Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 2nd, 2017, 09:19 PM   #21

Junius's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: India
Posts: 258
Blog Entries: 3

Suvorov fought 60ish too- not that I'm comparing him to Boney.

Boney was the greatest general of the last 500 years at least (except for maybe Frederick the Great). Blücher was at best mediocre, so there's no comparison between the two. Boney also fought a lot harder and against a huge Coalition during that time. We make that argument for Boney because it is sound.
Junius is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 2nd, 2017, 09:42 PM   #22

TotalAaron's Avatar
The Greatest warrior
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Australia
Posts: 3,478
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Napoleon's health problems were self inflicted. He liked keeping a good table. (hardly on his own in these regard in tis period)

Why is that when Napoleon loses there always an excuse. Blucher had a stroke (unfortunately when he had Napoleon on toast in 1814), was occasionally quite insane, was a very old man, Still leads a cavalry charge Ligny.
Oh Blucher i love how nuts he was!
TotalAaron is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2017, 01:39 AM   #23
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,686

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junius View Post
Suvorov fought 60ish too- not that I'm comparing him to Boney.

Boney was the greatest general of the last 500 years at least (except for maybe Frederick the Great). Blücher was at best mediocre, so there's no comparison between the two. Boney also fought a lot harder and against a huge Coalition during that time. We make that argument for Boney because it is sound.
Napoleon oversaw arguably the greatest military disaster of all time. the Russian campaign of 1812. For a Great general he made some huge huge mistakes. He had a good record when things flavoured him. a poor record when things did not. He is massively overrated by many.
pugsville is online now  
Old January 3rd, 2017, 01:53 AM   #24

Foundry's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: India
Posts: 131

Quote:
Originally Posted by markdienekes View Post
Hannibal fought about thirty, so he isnt close, but Caesar I read around fifty odd.
Fifty?
I count 18 for caesar and 26 hannibal.
Foundry is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2017, 01:59 AM   #25

Foundry's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: India
Posts: 131

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Napoleon oversaw arguably the greatest military disaster of all time. the Russian campaign of 1812. For a Great general he made some huge huge mistakes. He had a good record when things flavoured him. a poor record when things did not. He is massively overrated by many.
He was defeated more by nature than the enemy in russia.Its not like anyone else ever managed to conquer a unified russian power in history.The wehrmacht,one of the greatest war machines in history with railroad, motor , airpower,electronic communications and modern medicine couldn't do it.Napoleon took moscow and made it out despite a disastrous campaign overall.If napoleon is overrated there can be no commander in history who can be rated at all,because he is infact the first modern military commander.Of all the great commanders he faced the greatest collection of enemies.What people ignore is napoleon could never use the methods that genghis or caesar or alexander used - defeat ur enemy then complete conquest and commit systematic genocide to destroy their strength forever,napoelon could never resort to such means ..so eventually they were bound to learn and find an oppurtunity where their combined strength could overwhelm him.The russian disaster for france afforded that oppurtunity.
Foundry is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2017, 02:16 AM   #26

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 17,486
Blog Entries: 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Napoleon oversaw arguably the greatest military disaster of all time. the Russian campaign of 1812. For a Great general he made some huge huge mistakes. He had a good record when things flavoured him. a poor record when things did not. He is massively overrated by many.
The Russian Campaign was a geopolitical mistake. Once the decision was taken ... the military disaster was unavoidable, also for Napoleon. An impressive general, not a great statesman.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2017, 02:41 AM   #27

Junius's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: India
Posts: 258
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
The Russian Campaign was a geopolitical mistake. Once the decision was taken ... the military disaster was unavoidable, also for Napoleon. An impressive general, not a great statesman.

The alternative was allowing to British to trade with Russia, opening up a huge gap in the Continental System. This would have proved catastrophic to Boney eventually- war was the only option. Besides, you can't blame Boney for invading Russia before it was suicidal. It wasn't a foolish assumption that the Russians would eventually resort to an all-or-nothing battle- both the Prussians and the Austrians had done the same.
Junius is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2017, 02:56 AM   #28

johnincornwall's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Cornwall
Posts: 5,343

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foundry View Post
He was defeated more by nature than the enemy in russia.Its not like anyone else ever managed to conquer a unified russian power in history.The wehrmacht,one of the greatest war machines in history with railroad, motor , airpower,electronic communications and modern medicine couldn't do it.Napoleon took moscow and made it out despite a disastrous campaign overall.If napoleon is overrated there can be no commander in history who can be rated at all,because he is infact the first modern military commander.Of all the great commanders he faced the greatest collection of enemies.What people ignore is napoleon could never use the methods that genghis or caesar or alexander used - defeat ur enemy then complete conquest and commit systematic genocide to destroy their strength forever,napoelon could never resort to such means ..so eventually they were bound to learn and find an oppurtunity where their combined strength could overwhelm him.The russian disaster for france afforded that oppurtunity.
Yes but you are supposed to take all that into account aren't you? He even had the book of Charles X's disaster in Russia with him and then repeated it. He assumed that the Russian army would give battle, be defeated and that would 'win the war'. He made fantastic administration for the supply lines which all went out the window as soon as the tracks got muddy, worse still when frozen. The horses ran out of fodder very early on and many perished eating unripe corn. The last straw is hanging around for 6 weeks in Moscow, which completed the disaster.

No. it's not the weather's fault, it's the planning - including trying to achieve what is not possible. I tend to agree with Pugsville on this - he oversaw, no created, the biggest military disaster of all time. Possibly only matched by Hitler's decision to repeat the stupidity.
johnincornwall is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2017, 03:17 AM   #29

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 17,486
Blog Entries: 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junius View Post
The alternative was allowing to British to trade with Russia, opening up a huge gap in the Continental System. This would have proved catastrophic to Boney eventually- war was the only option. Besides, you can't blame Boney for invading Russia before it was suicidal. It wasn't a foolish assumption that the Russians would eventually resort to an all-or-nothing battle- both the Prussians and the Austrians had done the same.
He made the choice to be aggressive and expansive. A different general strategy, more balanced may be [may be] would have ensured to his France a less imperial, but more lasting existence. Already in Napoleon's age to conquer all Europe and keep it was impossible. But probably about this he was a man of his time, while Hitler, to make a comparison, remained a man of 19th century.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old January 3rd, 2017, 03:24 AM   #30
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Slovenia
Posts: 1,912

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foundry View Post
Fifty?
I count 18 for caesar and 26 hannibal.
What are your sources? I don't mean only you but also others who give strict numbers.

I believe that nobody really knows what exactly was Hannibal doing in Iberia and Caesar in Gaul while all Boney's encounters are doccumented to a mule and a cannon on a field.
macon is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
battles, close, fought, napoelon, pitched, terms



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Battles fought between 3 or more parties Darth Raidius War and Military History 32 January 12th, 2017 01:34 AM
before guns how many battles would be fought hand to hand mangatd War and Military History 23 September 5th, 2014 07:13 AM
General who won the most pitched battles? christos200 War and Military History 7 September 5th, 2013 08:01 AM
The importance of pitched battles Darth Roach War and Military History 11 December 27th, 2012 08:11 PM
How were night battles fought HistoryFreak1912 General History 10 February 14th, 2011 04:47 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.