 |
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So what about Napoleon? He won and lost the lot too. |
There's a difference. Hitler waged a continuous losing war. Napoleon meanwhile faced what become known as 'the coalitions'. There were a total of seven from the Revolutionary period up to Waterloo. Napoleon defeated four of them, then lost the next three. But in those four that he won he established peace (only once though against Britain, that was in 1802 at the Peace of Amiens...after May, 1803 they were always at war), however temporary.....basically what I'm saying is: Napoleon could take time, breathe, and enjoy his lot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Regarding the number of pages devoted to each, I would suggest that part of the reason is that we have far more and better accounts of Napoleon than of Alexander. |
That doesn't explain, however, why modern military history wasn't covered to the detail that the Napoleonic Era was. In fact I read a startling fact in that book....during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods there were a total of 713 battles in Europe...in the three preceding centuries Europe had went through 2,100 battles...that is an amazing rate....Napoleon insured that even though he would ultimately be defeated (genius, after all, does have limits) his military revolution would be the greatest human history had ever seen.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UberCryxic
if you're looking at which conqueror spread civilization and ideas, then it'd be a strong contest between Alexander and Napoleon.
|
Hard call there - Alexander spread Hellenism throughout the Middle East and his influence is still felt to this day - Iskandar the horned one, the man who cut the Gordian knot etc. a hero in the West and a devil in the East.
quote:
If you're looking at the decisiveness of their battles/campaigns, then Napoleon is the greatest. |
I don't know how you can say that when Napoleon lost several campaigns - Russia, the Peninsula, Egypt and Waterloo - whereas Alexander won every campaign - Thracians, Greeks, Persians, central Asian tribes, Afghans and Indians.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
There's a difference. Hitler waged a continuous losing war.
|
Really? The Brits only voted to continue the war with Hitler rather than signing an armistice by one vote. Until the Japanese brought the Americans into the war, and he invaded Russia, Hitler won everything he sought.
quote:
Napoleon meanwhile faced what become known as 'the coalitions'.
|
France / Britain and Poland were one coalition, and he broke France, Poland and almost broke Britain.
All of the Little Entente, including Hungary and Romania promptly joined him after the defeat of Poland and Czechoslovakia.
It took the coalition of America, Britain and Russia to defeat Hitler, a coalition never faced by Napoleon.
quote:
Napoleon could take time, breathe, and enjoy his lot.
|
You have to look at the entirety of Hitler's rise to gage him accurately. Look at how he retook the Rhineland and the Saar. Look at how he dismembered Czechoslovakia. Look at how he dismembered Poland, and then France and Norway plus the Low countries.
Do you recall the term phony war after the surrender of France? Hitler had time to breathe between his conquests, right up until Barbarossa. Considering that he started in 1934, that gives him 7 years of consolidation, on par with Napoleon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Stop being a nit - yes, we know that - but after Philip's death the Greek city states revolted en masse and Alexander was forced to subdue them, which he did in a lightening campaign.
This was the first test of his leadership and generalship - and probably most importantly consolidated his kingship against pretenders.
One of Alexander's most remarkable qualities was his ability to sum up a situation and act decisively. Sounds easy but he makes the right decision in battle after battle and then acts quickly on his insights. The ability to quickly sum up and act separates great generals from the rest.
This is really what brings Darius undone. Alexander constantly wrong foots him even when Darius has got into a winning position. Future generals from Caesar through to Napoleon all studied his battles with admiration.
The fact that he was only in his late teens and early 20's during his most famous victories makes it all the more remarkable. He was probably helped greatly by his father's generals and his veteran army but at the end of the day it is Alexander who calls the shots.
Another legendary quality was his fearlessness in battle. He led the cavalry and it was the Macedonian shock cavalry that won the battles with hair raising charges into the mass of the enemy. |
If you're going to tell someone to stop being a nit, you might start with yourself. Let's set the record clear here: Napoleon didn't study Alexander for practical effect, but rather for inspiration. I'm a huge military history fan and I study all time periods, but I realize they have no use contemporarily. Great generals have studied and will study Napoleon....what does that prove? Nothing...at least with regards to our topic. As for age, this is a non-issue. A few have already mentioned Alexander's privileged status. Although at the time not comparable to Alexander's achievements, Napoleon did at age 24 drive the British out of Toulon.....10 British ships went on fire. At age 26 he started to repeatedly defeat an army larger than his and relatively stronger than the Persian army which faced Alexander. The Little Corporal went 13 years in independent command without losing one set-piece battle. Your characterizations of what make Alexander great are legitimate but don't help separate him from others. Napoleon also acted decisively and generally did everything you laud Alexander for. The key with these two relies in the relative strengths of the nations they faced. Persia was at the time a decrepit empire. Indeed, it had undergone rebellion which Xenophpon's Anabasis helped bring to the historical arena. It was not politically one, Darius being killed by one of his own satraps (Bessus, the satrap of Bactria). If you look at lineups for the battles, much of Darius's forces were foreigners....no I'm not being xenophobic, but it's generally well-known that foreigners fight poorly when placed under the command of a central and large army (this happened to Napoleon...happened to Hitler...happens to everyone really...one of the rare exceptions is the French Foreign Legion)...for example, take the Battle of Gaugamela. A Persian detachment under Mazaeus threatened to outflank Parmenio, the Macedonians duly responded but left a gap in their center-left which was exploited by some Persian and Indian cavalry....but instead of ENCIRCLING the Greek left the idiots charge for the Greek camp....more concerned with looting rather than winning the war. Also note how Alexander didn't have to respond much to nationalist outbursts, whereas Napoleon did. In fact, Napoleon was, weirdly enough, the founder of German nationalism (indirectly, not directly)....Alexander fought an empire which had many regions that felt they didn't belong to a central authority: Egypt welcomed him as a god! Cmon...I wish Napoleon would've gotten breaks like that...Napoleon > Alexander. Alexander's a genius, but Napoleon edges him out....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
...Napoleon rules all..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
and almost broke Britain
|
quote:
how he dismembered Poland
|
Actually, considering the Germans invasion plans for Sealion, it seems that it was never Hitlers intention to invade. Not nearly enough barges or troops deployed or trained. None of the "secret" invasion details were highly prioritised and many ended up in British hands by Sept. 1940. It just looked like a trick to put the shits up Britain.
Hitlers main aim was Russia, the non-aggression pact, the division of Poland, the Battle of Britain, seems like a period of delay and reconciliation, buying time from the Russians and crippling the British so the latter could do nothing while the Germans disected Russia in Barbarossa. Consider the battle of the Atlantic and the disproportionately large German effort to stop the Arctic supply convoys to Russia, baring in mind so little material was being sent from Britain to appease Stalin.
At least a successful Barbarossa was the plan. Britain, in terms of invasion, was never in any real danger until after a successful Barbarossa, I honestly think the Germans didn't expect the USA to come into the war, I suspect they were probably quite annoyed at the Japanese. It would have been in the Germans interest to be at peace with the USA until Russia, then Britain had fallen, after which the USA would likely have a problem dealing with the full force of Germany and Japan. Africa would have been Germany's for the taking*, India, China, the Pacific for the Japanese. I suspect the Germans would have landed in South America and marched North, while the Japanese would have invaded California from a captured Hawaii.
Canada would likely have been in disarray after the fall of Britain, the USA would have likely tried to reinforce it if a diversionary Japanese (or maybe even German from the East) had landed, weakening the USA proper.
After that, pretty much the whole world would have been divided between Japan and Germany, easily by 1960. All it would have taken would be a successful Barbarossa and the Japanese holding back the Pearl Harbour raid until it was convenient for the Germans.
I'll shut up now...
*Another possibility was Rommell & Co. crossing the Suez canal if he had beaten Montgomery to go through the Middle East and then up through the oil-rich Caucasses, possibly to rendezvous with the original Russian invasion force, and then march East to divide India and China between themselves and the Japanese. A four-pronged invasion of North America would make most sense. Up through South America, Japanese through California, Germans + Japanese through Alaska and probably Canada, maybe meeting up with a German invasion of Canada from Iceland along the Canadian east-coast to take Washington and New York.
Last edited by Whaleboy on 07-09-2004 at 06:32
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Hard call there - Alexander spread Hellenism throughout the Middle East and his influence is still felt to this day - Iskandar the horned one, the man who cut the Gordian knot etc. a hero in the West and a devil in the East.
I don't know how you can say that when Napoleon lost several campaigns - Russia, the Peninsula, Egypt and Waterloo - whereas Alexander won every campaign - Thracians, Greeks, Persians, central Asian tribes, Afghans and Indians. |
Over 70 nations today derive their laws from the Civil Code. Napoleon spread many of the Revolution's ideas throughout all of Europe. Feudalism was ecumenically abolished and the concept of equality was firmly entrenched into the human psyche (even if not always applied practically). Napoleon's effects were immense....virtually everything that happened in Europe in the 19th century can be traced back to the French Revolution (the founding of modern nationalism) and Napoleon. Now as for the campaigns....Napoleon personally commanded a majority of the time in 11 campaigns...he won 6 and lost 5. But you've now turned the argument into something baseless without considering the geostrategic situation...if you are actually comparing the Thracians, Persians, and Scythians to Russia, Britain, Austria, and Prussia then you are severely deluded (you say the "Egyptian" campaign like Napoleon lost to some Oriental forces...did you know he never lost a battle he commanded in that campaign? He won four battles). Alexander's opponents were comparatively weaker than Napoleon's...and even if they weren't, which there's no way you can argue but let's say one lost their mind and tried to argue it, they still lacked the political cohesion that finally brought Napoleon down.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UberCryxic
....virtually everything that happened in Europe in the 19th century can be traced back to the French Revolution (the founding of modern nationalism) and Napoleon.
|
No, sorry, stop right there.
That's a gross oversimplification of continental European history, ignoring the influence of the Philosophes, the Encyclopedists, English liberalism/constituional monarchy, the American Revolution, and homegrown republican sentiments, not to mention the division between Reformation and Counter Reformation Catholic European nations and Protestant European nations.
In the struggle against the Spanish in the Eighty Years' War, for instance, it would seem only too clear that a Dutch national identity was formed, based around those of the United Provinces with a majority Protestant/Calvinist population, leading to the cultural Golden Age of the 17th and early 18th centuries.
Modern nationalism is more properly found in the Treaty of Westphalia, where the principle of cuius regio, eius religio is explicitly promoted in the political settlement.
In fact, language and literature (especially religious literature, which would have been what most people were exposed to) was already shaping peoples into nations- from sources such as William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale's translations of the Bible into English, to Luther's German New Testament.
The English Puritans, for instance, saw themselves as the inheritors of the mantle of the Chosen People because of the way they read the Bible and used it to interpret their times.
Last edited by molly bloom on 07-09-2004 at 07:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Alexander had a similar influence with Hellenism but because that was so long ago it gets forgotten. It's also interesting that the Macedonians adopted local customs and dress so there was a cross fertilisation which even influenced the bible. |
Errr...... No, cross - fertilization is explicitly forbidden by Talmudic law, and you'd better shut up about it or you'll draw every conservative religious type around here at 'Poly down on your neck. We've had enough of these pointless long drawn out arguments about cross - fertilization and if you start one, I for one will not come to your aid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
I was looking for a list of members of the companion cavalry. It gives a very good idea of the profound influence because several dynasties of Kings resulted from that group. |
Ptolemy, Antigones, Seleucus, Lysimachus, etc?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Really? The Brits only voted to continue the war with Hitler rather than signing an armistice by one vote. Until the Japanese brought the Americans into the war, and he invaded Russia, Hitler won everything he sought.
France / Britain and Poland were one coalition, and he broke France, Poland and almost broke Britain.
All of the Little Entente, including Hungary and Romania promptly joined him after the defeat of Poland and Czechoslovakia.
It took the coalition of America, Britain and Russia to defeat Hitler, a coalition never faced by Napoleon.
You have to look at the entirety of Hitler's rise to gage him accurately. Look at how he retook the Rhineland and the Saar. Look at how he dismembered Czechoslovakia. Look at how he dismembered Poland, and then France and Norway plus the Low countries.
Do you recall the term phony war after the surrender of France? Hitler had time to breathe between his conquests, right up until Barbarossa. Considering that he started in 1934, that gives him 7 years of consolidation, on par with Napoleon. |
Wow there dude you badly misunderstood what I meant....the message was fairly simple: Hitler never outright put an end to the war. And he didn't. No need to get defensive or angry. Blitzkrieg owned everyone from September 1393 till it stalled at the gates of Moscow in December 1941 (and ironically enough, his succession of victories was the greatest since Napoleon from 1805 to 1807). But Hitler never outright gained permanent peace. Napoleon actually did. Furthermore, I'm sort of getting confused at what the intent of your post is....are you comparing Hitler to Napoleon??? First of all.....let me laugh........BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....ok....now to be serious: the French invasion of plan was actually suggested by Mainstein and adopted by Hitler at almost the last moment. As far as I'm aware Napoleon concocted the plans for the campaigns completely on his own. Thus he deserves a greater share of respect.
"It took the coalition of America, Britain and Russia to defeat Hitler, a coalition never faced by Napoleon." - this is a ridiculous point. Why? Because you're constructing it with the implication that America was always some sort of giant. We're talking 1814 here buddy.....Washington was getting burned at that time. The reason WHY Napoleon was defeated, besides the disastrous Russian campaign which weakened the ranks of the Grande Armee and produced no decisive victory, was the political cohesiveness of his enemies. They now finally realized they had to get rid of this guy. Comparably, Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia in 1813-1815 were stronger than the three you mentioned. So your point is first of all idiotic, and thus directly irrelevant....
"You have to look at the entirety of Hitler's rise to gage him accurately. Look at how he retook the Rhineland and the Saar. Look at how he dismembered Czechoslovakia. Look at how he dismembered Poland, and then France and Norway plus the Low countries." - Don't talk to me about "rising" when the subject is Napoleon....there is no man more meteoric in his rise than Napoleon....Hitler preyed on political misconceptions and fear to get to power, Napoleon meanwhile got to power through military victories......
"Do you recall the term phony war after the surrender of France? Hitler had time to breathe between his conquests, right up until Barbarossa. Considering that he started in 1934, that gives him 7 years of consolidation, on par with Napoleon." - gee boy you're running a danger in counting years without consideration for the geostrategic situation. Regardless, Napoleon served as the effective ruler of France for 15 years, Hitler as that of Germany for 12 (but again this point is also idiotic because it merits further analysis of political, economic, and the military strengths of both nations as opposed to the rest....there's lots and lots of factors).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-09-2004 05:45
Attachment: 
Attachment: 
|
