, that the Austrians didn't give two hoots if they didn't have an heir as long as the Monarchy survives. Marrying the Austrian princess was pretty much one of his greatest political blunders(he would later regret this, saying that it would have been a better idea to have married the Russian princess instead). Also, it made him look like a hypocrite, since he promotes meritocracy but he himself practices nepotism, which may cause some doubts in some of his generals. Although i can't really blame Napoleon here, since the only sure way to keep one's ego in check is to have a rival of equal or greater capacity. Had Napoleon encountered another General on the enemy side he can truly call his equal, he may have been able to keep his ego in check, thus preventing his diplomatic and political debacles, but this would make his victory in the battlefield a lot harder. After typing his 2 great blunders, i can confidently say that Napoleon's growing ego was the cause of his downfall. Even if he lost the peninsula war, even if he won a Pyrrhic victory is Russia, and even if Austria still decides to wage war against him, if he didn't let his ego get the better of him, i believe he would still have succeeded. With Prussia in his side, and Diplomacy with Spain and Russia made them allies, no doubt he would be unstoppable. Napoleon is still a great man, and the only way he could have foreseen him was if he was a god or can see the future. If there is one thing we can take away from his defeat, it that never impose humiliating treaties to you opponent, keep your ego in check and realize that some allies are worth betraying while some allies are worth keeping. Note: Also, to those who believe that Napoleon could have won if he won the battle of Waterloo: no, he wouldn't have won. France was in the brink of bankruptcy, his soldiers although loyal and more experienced, weren't the same invincible grandee armee. Napoleon also pretty much lost his tactical flair; he still had it, but not as much as when he was younger. France pretty much wouldn't have any allies if Napoleon returned from Elba. His enemies also adopted his own military strategies, and know all the tricks he had in his sleeves. Some historians debate that his escape of Elba was a trap all along by none other by Talleyrand and Metternich, while some claim it was Tsar Alexander 1. Here are some links to posts where you can read more on this: infograph.venngage.com/p/174494/napoleons-tactical-and-political-mistakeswww.quora.com/What-was-Napoleons-biggest-diplomatic-mistakementalfloss.com/article/75491/7-biggest-political-blunders-all-timeapps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a553128.pdfblog.oup.com/2014/08/napoleon-downfall/www.napoleon-series.org/research/napoleon/c_GeniusLeipzig.htmlwww.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/france/defeat.htmBooks: Talleyrand: The art of survival Metternich: the first european On War by Clausewitz Another book you may want to consider is 'Napoleon: A biography' by Frank McLynn |
|
|
|
Post by Iron Duke on Jan 28, 2019 13:55:03 GMT
Ahem, I think you'll find that I'm the main reason that he lost  |
|
|
|
Post by Arya Stark on Jan 28, 2019 14:19:21 GMT
Ahem, I think you'll find that I'm the main reason that he lost Uh huh... I'm the reason you didn't have to spend your time defending the British Isles  |
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Jan 29, 2019 4:23:59 GMT
I spent some time looking at Wikipedia (a tertiary source of information), specifically the French Revolutionary Wars (War of the First and Second Coalition).
The key difference between this and the Sixth and Seventh Coalitions is an intangible factor:
Morale.
Morale in the first 2 were pretty bad close to the end. Initially, France was losing, then turned things around before the French began invading Coalition territory. Afterwards, each Coalition member just sues for peace.
In this Coalition, we clearly know that even with these defeats, the Coalition can rebuild (which is why more Coalitions still sprung up despite earlier defeats), and the French were at a disadvantage in terms of allies, for example: Spain was anti-France (before switching sides), the two major German states of Prussia and Austria were anti-France, Piedmont-Sardinia and the short-lived Anglo-Corsica were anti-France, PLUS the French also had a mini civil war before the monarchy was replaced with a republic during the Revolutionary Wars.
Compare the Coalition to French allies: Rebels who help set up the Dutch Batavian Republic, Swiss Heveltian Republic, and Irish Republic, Spain (after switching sides) and the Kingdom of Mysore (in Southern India).
Yet after turning the enemy back, crushing their armies and securing permanent initiative, the Coalition members each sue for peace and the Coalition slowly broke up.
_______________________________________________
Now, fast forward to 1813, the largest Grandé Armeé has been destroyed during the Russian campaign, Wellesley's leading a successful counterattack against the French in Iberia with the entire Peninsula dead set on expelling and crushing the French invaders.
The Russians, motivated by a patriotic war against the French invaders wish to pursue the weakened French. Prussia and Austria, after reforming their armies, now have confidence to yet again fight the French, especially since the French had little time to rebuild (compared to the few months or years between each Coalition) and the French were losing on all sides.
Plus, the Franco-German Rivalry runs deep with very humiliating treaties in the earlier years.
Despite some French success, none were able to fully smash the Coalition armies a key to disabling the Coalition and the Coalition would regroup, resupply and then move on.
The Coalition is now closing in via the Pyrenees and the two Germanys. The French were being steamrolled and the marshals knew it.
No amount of troops and battles were enough to destroy or turn back the Coalition, and the war even burnt in France herself, with ths Coalition still swiftly entering the country.
When the capital, Paris, fell, his marshals urged the Emperor to sue for peace or they would not fight for him. This shows that the French, for the first time in the six wars, had truly given up.
By Waterloo, the same enemies were preparing to march into France again, with the French being divided (as seen from the rebellious south). Napoleon lacked the popular support he wanted, the men he hoped to have conscripted and the decisive victories he needed. This time, the Coalition is facing a depleted France and the French are more starkly divided than in the first two wars.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 6:20:10 GMT
I spent some time looking at Wikipedia (a tertiary source of information), specifically the French Revolutionary Wars (War of the First and Second Coalition). The key difference between this and the Sixth and Seventh Coalitions is an intangible factor: Morale. Morale in the first 2 were pretty bad close to the end. Initially, France was losing, then turned things around before the French began invading Coalition territory. Afterwards, each Coalition member just sues for peace. In this Coalition, we clearly know that even with these defeats, the Coalition can rebuild (which is why more Coalitions still sprung up despite earlier defeats), and the French were at a disadvantage in terms of allies, for example: Spain was anti-France (before switching sides), the two major German states of Prussia and Austria were anti-France, Piedmont-Sardinia and the short-lived Anglo-Corsica were anti-France, PLUS the French also had a mini civil war before the monarchy was replaced with a republic during the Revolutionary Wars. Compare the Coalition to French allies: Rebels who help set up the Dutch Batavian Republic, Swiss Heveltian Republic, and Irish Republic, Spain (after switching sides) and the Kingdom of Mysore (in Southern India). Yet after turning the enemy back, crushing their armies and securing permanent initiative, the Coalition members each sue for peace and the Coalition slowly broke up. _______________________________________________ Now, fast forward to 1813, the largest Grandé Armeé has been destroyed during the Russian campaign, Wellesley's leading a successful counterattack against the French in Iberia with the entire Peninsula dead set on expelling and crushing the French invaders. The Russians, motivated by a patriotic war against the French invaders wish to pursue the weakened French. Prussia and Austria, after reforming their armies, now have confidence to yet again fight the French, especially since the French had little time to rebuild (compared to the few months or years between each Coalition) and the French were losing on all sides. Plus, the Franco-German Rivalry runs deep with very humiliating treaties in the earlier years. Despite some French success, none were able to fully smash the Coalition armies a key to disabling the Coalition and the Coalition would regroup, resupply and then move on. The Coalition is now closing in via the Pyrenees and the two Germanys. The French were being steamrolled and the marshals knew it. No amount of troops and battles were enough to destroy or turn back the Coalition, and the war even burnt in France herself, with ths Coalition still swiftly entering the country. When the capital, Paris, fell, his marshals urged the Emperor to sue for peace or they would not fight for him. This shows that the French, for the first time in the six wars, had truly given up. By Waterloo, the same enemies were preparing to march into France again, with the French being divided (as seen from the rebellious south). Napoleon lacked the popular support he wanted, the men he hoped to have conscripted and the decisive victories he needed. This time, the Coalition is facing a depleted France and the French are more starkly divided than in the first two wars. I agree on this. The coalition basically were so afraid of Napoleon rising back to power that they pretty much vowed to defeat him totally. Also, about the morale, that is also on point. After loosing the majority of his Grandee Armee to the Russian lands, it not only weakened the resolve of his army but also emboldened the enemy, as the myth of invincibility the Grandee Armee had was shattered. Although, i'm seeing how Napoleon lost through the lens of politics and diplomacy, since as i mentioned, had he secured the Prussians and the majority of the Austrians, he didn't have to invade Russia since Tsar Alexander I would be pressured by his officers to also sign a peace treaty, or face a probable might of the combined force of Prussia, Poland and France, and Britain wouldn't be able to trade with Russia. Also, if Napoleon didn't invade Spain, and rather gained more support there through helping the poor or the army through supplies and such, Portugal would be forced face Spain(since all Napoleon has to do is to supply Spain, and withdraw his army there). Britain wouldn't have to agree to any treaties, since it still has a strong navy and lots of colonies, but there lies it's weakness. They can simply deprive Britain's colonies, thus depriving Britain. And Britain being alone, it would eventually force to surrender. I know this is from hindsight, and during that time even politicians didn't have such knowledge as us(aside from a few like Metternich), but had Napoleon more political and diplomatic foresight, we would be speaking French by now, and there would be no " French surrender" memes . |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 6:20:51 GMT
Ahem, I think you'll find that I'm the main reason that he lost One reason why Napoleon lost was because he underestimated you |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 6:23:08 GMT
Ahem, I think you'll find that I'm the main reason that he lost Uh huh... I'm the reason you didn't have to spend your time defending the British Isles Yeah, without you heroic sacrifice, Britain would have fallen to the French. The only reason you died was because your balls were too heavy, thus preventing you from dodging that fatal shot |
|
|
|
Post by Arya Stark on Jan 29, 2019 11:28:15 GMT
Uh huh... I'm the reason you didn't have to spend your time defending the British Isles Yeah, without you heroic sacrifice, Britain would have fallen to the French. The only reason you died was because your balls were too heavy, thus preventing you from dodging that fatal shot That made me even more of a hero in Britain |
|
|
|
Post by Sun liren on Jan 29, 2019 12:30:58 GMT
Uh huh... I'm the reason you didn't have to spend your time defending the British Isles Yeah, without you heroic sacrifice, Britain would have fallen to the French. The only reason you died was because your balls were too heavy, thus preventing you from dodging that fatal shot sure Nelson had sacrifice for his country but vinenve(better gen than gravina in EW series.whattt!!)mistake and arrogance is also the deciding factor why France loss |
|
|
|
Post by Clausewitz on Jan 29, 2019 13:19:39 GMT
I've been debating over myself the main reason why Napoleon overall lost the war. Most people say it's because of his campaign in Russia, while some say it's because of the Peninsula war, or some his loss in Waterloo, which is i believe a wrong way of seeing it since it's just a symptom of the true underlying reason of his downfall. I believe the main reason for his downfall wasn't even in the battlefield, rather in his diplomacy and his political maneuvering. Also, one thing i'll note is that Napoleon is pretty much the walking Serial status quo murderer, that's why even if he succeeded politically and diplomatically, there may be some hardcore monarchists that may give him trouble. But still it would give him the peace he needed so he can focus on Britain, or even ally with Britain, if Britain can overlook the indirect threat of the ideals the french revolution had fostered. I'm not sure which blunder weighs more, but i can say that the 2 blunders i will mention are the ones that caused him his dreams of a Powerful and united France: 1. His Carthaginian treaties on Austria and Prussia. The conditions he gave to the Austrians and Prussians were harsh, thus making the Austrians and Prussians resent him. His thought process was that by giving them harsh terms, it would weaken their army and power, and would make them fear him so they won't foolishly wage war against him(it also was a way for him to get revenge for what they have done to the french). Although it did weaken them physically, it strengthened them psychologically, the Prussians being so pissed off that the male Prussians would volunteered to join the army in droves, while the Austrians were motivated to kick France out of power. The terms he gave humiliated them, and when a nation wants to avenge itself, it will do anything to restore its glory. Also, funnily enough most of the people in Prussia saw Napoleon as a great liberator. But because of the way he treated them, that respect turn to great resentment. If he was able to make atleast Prussia as a happy ally, even if he went through his campaign in russia and had the same consequence, he wouldn't have lost the battle of Leipzig, thus no Waterloo. This was a mistake the Austrian Foreign Minister Metternich avoided, and successfully controlled the other European powers through foreign policy (he made sure he didn't offend the person he was dealing with). 2. Napoleon's growing ego. Because of this, it led number 1, which is the harsh terms given to his defeated foes. It also led to him insulting the french diplomat Talleyrand, which planned day and night with the minister of secret police Joseph Fouche, and also with the Austrian Foreign minister Metternich. If he held his tongue and didn't berate and insult Talleyrand, and have temporarily turned a blind eye to his corruption, he would had a great minister that would help manage/prevent other countries from going to war with him when he is on his campaigns and someone that can manage the state while he's gone. He could have had Talleyrand executed or imprisoned later on after he conquers the whole of Europe. If Napoleon wasn't obsessed in leaving an heir or being accepted as a true monarch, he would have seen through the deceptions of Metternich, that the Austrians didn't give two hoots if they didn't have an heir as long as the Monarchy survives. Marrying the Austrian princess was pretty much one of his greatest political blunders(he would later regret this, saying that it would have been a better idea to have married the Russian princess instead). Also, it made him look like a hypocrite, since he promotes meritocracy but he himself practices nepotism, which may cause some doubts in some of his generals. Although i can't really blame Napoleon here, since the only sure way to keep one's ego in check is to have a rival of equal or greater capacity. Had Napoleon encountered another General on the enemy side he can truly call his equal, he may have been able to keep his ego in check, thus preventing his diplomatic and political debacles, but this would make his victory in the battlefield a lot harder. After typing his 2 great blunders, i can confidently say that Napoleon's growing ego was the cause of his downfall. Even if he lost the peninsula war, even if he won a Pyrrhic victory is Russia, and even if Austria still decides to wage war against him, if he didn't let his ego get the better of him, i believe he would still have succeeded. With Prussia in his side, and Diplomacy with Spain and Russia made them allies, no doubt he would be unstoppable. Napoleon is still a great man, and the only way he could have foreseen him was if he was a god or can see the future. If there is one thing we can take away from his defeat, it that never impose humiliating treaties to you opponent, keep your ego in check and realize that some allies are worth betraying while some allies are worth keeping. Note: Also, to those who believe that Napoleon could have won if he won the battle of Waterloo: no, he wouldn't have won. France was in the brink of bankruptcy, his soldiers although loyal and more experienced, weren't the same invincible grandee armee. Napoleon also pretty much lost his tactical flair; he still had it, but not as much as when he was younger. France pretty much wouldn't have any allies if Napoleon returned from Elba. His enemies also adopted his own military strategies, and know all the tricks he had in his sleeves. Some historians debate that his escape of Elba was a trap all along by none other by Talleyrand and Metternich, while some claim it was Tsar Alexander 1. Here are some links to posts where you can read more on this: infograph.venngage.com/p/174494/napoleons-tactical-and-political-mistakeswww.quora.com/What-was-Napoleons-biggest-diplomatic-mistakementalfloss.com/article/75491/7-biggest-political-blunders-all-timeapps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a553128.pdfblog.oup.com/2014/08/napoleon-downfall/www.napoleon-series.org/research/napoleon/c_GeniusLeipzig.htmlwww.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/france/defeat.htmBooks: Talleyrand: The art of survival Metternich: the first european On War by Clausewitz Napoleon was a Genius on the Battlefield no doubts but Political he was just average. He didn't understand how to use his Victory's to his full potential (Austerlitz for example).He was to harsh with Prussia and Austria in the peace treaty's (potential enemy's in future engagements). The ongoing War with Britain also was a problem. After Trafalgar he should have try to make peace with Britain (no way of an invasion of the island). In Spain he defeated the army but not the Spanish people (most countries he occupied didn't like the french he did nothing to change that fact) Sorry for my bad English! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 17:03:02 GMT
Yeah, there was no way Napoleon can invade Britain by brute forcing it. Only way is to cut them off from trading, which he tried, but failed miserably. He should have been gentle to the Spanish when he did the backstabbing of the monarchs, but no, he thought it would be a great idea to tax the people heavily. But thanks to his diplomatic and political fiasco, politicians and leaders learned that putting too harsh of conditions to a defeated foe is counter productive. Shame that the best diplomat the French had at the time was corrupt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arya Stark on Jan 29, 2019 21:28:31 GMT
Yeah, there was no way Napoleon can invade Britain by brute forcing it. Only way is to cut them off from trading, which he tried, but failed miserably. He should have been gentle to the Spanish when he did the backstabbing of the monarchs, but no, he thought it would be a great idea to tax the people heavily. But thanks to his diplomatic and political fiasco, politicians and leaders learned that putting too harsh of conditions to a defeated foe is counter productive. Shame that the best diplomat the French had at the time was corrupt. You definitely do not want your best diplomat to be a corrupt one... oh well. Napoleon bears the brunt of the blame for his defeat regardless |
|
|
|
Post by Arya Stark on Jan 30, 2019 18:02:47 GMT
Yeah, there was no way Napoleon can invade Britain by brute forcing it. Only way is to cut them off from trading, which he tried, but failed miserably. He should have been gentle to the Spanish when he did the backstabbing of the monarchs, but no, he thought it would be a great idea to tax the people heavily. But thanks to his diplomatic and political fiasco, politicians and leaders learned that putting too harsh of conditions to a defeated foe is counter productive. Shame that the best diplomat the French had at the time was corrupt. On the note of invading Britain... you MUST defeat the Royal Navy in order to do so. Napoleon recognized that, Hitler recognized, yet they failed to defeat the Royal Navy (Though in Hitler's case the Battle of Britain played a massive part) With regards to Spain, someone during the Peninsular War (I think it was Massena but I may be wrong) once said 'Spain is where small armies are defeated and large armies starve', which says quite a bit. Napoleon's greatest mistake in Spain was intervening in it at all |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Jan 31, 2019 3:19:30 GMT
Yeah, there was no way Napoleon can invade Britain by brute forcing it. Only way is to cut them off from trading, which he tried, but failed miserably. He should have been gentle to the Spanish when he did the backstabbing of the monarchs, but no, he thought it would be a great idea to tax the people heavily. But thanks to his diplomatic and political fiasco, politicians and leaders learned that putting too harsh of conditions to a defeated foe is counter productive. Shame that the best diplomat the French had at the time was corrupt. On the note of invading Britain... you MUST defeat the Royal Navy in order to do so. Napoleon recognized that, Hitler recognized, yet they failed to defeat the Royal Navy (Though in Hitler's case the Battle of Britain played a massive part) With regards to Spain, someone during the Peninsular War (I think it was Massena but I may be wrong) once said 'Spain is where small armies are defeated and large armies starve', which says quite a bit. Napoleon's greatest mistake in Spain was intervening in it at all And invading Russia at the same time. But really I think it’s because France was virtually by itself in 1815 and virtually every other country was eventually forced against by the British and their mischievous ways. |
|
