Guest konrad Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 sorry ,triple post must be Napoleon's ghost [ June 24, 2003, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: lenakonrad ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konrad Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Originally posted by lenakonrad: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei: Wait, if the question is about what people thought about Napoleon then, shouldn't we exactly BE lead by 19th century propaganda? No ,I think we can effort to stick to the facts In any case...comparing Napoleon to Hitler ,or anyone else (even considering "feedback" he get) is a mistake. (Warning : I just love him (HIM)). </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konrad Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 .... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konrad Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Originally posted by Scarhead Gruß Joachim [/QB]Common ,I can count more then to three (trust me). And I'm positive ,you sources are wrong . You are mixing all the data .I try to get that step by step later. Congratulations on finding the One ,but weekend in library still recommended . (read books [lot of them ,from different perspectives] and never listen to the politicians it is much more healthy ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Originally posted by lenakonrad: It never really was expression of real contemporary feelings. Sure ,except for Goya . Sure, those German students in 1813 never expressed their contemporary feelings. They just voluntarily went to fight him. Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Originally posted by Scarhead: (...) just like the beheaded King Louis XIV (or somfink).. Yes, you really need to go to the Lib !!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Originally posted by lenakonrad: Common ,I can count more then to three (trust me). You are no French politician, so I trust in that. And I'm positive ,you sources are wrong . Lots of ruins (Heidelberg castle,...) and lots of palace gardens without a castle (Zweibrücken...) in the Palatinate can't err on 17-19C French expansion plans. No lib necessary. Just some maps. It is tougher to fake them. Congratulations on finding the One , Thanks but weekend in library still recommended . I'd prefer another weekend in "der Heimat". Compared with evidence, literature is secondary. (read books [lot of them ,from different perspectives] and never listen to the politicians it is much more healthy ) Read some books. From several perspectives. And I find too many books just look at some facts, but don't ask "why". Historians should attend courses for policemen. But after a few books, you can start making up a picture. BTW, contemporary GE books usually don't blame the French too much. Too many of the authors seem to believe in French politicians. Never read a line like "Weil der Franzmann der Dr... das Rheinland besetzt hat" (cause the Frenchmen, that ... has occupied the Rhineland) in a book (This is not a line I would support as of now -> Rude word censored! But then, it was valid. Never had problems with the French divison in my hometown). Never read much about the separatists in the palatinate during French occupation in the 30s and how they managed to have rifles in their coup attempt - during strict gun control by the French military! Just a few articles from witnesses that there were enough people with scythes and hayforks to persuade them they better leave the occupied government buildings. And this makes me wonder. If even I hesitate to talk about some things in the past and add an immediate dementi in a "minor" forum, what about any German authors of a book on Napoleon or a general history book. What can he risk to write, how much criticism is allowed without stirring any Anti-French feelings or getting accused of "Revanchionism" by somebody. How much criticism is allowed in school books? There is a blacklist in the US. What about GE? Ever heard any German politican correct Chirac when he (in the 90s!) counted 3 wars Germany started vs France in the last hundred years? Even in the last 150 years, I can only count two! That makes me wonder if there is more than one perspective in the books I found in German libs. You don't find too many English books on that topic in GE libs (with unrestricted access - most universites are public, but not their libraries) BTW: I do listen to politicians. Always "Know thine enemy!" Gruß Joachim [ June 24, 2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Scarhead ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konrad Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Originally posted by Scarhead: If even I hesitate to talk about some things in the past and add an immediate dementi in a "minor" forum, what about any German authors of a book on Napoleon or a general history book. What can he risk to write, how much criticism is allowed without stirring any Anti-French feelings or getting accused of "Revanchionism" by somebody. How much criticism is allowed in school books? There is a blacklist in the US. What about GE? Ever heard any German politican correct Chirac when he (in the 90s!) counted 3 wars Germany started vs France in the last hundred years? Even in the last 150 years, I can only count two! Gruß Joachim Hola ,hola ,its a stricly Napoleonic thread . And clarify to me ,you hate Napoleon ,or you just hate French ? BTW- 3 wars started by Germany against France in last 150 yrs ? Let see ,going backward..WW II (oh that was bloody one) WW I (ouch ,that was bloody too ,specially for France ) and 1870 (still fit in 150 yrs?) And I'm sure ,you can find a lot of decent books about Napoleon in Germany. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konrad Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Originally posted by Scarhead: Sure, those German students in 1813 never expressed their contemporary feelings. They just voluntarily went to fight him. Gruß Joachim I did some google search for you ,I hope you enjoy links : Napoleon Online in german German History, 19th Century Links to sites about Napoleon Bonaparte ( lot of them ,althought some some sites down right now) Keep tight!! konrad [ June 24, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: lenakonrad ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Originally posted by zukkov: but i'd prefer an american civil war game. not as pretty, but i'd love to hear those rebel yells when the confederates charge! yeee haw!!! I would much prefer the American Civil War to Napoleonic. troops from different regions of the south had different versions of the Rebel Yell. Here is a link to a sound recording of a Confederate veteran demonstrating the Rebel Yell at the 75th Anniversary of Gettysburg. http://www.stonewallbrigade.com/rebel_yell.htm the recording plays right when you open the page, and there is also a direct link to it at the bottom of the page. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 He was not much better... He did neither care for his soldiers but sacrificed them ruthless in battlesCan 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? nor did he care for the countries he occupied.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? Did I miss something? 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! 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. 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).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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konrad Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Originally posted by Ant: 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. Thanks Ant!! Very good!! nice to see some people actually spend some time in library 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Thanks Ant!! Very good!! nice to see some people actually spend some time in library 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 period 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 I'm simply aghast that there's still some debate about whether Napoleon was a murderous misanthrope! Has nobody seen the wartime drawing that came out of his genocidal campaign in Spain? How many people do you have to kill needlessly in order to have something bad written about you in the history books? Basically, Napoleon was indeed cast in the same mould as Hitler, but driven entirely on ego instead of any lunatic social theories. [ June 24, 2003, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screaming Flea Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Originally posted by Le Tondu: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Screaming Flea: Breakaways "Waterloo; Napoleons Last Battle and "Austerlitz; Napoleons Greatest Victory are terrific realtime Napoleonic Wargames. The fanatical level of attention to detail approaches that of CM games..... cheers, Flea. I beg to differ. They are Napoleonics LITE to be sure. When a battalion of Prussian Landwehr can deploy into skirmish order en masse, there is something terribly wrong. There are more inaccuracies, but I don't want to waste the energy required to remember them. Lastly, it is a RTS game. A clickfest where unreal events take place at an unreal pace. I LOVE Napoleonics (& CM) and I sold my copy of their first offering two weeks after I bought it. Yet, I won't deny anyone their fun. If that is the sort of thing you like, by all means go for it. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konrad Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: Basically, Napoleon was indeed cast in the same mould as Hitler, but driven entirely on ego instead of any lunatic social theories. Genocide ?? in Spain ?? by Napoleon ? lot of people ,no necessary Empereur lovers ,will be surprised by that.Mainly surprised will be the Spanish. Its a fact that Goya was exaggerating in his paintings (he has rights to do so) , on other side you will have to see drawings of what spanish guerillas did to french soldiers before that (and they did have perfectly rights to do so ) Anyway ,the gore happened only in some parts of Spain ,in others spanish and french get along pretty well.That was really very different time then WWII . No ,Napoleon was from different mould ,and that is basicly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggDogg Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 If there were a Napoleonic game based on the CM system, I would love to playtest it. I had played that tactical level Nappy games since the 70s. Cheers, Richard 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by Ant: His purpose was to serve the interests of France, not every little duchy and pricipality in Europe. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 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.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. 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ligur Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 The original posters just wanted to play Napoleon using the CM engine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by Ligur: The original posters just wanted to play Napoleon using the CM engine Exactly , they just wanted to play the (of course rare, minor and only due to luck and favourable circumstances) " initial military success " of " butcher " Napoleon on the battlefield. [ June 26, 2003, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: Thin Red Line ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klapton Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 I don't see how a game on ancient warfare might fit onto the CM engine. Most battles of that era were decided with few orders and movements, and with little opportunity to recover from a mistake. If you take a battle as complex (for the era standard) as Zama, you see that the commanders indeed issued just three or four orders. If things like maneuver before battle, scouts and supply are included, then the picture gets more interesting, but they are currently out of the scope of the engine. There are already games based on ancient warfare, the best being those made by I-Magic, based on GMT board games. They are good, interesting and well-researched. But the designers, despite claiming inspiration from Delbruck's work, took the wrong approach and, by allowing management of small units, provided the player with too much flexibility. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 I'd like to see a game in which you actually have to use sound and visual signals and messengers to send orders to your subordinates in the field. In the case of signals, you would give order options BEFORE the battle starts, and then your AI commanders would try to follow them as well as possible. They would also adapt to the developments, depending on their skill. In the case of an exceptionally good sub-commander, you might be able to give him new orders right away in the heat of the battle - simulating a good sense of what's going on and what needs to be done together with initiativeness. But otherwise, most you would do is watch the battle and at right times give your troops very vague and inflexible commands or suffer very long delays. Even if you sent a written command, you might get SNAFU's like charge of the light cavalry. Or your messenger is sent back to get a confirmation. Or he gets killed on the way - you wouldn't know it right away, of course... If you really considered it necessary, you could leave your command post to go to lead a specific regiment, but then the command & control of other units would really get out of hand. Not that I will ever see anything more realistic than Total War, but I can dream... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konrad Posted June 25, 2003 Share Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by Marlow: He was an amoral butcher who had some initial military success, but was ultimatly brought down by better military minds. Hilarious . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted June 26, 2003 Share Posted June 26, 2003 Originally posted by lenakonrad: Hola ,hola ,its a stricly Napoleonic thread . And clarify to me ,you hate Napoleon ,or you just hate French ? BTW- 3 wars started by Germany against France in last 150 yrs ? Let see ,going backward..WW II (oh that was bloody one) WW I (ouch ,that was bloody too ,specially for France ) and 1870 (still fit in 150 yrs?) 1870? Who declared the war? Who was the first to start the mobilization of the army? And who "visited" the other country first, though not for very long? Napoleon III., emperor of France. All Bismarck did was to report about an incident between the French ambassodor and Kaiser Willi I. in a way that seemed to insult Napoleon III. (grand-nephew of the former). IMHO not more insulting than what the French ambassador did. And I'm sure ,you can find a lot of decent books about Napoleon in Germany. There are lots of books. But the problem is the bias mentioned. As it may be a systematic bias, reading more books does not help. Especially as too many historians I know tell me that it happens that somebody claims something that seems logical, others cite him, theories (and careesrs) are built on that, then it is accepted as common knowledge and it is really tough to prove that something is wrong at that stage - even with good evidence. For an admirer of Napoleon these books would be excellent, I guess . But there are some deeds from intelectuals... Firedrich Schiller turned from pro-Nappy to Anti-Nappy. Beethoven renamed one of his symphonies (Eroica IIRC) that was at first devoted to Napoleon. Then something happened to change his mind. A defender of France and a demcorat turning into a ruthless aggressive dictator after his power was established? Seems the contemporaries did not like him so much as you think. Last clarification: I hate French politicians, and emperors are counted as that. I do not hate the French people. Very last clarification: I hate most politicians Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.