Spanish Ulcer (2 Viewers)

[Spitfrnd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstLegion http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?p=189221#post189221
I'm hoping that if we just release enough great stuff for the NAPS beyond the penninsula intrigues, that you'll eventually take an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude!!! Short of that, I guess I'll owe you some green coated brits and possibly even some yellow coated spaniards at some point........

I think we are talking "short of that". Some how the term intrigues just doesn't seem to fit the quantity of blood spilled in that part of the wars. Don't forget the French Dragoons and some of the vital Exército Português under British Command, such as the Cacadore Riflemen. Wait, am I starting to sound like a [certain] WWII collector; I guess I am in the right thread afterall.

[Copied from Re: new range? WWII? thread]

 

[Spitfrnd]

Hey - if you don't like "Intrigues", take it up with David Chandler as that is the heading of Chapter 7 (or 8?) in his authoritative work, "The Campaigns of Napoleon." Want to hear a VERY sad confession? I've read that literally 10 times and I've skipped that chapter 9 of them............that doesn't bode well for you. So we need to focus on the middle ground - figures that you can use on the penninsula and I can use elsewhere! Cuirassiers would probably be a good start I think....

For what it's worth, yes you are sounding very reminscent of a certain collector. Of course, he didn't know we existed until about a day ago.

[copied from Re: new range? WWII? thread]

 

[Spitfrnd]

The greatest campaign of the Great War against the Corsican Ogre was the Spanish Ulcer.

If it was not for Wellington and his Red Coats the continental system would have worked and Tsar Nicholas would have simply played along. Only when the Tsar saw the effects of a little army of red coats did he decide to resist tyranny. General winter did the rest. In some ways it was very similar to the events of 1940, when a brave little Island nation resisted a continental tyrant who in frustration then made the fatal military error of marching on Moscow.

Matt I would recommend as light bed time reading Sir Charles Oman's nine volume History of the Peninsular War. You seem to have a penchant for English historians of this conflict so I am sure you would enjoy Sir Charles.

[Copied from Re: new range? WWII? thread]

 

[Spitfrnd]

Well it struck me that we had embarked on a topic that was in need of some further discussion but it is really unrelated to the New Range? WWII? thread so I wanted to transfer the discussion to a new thread specific to the topic. Damian makes some great points and I have several more to add when I get the chance.

Brad, what I did was a clumsy way to move the discussion. If you can clean it up with your moderator magic by just moving those three posts from the WWII thread great but if it is too much trouble just let it go and we can continue with the topic here in any event.

 

[FirstLegion]

Originally Posted by damian
The greatest campaign of the Great War against the Corsican Ogre was the Spanish Ulcer.

If it was not for Wellington and his Red Coats the continental system would have worked and Tsar Nicholas would have simply played along. Only when the Tsar saw the effects of a little army of red coats did he decide to resist tyranny. General winter did the rest. In some ways it was very similar to the events of 1940, when a brave little Island nation resisted a continental tyrant who in frustration then made the fatal military error of marching on Moscow.

Matt I would recommend as light bed time reading Sir Charles Oman's nine volume History of the Peninsular War. You seem to have a penchant for English historians of this conflict so I am sure you would enjoy Sir Charles.

Ok, gentlemen, once more into the breach....

Suffice it to say, I simply don't agree with this. I do agree that Britain in large part were the nation most responsible for bringing down Napoleon, but their contribution was overwhelmingly economic and via political intrigue and had much less to do with anything Britain did on the battlefield (save Trafalgar and to a lesser extent Waterloo/Quatre Bras). One such example is when Pitt convinces Russia to join the third coalition with Austria with the arrangement that Russia and Austria attack France with Britain funding it. Spain was always a sideshow and a secondary campaign and while it did tie down (at times large) numbers of French troops, it was never anything even close to a decisive battleground, but merely played an influencing role in much larger events. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that Napoleon himself spent so little time there personally.

Further, Wellington and his Red Coats had little if not nothing to do with the failure of the continental system. The continental system was doomed from the start because it hurt the economies of the mainland countries more than it hurt the economy of England. It caused untold strife and economic misfortune on the continental nations and when Napoleon himself broke the continental system by hiring smugglers and allowing them to import British Goods with kickbacks to him to help him recoup the costs to France, there was little choice for Russia (who were the nation most hurt by the continental system) to openly abandon it entirely.

Alexander's decision to stand up to Napoleon rather than to back down prompting the invasion of 1812 had, from the Russian perspective, little to do with anything going on in Spain and certainly nothing to do with any success of a small army in Spain! It was more an issue of economic hardship and possibly even moreso the nature of the politics of the region. Napoleon's marriage to Louise rather than the Tsars sister cementing an alliance with Austria (fear), the creation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and subsequent Russian fear of restoration of the Kingdom of Poland (fear), the elevation to King of Sweeden of Napoleon's cronie Bernadotte (fear), and of couse the economic hardship of the continental system all were contributing factors. Plus, there was the nature of both Alexander and Napoleon as men and the treaty of Tilsit, which in and of itself, set the two nations on a course for continued war. You have to remember, Napoleon was a great military genius, but he had an inability to learn how to make an actual peace. He never really had any strategic long term goals and as such, each treaty was merely a temporary cessation of hostilities. For Alexander's part, he always had the desire to see himself as some crusader for the liberation of Europe and was facing serious political pressure (in large part fomented by England!) at home because of the virtual surrounding and isolation of Russia by ostensibly pro-french nations.

The interesting thing about 1812 is that Napoleon neve really wanted to go to war. He always assumed that Alexander would back down and as such he never really prosecuted the campaign with full vigor until it was far too late. A simple restoration of the Kingdom of Poland and a treaty with the Turks prior to the invasion would have guaranteed him military success in Russia, but he never took these steps because he never really thought they'd go to war and didn't realize that the Russians would just keep retreating and not come to terms even when they lost Moscow. I would argue that perhaps even more than the winter was his lack of understanding of Alexander, his lack of approaching the campaign very seriously, and his lack of a clear and conscise military objective which brought about the failure of the campaign. The winter served to excerbate his failure, elevating it to catastrophe, but the seeds of defeat were already sewn.

Anyway, I digress...suffice it to say, while Britain of course played a very large role in the defeat of Napoleon, it was through economic and political means rather than a direct role on the battlefield. The military campaigns in Spain had little to do with with Tsar Alexander's reasons for standing up to Napoleon or the failure of the continental system. We do, however, once again see the influence of Spain in Napoleon's decision making as it was one of the factors that contributed to his decision to retreat from Moscow rather than enter winter quarters there. But again, this is merely an influencing factor and one of many and by no means a decisive element.


I do enjoy English Historians as they tend to write in a language that I read and I am of course familiar with Oman's definitive work. I've never read it, however, as my interests have always been more related to Napoleon's campaigns more so than campaigns in which he didn't take part. For more information on this topic, I recommend Zamoyski's Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow. To me, it provides the most compelling explanation of the reasons for the 1812 campaign (which is of course the military cause of Napoleon's defeat) that I've read to date and makes use of Russian and Polish sources which give a great deal of insight into Tsar Alexander and the Russian political climate of the period.

 

[nmrocks]

Matt,
You mentioned Chandlers "Campaigns of Napoleon", I have had it for 35years as I was so impressed when I read it for a high school history project that I stole it!
Rest assured that in those intervening years I have more than compensated the state in taxes!
Ray

 

[FirstLegion]

Matt,
You mentioned Chandlers "Campaigns of Napoleon", I have had it for 35years as I was so impressed when I read it for a high school history project that I stole it!
Rest assured that in those intervening years I have more than compensated the state in taxes!
Ray

Funny, I first read it in high school as well - probably when i was 14 or so. I also got it from the library, but I got it because I was using it as research for my miniature wargames battles...it is most definitely the book, coupled with toy soldiers/miniatures of course, that has launched me on a lifelong passion of the Napoleonic Wars...To this day, it probably still represents the single book that anyone should read on the topic if they could only read just one. I, however, returned mine (my parents being teachers and all would have viewed it as a capital offense not to)

I now have a few copies of it in storage with the rest of my library of books. I think of all my stuff that I miss, it's my books I miss the most...

 

[damian]

Ok, gentlemen, once more into the breach....

Suffice it to say, I simply don't agree with this. I do agree that Britain in large part were the nation most responsible for bringing down Napoleon, but their contribution was overwhelmingly economic and via political intrigue and had much less to do with anything Britain did on the battlefield (save Trafalgar and to a lesser extent Waterloo/Quatre Bras). One such example is when Pitt convinces Russia to join the third coalition with Austria with the arrangement that Russia and Austria attack France with Britain funding it. Spain was always a sideshow and a secondary campaign and while it did tie down (at times large) numbers of French troops, it was never anything even close to a decisive battleground, but merely played an influencing role in much larger events. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that Napoleon himself spent so little time there personally.

Further, Wellington and his Red Coats had little if not nothing to do with the failure of the continental system. The continental system was doomed from the start because it hurt the economies of the mainland countries more than it hurt the economy of England. It caused untold strife and economic misfortune on the continental nations and when Napoleon himself broke the continental system by hiring smugglers and allowing them to import British Goods with kickbacks to him to help him recoup the costs to France, there was little choice for Russia (who were the nation most hurt by the continental system) to openly abandon it entirely.

Alexander's decision to stand up to Napoleon rather than to back down prompting the invasion of 1812 had, from the Russian perspective, little to do with anything going on in Spain and certainly nothing to do with any success of a small army in Spain! It was more an issue of economic hardship and possibly even moreso the nature of the politics of the region. Napoleon's marriage to Louise rather than the Tsars sister cementing an alliance with Austria (fear), the creation of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and subsequent Russian fear of restoration of the Kingdom of Poland (fear), the elevation to King of Sweeden of Napoleon's cronie Bernadotte (fear), and of couse the economic hardship of the continental system all were contributing factors. Plus, there was the nature of both Alexander and Napoleon as men and the treaty of Tilsit, which in and of itself, set the two nations on a course for continued war. You have to remember, Napoleon was a great military genius, but he had an inability to learn how to make an actual peace. He never really had any strategic long term goals and as such, each treaty was merely a temporary cessation of hostilities. For Alexander's part, he always had the desire to see himself as some crusader for the liberation of Europe and was facing serious political pressure (in large part fomented by England!) at home because of the virtual surrounding and isolation of Russia by ostensibly pro-french nations.

The interesting thing about 1812 is that Napoleon neve really wanted to go to war. He always assumed that Alexander would back down and as such he never really prosecuted the campaign with full vigor until it was far too late. A simple restoration of the Kingdom of Poland and a treaty with the Turks prior to the invasion would have guaranteed him military success in Russia, but he never took these steps because he never really thought they'd go to war and didn't realize that the Russians would just keep retreating and not come to terms even when they lost Moscow. I would argue that perhaps even more than the winter was his lack of understanding of Alexander, his lack of approaching the campaign very seriously, and his lack of a clear and conscise military objective which brought about the failure of the campaign. The winter served to excerbate his failure, elevating it to catastrophe, but the seeds of defeat were already sewn.

Anyway, I digress...suffice it to say, while Britain of course played a very large role in the defeat of Napoleon, it was through economic and political means rather than a direct role on the battlefield. The military campaigns in Spain had little to do with with Tsar Alexander's reasons for standing up to Napoleon or the failure of the continental system. We do, however, once again see the influence of Spain in Napoleon's decision making as it was one of the factors that contributed to his decision to retreat from Moscow rather than enter winter quarters there. But again, this is merely an influencing factor and one of many and by no means a decisive element.


I do enjoy English Historians as they tend to write in a language that I read and I am of course familiar with Oman's definitive work. I've never read it, however, as my interests have always been more related to Napoleon's campaigns more so than campaigns in which he didn't take part. For more information on this topic, I recommend Zamoyski's Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow. To me, it provides the most compelling explanation of the reasons for the 1812 campaign (which is of course the military cause of Napoleon's defeat) that I've read to date and makes use of Russian and Polish sources which give a great deal of insight into Tsar Alexander and the Russian political climate of the period.

Perfidious Albion again and the Nation of Shopkeepers.
You are probably right Matt.
I was raised in a home where the Duke of Wellington, Lord Nelson and WInston Churchill were regarded extremely highly to say the least. So my focus has always been campaigns where the British army participated. Obviously the "Near Run Battle" is my favorite.

 

[FirstLegion]

Perfidious Albion again and the Nation of Shopkeepers.
You are probably right Matt.
I was raised in a home where the Duke of Wellington, Lord Nelson and WInston Churchill were regarded extremely highly to say the least. So my focus has always been campaigns where the British army participated. Obviously the "Near Run Battle" is my favorite.

As well they should be held in high regard, probably somewhere in between great men and just short of "saving the world" type regard.

It is unfortunate, but the historical tie ins of being in the toy soldier business are not nearly as plentiful as I'd like them to be. Major difference between researching uniforms and organizations and researching history unfortunately, so as I enjoy writing this type of stuff, the lead in was appreciated nonetheless.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Ok, gentlemen, once more into the breach....

Indeed, great discussion and happy to continue it since we seem to be missing the point to some extent.

....Suffice it to say, I simply don't agree with this. I do agree that Britain in large part were the nation most responsible for bringing down Napoleon, but their contribution was overwhelmingly economic and via political intrigue and had much less to do with anything Britain did on the battlefield (save Trafalgar and to a lesser extent Waterloo/Quatre Bras). One such example is when Pitt convinces Russia to join the third coalition with Austria with the arrangement that Russia and Austria attack France with Britain funding it. Spain was always a sideshow and a secondary campaign and while it did tie down (at times large) numbers of French troops, it was never anything even close to a decisive battleground, but merely played an influencing role in much larger events. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that Napoleon himself spent so little time there personally......

Suffice it to say that I think Spain was much more than a sideshow. There is much support for the view that Spain had quite a bit to do with depriving Nappy of much need resources at a critical time and influencing his opponents to stay the course and once again oppose the army that had so soundly beaten them several times before. Among other things, it gave the first clear demonstration that the French were not invincible. Moreover, per campaign, Spain has as many bloody and interesting battles with as many feats of daring and bravery as any other area of the Wars. The fact that the little Corsican was only directly involved in a small number of them holds little significance for me, since several of his great Marshals were and while the wars bear his name, to me they are much more than about the tactical magic of one of the greatest battlefield leaders of the times.

It is true that there were no battles in Spain of the scale of some of the Russian and Austrian encounters but there certainly were several of very significant size. Albuera, Buçaco, Cadiz, Fuentes de Oñoro, Orthez,Ocaña and Somosierra, among others, all involved 60-80,000 combatants and Talavera, Salamanca and Vitoria involved 100-150,000 respectively. While not reaching the 200,000 plus range of battles like Wagram, Smolensk, Leipzig or Borodino, those are nonetheless very impressive numbers of men in the field and well more than any collector in this scale can replicate in any event. Moreover, some of the small Peninsular battles like Barrosa, Cuidad Rodrigo, Corunna and Roliça all have very interesting tactical and valorous stories to them and very much merit being appreciated and reproduced by collectors.

Another very interesting aspect of the Spanish sideshow is the relative number of battles and rate of French success. Various sources credit the number of total Napoleonic land battles at slightly over a 100. Of these, near 40 were fought on the Peninsula. Even more notable is that the French are credited with winning nearly 50 of the non Peninsular battles or more than 75%. Comparatively, they were able to win slightly over 39% of the Peninsula battles and the vast majority of those were against the unaided Spanish. The French rate of success in Peninsula battles involving the British was near a pitiful 10%. That contrast alone to me would suggest an important reason for not slighting this part of the conflict.

As you note, the Spanish intrigues did tie up a relatively large number of Napoleon's much needed men and resources; with over 300,000 men committed at one point. Moreover, it bled them with over one third of those ultimately lost from various causes. There are few battles where Nappy fought (and none he lost) that an extra few 100,000 men would not have been potentially decisive.

So intrigues or ulcer, with or without Napoleon, it would seem to me that a reasonable treatment of the Peninsular portion of the wars is more than justified and likely quite popular. There is no doubt that they are more appealing to those of us with English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh blood than the Russian, Prussian or Austrian part of the conflict. So unless the point is to only feature the contests that make the French look good I certainly hope you can overcome your lack of enthusiasm for the sideshow.

 

[nmrocks]

Funny, I first read it in high school as well - probably when i was 14 or so. I also got it from the library, but I got it because I was using it as research for my miniature wargames battles...it is most definitely the book, coupled with toy soldiers/miniatures of course, that has launched me on a lifelong passion of the Napoleonic Wars...To this day, it probably still represents the single book that anyone should read on the topic if they could only read just one. I, however, returned mine (my parents being teachers and all would have viewed it as a capital offense not to)

I now have a few copies of it in storage with the rest of my library of books. I think of all my stuff that I miss, it's my books I miss the most...

I was probably 16 but the book was so informative that I also, along with my cousin designed our own napolenic wargame rules, the charts and statistical information made it easy and great fun. our Airfix armies were massive!
Ray

 

[King's Man]

I too read Mr. Chandler’s monumental work at an early age. At the time it was the thickest book I had ever read. I enjoyed it so much I didn’t mind how thick it was in fact I was sorry when I finished it. It still remains to be one of my favorite books.

It is my understanding that Napoleon’s main adversaries were Austria and Russia so far as land battles. England’s role was very poltical and was always behind the scene trying to get the other European powers to take Napoleon on. A new book by Charles Esdaile, Napoleon's Wars: An International History, 1803-1815, does an excellent job of explaining why Europe was at war almost continuous for 20 years.
England’s main role was more political then military.

This shouldn’t take anything away from the many glorious victories won by the British armies in the Spanish peninsula. I have read Oman’s set and these volumes are excellent histories of the Peninsula War. They are also on my list of favorite books.

King’s Man

 

[Spitfrnd]

....It is my understanding that Napoleon’s main adversaries were Austria and Russia so far as land battles.

If you add Prussia, I think it is more accurate to say that the main victims in land battles with Napoleon were those countries.

....and England’s role was very political and was always behind the scene trying to get the other European powers to take Napoleon on. A new book by Charles Esdaile, Napoleon's Wars: An International History, 1803-1815, does an excellent job of explaining why Europe was at war almost continuous for 20 years. England’s main role was more political then military.

England may have made a major or perhaps even the most major political contribution, but as you note below, this does not diminish the significance of their military contribution. In addition to those battles I listed and England's much superior rate of success than Austria, Russia or Prussia, I would note that Vimerio in 1808 was particular notable as the first convincing demonstration that the French could be beaten.

...This shouldn’t take anything away from the many glorious victories won by the British armies in the Spanish peninsula. I have read Oman’s set and these volumes are excellent histories of the Peninsula War. They are also on my list of favorite books.

I agree completely. That is one reason we should be able to re-create those victories.

 

[FirstLegion]

Indeed, great discussion and happy to continue it since we seem to be missing the point to some extent.

Suffice it to say that I think Spain was much more than a sideshow. There is much support for the view that Spain had quite a bit to do with depriving Nappy of much need resources at a critical time and influencing his opponents to stay the course and once again oppose the army that had so soundly beaten them several times before. Among other things, it gave the first clear demonstration that the French were not invincible. Moreover, per campaign, Spain has as many bloody and interesting battles with as many feats of daring and bravery as any other area of the Wars. The fact that the little Corsican was only directly involved in a small number of them holds little significance for me, since several of his great Marshals were and while the wars bear his name, to me they are much more than about the tactical magic of one of the greatest battlefield leaders of the times.

It is true that there were no battles in Spain of the scale of some of the Russian and Austrian encounters but there certainly were several of very significant size. Albuera, Buçaco, Cadiz, Fuentes de Oñoro, Orthez,Ocaña and Somosierra, among others, all involved 60-80,000 combatants and Talavera, Salamanca and Vitoria involved 100-150,000 respectively. While not reaching the 200,000 plus range of battles like Wagram, Smolensk, Leipzig or Borodino, those are nonetheless very impressive numbers of men in the field and well more than any collector in this scale can replicate in any event. Moreover, some of the small Peninsular battles like Barrosa, Cuidad Rodrigo, Corunna and Roliça all have very interesting tactical and valorous stories to them and very much merit being appreciated and reproduced by collectors.

Another very interesting aspect of the Spanish sideshow is the relative number of battles and rate of French success. Various sources credit the number of total Napoleonic land battles at slightly over a 100. Of these, near 40 were fought on the Peninsula. Even more notable is that the French are credited with winning nearly 50 of the non Peninsular battles or more than 75%. Comparatively, they were able to win slightly over 39% of the Peninsula battles and the vast majority of those were against the unaided Spanish. The French rate of success in Peninsula battles involving the British was near a pitiful 10%. That contrast alone to me would suggest an important reason for not slighting this part of the conflict.

As you note, the Spanish intrigues did tie up a relatively large number of Napoleon's much needed men and resources; with over 300,000 men committed at one point. Moreover, it bled them with over one third of those ultimately lost from various causes. There are few battles where Nappy fought (and none he lost) that an extra few 100,000 men would not have been potentially decisive.

So intrigues or ulcer, with or without Napoleon, it would seem to me that a reasonable treatment of the Peninsular portion of the wars is more than justified and likely quite popular. There is no doubt that they are more appealing to those of us with English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh blood than the Russian, Prussian or Austrian part of the conflict. So unless the point is to only feature the contests that make the French look good I certainly hope you can overcome your lack of enthusiasm for the sideshow.

I think the response by King's Man pretty well sums up my thoughts perfectly on this. Remember, I was responding to Damian's post about how Wellington and the British on the Penninsula (single handedly one might think!) brought Napoleon down. I wasn't saying that the Penninsula campaigns aren't worthy of being represented in miniature and that there aren't many hard fought actions to be recreated.

That being said, I agree with King's Man of course, that the land battles were primarily fought between the French, Austria, Russia and I'll add Prussia to that list. These are the countries that did by far the most fighting (and dying) and it was the battles fought between these antagonists that controlled the fate of Europe. This doesn't take away from the actions on the Penninsula, but they were never really of strategic importance nor of the same size and scale. They are most definitely, however, worthy of being modeled.

As for the disparity of victory percentages between the penninsula and the other campaigns, on the surface that seems a remarkable statistic indeed. But when one looks at the reasons behind it, it is less so I think. I really see four reasons for this wild disparity....

First and most prominently, Napoleon wasn't there and he won about 60 battles in his career and lost only a handful. In fact, the majority of defeats in the non-penninsula battles came when Napoleon himself wasn't present on the battlefield. The 1813 campaign is the prime example of this where the Allied Armies actually adopted a strategy to retreat and not give battle whenever Napoleon himself was personally present and to instead engage his subordinates. The result for the most part was that for every victory Napoleon won, his subordinates lost one. When they did engage Napoleon in 1813, save at Leipzig, the allies were defeated in each battle pretty handily. What was the win-loss record in the penninsula when Napoleon was on the field?

The second reason is that Wellington was there and after Napoleon (and possibly Davout) Wellington was the best field commander of the age. Again, a great general typically tips the scales and we see in the Penninsula Britain's best against France's second team. So, like Napoleon in his campaigns, Wellington dominates the Penninsula.

The third reason for this disparity is that the campaigns in Spain all came after the period of French military dominance. Prior to 1807, the French system of war was simply superior to that of the allies. Once the allies adapted (ie. got away from the linear tactics of the ancien regime) we see the battles being much less one sided with a far greater reliance on artillery and frontal assaults resulting in far bloodier battles of attrition. If you look at the French victories in the early empire, they are far different affairs and far more one sided than the those of the late empire. Military reform and experience fighting against the French brought about near parity in tactics and organization after 1807.

Fourth, the French armies were pretty bled out by the time of the majority of the penninsula battles. The overall quality of the French army significantly declined because of the near non-stop wars between 1796-1807, with the campaign in Poland in 1807 having a particularly devastating effect because of the grievous losses at Eylau. The quality of the officers and soldiers in the French Army after 1807 were never near what they were pre-1807 due to losses in battles.

Other points can be made about the value of the British 2-Rank line vs. the 3 rank used by other nations, the fact that the British (like the Russians) typically stayed most doggedly on defense and it was those two nations who usually fared the best against French, etc... However, the win-loss record between Penninsula and Non-Penninsula pretty much comes down to Wellington being there, Napoleon not being there, plus the other factors above....

As for the war in the penninsula encouraging the continetnal powers to stay the course to engage once again an army that had defeated them several times before, the defeated powers of Russia, Austria, and Prussia needed no other incentive beyond the humiliation they had experienced at the hands of the French to engage the them again (and again)... Austria humiliated in Italy, then again in 1805, rose up again in 1809 to be defeated once more. It was only after this defeat that they were reluctant to engage again and only did after the French Army was destroyed in Russia and even THEN only when the reconstituted French Army failed to destroy the Prusso-Austrian Army in the spring of 1813. The Prussians were literally dismembered in 1806 and absolutely humliated at by the treaty at Tilsit, so they too needed no encouragement to fight the French again and were in fact looking for any opportunity, which came about by the destruction of the Grande Armee in Russia. As for the Russians, well, they were soundly defeated in 1805-1807 and then invadedin 1812, so they had their own motivations as well and were pretty much involved in every campaign from 1805-1815 except the 1809 war in Austria. Britain was certainly responsibly for assisting these countries to get back into it, however, it was typically through financial motivation (i.e. you fight, we'll pay for it) moreso than it was through any encouragement on the battlefields of the penninsula.

As for Spain giving the impression that the French weren't invincible, I again disagree. I don't think there was ever the impression that the French were invincible, the impression was that Napoleon was invincible and Spain had nothing whatsoever to do with shattering that myth.

This has been a most welcome discussion as it's far more interesting than the exact millimeter size of a figure...............

 

[Spitfrnd]

.... Remember, I was responding to Damian's post about how Wellington and the British on the Peninsula (single handedly one might think!) brought Napoleon down. I wasn't saying that the Peninsula campaigns aren't worthy of being represented in miniature and that there aren't many hard fought actions to be recreated....

..... This doesn't take away from the actions on the Peninsula, but they were never really of strategic importance nor of the same size and scale. They are most definitely, however, worthy of being modeled.

Ah, perhaps a glint of light. Actually we have or will have (with the promised cavalry) much of what we need for the French and have or will have (I assume as you proceed with Waterloo) much of what we need for the British. Some green jackets and a few Spanish and Portuguese and we are there. Dragoons would be really nice since they were so versatile and of course would be usable in nearly all the Continental battles. Besides they certainly had some of the most colorful uniforms and would simply look great shown in combat both mounted and unmounted.

As for the disparity of victory percentages between the peninsula and the other campaigns, on the surface that seems a remarkable statistic indeed. But when one looks at the reasons behind it, it is less so I think. I really see four reasons for this wild disparity....

First and most prominently, Napoleon wasn't there and he won about 60 battles in his career and lost only a handful. ....
The second reason is that Wellington was there and after Napoleon (and possibly Davout) Wellington was the best field commander of the age. Again, a great general typically tips the scales and we see in the Peninsula Britain's best against France's second team. So, like Napoleon in his campaigns, Wellington dominates the Peninsula.

The third reason for this disparity is that the campaigns in Spain all came after the period of French military dominance. Prior to 1807, the French system of war was simply superior to that of the allies. Once the allies adapted (ie. got away from the linear tactics of the ancien regime) we see the battles being much less one sided with a far greater reliance on artillery and frontal assaults resulting in far bloodier battles of attrition. ....

Fourth, the French armies were pretty bled out by the time of the majority of the peninsula battles. The overall quality of the French army significantly declined because of the near non-stop wars between 1796-1807, with the campaign in Poland in 1807 having a particularly devastating effect because of the grievous losses at Eylau. The quality of the officers and soldiers in the French Army after 1807 were never near what they were pre-1807 due to losses in battles.

...... However, the win-loss record between Peninsula and Non-Peninsula pretty much comes down to Wellington being there, Napoleon not being there, plus the other factors above....

I wouldn't quibble with your reasons mostly. I only meant to note the distinction, for whatever the reasons and too suggest that it would seem logical to give as much or more treatment to the countries that won more often than those who won less. Of course we didn't get much of a test of the two greats against one another but certainly that is no reason not to give both their due. I would note that the bled-out, post 1807 French managed well enough in battles like Borodino, Bautzen, Smolenski and Lutzen so one assumes that had something left in the tank.

As for the war in the peninsula encouraging the Continental powers to stay the course to engage once again an army that had defeated them several times before, the defeated powers of Russia, Austria, and Prussia needed no other incentive beyond the humiliation they had experienced at the hands of the French to engage the them again (and again)... ...

Well it is had to reconstruct motivations for individuals, much less nations, especially after a few hundred years. No doubt the humiliations were a major factor, as was, I believe, the French failure in the Peninsula. In any event, it seems hard to deny the significance of the French resources drained or tied up there.

This has been a most welcome discussion as it's far more interesting than the exact millimeter size of a figure...............

Agreed, well not all contributions are of equal worth.

 

[nmrocks]

Bottom line of this arguement for me, enough brits and "standard" French, the Napoleonic period stuffed with more uniform diversity than any I can think of and to continually repeat, even if at better quality, the same units is BORING!!!!

 

[aujj65]

Bottom line of this arguement for me, enough brits and "standard" French, the Napoleonic period stuffed with more uniform diversity than any I can think of and to continually repeat, even if at better quality, the same units is BORING!!!!

Yeah!.........it's a bit like keep churning out Tiger tank after Tiger tank except in different colours!

Jeff

 

[damian]

Problem is that if you are into Waterloo you need loads of figures in similar uniforms. I agree other Battles are interesting both from the tactics and the uniforms, but I have made a choice and have invested in what I have. So for me I ain't gonna move into Borodino. I stick to adding on to the battles I already collect. As it is with Waterloo there are tons of uniforms that the major players have not touched on. Where are the Lancers, Hussars, Dutch Belgiums, Prussians, Rifle Brigade etc.

 

[nmrocks]

Problem is that if you are into Waterloo you need loads of figures in similar uniforms. I agree other Battles are interesting both from the tactics and the uniforms, but I have made a choice and have invested in what I have. So for me I ain't gonna move into Borodino. I stick to adding on to the battles I already collect. As it is with Waterloo there are tons of uniforms that the major players have not touched on. Where are the Lancers, Hussars, Dutch Belgiums, Prussians, Rifle Brigade etc.

Can't argue with your logic, Danian, there's a whole long list of mfg. doing Waterloo, you'll have no problem filling your ranks, just don't want EVERYBODY doing Waterloo.
Ray

 

[petebuster1]

Problem is that if you are into Waterloo you need loads of figures in similar uniforms. I agree other Battles are interesting both from the tactics and the uniforms, but I have made a choice and have invested in what I have. So for me I ain't gonna move into Borodino. I stick to adding on to the battles I already collect. As it is with Waterloo there are tons of uniforms that the major players have not touched on. Where are the Lancers, Hussars, Dutch Belgiums, Prussians, Rifle Brigade etc.

Sticking to Waterloo personally, my uncles great great grandfather (i think) was in the Battle and he had his Pistol amongst other things,unfortunately although promised to me i never got them.But was hooked from that day to this.
Enough different figures on this battle alone could be produced and am sure Matt will cover most of them the others haven't which will supply enough collecting for some time to come