|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Aug 28, 2016 13:17:15 GMT
Wow 4-0 for Suvorov vs. Lannes
|
|
|
|
Post by Franz von Hipper on Aug 28, 2016 17:53:40 GMT
My vote goes to Napoleon and Barclay de Tolly, weirdly. For me, best commanders in each country: France: Napoleon Bonaparte. Destroyed the HRE and changed the way of warfare forever. Davout was pretty good, but Napoleon is emperor. Britain: Nelson. Lost Santa Cruz de Tenerife and the Boulogne Raid, but otherwise a very offensive and very good commander. Meanwhile Wellesley didn't attack that much and lost to Souham and Ney. Austria: The Archduke Charles. Style of war was conservative and geographic, but made Napoleom lose for the first time in Aspern-Essling due to choosing the right place.
Prussia: Blücher or Gneisenau. Marschall Vorwarts was the only person to beat Napoleon more than once and Waterloo was won because of his support. However he would have been nothing without Gneisenau.
Russia: Barclay de Tolly. Kutuzov was tactically better, but Kutuzov's conservatism. Did Scorched Earth and inflicted Napoleon's greatest defeat.
(Note: I didn't put Suvorov here since he died in 1800 and the Napoleonic Wars began in 1803)
That's just the major powers, will add more.
Why isn't Gneisenau even in the game? |
|
|
|
Post by Franz von Hipper on Aug 28, 2016 17:54:36 GMT
Wow 4-0 for Suvorov vs. Lannes We aint freaking starting this again |
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Aug 28, 2016 18:07:19 GMT
Suvorov is now 4, Lannes 1. Hoped that helped.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Aug 28, 2016 20:58:02 GMT
Consider this a pre-intervention Mountbatten, Quintus Fabius. Do not fuel the Lannes vs. Suvorov debate. I don't need extra salt |
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 28, 2016 21:05:07 GMT
If there was no Napokeon there woulsnt have been the Napokeonic Wars anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Aug 28, 2016 22:01:31 GMT
Consider this a pre-intervention Mountbatten, Quintus Fabius. Do not fuel the Lannes vs. Suvorov debate. I don't need extra salt I wasn't starting a debate. It would be ironic if somebody was here |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Aug 28, 2016 22:21:16 GMT
Consider this a pre-intervention Mountbatten, Quintus Fabius. Do not fuel the Lannes vs. Suvorov debate. I don't need extra salt I wasn't starting a debate. It would be ironic if somebody was here Indeed it would LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Franz von Hipper on Aug 29, 2016 2:13:54 GMT
If there was no Napokeon there woulsnt have been the Napokeonic Wars anyone? While Napoleon was massively talented and important, he also had a mostly incredible staff in all of the important area except the navy (excluding myself). So while he was great, his subordinates were also mostly great. |
|
|
|
Post by Suvorov on Sept 3, 2016 14:35:23 GMT
If there was no Napokeon there woulsnt have been the Napokeonic Wars anyone? While Napoleon was massively talented and important, he also had a mostly incredible staff in all of the important area except the navy (excluding myself). So while he was great, his subordinates were also mostly great. His subordinates were great if Napoleon was around. His corps commanders performed very poorly (except for St.Cyr and Davout) in the Russian campaign due to the enormous distances between Napoleon and his other corpses. Coordination was therefore very tricky, especially when considering that messengers were often captured by angry peasants. However, a year later in France, when distance were much smaller, Napoleon and his subordinates performed very well against the much bigger forces of the Austrians, Prussians led by Franz von Hipper , and the Russians. Napoleon was in this perspective very important for strategic successes. Nevertheless, I voted for Davout, since he did not have Napoleon's flaws, was all-round exceptionally good and had quite some interesting perspectives that could have changed the course of the Napoleonic Wars. For example, he warned Napoleon not to choose GROUCHY in the Waterloo campaign, suggested an ambitious blitzkrieg-like maneuver around the magnificent Russian defence system at Borodino that looked like an early equivalent of the German maneuver around the Maginot Line and he saved the day at Austerlitz (which prevented Napoleons right flank from collapsing, which would make the French situation at the battlefield very dangerous). I also voted for Suvorov (surprise!). Strategical insight, tactical brilliance and a keen eye for offensive and defensive maneuvers. Though he did not participate in the Napoleonic Wars he remains the Beast from the East! |
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Sept 3, 2016 14:37:20 GMT
While Napoleon was massively talented and important, he also had a mostly incredible staff in all of the important area except the navy (excluding myself). So while he was great, his subordinates were also mostly great. His subordinates were great if Napoleon was around. His corps commanders performed very poorly (except for St.Cyr and Davout) in the Russian campaign due to the enormous distances between Napoleon and his other corpses. Coordination was therefore very tricky, especially when considering that messengers were often captured by angry peasants. However, a year later in France, when distance were much smaller, Napoleon and his subordinates performed very well against the much bigger forces of the Austrians, Prussians led by Franz von Hipper , and the Russians. Napoleon was in this perspective very important for strategic successes. Nevertheless, I voted for Davout, since he did not have Napoleon's flaws, was all-round exceptionally good and had quite some interesting perspectives that could have changed the course of the Napoleonic Wars. For example, he warned Napoleon not to choose GROUCHY in the Waterloo campaign, suggested an ambitious blitzkrieg-like maneuver around the magnificent Russian defence system at Borodino that looked like an early equivalent of the German maneuver around the Maginot Line and he saved the day at Austerlitz (which prevented Napoleons right flank from collapsing, which would make the French situation at the battlefield very dangerous). I also voted for Suvorov (surprise!). Strategical insight, tactical brilliance and a keen eye for offensive and defensive maneuvers. Though he did not participate in the Napoleonic Wars he remains the Beast from the East! , you're back! |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Sept 3, 2016 17:33:13 GMT
If there was no Napokeon there woulsnt have been the Napokeonic Wars anyone? Napokeon? Is that some exotic Pokemon you can only catch at Waterloo? |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Sept 3, 2016 17:45:04 GMT
If there was no Napokeon there woulsnt have been the Napokeonic Wars anyone? Napokeon? Is that some exotic Pokemon you can only catch at Waterloo? yeap, only available at the Waterloo gyms  |
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Sept 3, 2016 18:12:32 GMT
Napokeon? Is that some exotic Pokemon you can only catch at Waterloo? yeap, only available at the Waterloo gyms Nelson is better, but he's hard to catch; you have to go out into the middle of the ocean or climb a column... You can also catch Wellesley at waterloo if you're lucky. |
|
