Napoleon in Egypt

May 2018
113
Bordeaux
#11
Main hero of this battle of course Ahmet pasha,not ******* Nelson.
İf napoleon not stopped in Acre he continued his campaign until fall of Constantinopolis.
So Napoelon didn't care his navy,main reason his defeat strong defense in Acre
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,056
#12
Main hero of this battle of course Ahmet pasha,not ******* Nelson.
İf napoleon not stopped in Acre he continued his campaign until fall of Constantinopolis.
So Napoelon didn't care his navy,main reason his defeat strong defense in Acre
That's a laugh. It's a long way to walk without any supply train. His force would have been whittled away to two man and a dog,,
 
Likes: Gvelion
Feb 2019
602
Serbia
#14
Main hero of this battle of course Ahmet pasha,not ******* Nelson.
İf napoleon not stopped in Acre he continued his campaign until fall of Constantinopolis.
So Napoelon didn't care his navy,main reason his defeat strong defense in Acre
Of course Nelson isn't the Hero of Acre, he didn't even fight in it. The one who did though was Sydney Smith, I think it would be unfair to completely push him aside, his supplies and support coming to Acre from the sea played no small part in the victory and boosted Ottoman morale by quite a bit.

So, taking Acre would magically make his supply shortages and numerical inferiority go away, so much so that he would get to Constantinople? Right.... I would imagine that attrition alone would kill him and he couldn't really get past Syria if he tried.
 
Likes: Gvelion

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,837
Republika Srpska
#15
And even if by some miracle he reached Istanbul, he would most likely not be able to take it. Constantinople was kinda known for being impossible to conquer.
 
Mar 2016
1,106
Australia
#16
Constantinople was kinda known for being impossible to conquer.
It was taken twice by foreign enemies, once in 1203 and later in 1453. But yes, Napoleon certainly would not have been able to take it with his very meagre forces and complete lack of naval presence (which was essential in both 1203 and 1453 to taking the city).
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,837
Republika Srpska
#18
It was taken twice by foreign enemies, once in 1203 and later in 1453. But yes, Napoleon certainly would not have been able to take it with his very meagre forces and complete lack of naval presence (which was essential in both 1203 and 1453 to taking the city).
Eh, by 1453 the Byzantine Empire was nothing more that a dilapidated city-state vastly outnumbered by the Ottomans. Napoleon wouldn't have faced such favourable odds.
 
Sep 2016
1,117
Georgia
#19
It was taken twice by foreign enemies, once in 1203 and later in 1453. But yes, Napoleon certainly would not have been able to take it with his very meagre forces and complete lack of naval presence (which was essential in both 1203 and 1453 to taking the city).
There was a siege in 1203, but Crusaders really took the city only in 1204 during the second siege.
 
Mar 2016
1,106
Australia
#20
Eh, by 1453 the Byzantine Empire was nothing more that a dilapidated city-state vastly outnumbered by the Ottomans. Napoleon wouldn't have faced such favourable odds.
The Byzantines and their Italian allies still put up a hell of a fight, though. The city's legendary defenses still gave the Ottomans a lot of trouble. It was a stroke of luck that the Turks managed to enter the city how they did.