|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Jul 29, 2021 6:57:31 GMT
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? 1. When? I don't think so, you might like to enlighten. 2. Print? The alliances that Pitt made were much more sincere, while All of Napoleon's client states except Poland and those ruled by his relatives, switched sides just as they saw which way the wind was blowing. French economy was so great they were never able from material losses from invasion of Russia, and French (also Spainish) Navy never recovered from Trafalgar. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Jul 29, 2021 6:58:18 GMT
2. Which battle was absolutely desicive? 1. Siege of Mantua 2. Battle of Marengo 3. Battle of Austerlitz Well, despite all those battles, battle of Aspern-Essling and battle of Wagram still took place. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 7:02:46 GMT
1. They almost fell into Napoleon's trap initially. 2. The print was the only thing suppressed. What else? What terrible treatment? 1. When? I don't think so, you might like enlighten. 2. Print? The alliances that Pitt made were much more sincere, while All of Napoleon's client states except Poland and those ruled by his relatives, switched sides just as they saw which way the wind was blowing. French economy was so great they were never able from material losses from invasion of Russia, and French (also Spainish) Navy never recovered from Trafalgar. 1. They evaded him 3-4 times before Borodino 2. Yes Print. 3. So? What could Napoleon had done when countries switched sides? |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 7:03:27 GMT
1. Siege of Mantua 2. Battle of Marengo 3. Battle of Austerlitz Well, despite all those battles, battle of Aspern-Essling and battle of Wagram still took place. My point is that Napoleon fought and won more "decisive battles" than him. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Jul 29, 2021 7:08:33 GMT
1. When? I don't think so, you might like enlighten. 2. Print? The alliances that Pitt made were much more sincere, while All of Napoleon's client states except Poland and those ruled by his relatives, switched sides just as they saw which way the wind was blowing. French economy was so great they were never able from material losses from invasion of Russia, and French (also Spainish) Navy never recovered from Trafalgar. 1. They evaded him 3-4 times before Borodino 2. Yes Print. 3. So? What could Napoleon had done when countries switched sides? 1. That is not blunder. 2. What do you want to say? 3. Terrible diplomacy. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Jul 29, 2021 7:09:38 GMT
Well, despite all those battles, battle of Aspern-Essling and battle of Wagram still took place. My point is that Napoleon fought and won more "decisive battles" than him. Yorktown was much more desicive than those battles. He didn't have to fight another battle after that. He was a lawyer by profession and had volunteered to fight in the army, where he got elected as officer of his unit. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 7:28:32 GMT
1. They evaded him 3-4 times before Borodino 2. Yes Print. 3. So? What could Napoleon had done when countries switched sides? 1. That is not blunder. 2. What do you want to say? 3. Terrible diplomacy. 1. Yes, that's luck 2. He didn't suppressed people's right. 3. He just didn't had resorces to keep them on their side. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 7:29:10 GMT
My point is that Napoleon fought and won more "decisive battles" than him. Yorktown was much more desicive than those battles. He didn't have to fight another battle after that. He was a lawyer by profession and had volunteered to fight in the army, where he got elected as officer of his unit. So how come he is greater than Napoleon? |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Jul 29, 2021 7:41:19 GMT
1. That is not blunder. 2. What do you want to say? 3. Terrible diplomacy. 1. Yes, that's luck 2. He didn't suppressed people's right. 3. He just didn't had resorces to keep them on their side. 1. I don't think so. 2. Neither did Hamilton supress people's rights and nor did he install a monarchy. 3. Well, why not? Because he lost all that his armies plundered from occupied countries, in Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Jul 29, 2021 7:41:53 GMT
Yorktown was much more desicive than those battles. He didn't have to fight another battle after that. He was a lawyer by profession and had volunteered to fight in the army, where he got elected as officer of his unit. So how come he is greater than Napoleon? Better statesman and administrator than Napoleon. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 10:20:32 GMT
1. Yes, that's luck 2. He didn't suppressed people's right. 3. He just didn't had resorces to keep them on their side. 1. I don't think so. 2. Neither did Hamilton supress people's rights and nor did he install a monarchy. 3. Well, why not? Because he lost all that his armies plundered from occupied countries, in Russia. 1. Then what it is? 2. So did Napoleon (In fact, he hated monarchy) 3. Of course, Russia was a blunder, but just because he lost in Russia doesn't mean he is not great. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 10:21:44 GMT
So how come he is greater than Napoleon? Better statesman and administrator than Napoleon. What kind of revolutionary changes he initiated that he became a better administrator than Napoleon? |
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on Jul 29, 2021 10:31:06 GMT
So how come he is greater than Napoleon? Better statesman and administrator than Napoleon. Napoleon introduced the Code civil, also called Napoleonic code. + The reforms of the non feudalistic laws is a result of the frech revolution - but it was called sometimes Napoleonic Code - and he introduced it in temporary occupied countries - this is a postive point for Napoleon Bonnaparte. - He caused directly the death of millions and his mitlitary disruptions caused another 150 years of deadly wars between european countries. - All the battles he won can't cover that in the end he didn't win anything for france. - For shure he is a member of the top 100 of greatest mass murders of all times. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 29, 2021 10:40:31 GMT
Better statesman and administrator than Napoleon. Napoleon introduced the Code civil, also called Napoleonic code. + The reforms of the non feudalistic laws is a result of the frech revolution - but it was called sometimes Napoleonic Code - and he introduced it in temporary occupied countries - this is a postive point for Napoleon Bonnaparte. - He caused directly the death of millions and his mitlitary disruptions caused another 150 years of deadly wars between european countries. It wasn't intended.- All the battles he won can't cover that in the end he didn't win anything for france. What about Alexander the "Great"?
- For shure he is a member of the top 100 of greatest mass murders of all times. I won't disagree here, but still, he didn't massacre people (Except 1 case) as much I can remember. |
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on Jul 29, 2021 11:08:44 GMT
Napoleon introduced the Code civil, also called Napoleonic code. + The reforms of the non feudalistic laws is a result of the frech revolution - but it was called sometimes Napoleonic Code - and he introduced it in temporary occupied countries - this is a postive point for Napoleon Bonnaparte. - He caused directly the death of millions and his mitlitary disruptions caused another 150 years of deadly wars between european countries. It wasn't intended.- All the battles he won can't cover that in the end he didn't win anything for france. What about Alexander the "Great"?
- For shure he is a member of the top 100 of greatest mass murders of all times. I won't disagree here, but still, he didn't massacre people (Except 1 case) as much I can remember.You are absolute right John Marston I don't see any evidennce that he was sadistic or doing massacres as tactic. I just look at the mid term results his actions had. Not only Alexander, most of the expansive warloards in history failed on the long run. This is the lesson we can learn from Napoleon. |
|
