|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Apr 29, 2021 18:39:14 GMT
So we can make up and try to get along for the sake of harmony Excellent.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2021 1:35:51 GMT
Well for me it does sound just same. I cannot find von being a poetic or beautiful and of being not poetic or beautiful I think of just sounds Broken. I'm belgian and of means or. So when you say that i basically read it as Paul or Hindenburg and that just sounds weird. In German it sounds Nicer Dutch or French.
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 30, 2021 4:54:02 GMT
Ok, I feel guilty now for whatever has happened. It's time to move on from this thread now.
|
|
|
Post by Inactive user on Apr 30, 2021 6:07:35 GMT
I think of just sounds Broken. I'm belgian and of means or. So when you say that i basically read it as Paul or Hindenburg and that just sounds weird. In German it sounds Nicer Dutch or French. Dutch
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2021 3:09:47 GMT
I used to love Napoleon when i was a teen, but now, as painful as it is for me to say it, i still love the guy. Although, i wouldn't call him great sadly, but that's me personally. In terms of war, his reforms and revolutionary style of warfare would be copied and improved over the years, and the way he defeated the coalition forces was beautiful. And he deserves to be called a military genius for those accomplishments. But, he isn't really good at administration, diplomacy or statesmanship. The reason he was able to build a military force was due to his diplomat Talleyrand, and although people would say Napoleon was great in administration and diplomacy, the real brains behind them was Talleyrand. One of his biggest blunders was to demonize Talleyrand without finding a suitable replacement, or letting Talleyrand do his thing then executing him later on due to his charges for corruption(which was true). His Iberian campaign was also a big blunder, as it didn't even need to happen. There was no real reason to invade Iberia, and simple diplomacy would fix the southern front. Napoleon failed to understand how staunchly Catholic the Spaniards were, nor did he understand how they didn't like being ruled by foreigners. No need to talk about the Russian campaign, tho one thing i would say about that is Napoleon failed to understand how Russians wages war, and how he failed to understand that capturing Moscow wouldn't force them to surrender. But these blunders, the Iberian and Russian wars, wouldn't have been possible if Napoleon wasn't obsessed with Nepotism. I don't think that deeming the rulers of those nations as incompetent is a blunder necessarily, but the real blunder was replacing or planning to replace those rulers with his own sibling or people related to him. I dunno, replacing incompetent rulers with even more incompetent rulers seems to be a bad idea to me. Continental system was also in hindsight a blunder, as containing the British with an embargo of goods from Europe sounds quite funny to me, when Britain had vast colonies and a strong navy to simply ignore those sanctions.
He also started relying more on numerical advantage rather than his own tactical brilliance in his later years, as shown in his Russian campaign. Basically, he failed to see how his actions would affect him, and hyperfocused on the fact that he can just use military force to fix his problems, which backfired on him. Not blaming him really, as i'm saying this with the foresight and knowledge not available to him. So in conclusion, Napoleon is great, but i personally won't be calling him great. I reserve it to Khosrau Anushirawan, Cyrus the great, Julius Caesar, and Augustus Caesar.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2021 4:11:55 GMT
But these blunders, the Iberian and Russian wars, wouldn't have been possible if Napoleon wasn't obsess with Nepotism. As an Indian, I confirm this. Nepotism in administration is bad 90% of the time. Personally, i find the idea that electing someone simply based on blood relations rather than how good someone is in governing can lead to quite disastrous consequences. More than a thousand years of hereditary monarchy shows that, and you'd be lucky to get someone who is both willing to lead and good at leading through nepotism. I know Napoleon did it to establish his own dynasty, and that kind of thinking is pervasive at the time, but it's a really flawed way of thinking that usually ends up with the collapse of an empire 3 generations down the road.
|
|