Combat Mission Napoleonic Style...

[HarryInk]

Shadow 1st Hussars

Member

Member # 3832

posted June 24, 2003 04:04                     

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah yes, the semi-annual Napoleonic CM thread shows its face again....

Vive les guerriers napoleoniennes!! Indeed, the f lash of sabres, roar of grand batteries, smoke of massed muskets...yep...we're just hinting that there's a market.

Ant

Member

Member # 10473

posted June 23, 2003 07:51                     

------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a case of supplying armies & corps of 30-100,000 men, not quarters of millions!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Yep, and keep reading Ant. There are well over 500,000 men at the Battle of Leipzig in 1813. Even the Revolutionary campaigns on the Rhine managed armies of 120,000. However , the way those armies maneuvered was quite different, especially early on when divisional warfare was the norm. And think of the fast and furious fun of Napoleon's Italian campaigns! Campaigns and battles of only 30,000 to 60,000 troops a side. The ability to get there with 'the fastest with the mostest' -- what we do in CM in a tactical way but could do in a strategic way in a Nap' campaign -- that, I reckon, would be the addictive thing. But maybe that's just my gig?

Posted by MikeyD:

You guys aren't reaching far enough back. Peloponnesian War, 450-ish B.C.! Great sea battles, Hoplite infantry formations, Sythian horsemen. It would be spectacular!

Hmmm..the ships would be really cool, but the hoplites? Nahhhhh...just a bunch of heavy armored dudes in same-old same-old ritual battles. But the Romans...ah well, there's an army for ya! [

[Santi]

Buenos dias:

Has anybody tried this? . I think it is real time but with the FOW and major c***-ups inherent to sending orders to your subordinates via messenger as someone pointed out above.

It has an strategic side also where you pool resources available to build your army. The screenshots are very CM-esque (which is a good thing). I personally have not got my teeth into it , the forum seems to be deserted and I have not figured out whether the game has been actually released , or it is still in the developing process, but I am holding my breath for it.

Imaging fighting "La Guerra de la Independencia" (that's the Peninsular War for you non-spanish ) on a strategic scale . I already envision my Spanish regulars trying to escape from a pincer move from the frogs errr french and then zoom in to slug it out a 3D battlefield...and have my regulars routinely crushed by the French Cavalry

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by Belico adalid:

I have not figured out whether the game has been actually released , or it is still in the developing process, but I am holding my breath for it.

La Grande Armée à Austerlitz has been released and a sequel (Histwar 1806, you know the " initial success " at Auesterdt and Iena) is going to be released end of 2003.

At least that's what i understood.

[Santi]

thanks for the heads up. I googled up a review of LGAA...and silly me its 2 yrs old! , although it seems that the game needs further cutting of the rough edges. I am a bit wary of dipping my toes in it yet so I would rather wait till I get material feedback at the forum on its release.

I'll stick to CM and dream on for the time being

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Ant:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Ant:

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!

.....

Totally irrelevant to the discussion of the man Napoleon as explained above.

Napoleon's career started in the royal army, and got a boost in the revolutionary army 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.

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.

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.

Moral values of today see Napoleon as aggresive dictator (who mostly fought other aggressive dictators, but that's another question)

Ok, let's judge by moral values of the past:

The easy approach on the "napoleonic wars" in general:

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.

An 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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

Gruß

Joachim

[Ant]

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.

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.

On battles. Italian campaign, well done. Austerlitz, briliant militarily, suicidal

politically. 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.

And precisely which battles did his marshalls win for him despite his mistakes?

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.

Napoleon's career started in the royal army, and got a boost in the revolutionary

army 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.

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.

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.

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.

Moral values of today see Napoleon as aggresivemen dictator (who mostly fought other aggressive dictators, but that's another question)

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.

Ok, let's judge by moral values of the past:

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.

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.

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.

An 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.

There is an enormous difference between forming a defensive alliance (eg NATO) and a hostile

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Guest konrad]

Originally posted by Ant:

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.

Thanks Ant ,again .

[Guest konrad]

Originally posted by Marlow:

Too much hero worship methinks. Need to look at things more objectively.

Ok ,so I'm victim of pro-napoleon propaganda and I'm happy with that.

PS: You calling yourself "objective"?

Muhahah haha ha and merde!!

[Michael Dorosh]

I wasn't aware Napoleon built highways or increased the self-esteem and standard of living of the working class as Hitler did, or that he launched aggressive wars based on racial genocide and murdering large segments of the civilian population of his conquered territories. Then again, I'm not as well red as Ant obviously is.

[Guest konrad]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

.. or that he launched aggressive wars based on racial genocide and murdering large segments of the civilian population of his conquered territories.

He didn't .

But he left us Codex Civil,among other things.

On military side ,for example Napoleon created the operational level of war ,as we understood it today (corps).

[Thin Red Line]

Hitler admired Napoleon. First thing he visited in Paris was the Emperor's mausolée at the Invalides.

But saying Napoleon is the Hitler of its time is nonsense. Napoleon left a great heritage to France : many among today's french institutions and the "Code Civil" (Civil Law) date back to Napoleon's time.

Despite his mistakes, he was certainly not inhuman and ignorants only can deny he was an exceptional tactician and one of the greatest military leaders of the modern era.

[Guest konrad]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

Napoleon left a great heritage to France : many among today's french institutions and the "Code Civil" (Civil Law) date back to Napoleon's time.

Not only to France ,to whole Europe as well .

Legislation of most europeans states its based on Code Civil .

Another detail :Napoleon was first ruler to abolish dead penalty for homosexualism.

[Ant]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I wasn't aware Napoleon built highways or increased the self-esteem and standard of living of the working class as Hitler did, or that he launched aggressive wars based on racial genocide and murdering large segments of the civilian population of his conquered territories.

Sorry, I'm not sure what point you're making. Are you saying that Hitler is both better and worse than Napoleon in different respects. An interesting argument.

Then again, I'm not as well red as Ant obviously is.

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.

[Joachim]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

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.

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. </font>

[Joachim]

Originally posted by lenakonrad:

Another detail :Napoleon was first ruler to abolish dead penalty for homosexualism.

I doubt that he was the first . Alexander the Great and the Spartans come to my mind...

Gruß

Joachim

[Guest konrad]

Originally posted by Scarhead:

Alexander the Great and the Spartans come to my mind...

Gruß

Joachim

No ,please ,not the Holy Legion again..:-0

[Ant]

Europe at peace?? Read about the French occupation of the Rhineland and the Ruhr area in '23, and you will see there was no peace. Note that it was in '23 that the extremist parties in germany started their rise .... this was the time Hitler started - and his goals were outlined then.

The allies eventually backed down and allowed Germany to eject French troops and reoccupy the Rhineland without a war being started. Technically known as....peace.

Re forming alliances: There was an alliance between France and Russia already in 1905. It was clearly directed vs Germany. Would this justify WW1 and make the French (wanting revenge for 1870/1) and Russians guilty for WW1?

Again you seem to be misunderstanding alliances, their purposes and outcomes as well as getting some facts mixed up. I'm not aware of any alliance between France and Russia in 1905. The only treaty of relevance in 1905 is the 'treaty of Portsmouth' which ended the Russo-Japanese war. There was a Franco-Russian alliance in 1892 which was purely defensive. The beginnings of the Franco-anglo-Russo alliance which went to war in 1914 is the Anglo-Franco entente coriale in 1904. This originally had nothing to do with Germany or Russia. It was a treaty to settle some long running disputes between Britain and France, mainly relating to Egypt and Morroco. Both nations, however, felt threatened by German expansionism and so tacitly and rather informally agreed in principal to be on the same side if Germany was to initiate any hostilities, hardly an agressive act. Germany herself provoked the initial hostilities with regard to this agreement by deliberately interfering in Moroccan affairs against the French, and against the entente cordial agreement. Germany's actions were a deliberate attempt to see how far she could push Britain and France after they'd signed this treaty. The affair was resolved at the Algeciras Conference and largely laid out the table of alliances for WW1. It wasn't until the Anglo-Russian entente in 1907 (which again was primarily in regard to British and Russian affairs) that the three partners, Britain, Russia and France were tied together in loose mutual alliances. And there was nothing hostile about this. It was merely a semi-formal agreement to fight on the same side if any one of them were attacked by Germany. Hardly agressive.

"Leibeigene" (ie slavery) )were abolished in 1740, in both Prussia and Austria. There is a nice anecdote about Frederic the Great and a neighboring miller about his mill. Dispute was settled by a court in the millers favor. Does not sound like slavery.

I'm assuming that you know more German history than I do, 1740 is going back a wee bit too far for me, but I'm fairly sure that the Stein-Hardenburg Reforms of 1807, which were forced on a defeated Prussia by Napoleon, weren't carried out just for something to do, and marked a very definite ending of many of the attributes of serfdom in Prussia and a true beginning of individual freedom......Thanks to Napoleon!

The allied rulers could argue that killing a relative or one of theirs is not an internal affair. The prospect of having their citizens affected by the ideas of the revolution makes it even less an internal affair.

True. Again it depends wether you look at it from today's perspective, and that of the people of revolutionary France. Or yesterday's perspective from the views of a priviledged monarchy.

Again, this comes to which moral standards (if there are any...) you use. Discussion of this would fill books...

And certainly has,

Not exactly my insistance. Just the advocatus diaboli inside me. There may ne a huge gap between Hitler and Napoleon (read: a genocide). But when it comes to decide whose good and whose bad, they are both on the same side - at least for me.

I can understand your perspectives as a German. Despite Napoleon's faults (and he certainly had many) I'm pretty pro Napoleon, however, if he had succeeded in his ultimate dream of marching a conquering army through the streets of London I may well have taken a rather different view and we might well be agreeing.

[ June 27, 2003, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Ant ]

[Ph0r3vEr]

It's an age old trick to make people united under a banner of hatred. By revealing (or making up) an enemy large masses can be by far more easily controlled.

Modern leader for example could wage war against a third world country just to distract his people from the poor situation of internal economy (and unemployment) and become a popular hero by protecting "the interests of his people".

Hitler needed an enemy he could blame on the German failure of WW I and the difficulties in economy. He chose something he could reach early on (German Jews) without any need for conquest (which was only planned at that time). It is quite obvious he (at least later on) became seriously mentally ill which led to the well-known genocidal act.

Napoleon had managed to become a worshipped and respected military leader and a statesman. His troops committed things that would now be considered atrocities but his view of the world was quite different from ours. The stuff done by an invading army during the early nineteenth century (and practically always before that) to any land they went and occupied could be considered as an atrocity today. Thus ordering people killed due to rebellion or whatnot was more or less a trend back then (people died, it happened - war, invaders and mass killings were considered sort of a natural catastrophy by the people). I'm not saying it was the right thing to do but a Sovereign Head of State back then was in his position "due to God's will" thus justifying all his decisions.

Napoleon was an emperor of his people and his colours are still carried by the French. Hitler was a military dictator of a foreign country (some claim he disliked the Germans altogether) and his colours are today a symbol of evil and wickedness.

I rest my case.

-4eva

[HarryInk]

Jesus wept.

Bad or badder?

Let me see: during his Italian campaign in 1796 Napoleon and General Lannes personally direct the execution of hundreds of Piedmontese partisans in their rear areas. So, virually from the start they both qualify as modern war criminals.

Hitler bares comparison only insofar as the magnitude of his crimes are staggering. 11 million in death camps...40?50 million in a world war... Even in 1941, the Wehrmacht assesses 30 million Russians will starve to death so as the Heer etc. can live off the land, leaving the peasants to die. Is it fortunate that only 13 million die instead? ?

*shiver and shake*

Anyway, I visited the HistWar site. Looks great and promising. Fingers crossed it comes out: I'll be lining up for a copy.

[Le Tondu]

Hitler left nothing. Germany was in absolute ruin --except for the Ford Motor Company plants.

Napoleon built everything. The sewers alone in Paris that Napoleon had built saved more lives in one year than were lost in all of the Napoleonic battles combined!

Yet, please people do not forget what Clauswitz implores us to remember: Hindight is fine when critiquing history. (That is how we learn from it.) But to judge anyone from history, you must ONLY look at the world through their eyes, have the same customs and know what they knew.

To do otherwise is a waste of yours and everyone else's time.

[ June 30, 2003, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ]

[Louie the Toad]

Getting back to the theme of the original post, IIRC there was a Waterloo Map made by a modder many moons ago. Maybe it is in the Combat Mission Map Case? I don't recall.

(there was a Gettysburg one there too)

Nostalgic Toad

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

Getting back to the theme of the original post, IIRC there was a Waterloo Map made by a modder many moons ago.

There was a Borodino-La Moskova too. Very interesting.

[Louie the Toad]

Dear Thin Red Line,

I think players like to try their hand at familiar maps/battles, regardless of the age in which they were fought. Even if it means having armor on the Waterloo battlefield.

Just an observation....... Toad

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

Dear Thin Red Line,

I think players like to try their hand at familiar maps/battles, regardless of the age in which they were fought. Even if it means having armor on the Waterloo battlefield.

Just an observation....... Toad

Louie,

Where you the author ? I hope you didn't misunderstood me, when i said very interesting, it was not ironic at all. I found the map really good, i spend time studying them, not playing though, just imagining the cuirassiers brigades assaultings the russian or english strongpoints, the lightning of hundreds of bayonettes, the roar of the 12pdrs batteries, and wishing there was a Napoleonic CM...

Especially they looked relatively small to me, knowing the number of men who fought there. Men density was probably extraodinary on those battlefields.

An excellent work.