Ant
-
Posts
404 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ant
-
-
Pure speculation. Nothing that I have read of Napoleon suggests he had an active disliking of the French in his adulthood. He was certainly an early advocate of Corsican independance and as a boy viewed the French as oppressors, but he was also an ardent Jacobin after the revolution, and admired the French people for having done away with their pampered aristocracy. Historians have provided ample evidence for both sides of the argument and it's by no means a foregone conclusion. Certainly I'm aware of nothing that he said or wrote in his adult life that betrayed a dislike for the French people.Regarding his using France for personal glory, yes he was different from other leaders. Unlike Caeser for example, he had an active dislike of the French that was developed as a boy, and grew during early adulthood. I doubt he ever got over it.
And precisely which battles did his marshalls win for him despite his mistakes?On battles. Italian campaign, well done. Austerlitz, briliant militarily, suicidalpolitically. The rest, well... some battles his marshalls won in spite of mistakes by Nappy
himself, others were disasters. Also, his stratigic decision making was lacking (Russia,
Egypt, Santo Domingo, sale of Louisiana). He also had little concept of proper utilization of sea power.
It's certainly true that he made some mistakes and had his faults, who hasn't? he was only human. And as for sea power he was certainly aware of it's broader implications but remained ignorant at the technical level, and he was badly let down by the innefectual Villeneuve.
The huge difference is that Hitler came to power in a Europe that was at peace. Thanks to the carnage of WW1 the vast majority of European politicians were pacifistic in nature and thus Europe would most likely have continued to have peace, until Hitler dragged it into another war. Napoleon came to power in a Europe that was already embroiled in war and that most likely would have been the case had he not came to power. Other than throwing his hands up and saying "OK, we surrender unconditionally" it's difficult to see how Napoleon could have extracted himself from his early wars.Napoleon's career started in the royal army, and got a boost in the revolutionaryarmy of France, which were both expansionst. Now you tell me the neighborhood in which you grow up does not affect you? The man Napoleon does not start as Emperor of France, there is a history for his person. This history is intertwined with the society around him. Hitler was not repsonsible for WWI - but WWI was responsible for Hitler and his career and as such influenced him and the people who followed him.
France did not attack Russia because they traded with Britain. France attacked russia because Russia broke the terms of a peace treaty, which happened to be the ban of trade with Britain. To use your modern Iraq metaphor: The US attacked iraq because it claimed Iraq broke the terms of the 1991 peace agreement regarding WOMD. attacking a country because it breaks a peace treaty is perfectly legitimate under international law. Peace treaties and international agreements are totally different things, and therefore France had a perfect right to go to war with Russia. If you disagree with that then you're also saying that it was illegal for the US to go to war with Iraq.Well, the breaking of a treaty by trading is really a good reason for war (1812).Is it legal to attack any country which delivered things to Iraq? After all they broke an international agreement. Today this is a very doubtful position. And I doubt the US (or UN)
is going to attack France or Russia.
Which moral values are those? Morals of a society that bearly even knows what happened during WW2 60 years ago let alone a conflict nearly 200 years ago. A society that generally knows nothing of history unless it happens to be the latest offering from Hollywood. I've read many books about Napoleon and opinion is very divided amongst those that actually know what happened so I don't think your statement is correct.Moral values of today see Napoleon as aggresivemen dictator (who mostly fought other aggressive dictators, but that's another question)
This is where things tend to get cloudy. Acts and events that were considered acceptable in the past might not be so today, and vice versa. Do we view Napoleon through today's eyes or yesterday's. Both could be argued valid and both could draw different conclusions. It could well be argued that the French revolution was the dividing line between the past and the present (eg. is a nation it's people or it's king?) Your insistance on viewing this through the viewpoint of the allies would certainly, and obviously, swing the argument in their favour.Ok, let's judge by moral values of the past:
I, and the French people of the time, could argue that killing your king is a purely internal affair and is none of the business of other nations. Heck, we killed our king way before the French did in 1649, did that give every other nation the right to declare war on us? I would argue not. Furthermore the idea that the French were the agressors by wanting to spread revolutionary ideas is also putting the cart before the horse. In the early days of the revolution they were only interested in what was going on in France. It was the European monarchies that started the fear of the spread of revolution. I would say that they started the agression with the declaration of Pillnitz in Aug. 1791 which pledged that Prussia and Austria would restore the monachy. It wasn't until this agressive declaration that Robespierre saw the opportunity of spreading the revolution through war. In effect the fear of the spread of revolution had, for the European monarchies, become a self fullfilling prophesy through their own actions.France had slain its king and wanted to spread its revolutionary ideas. Clearly a reason for war. Attacker = France, as it committed the first "hostile acts" (just revolting, killing king) and had (small) troops cross borders.The easy alternative Attacker = the allies as the big battles were fought inside France. Subsequent wars are guilt of the first attacker, until the matter is finaly settled.
There is an enormous difference between forming a defensive alliance (eg NATO) and a hostileAn approach regarding only 1804ff: Which hostile acts were committed by Austria and Russia besides forming that alliance (including Sweden and Britain)? Until then, France had considerably expanded its territory. It had a really huge army with huge potential. Would it stop? When in doubt, search for allies! If just forming an alliance is an excuse for war - well, great. Just consider how many wars were justified then.coalition who's very aim is aggressive in intent. This alliance drew up very specific plans for the invasion of France and made preparations to carry them out which, unfortunately for them, Napoleon was made aware of this by Talleyrand. If drawing up specific invasion plans and preparing to put those plans into effect are not considered aggressive then I don't know what is.
Prussia certainly was informed, there was pressure brought to bear on her to join but all Prussia would do was dither. Prussia had been humiliated in the revolutionary wars and was in the process of rebuilding her military. Despite rigorous allied approaches she would not firmly commit to the coalition. Prussia finally made up her mind a little belatedly in 1806 resulting in a drubbing at Jena.If the allies wanted to attack: Why not inform the king of Prussia, increase the pressure on him and try to get him as an ally ASAP instead of using him as an envoy? Another 50000 men could have changed the outcome of Austerlitz.Conclusion:To me, any action taken by the Allies in 1804ff is a result to the huge threat of Napoleon and his aggressive actions.
And I could argue that Napoleon's actions were in response to aggressive actions against France.
Was it a real threat or an imagined one? Was it a threat to the people of Pustria/Prussia/Russia or their pampered and self indulgent monarchs who viewed their own people as little more than slaves and wished to save their own priviledges?Any action taken by the allies from 1789 to 1803 is a reaction to the French revolution,which was a threat to them (Expansionist speeches of revolutionaries, killing of nobility).
I agree. Historians have been going round in circles like this for two centuries and we're certainly not going to get to a conclusion on this board.But as stated earier, this really is like the hen and the egg. Did the allied dictators become aggressive because the French dictator (and his predecessors as rulers of France) were aggresive, or vice cersa?
My conclusion on this is, as we've both pointed out, there is a considerable argument as to wether Napoleon was good or bad, we can argue in circles all week. There is no such argument about Hitler. Even in two hundred years time he will still be regarded as a monster of history, other than neo-nazis nobody will defend him. There are still may historians and knowledgeable people who will defend Napoleon's place in history. This is why a comparison between the two men ultimately falls flat.Judging who of these rulers was better is a tough question.It is clear that none of them is "good" or "just" in todays standards and they easily qualify as dictators.
-
There is certainly a lot of truth in that, but that could also be said of many leaders and Kings throughout the ages. Julius Ceaser was every bit as personally driven and ambitious. On a much smaller scale your boss at work may even think in the same manner in order to get where he wants to be. Does this necessarily make them evil, or comparable to Hitler? I don't think so.No, his purpose was to serve the interests of Napoleon, and he seemed to view France much as he did his soldiers - as tools to get what he wanted.He was an amoral butcher who had some initial military success, but was ultimatly brought down by better military minds.And what facts would you use to back up that statement?
-
No problem, but I don't actually need to go to a library as I've got a few bookshelves here at home creaking under the weight of books about the Napoleonic periodThanks Ant!!Very good!! nice to see some people actually spend some time in library
-
Can you name me a military commander who didn't sacrifice his soldiers in battle? Any general who is so concerned about the safety of his troops during a battle that he hesitates to put them in harms way is both an innefectual leader and, ironically, usually ends up suffering more casualties than an aggressive and decisive leader. Napoleon certainly believed that the average soldier was merely a tool to be used but there is little evidence to suggest that he was any more ruthless than any other commander. Would you sacrifice the fate of an entire nation for the lives of a few thousand men? Napoleons troops were extremely loyal to him. Does that sound like a ruthless uncaring leader to you?He was not much better... He did neither care for his soldiers but sacrificed them ruthless in battles
Why should he? His purpose was to serve the interests of France, not every little duchy and pricipality in Europe. Particularly when those countries were France's enemies. And anyway, it's not as if he decided to create ghettos or set up concentration camps is it?nor did he care for the countries he occupied.
Yes. You missed the fact that this discussion was about Napoleon, not revolutionary France. The fate of France and Napoleon were not intertwined until he became Emperor, it is not relevant to hold the actions of the French nation against him until that point. It's like blaming Hitler for the first world war!Did I miss something?From the 17th Century on, France was waging war to claim German territory whenever it could.Often these expansionist plans were not only to expand the territory, but to distract from internal problems (classic approach: If there is an internal crises, wage war with somebody outside and unite all behind the leader).
That same was true after the Revolution. Sure, the other monarchs sent some help to the Bourbons. But the French revolutionary armies stood at the Rhine, which was (and is) no part of France, but IIRC it was Robespierre who - just like the beheaded King Louis XIV (or somfink) -claimed the Palatinate and the "natural" Rhine border for France. Not a really defensive attitude. So you get the hen and egg problem: Did the other monarchs intervene just to protect the status quo, to help the (already dead) French King - or to claim territory? After the congress at Vienna it was pretty clear: Loss of French territory - nil
Totally irrelevant to the discussion of the man Napoleon as explained above.
It may be more relevant to ask, had France any chance of attacking Russia in 1804, when Russia and Austria signed a mutual pact against France. Hostilities were begun by those two countries following the 1805 conference of St. Petersburg. The whole raison d'etre of this alliance was an aggresive war against France. Napoleon reacted to this aggression by defeating the combined armies of Austria and Russia at Austerlitz. An agressive and defeated Russia herself agreed to abide by the continental trading system in the Tilsit peace accord. Napoleon's attack on Russia in 1812 was because the Tsar had broken this peace agreement by trading with Britain. Napoleon was, therefore, perfectly within rights to wage war against Russia because of this.Had Russia any chance of attacking France? Any chance without General Winter? Or was Russia attacked because Russia ignored someones wish to stop trading with the UK and was along with the UK a continuous threat to the political system Napoleon introdocued all over Europe (ie family members or loyal followers as rulers in foreign countries). -
I think you need to revisit your napoleonic histories. Those figures are way too low. Certainly at the beginning of the Napoleonic wars that figure would be about correct but army numbers gradually and steadily grew throughout that period until 1812 when Napoleon massed 600,000 troops for the campaign against Russia.It's a case of supplying armies & corps of 30-100,000 men, not quarters of millions! -
I would be glad to post them up on my site Ant. I have the room.Originally posted by Zimorodok:Mr Noobie. I don't know if you'd be interested but I was in Moscow in January and I visited the museum of the great patriotic war, anyway I took quite a few pics of the Dioramas there with my digital camera. I've got nowhere on the internet to post them but if you (or anyone else) is interested I can e-mail them to you. I'm not the worlds greatest photographer but they're OK.
Zimorodok [/QB]
-
any more paintings like this available out there? </font>Originally posted by MrNoobie:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by laxx:
dang,
that Hill 211 picture reminds me of the canvas memorial painting:
i can't wait!
ps. Trivia Pursuit Question: How many tank can you identify in the pix ?
-
Invasion a certainty? which is probably why Britain built up the bulk of it's effective European forces in...........North Africa. Not much good for stopping an iminent invasion of the UK there are they? As the pre-eminant naval power in the world in 1940 Britain certainly had an understanding of what a naval invasion of the UK would entail, They'd spent 800 years successfully countering the threat and it didn't take a huge amount of deduction to work out that the Germans simply weren't capable of it. Churchill himself,after WW2, admitted that the only thing that really worried him was the U-boat threat.That does read like hindsight. I'm not sure that Britain had such a detailed knowledge of German plans, preparations and capabilities in 1940. With such a powerful and all conquering enemy at the gates, invasion must have seemed a certainty.
Sorry. I'm not that bright and need a simple argumentSorry that you can't follow my academic argumentation.
Exactly. The main difference between barbarossa and Sealion was the fact that Barbarossa was actually meant to happen, and did. Sealion was never any more than a hypothetical plan aimed more toward propaganda than reality.Yes, i totally agree, Sealion was made to bring the British government back to the table and to support those Anti-Churchill forces, who wanted peace with Germany.
I agree. Churchill would have talked up the threat no matter what. The existance of sealion merely helped him out in this.But i don't agree, that if Sealion wouldn't had been planned, Churchills government would had not lied to the British people, that they are threatened: like Roosevelt (and mass-media) told the US-citizens, that the Germans are even planning to invade the USA. -
OK. Yes, I see your point. But my contention is that at least the Germans, no matter how misguided, thought that they could succeed with Barbarossa (depending on your viewpoint they nearly did). I don't think that anybody could have fooled himself into thinking that sealion could have succeeded, not even Hitler.Of course it was planned. My objection was over your use of the word 'properly'. Was the planning for Barbarossa based on careful................................................................................. If it was any good at all, it was only in the narrowest sense that before hostilities opened, it gave Hitler and his henchmen a little lift to their mood when they contemplated it.Michael
-
Sorry Steiner14 but your post seems to go off at such a tangent that I've got a crick in my neck trying to follow it
All I'm saying is that operation sealion had absolutely no chance of success whatsoever and any serious military commander at the time must have known that. Therefore there can be only two reasons why such elaborate plans were drawn up.
1) because Hitler told them to
2) because the existance of a genuine (even if only a perceived) threat of invasion of the UK was essential for propaganda in forcing the British to the peace table.
1&2 are not mutually exclusive.
Now if Chruchill wanted to convince the British people and the world that there was absolutely no chance of a successful German invasion he could have pointed out the ludicrous nature of the plan and the whole world would have forgotten about operation sealion. However, it suited his plans to have this invasion as a reality so instead of talking it down he actually talked it up therefore giving the invasion far more credibility than it actually had. As a result poular history views operation sealion as a more viable plan than it ever was.
To say that that's a bit optimistic is the understatement of the year. It took the allies two years to plan D-day, and that was with the massive production of the US, naval superiority in the channel and air superiority over it. The Germans had no chance of pulling of an invasion of the UK.The navy was already by the end of July convinced, that a successful landing could not take place before 1941. -
I don't quite know what you're talking about here. It's not as if in June 1941 Hitler just woke up one morning and said "right everybody we're off to invade Russia now" and the bulk of the German army just aimlessly wandered off into Russia as a result. Certainly Hitler had some input but Barbarossa was most definitely planned by the German army.I do so hope you speak in jest. While I don't think it fair to expect any staff to come up with the "perfect plan", the planning for Barbarossa was in many respects nothing more than Hitler's pipe dream.This is copied from somewhere, sorry, can't remember where from now:
General Marcks presented a plan for the defeat of the USSR in 9-17 weeks, using 110 infantry, and 24 Panzer divisions. This plan involved two central army groups, one operating in the Ukraine and one against Moscow. After extensive wargames and discussion, 'Barbarossa' evolved as a three pronged operation. Hitler decided that Moscow would not be his main target as this had been Napoleon's downfall and he did not think that it was a centre of power in the USSR. The southern army group would still aim for Kiev and the Ukraine but the two northern groups would first aim at controlling communications to Moscow, then encircle Leningrad before knocking out Moscow. On 3 February 1941 Hitler gave his final approval to 'Barbarossa' which now consisted of 116 infantry divisions (14 motorized), 19 Panzer, and 9 lines-of-communications divisions.
-
I would dispute that. Sealion began planning on 2 July giving 84 days of planning before the (supposed) invasion. The initial planning for Barbarossa began in Aug. 1940. Almost a year before the actual event.Actually they both had about the same amount of planning.[ June 03, 2003, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: Ant ]
-
Out of interset do you consider Barbarossa as more viable than Sealion? Given history (and the attitude of some of the English as commented on) I can't say it wouldn't have worked. </font>Originally posted by Richie:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ant:
As a result a lot of people today (even some reasonably knowledgeable ones) see operation sealion as a potentially viable plan, which of course it never was, and in all probability never really intended to be.
-
One of the reasons that operation sealion seemingly has more credibility than it had in reality was because it was seen as a very useful propaganda tool by both Hitler and Churchill. As everyone knows Hitler hoped to use the threat of invasion as a lever to force Britain to the peace table, but what is usually less known is that the threat of an imminent invasion of the UK was actually more useful to Churchill. Contrary to popular belief not everybody in Britain in 1939/1940 supported a war with Germany. There were large sections of the population, and the establishment which favoured a peace deal. An iminent German invasion was hyped up by Churchill and his allies as a means of galvanising resistance, and a demonstration that Germany was a direct threat which had to be fought. Churchill also hoped that exaggerating the potential of a German occupied Britain would result in hastening the US entry into the war. As a result a lot of people today (even some reasonably knowledgeable ones) see operation sealion as a potentially viable plan, which of course it never was, and in all probability never really intended to be.
-
Are you guys manually selecting targets for your tanks or letting them find their own? I've found that often the AI tends to work better when left to it's own devices.
-
It cerainly wasn't bright when you view it with hindsight, but it did actually seem like a good idea at the time. In 1941 the U-boat campaign was having a lot of success against Britain's supplies but was still being undermined by ships carrying (sometimes by means of convenience) the US flag. The US was seen as preventing the U-boat war from being a total success. The declaration of war against the US was widely seen as a good thing by many U-boat commanders because it now gave them free reign to sink anything in the North atlantic. The Germans (mistakingly) thought that the US would be too preoccupied with Japan to send any significant military forces to the UK, and anyway, even if they tried, those forces had to come accross the atlantic and past the U-boats; which the Germans thought would be quite capable of stopping most of it.I agree the declaration of war on the US was not bright, though by that point, it probably didn't matter. -
I thought I'd heard that BFC are doing a deal with CDV for CMAK. Anybody will be able to choose to either buy the CDV version in shops or the BFC version off the website, so no matter where you live you'll have a choice this time.Originally posted by MikeyD:I haven't heard a peep about a CMAK/CDV partnership, and it's interesting to read CMBB is planning (hoping?) to hit U.S. store shelves by the end of the year, like CMBO earlier this summer. Perhaps BFC's outgrowing the CDV partnership?
-
Well I happen to think that we've got more than enough models in CMBB and if a few AFVs here and there share the same model/texture then no big deal. If BFC tried to get every nut and bolt of every single vehicle that was on the Eastern front exactly correct then we'd still be waiting for this game instead of playing it.What a &%*$£^ for these two little models[ May 30, 2003, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: Ant ]
-
AFAIK there will be no new models in the patch and as this is the last patch there won't be any more models for CMBB
-
Check out my thread entitled 'So when do we Europeans get the patch then?' Madmatt has given us an update on the current situation regarding the patch.Originally posted by Richard Morgan:I would like to know about the patch myself :confused: My Mac laptop indeed has the Beta 1.03 installed. Unfortunately my PC has the CDV version of CM2 for which the 1.03 patch has not been released
Even more unfortunately, my PC is on broadband and my Mac isn't.Don't know about the modelling!
Richard.
-
Thanks very much for that update Matt. Much appreciated.
-
Thanks for the info. Not what I was hoping to hear thoughOriginally posted by Meach:I emailed CDV directly and got a response from Gregor Bellman along the lines of "Patch? what patch? Be patient and it will be along soon no doubt." It was nice of CDV to get back to me but from the email I got the impression they are not sure what is going on with the patch, or that they knew it was in existence at all.
-
Yes. I agree that BFC giving promises, or even 'guesstimates' as to when the patch will arrive is undesireable as it can turn into a rod for their own backs. However, I would have thought that a small update as to what is actually happening now shouldn't be a problem, as they are only giving us a current fact and not a future committment. Even if they just tell us that it's still being worked on.
-
What repetitions are those? I know there were a few at the beginning, but I haven't seen any threads lately enquiring as to when we'll be getting the patch, which is precisely why I thought it was timely to ask again.While I'm getting bored at all these "when does Europe get 1.03?" repetitions,
I agree though that starting a slanging match is undesireable, and it certainly wasn't my intention. I just thought that maybe we CDV customers were perhaps due for a wee update.
Even more unfortunately, my PC is on broadband and my Mac isn't.
Combat Mission Napoleonic Style...
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
On the contrary, I don't know half as much about WW2 as most of the people on this board, yourself included. I've learned a lot from your posts and links. Different doesn't necessarily mean better.