Waterloo battle(and other Napoleons battles) (1 Viewer)

[tullock]

I class the Peninsular war in the same context as the North African campaign in WW2.Basically they were sideshows to the extensive bloodletting throughout the rest of Europe during the same period.In no way do I intend to minmize the sacrifice of the numerous British soldiers that were killed in this conflict but overall it was the huge battles of Eastern Europe that decided Napoleans's fate.
Jeff

 

[Spitfrnd]

I class the Peninsular war in the same context as the North African campaign in WW2.Basically they were sideshows to the extensive bloodletting throughout the rest of Europe during the same period.In no way do I intend to minmize the sacrifice of the numerous British soldiers that were killed in this conflict but overall it was the huge battles of Eastern Europe that decided Napoleans's fate.
Jeff

Well Jeff you are entitled to your opinion but mine is somewhat different of this. I am rather convinced that without Britain's success in Spain those battles would have very easily gone the other way. In fact, I think the Peninsula campaign was much more important to the Napoleonic Wars than North Africa to WWII, not that the latter was without significance.

 

[Aleš]

I class the Peninsular war in the same context as the North African campaign in WW2.Basically they were sideshows to the extensive bloodletting throughout the rest of Europe during the same period.In no way do I intend to minmize the sacrifice of the numerous British soldiers that were killed in this conflict but overall it was the huge battles of Eastern Europe that decided Napoleans's fate.
Jeff

I agree with Jeff

 

[tullock]

Well Jeff you are entitled to your opinion but mine is somewhat different of this. I am rather convinced that without Britain's success in Spain those battles would have very easily gone the other way. In fact, I think the Peninsula campaign was much more important to the Napoleonic Wars than North Africa to WWII, not that the latter was without significance.

As they say "Every little helps".
Jeff

 

[Harrytheheid]

Well, you can all please yourselves.
As far as I'm concerned, that wee, and apparently forgotten, battle in the sideshow that was North Africa, and which was won by the much-maligned Montgomery - was just as much a turning point in WWII as Stalingrad.
The consequences of Rommel seizing Suez and then rolling on to the Persian Gulf oilfields ought to be easy enough for even the most blinkered armchair warrior to comprehend.

Err, no offense y'all.....

H

 

[Rob]

Nothing !!! The best team won !!!

Absolutely!.

And the thing is that for all the many Battles in the Napoleonic era there is no doubt Waterloo is the most famous of all.Ask anyone who is not a History fan which was the most well known battle,and the answer will be the same.Perhaps the most famous battle in History,and fitting that Wellington and the British army should be the agents of the once great Napoleons downfall.

Rob

 

[Spitfrnd]

I agree with Jeff

Perhaps then you could refer me to the historical experts that gave you that opinion. I would be pleased to give you the ones that gave me mine. For starters, it is important to remember that Napoleon committed over 600,000 men to Spain, many of them veterans that had never before seen defeat. The lack of access to these troops for Russia and the subsequent campaigns in central Europe was somewhat less than helpful to the French cause, not to mention the failure to obtain perhaps 300,000 potential Spanish allies had France prevailed in the Peninsula. And then there is the wee matter of the tremendous morale and political significance of Vitoria to the 1813 campaign. Threre are many more exampless but frankly it was rather more than a little bit.

 

[aujj65]

The Peninsula campaign fought by the British, Portuguese and the Spanish (who weren’t as bad as they are commonly made out to be) was a very significant part of the Napoleonic Wars and as previously mentioned tied up a large portion of French troops. Fighting on two fronts is never a best bet!

Jeff

 

[Rob]

Perhaps then you could refer me to the historical experts that gave you that opinion. I would be pleased to give you the ones that gave me mine. For starters, it is important to remember that Napoleon committed over 600,000 men to Spain, many of them veterans that had never before seen defeat. The lack of access to these troops for Russia and the subsequent campaigns in central Europe was somewhat less than helpful to the French cause, not to mention the failure to obtain perhaps 300,000 potential Spanish allies had France prevailed in the Peninsula. And then there is the wee matter of the tremendous morale and political significance of Vitoria to the 1813 campaign. Threre are many more exampless but frankly it was rather more than a little bit.

The Peninsula campaign fought by the British, Portuguese and the Spanish (who weren’t as bad as they are commonly made out to be) was a very significant part of the Napoleonic Wars and as previously mentioned tied up a large portion of French troops. Fighting on two fronts is never a best bet!

Jeff

I think both these posts make the point very well.

Rob

 

[FirstLegion]

Perhaps then you could refer me to the historical experts that gave you that opinion. I would be pleased to give you the ones that gave me mine. For starters, it is important to remember that Napoleon committed over 600,000 men to Spain, many of them veterans that had never before seen defeat. The lack of access to these troops for Russia and the subsequent campaigns in central Europe was somewhat less than helpful to the French cause, not to mention the failure to obtain perhaps 300,000 potential Spanish allies had France prevailed in the Peninsula. And then there is the wee matter of the tremendous morale and political significance of Vitoria to the 1813 campaign. Threre are many more exampless but frankly it was rather more than a little bit.

These are all valid points of course. And despite them, I agree that the Penninsula was a sideshow and events there were always a distant second in importance to the main theater of war on the continent. In regards to 1812, Napoleon didn't need more more troops. In 1813, Napoleon stripped Spain of troops in order to fight in Germany. In fact, the French troops that remained tied down about twice their number of British/Allies. Spain was just never the center of gravity or decision of the Napoleonic Wars and the outcome of the war in Spain was always directly tied to France's success or failure on the continent. The opposite was never true. If France is victorious in either the 1812 or 1813 campaign in Russia or Saxony, then Spain would once again have come under French control.

The Penninsula war was without a doubt was costly in lives and money and there are some very interesting battles and campaigns to study. But it really is much like the Desert campaign in WWII as compared to Hitler's and Napoleon's Invasions of Russia. Those were the main theaters and those were the campaigns that ultimately decided the wars.

 

[Spitfrnd]

These are all valid points of course. And despite them, I agree that the Penninsula was a sideshow and events there were always a distant second in importance to the main theater of war on the continent. In regards to 1812, Napoleon didn't need more more troops. In 1813, Napoleon stripped Spain of troops in order to fight in Germany. In fact, the French troops that remained tied down about twice their number of British/Allies. Spain was just never the center of gravity or decision of the Napoleonic Wars and the outcome of the war in Spain was always directly tied to France's success or failure on the continent. The opposite was never true. If France is victorious in either the 1812 or 1813 campaign in Russia or Saxony, then Spain would once again have come under French control.

Perhaps, perhaps not I would say. France had been victorious elsewhere in 1809 - 1811 yet Spain remained very much less than under French control. Perhaps Joseph might have regained Madrid for what that was worth. As to the troops, it was not just the quantity but the quality of troops that was important. Besides, show me a commander of that time that could not use an additional 500,000+ men, especially to replace some of those impressed allies.

The Penninsula war was without a doubt was costly in lives and money and there are some very interesting battles and campaigns to study. But it really is much like the Desert campaign in WWII as compared to Hitler's and Napoleon's Invasions of Russia. Those were the main theaters and those were the campaigns that ultimately decided the wars.

The first statement is indeed a fact, the last one is an opinion, over which reasonable people, such as you and I, may differ. It is best to keep track of the difference.

 

[Harrytheheid]

The Penninsula war was without a doubt was costly in lives and money and there are some very interesting battles and campaigns to study. But it really is much like the Desert campaign in WWII as compared to Hitler's and Napoleon's Invasions of Russia. Those were the main theaters and those were the campaigns that ultimately decided the wars.

That's just simple Russian propaganda First Commissar. I'm surprised you have fallen for that one so easily.
Napoleon and Hitler's eastern adventures were just sideshows to hide the fact that the first Little Corporal took a hiding in the Peninsula from us Brits - in fact, he was too scared of us to even to show up in Spain;
and the second little Corporal needed a second front to disguise the fact that the best Germany had was taking a tanking - pun intended - from us Brits in the Desert.

H

 

[Gazza]

In 2010 - Total War - the real time strategy video game, will bring out Napoleonic War

Then you can decide whether the peninsula war is a side show or not? You may even not have to retreat from Moscow and possibly Waterloo may end differently

Until then ... then only facts we know are the best team won at Waterloo...

 

[Spitfrnd]

In 2010 - Total War - the real time strategy video game, will bring out Napoleonic War

Then you can decide whether the peninsula war is a side show or not? You may even not have to retreat from Moscow and possibly Waterloo may end differently

Until then ... then only facts we know are the best team won at Waterloo...

Well certainly I look forward to that release but I am not sure it even covers the Peninsula and even if it does, no PC based simulation covers even a fraction of the full parameters needed to try and answer a question that large. In fact, no computer program yet has that power.

 

[Aleš]

Perhaps then you could refer me to the historical experts that gave you that opinion. I would be pleased to give you the ones that gave me mine. For starters, it is important to remember that Napoleon committed over 600,000 men to Spain, many of them veterans that had never before seen defeat. The lack of access to these troops for Russia and the subsequent campaigns in central Europe was somewhat less than helpful to the French cause, not to mention the failure to obtain perhaps 300,000 potential Spanish allies had France prevailed in the Peninsula. And then there is the wee matter of the tremendous morale and political significance of Vitoria to the 1813 campaign. Threre are many more exampless but frankly it was rather more than a little bit.

well,why he attack Russia if he know that he have so many man in Spain?!???
Why risk loosing Spain(or any other province) to split his forces and go to an adventure to Russia?
And he must know that it will take a long journey to Russia,so in the mean time other unfinished battles in Europe such is English,Spain,Belgium,...will recovered.
I am sure attack on Russia was his biggest mistake,with many reasons(he divide his army,when reatret he face a low moral on his soldiers,he lost armory,moral,gain more enemy,....and for what?
He can live like a true Emperor of most of the Europe,he return like a begger.
I am sure he didnt expekt that Russian will burn the fields,houses,food,...so more he go into the Russia,more hungry his troops was.I think this was very smart strategy from Russians to empty Moscow.
Well thanks to Napoleon and after that Hitler we learn that Russia can not be defetead:
-they are a nation that will fight with everything they have to save their country(not like Italians or any other spoiled nations),they really will fight with their teeths if necesery,they will send millions of their own people into combat even if they will not have no weapons they will still fight
-they will kill their own people if necesery,burn their own villages,food,...just that enemy will not get them
-the winter is very hard there
-people are fanatics when to come to fight,they are teach in school that mother Russia is everything(comunist style,same in China,etc,...)
You can not win this,no body can.Thsi are big countrys,with big amount of people,armory,....they just do not care when they lost 10,20,30,....million of them,they will still comming to defend their country,so why make war with them.
Better attack Italians they are poor fighters

 

[Spitfrnd]

well,why he attack Russia if he know that he have so many man in Spain?!???
Why risk loosing Spain(or any other province) to split his forces and go to an adventure to Russia?

Well Napoleon was generally not well informed about the tactical situation in Spain. Joseph was constantly afraid that his brother would revoke his crown and his Marshalls were afraid they would be demoted (as some were) for their lack of success. Also, he apparantly felt that his 500,000 mixed force army would overwhelm the Russians and the Czar would quickly sue for peace. That said, it is rather easy after the fact to know that leaving that many good men in Spain and attacking Russia were both serious mistakes but hindsight is always golden......

....Better attack Italians they are poor fighters

You mean after the Romans of course. Besides he already controlled most of Italy.

 

[FirstLegion]

In 2010 - Total War - the real time strategy video game, will bring out Napoleonic War

Then you can decide whether the peninsula war is a side show or not? You may even not have to retreat from Moscow and possibly Waterloo may end differently

Until then ... then only facts we know are the best team won at Waterloo...

I've heard this. But more importantly, Histwar - Les Grognards will finally be released very soon after more than 10 years in development. This is the one to watch....

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=124&Itemid=174

 

[Spitfrnd]

I've heard this. But more importantly, Histwar - Les Grognards will finally be released very soon after more than 10 years in development. This is the one to watch....

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=124&Itemid=174

It looks quite interesting but sadly it appears at though it completely omits the Peninsula and the British so I may be left to just watching it. But then, he is a FRENCH historian and I am certain the French would like to forget both.

Well it does appear from the discussion board that they are intended to be added in the future as part of an expansion. Perhaps I will wait until then.

 

[FirstLegion]

Also, he apparantly felt that his 500,000 mixed force army would overwhelm the Russians and the Czar would quickly sue for peace. That said, it is rather easy after the fact to know that leaving that many good men in Spain and attacking Russia were both serious mistakes but hindsight is always golden.......

Alas, had Napoleon taken 100,000 of the troops in Spain with him to Russia it simply would have resulted in 95,000 more casualties to disease and exposure without changing the situation very much. I do agree he should have finished the business in Spain prior to invading Russia and your point is well made that Napoleon didn't expect the Russian campaign to actually happen - he figured the threat of force would be enough to bring the Tsar around and war would be avoided. But his army was already too big and unwieldy as it was and bringing more men would only have resulting in more losses. With hindsight it probably worked out better for Napoleon that he left those men in Spain as he was able to draw upon them as the nucleus for the rebuilt grand armee of the 1813 campaign.

 

[Ragnar]

well,why he attack Russia if he know that he have so many man in Spain?!???
Why risk loosing Spain(or any other province) to split his forces and go to an adventure to Russia?
And he must know that it will take a long journey to Russia,so in the mean time other unfinished battles in Europe such is English,Spain,Belgium,...will recovered.
I am sure attack on Russia was his biggest mistake,with many reasons(he divide his army,when reatret he face a low moral on his soldiers,he lost armory,moral,gain more enemy,....and for what?
He can live like a true Emperor of most of the Europe,he return like a begger.
I am sure he didnt expekt that Russian will burn the fields,houses,food,...so more he go into the Russia,more hungry his troops was.I think this was very smart strategy from Russians to empty Moscow.
Well thanks to Napoleon and after that Hitler we learn that Russia can not be defetead:
-they are a nation that will fight with everything they have to save their country(not like Italians or any other spoiled nations),they really will fight with their teeths if necesery,they will send millions of their own people into combat even if they will not have no weapons they will still fight
-they will kill their own people if necesery,burn their own villages,food,...just that enemy will not get them
-the winter is very hard there
-people are fanatics when to come to fight,they are teach in school that mother Russia is everything(comunist style,same in China,etc,...)
You can not win this,no body can.Thsi are big countrys,with big amount of people,armory,....they just do not care when they lost 10,20,30,....million of them,they will still comming to defend their country,so why make war with them.
Better attack Italians they are poor fighters

Im not sure if the Russian's were fanatics as you say.....for them it was a case of moving forward and fight the enemy or get shot by your own officer.
I do agree Russia is a tough nation to invade as the French found out in 1812.
and they sure did give the Germans a education on war at Kusk in WW2.