NAP0122-NAP0127 Russian Akhtyrsky Hussars Pre-Order! (1 Viewer)

[Fusilier]

Spirfrnd-
Found an interesting website about this, the French vs. British battles. It lists major battles between the two from Dettingen in 1743 up to Waterloo. Thier final tally is 63 French victories to 60 British victories.

http://http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/bayonet_battles.htm

Now, I am not familiar with all these battles, but it is an interesting list. Though in the end, Waterloo was the decisive battle.

Noah

 

[Spitfrnd]

Alas, only one that mattered at all, and they needed a LOT of help to do it!

Ah, now that is rather debatable. It is rather certain that without those victories, the big "N" would have had a much longer run.

 

[FirstLegion]

Ah, now that is rather debatable. It is rather certain that without those victories, the big "N" would have had a much longer run.

While one can certainly argue that it was a constant state of war with Britain as a nation which brought down Napoleon in that they dominated the seas resulting in Napoleon's misguided continental system which was the genesis of his decision to invade Russia and they provided massive sums of money to other countries to wage war on the continent, on the battlefield it was the campaigns of 1812 and 1813 which resulted in Napoleon's downfall. Even Waterloo can be said to have had much less consequence than that which is attributed to it because it is always assumed that had Napoleon defeated the British and the Prussians, that the Austrians and the Russians who were mobilizing massive armies to engage France from the east would have signed a separate peace. I personally find this relatively unlikely and in the end Napoleon would most probably have been defeated anyway. Waterloo has gained such notoriety simply because of the complete nature of the defeat on the battlefield, something that had really never happened before to Napoleon. But, as you say, it's all debatable....

 

[Spitfrnd]

While one can certainly argue that it was a constant state of war with Britain as a nation which brought down Napoleon in that they dominated the seas resulting in Napoleon's misguided continental system which was the genesis of his decision to invade Russia and they provided massive sums of money to other countries to wage war on the continent, on the battlefield it was the campaigns of 1812 and 1813 which resulted in Napoleon's downfall. Even Waterloo can be said to have had much less consequence than that which is attributed to it because it is always assumed that had Napoleon defeated the British and the Prussians, that the Austrians and the Russians who were mobilizing massive armies to engage France from the east would have signed a separate peace. I personally find this relatively unlikely and in the end Napoleon would most probably have been defeated anyway. Waterloo has gained such notoriety simply because of the complete nature of the defeat on the battlefield, something that had really never happened before to Napoleon. But, as you say, it's all debatable....

Yes there are more that enough opinions on this to go around for sure. My point only is that there were a significant number of British / Allied / French battles (more than 20% of the Napoleonic total) other than Waterloo that were quite interesting, intensely contested and offer much good material for our metal friends. Let the marathon continue.

 

[FirstLegion]

Yes there are more that enough opinions on this to go around for sure. My point only is that there were a significant number of British / Allied / French battles (more than 20% of the Napoleonic total) other than Waterloo that were quite interesting, intensely contested and offer much good material for our metal friends. Let the marathon continue.

Fair enough! Plus, British wear red coats and all the world loves a toy soldier in a red coat! (I know, I know, you want ones in green coats as well!)

 

[damian]

I will freely admit to being an Anglophile especially when it comes to the defeat of the Corsican Ogre.
All I will say about this debate is
"They came on in the same old way and we saw them off in the same old way"

 

[FirstLegion]

I will freely admit to being an Anglophile especially when it comes to the defeat of the Corsican Ogre.
All I will say about this debate is
"They came on in the same old way and we saw them off in the same old way"

"Wellington...why is it always Wellington?"

 

[Spitfrnd]

I will freely admit to being an Anglophile especially when it comes to the defeat of the Corsican Ogre.
All I will say about this debate is
"They came on in the same old way and we saw them off in the same old way"

Nicely said. Which encourages me to repeat: "Dieu ne pas pour le gros battalions, mais pour sequi teront le meilleur." Red with a little green indeed; what better colors for Christmas (birthdays, Easter, Thanksgiving, New Years).

 

[petebuster1]

While one can certainly argue that it was a constant state of war with Britain as a nation which brought down Napoleon in that they dominated the seas resulting in Napoleon's misguided continental system which was the genesis of his decision to invade Russia and they provided massive sums of money to other countries to wage war on the continent, on the battlefield it was the campaigns of 1812 and 1813 which resulted in Napoleon's downfall. Even Waterloo can be said to have had much less consequence than that which is attributed to it because it is always assumed that had Napoleon defeated the British and the Prussians, that the Austrians and the Russians who were mobilizing massive armies to engage France from the east would have signed a separate peace. I personally find this relatively unlikely and in the end Napoleon would most probably have been defeated anyway. Waterloo has gained such notoriety simply because of the complete nature of the defeat on the battlefield, something that had really never happened before to Napoleon. But, as you say, it's all debatable....

Tend to agree, i think the nature of the battle captured and still captures the imagination more than most probably because it was Napoleons end if you like. Had he won the battle i firmly beleive it wouldn't have changed europe like has been documented by some.
He would have been defeated not long after anyway and waterloo would have become just another battle,but i'm glad it didn't.
They then may have called the battle 'La Haye Saint' instead of waterloo which it should have been called as it was never fought at waterloo.Wellington stopped at the inn at waterloo but that was about all its involvement .

 

[Spitfrnd]

...They then may have called the battle 'La Haye Saint' instead of waterloo which it should have been called as it was never fought at waterloo.Wellington stopped at the inn at waterloo, not really a reason for naming a battle after imo.

I don't know but .... "Napoleon met his La Haye Saint" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

[petebuster1]

I don't know but .... "Napoleon met his La Haye Saint" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

no it doesn't, nor does it sound much like a battle so just as well they called it Waterloo really

 

[Fusilier]

Fair enough! Plus, British wear red coats and all the world loves a toy soldier in a red coat! (I know, I know, you want ones in green coats as well!)

Please, bring on the Rifles! They will look great next to the Guards.

Noah