Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 21st, 2016, 11:33 PM   #41
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,078

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boz View Post
Again Pugs, conjecture. References please.
for what? what claim a I making that your would like a reference for? icanlook things up but it does take time.

judging tactical ability is going toe 100% conjecture.
pugsville is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 21st, 2016, 11:37 PM   #42
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,078

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boz View Post
Pugs, Are you really just focusing on semantics? Austerlitz led directly to the treaty of Pressburg.
with Ulm the Austrians have another 60,000 men. twice what the lost at Austerlitz. perhaps they win Austerlitz with another 60,000 men. to say single battle of Austerlitz knocked Austria out of the war is NOT correct,
pugsville is offline  
Old July 21st, 2016, 11:37 PM   #43
Lecturer
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: France
Posts: 347

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Napoleon misjudged the allies intentions before Lutzen, failed to delegate effectively regarding Berlin, filed to effectively choose a real strategy rather than jus react to the allies,failed to withdraw the garrison of Dresden,(Saint Cyr and 40,000 could of been dammed handy the 1st day of Leipzig). failed to pursue effectively after Dresden, hang Angereau's Coprs out dry after Dresden. failing to prepare or actually withdraw after the first day at Leipzig turning a defeat into massive one.
French cruelly lacked cavalery after the russian campaign. The main reason why Napoleon couldn't pursue effectively his opponents (after the victory of Lutzen) or why he was only reacting was this lack of cavalery. The cavalery was in charge of scouting and pursuing.
Still he won nearly all his battles in 1813, and he prooved in 1814 being superior to all his opponents.

Just to say, Leipzig battle: 195 000 vs 330 000, losses: 38 000 vs 54 000. Napoleon could retreat, and the allies were not able to pursue him.
Not that bad.
Elric is offline  
Old July 21st, 2016, 11:42 PM   #44
Boz
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: Australia
Posts: 99

Ok, Pugs your just talking conjecture.

You have no point of view on the original question and are trolling other posts.

Say what you like from here. Your opinion is yours and yours alone as far as I'm concerned. Your just arguing for arguments sake.

Thanks everyone who has contributed so far. I'll list the nominees and votes counted so far next post.
Boz is offline  
Old July 21st, 2016, 11:44 PM   #45

Pyrrhos The Eagle's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: New Jersey
Posts: 3,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boz View Post
Sorry Pyrrhos, missed your great posts there. This seems to be coming down to the usual big three. Alexander, Hannibal, Napoleon.

Your points on Hannibal are bang on and personally starting to turn my vote from Napoleon. The fact that Hannibal was facing 'the' power of the day is pivotal. I do wonder what would have happened if he had tried for limited victory and missed the nightmare that was southern italy and the scorched earth policy (the fabian strategy). Further his tactics were both brilliant and fluid on the whole, his command of men perfect for the time. His grand strategy may have been doomed from the start considering the political strength in Carthage. But what a General
I think the destruction part is a common myth about Hannibal. He was actually trying for a limited victory, he wasn't seeking to destroy Rome entirely. We can see from his treaty of alliance with Phillip V of Macedon that he expected Rome to be around after the war "(6) As soon as the gods have given us the victory in the war against the Romans and their allies, if the Romans ask us to come to terms of peace, we will make such a peace as will comprise you too, and on the following conditions: that the Romans may never make war upon you; that the Romans shall no longer be masters of Corcyra, Apollonia, Epidamnus, Pharos, Dimale, Parthini, or Atitania: 14 and that they shall return to Demetrius of Pharos all his friends who are in the dominions of Rome. (7) If ever the Romans make war on you or on us, we will help each other in the war as may be required on either side" (Polybius. 7. 12-16). As you can see both parties expected Rome to be around after the war.

Hannibal sought terms in the aftermath of Cannae. This would have included independence for Southern Italy, but not the complete submission of Rome. Both sides, like in the first war, generally knew that the conflict would be ended by terms, not by the destruction of one side or the other. You can see this even when the Romans were in Africa during both of the first two wars.

I don't believe there was much issue with support for the war in Carthage. There was the opposition of Hanno there, but Carthage made no attempt to distance itself from Hannibal prior to the war when asked by the Romans to turn him over. Much is made of Hannibal not getting much in the way of reinforcements, but the Carthaginians did attempt to reinforce him numerous times. They also carried on the fight on other fronts.

Quote:
Pugs, Are you really just focusing on semantics? Austerlitz led directly to the treaty of Pressburg.
Yes, this was the decisive engagement. To be fair, Ulm shouldn't be ignored in favor of Austerlitz, other stuff did happen prior to that decisive battle, but I feel the original point was still correct since Ulm was not a typical battle, these other campaigns were smaller and of lesser importance and many of the other engagements were skirmishes.
Pyrrhos The Eagle is offline  
Old July 21st, 2016, 11:53 PM   #46

Pyrrhos The Eagle's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: New Jersey
Posts: 3,075

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
this is agreeing with my point. Austerlitz alone would not have won the campaign. 36,000 losses not all of them Austrian. the Austrian field armies were over 200,00 men. the losses at Ulm were much greater. twice as many. without the losses at Ulm, Austria could have easily absorbed a defeat like Austerlitz.
In addition to what I said previously, I think you're taking his point to the extreme. It was not intended to say nothing else happened.
Pyrrhos The Eagle is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2016, 12:11 AM   #47
Boz
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: Australia
Posts: 99

Thanks Pyrrhos, perfect reply. As a leyman on history its posts like these that will help me to learn. Most of my knowledge of Hannibal is high school level gleaned from documentaries. I knew he went to Macedonia but didnt know about the treaty, great resource to look into.

Your right, Ulm shouldnt be ignored and led to the decisive victory at Austerlitz, however the battle of austerlitz itself was a tactical mastetstroke and a victory where there should have been defeat.

Pugs has made some ludicrous claims about the tatics in the centre, then flip flopped on the point. Then just semantically pulled apart everyone who has posted with little but conjecture and refused to have any input, clearly concerned others will treat his opinion as he has treated theirs. As such I'm giving his further input the respect it deserves. Its a shame, he has good information.
Boz is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2016, 12:30 AM   #48
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,078

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elric View Post
French cruelly lacked cavalery after the russian campaign. The main reason why Napoleon couldn't pursue effectively his opponents (after the victory of Lutzen) or why he was only reacting was this lack of cavalery. The cavalery was in charge of scouting and pursuing.
Still he won nearly all his battles in 1813, and he prooved in 1814 being superior to all his opponents.

Just to say, Leipzig battle: 195 000 vs 330 000, losses: 38 000 vs 54 000. Napoleon could retreat, and the allies were not able to pursue him.
Not that bad.
the allies detached a great deal of their light cavalry to operate in raids and deep operations that did have a great effect and disrupt the french. however this reduced their cavalry available on the field. have you got any figures to show that the allies actually outnumbered the french in cavalry at lutzen or bautzen ?

lutzen and bautzen Napoleon outnumbered the allies 2:1 suffered twice as many losses and the allies got away clean. they were not good performances and very marginal victories and tactical defeats in real terms.

napoleon only won significantly at dresden in 1813 and he mismanaged the aftermath, the allies retreated separately over really bad roads, it was a magnificent chance to inflict a serious loss, napoleon missed it, hung Angereau's corps out so it was destroyed, and left Saint Cyr's force in garrison, these losses far out weighing any success onto battlefield.

at Leipzig napoleon had parity of forces on the first day and failed to exploit another Schwartenberg deployment stuff up (without Alexander interfering the Russian reserves could have been too far away and Napoleon could have won, making up for alexander been sucked in at Bautzen where his interference gave Napoleon a shot)

Napoleon had a great deal of trouble retreating an there was a pursuit and Napoleons losses were at least 100,000 see petrie "napoleon's last campaign in Germany" page 382 for a good discussion on the figures about respective losses.

I am NOT trolling , Iam correctly what I see as inaccuracies.
pugsville is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2016, 12:32 AM   #49
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,078

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boz View Post
T
Pugs has made some ludicrous claims about the tatics in the centre, then flip flopped on the point.
what lubricous claim or flip flop. i do not believe I have. please support your statements and quote the relevant posts.


just because I do not agree with everyone else about napoleon does not mean I am trolling. I do have arguments to support my piont of view.
pugsville is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2016, 12:39 AM   #50
Boz
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2016
From: Australia
Posts: 99

Ok, the poll so far.

Boz - Napoleon, Vo Nguyen Giap, Hannibal, David IV of Georgia, Leslie Morshead.
Phil - Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar
Aaron - Wellington, Heinz Guderian
Prince of Orange - Alexander
Scaeva - Hannibal
Mouselord - Napoleon (artillery only)
So far its hannibal with 3, Alexander 2, Napoleon...1 and a half? Wellington, Caesar, Leslie Morshead, vo nguyen giap, Heinz Guderian, David IV of Georgia all have 1.

Honorable mentions to Shwartskopf and Powell.
Boz is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
hate, love, napoleon, tactician



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Origin of hate is love Fenestella Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 22 April 19th, 2016 03:42 PM
Are we more prone to love or hate? Robespierre Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 55 April 19th, 2016 03:38 PM
Britain and France The History of a Love-Hate Relationship CathareHeretic European History 73 June 24th, 2014 09:00 PM
Do you love history? Do you hate history? Uncle History General History 0 March 19th, 2011 10:55 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.