|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 5:59:43 GMT
1. Liberated when he had superior firepower 2. He didn't fight wars. Napoleon did both. 3. It didn't work as they were still trashed by Napoleon during his reign. 1. Superior Firepower? 2. He did fight in American revolutionary wars and played an important role in the desicive battle of the war- Battle of Yorktown. 3. It did work, he constructed the coalition which will defeat Napoleon eventually, though he wouldn't live to see it. 1. When he had more experienced army, more cavalry and a small numerical advantage in artillery 2. Napoleon had more victories 3. And? |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Jul 29, 2021 6:05:12 GMT
1. Superior Firepower? 2. He did fight in American revolutionary wars and played an important role in the desicive battle of the war- Battle of Yorktown. 3. It did work, he constructed the coalition which will defeat Napoleon eventually, though he wouldn't live to see it. 1. When he had more experienced army, more cavalry and a small numerical advantage in artillery 2. Napoleon had more victories 3. And? 1. Well, Napoleon also had that and actually French ones were better. 2. Napoleon had more victories but his enemies came back again and again, Hamilton has much more desicive victory. 3. British Empire and also his economic reforms allowed Britain stand against France till it finally defeated them right back. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 6:09:01 GMT
1. When he had more experienced army, more cavalry and a small numerical advantage in artillery 2. Napoleon had more victories 3. And? 1. Well, Napoleon also have that and actually French ones were better. 2. Napoleon had more victories but his enemies came back again and again, Hamilton has much more desicive victory. 3. British Empire. 1. What? Infantry? They were raw conscripts. Cavalry? He could barely do reconissance with his. Artillery? Russia had slight numerical superiority. 2. The British didn't come back because they were busy with Napoleon 3. It was already there. He wasn't the architect or something. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Jul 29, 2021 6:12:25 GMT
1. Well, Napoleon also have that and actually French ones were better. 2. Napoleon had more victories but his enemies came back again and again, Hamilton has much more desicive victory. 3. British Empire. 1. What? Infantry? They were raw conscripts. Cavalry? He could barely do reconissance with his. Artillery? Russia had slight numerical superiority. 2. The British didn't come back because they were busy with Napoleon 3. It was already there. He wasn't the architect or something. 1. Those 600,000 were raw conscripts? French Cavalry was one of the best in Europe. 2. Well, Napoleon wasn't even the leader of France till 1799 and French revolutionary wars started in 1792, while seige of Yorktown took place in 1781. 3. I had edited a bit. He made British Empire even stronger. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 6:16:18 GMT
1. What? Infantry? They were raw conscripts. Cavalry? He could barely do reconissance with his. Artillery? Russia had slight numerical superiority. 2. The British didn't come back because they were busy with Napoleon 3. It was already there. He wasn't the architect or something. 1. Those 600,000 were raw conscripts? French Cavalry was one of the best in Europe. 2. Well, Napoleon wasn't even the leader of France till 1799 and French revolutionary wars started in 1792, while seige of Yorktown took place in 1781. 3. I had edited a bit. He made British Empire even stronger. 1. I mean the situation after he retreated from Russia. They didn't fight Napoleon except Borodino (Or Smolensk? Not sure). Even Russia had 300,000 casualties when Napoleon invaded 2. Ok, but still, Napoleon won more. 3. How? |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Jul 29, 2021 6:24:52 GMT
1. Those 600,000 were raw conscripts? French Cavalry was one of the best in Europe. 2. Well, Napoleon wasn't even the leader of France till 1799 and French revolutionary wars started in 1792, while seige of Yorktown took place in 1781. 3. I had edited a bit. He made British Empire even stronger. 1. I mean the situation after he retreated from Russia. They didn't fight Napoleon except Borodino (Or Smolensk? Not sure). Even Russia had 300,000 casualties when Napoleon invaded 2. Ok, but still, Napoleon won more. 3. How? 1. You will have to agree that Alexander's strategy was better. 2. Alexander Hamilton was a better ruler (de facto president of USA). 3. Made Britain the undisputed master of India, defeating Marathas and French client states of Mysore. Successfully kicked French and Spainish out of Haiti and defeating French expedition in Egypt. Also he brought economic reforms which allowed Britain to sponsor Anti-French coalitions and building the strongest Navy, capable of defeating rest of the world's navies combined. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 6:28:58 GMT
1. I mean the situation after he retreated from Russia. They didn't fight Napoleon except Borodino (Or Smolensk? Not sure). Even Russia had 300,000 casualties when Napoleon invaded 2. Ok, but still, Napoleon won more. 3. How? 1. You will have to agree that Alexander's strategy was better. 2. Alexander Hamilton was a better ruler (de facto president of USA). 3. Made Britain the undisputed master of India, defeating Marathas and French client states of Mysore. Successfully kicked French and Spainish out of Haiti and defeating French expedition in Egypt. Also he brought economic reforms which allowed Britain to sponsor Anti-French coalitions and building the strongest Navy, capable of defeating rest of the world's navies combined. 1. The winter saved them, along with some luck as Napoleon's battle plans were intercepted. 2. Better ruler, but better commander? Can he raise his army's morale when needed? 3. But was he a commander? Did he made battle plans? |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Jul 29, 2021 6:33:19 GMT
1. You will have to agree that Alexander's strategy was better. 2. Alexander Hamilton was a better ruler (de facto president of USA). 3. Made Britain the undisputed master of India, defeating Marathas and French client states of Mysore. Successfully kicked French and Spainish out of Haiti and defeating French expedition in Egypt. Also he brought economic reforms which allowed Britain to sponsor Anti-French coalitions and building the strongest Navy, capable of defeating rest of the world's navies combined. 1. The winter saved them, along with some luck as Napoleon's battle plans were intercepted. 2. Better ruler, but better commander? Can he raise his army's morale when needed? 3. But was he a commander? Did he made battle plans? 1. The winter? Most of the casualities suffered by Napoleon's army were in the before Winter (summer and autumn) . 2. He never had to raise morale because Washington always did that. 3. He was not a general, he was a statesman. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 6:36:56 GMT
1. The winter saved them, along with some luck as Napoleon's battle plans were intercepted. 2. Better ruler, but better commander? Can he raise his army's morale when needed? 3. But was he a commander? Did he made battle plans? 1. The winter? Most of the casualities suffered by Napoleon's army were in the before Winter (summer and autumn) . 2. He never had to raise morale because Washington always did that. 3. He was not a general, he was a statesman. 1. Disease, hot summer, etc etc...My point is how come they had casualties when they didn't fight Napoleon initially? 2. So...just 1 battle? 3. That is my point. Napoleon was both. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Jul 29, 2021 6:38:48 GMT
1. The winter? Most of the casualities suffered by Napoleon's army were in the before Winter (summer and autumn) . 2. He never had to raise morale because Washington always did that. 3. He was not a general, he was a statesman. 1. Disease, hot summer, etc etc...My point is how come they had casualties when they didn't fight Napoleon initially? 2. So...just 1 battle? 3. That is my point. Napoleon was both. 1. Wasn't that a better strategy! 2. 1 absolutely desicive battle. 3. Napoleon was not as good statesman as William Pitt the Younger. It would be absolutely reasonable say that William Pitt the Younger was the best Prime Minister that Britain ever had. A great Administrator and Statesman. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 6:44:54 GMT
1. Disease, hot summer, etc etc...My point is how come they had casualties when they didn't fight Napoleon initially? 2. So...just 1 battle? 3. That is my point. Napoleon was both. 1. Wasn't that a better strategy! 2. 1 absolutely desicive battle. 3. Napoleon was not as good statesman as William Pitt the Younger. It would be absolutely reasonable say that William Pitt the Younger was the best Prime Minister that Britain ever had. 1. Their army still made blunders but were lucky as Napoleon's battleplans were intercepted. What else he had to show? 2. 1..2..3.. many for Napoleon 3. His reforms greatly improved the efficiency of both the French economy and army. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Jul 29, 2021 6:48:39 GMT
1. Wasn't that a better strategy! 2. 1 absolutely desicive battle. 3. Napoleon was not as good statesman as William Pitt the Younger. It would be absolutely reasonable say that William Pitt the Younger was the best Prime Minister that Britain ever had. 1. Their army still made blunders but were lucky as Napoleon's battleplans were intercepted. What else he had to show? 2. 1..2..3.. many for Napoleon 3. His reforms greatly improved the efficiency of both the French economy and army. 1. Blunders? 3. Napoleon's terrible diplomacy and even terrible strategy towards treatment of citizens of client states negated all that. Pitt's reforms were much more efficient. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Jul 29, 2021 6:49:21 GMT
1. Wasn't that a better strategy! 2. 1 absolutely desicive battle. 3. Napoleon was not as good statesman as William Pitt the Younger. It would be absolutely reasonable say that William Pitt the Younger was the best Prime Minister that Britain ever had. 1. Their army still made blunders but were lucky as Napoleon's battleplans were intercepted. What else he had to show? 2. 1..2..3.. many for Napoleon 3. His reforms greatly improved the efficiency of both the French economy and army. 2. Which battle was absolutely desicive? |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 6:50:58 GMT
1. Their army still made blunders but were lucky as Napoleon's battleplans were intercepted. What else he had to show? 2. 1..2..3.. many for Napoleon 3. His reforms greatly improved the efficiency of both the French economy and army. 1. Blunders? 3. Napoleon's terrible diplomacy and even terrible strategy towards treatment of citizens of client states negated all that. Pitt's reforms were much more efficient. 1. They almost fell into Napoleon's trap initially. 2. The print was the only thing suppressed. What else? What terrible treatment? |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 6:52:49 GMT
1. Their army still made blunders but were lucky as Napoleon's battleplans were intercepted. What else he had to show? 2. 1..2..3.. many for Napoleon 3. His reforms greatly improved the efficiency of both the French economy and army. 2. Which battle was absolutely desicive? 1. Siege of Mantua 2. Battle of Marengo 3. Battle of Austerlitz |
|
