Waterloo battle(and other Napoleons battles) (2 Viewers)

[Spitfrnd]

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. .....

A very good point that is often overlooked by many popular reviews of Napoleon's Russian misadventure. The French army was destroyed by disease much more that by any other cause. Its casualties in battle were relatively light by comparison. It is estimated that Napoleon took a total of 500,000 troops to Russia, of which roughly 265,000 were from his core French army. Within a few weeks, the army was overrun with lice picked up from foraging in the filthy Polish settlements and within two months, Napoleon had lost over 130,000 men from his core army to typhus and dysentery. Fewer than 95,000 French soldiers were left to begin the retreat from Moscow. By the end of the campaign, total French losses were over 400,000 with more than 220,000 to typhus alone. It is well known that the Russian winter was brutal that year and claimed many victims from the campaign but the fact is that the Grande Armee was already decimated by the humble louse before the winter added the coupe de grace. The Russians didn't beat Napoleon, a tiny insect vermin did.

 

[Aleš]

A very good point that is often overlooked by many popular reviews of Napoleon's Russian misadventure. The French army was destroyed by disease much more that by any other cause. Its casualties in battle were relatively light by comparison. It is estimated that Napoleon took a total of 500,000 troops to Russia, of which roughly 265,000 were from his core French army. Within a few weeks, the army was overrun with lice picked up from foraging in the filthy Polish settlements and within two months, Napoleon had lost over 130,000 men from his core army to typhus and dysentery. Fewer than 95,000 French soldiers were left to begin the retreat from Moscow. By the end of the campaign, total French losses were over 400,000 with more than 220,000 to typhus alone. It is well known that the Russian winter was brutal that year and claimed many victims from the campaign but the fact is that the Grande Armee was already decimated by the humble louse before the winter added the coupe de grace. The Russians didn't beat Napoleon, a tiny insect vermin did.

Well i think this is just an excuse from the French.Ok i kno wa lot of them really die from disease and from the cold.
But i think even more of them die without the food,because this was Russian tactics to burn everything that might give them shelter,food,...and i am sure Napoleon didnt bring so much food with him,for such a big army for so long time.Just think,where will you get food in the middle of nowhere,all around is snow,cold like under 40 celsius,...and than fight to a russian cavalry who attack them all the time of their retreat.But it is easyer to blame the disease than his(Napoleon) own stupidity that he just didnt think much before he attack this Russia.
If there is so bad place(disease and all) why not all Poland die from typhus and other disease? Why not Russians die from this disease,why only Napoleon army suffer from this disease and other people not?
Why is this disease problem only to French army and not Russian army?
It is just an excuse(disease) for his people in France because it is easyer to say people die from disease than from the hungry.But i am sure they die empty stomach,cold and their last thought was "**** you Napoleon"
Why Napoleon didnt die from disease?He was there also and his generals!?

 

[Spitfrnd]

Well i think this is just an excuse from the French.Ok i kno wa lot of them really die from disease and from the cold.
But i think even more of them die without the food,because this was Russian tactics to burn everything that might give them shelter,food,...and i am sure Napoleon didnt bring so much food with him,for such a big army for so long time.Just think,where will you get food in the middle of nowhere,all around is snow,cold like under 40 celsius,...and than fight to a russian cavalry who attack them all the time of their retreat.But it is easyer to blame the disease than his(Napoleon) own stupidity that he just didnt think much before he attack this Russia.
If there is so bad place(disease and all) why not all Poland die from typhus and other disease? Why not Russians die from this disease,why only Napoleon army suffer from this disease and other people not?
Why is this disease problem only to French army and not Russian army?
It is just an excuse(disease) for his people in France because it is easyer to say people die from disease than from the hungry.But i am sure they die empty stomach,cold and their last thought was "**** you Napoleon"
Why Napoleon didnt die from disease?He was there also and his generals!?

No, it is well documented that the disease was quite real and that it was the major killer. Typhus is spread by lice but it does not originate with them. A louse becomes infected with typhus by taking blood from a fever-ridden human. The disease causes a rupture in the insect's gut which passes the infection into the feces of the louse. Humans become infected by rubbing or scratching the lice feces into their skin or into their mucous membranes.

The Polish peasants and the Russian army was not immune and did suffer from Typhus but not to the same degree since the conditions of the French invasion were ripe with the factors, like overcrowding, fatigue, inadequate housing, poor sanitation and malnutrition, that promote an epidemic outbreak of the disease. Since it was their country and they were relatively better fed, rested and housed, the Russians faired better.

Napoleon and his generals had MUCH better sleeping and sanitary conditions than the common French soldier so they did not have as much to worry. Had they slept huddled in the wet mud with their lice ridden companions, they too would have been at high risk.

There is a good discussion on this in an except from a paper by Robert K. D. Peterson published in the American Entomologist. As such it was of course subject to peer review and is hardly written as a apology for French failure.
http://entomology.montana.edu/historybug/napoleon/typhus_russia.htm

 

[FirstLegion]

Well i think this is just an excuse from the French.Ok i kno wa lot of them really die from disease and from the cold.
But i think even more of them die without the food,because this was Russian tactics to burn everything that might give them shelter,food,...and i am sure Napoleon didnt bring so much food with him,for such a big army for so long time.Just think,where will you get food in the middle of nowhere,all around is snow,cold like under 40 celsius,...and than fight to a russian cavalry who attack them all the time of their retreat.But it is easyer to blame the disease than his(Napoleon) own stupidity that he just didnt think much before he attack this Russia.
If there is so bad place(disease and all) why not all Poland die from typhus and other disease? Why not Russians die from this disease,why only Napoleon army suffer from this disease and other people not?
Why is this disease problem only to French army and not Russian army?
It is just an excuse(disease) for his people in France because it is easyer to say people die from disease than from the hungry.But i am sure they die empty stomach,cold and their last thought was "**** you Napoleon"
Why Napoleon didnt die from disease?He was there also and his generals!?

You are correct in that starvation played a factor because it weakened the immune system and forced the French to take actions such as drinking dirty water. In fact all of these elements come together as the cause of the typhus epidemic. The primary ignition point was the French coming into contact with the "lice-ridden" peasantry of Poland.

Read this article for more information on this:

Insects, Disease, and Military History

In regards to the Russians, more Russians died in the Russian Campaign than French and of those, more were civilians than military losses as the civilians came into such close contact with the French and were left behind during the retreat also facing starvation, bivouacking sick french soldiers, etc. etc. Everyone talks about the destruction of the French Army during the 1812 campaign, but the Russian army was pretty gutted as well. But of course they just continued to raise more troops as Russia tends to do. In all, the campaign claimed over 1 million dead, a shocking number for warfare of the time. Only a tiny fraction of those were killed in battle.

 

[Spitfrnd]

It seems we are citing the same paper Matt. I did not mean to minimize the Russian loses but by the end of the campaign the Russians did still have a functional army in the field, albeit much reduced in size. The French of course did not.

Here also is an English translation of the excellent graphic of Napoleon's Russian losses done by Minard and cited in the article:
http://www.math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/minard/minard-odt.jpg

This raises an interesting question: I wonder how Histwar - Les Grognards or Total War - Napoleon will model the lice and Typhus? Perhaps a small example of the limits of these simulations.

 

[FirstLegion]

This raises an interesting question: I wonder how Histwar - Les Grognards or Total War - Napoleon will model the lice and Typhus? Perhaps a small example of the limits of these simulations.

Good question - I'm not sure if Histwar has a campaign mode or if it's just a grand tactical battle simulator. If the latter, then there is no need to model such things as they are at a level above the scope of the game. If it has a campaign mode, then I would hope it models it the way all other operational level games model it - with the dreaded, all inclusive, "Attrition" losses. Having played many Napoleonic games, losses to attrition can eat up even the "grandest armee" and you'll be happy to note that often times attrition losses are doubled when in Spain (and Russia).

 

[Spitfrnd]

Good question - I'm not sure if Histwar has a campaign mode or if it's just a grand tactical battle simulator. If the latter, then there is no need to model such things as they are at a level above the scope of the game. If it has a campaign mode, then I would hope it models it the way all other operational level games model it - with the dreaded, all inclusive, "Attrition" losses. Having played many Napoleonic games, losses to attrition can eat up even the "grandest armee" and you'll be happy to note that often times attrition losses are doubled when in Spain (and Russia).

Ah yes the all purpose Attrition factor. So do you think you will be able to completely destroy the Russian army at Borodino? Of course, as you noted, in campaign mode, they would likely just build another one.

Frankly I must admit it does look very interesting and I may not be able to wait until the British addition.

 

[FirstLegion]

So do you think you will be able to completely destroy the Russian army at Borodino?

If playing against an AI, I would like to think I'd be able to destroy the Wehrmacht using the Grande Armee. However, if playing against a human opponent, then one would need a scenario depicting Davout's proposed flank march to have any hopes of destroying the Russian Army at Borodino. Marching into the teeth of about 660 or so guns won't be fun. That being said, I certainly look forward to trying.

From what I remember, one of the most interesting factors about Histwar is that it allows for up to 8 people to fight a battle together. This would be pretty cool as it would allow for full refights of larger battles without stretching what a single person can reasonably control in a real time game. It also adds to the realism of command and control by adding the human element to it. I've been waiting for this game to come out for nearly 10 years now. I just hope it doesn't disappoint after all this time.........

 

[Grognard]

Sounds like a cool game. Do you know whether they will produce a Xbox version since I am sure it would be great on a big screen TV?...

 

[FirstLegion]

Sounds like a cool game. Do you know whether they will produce a Xbox version since I am sure it would be great on a big screen TV?...

I would say a resounding "no" on an Xbox version. No game with any real depth is ever made for Xbox (and I'm a big fan of Xbox, but if you want a real strategy or war game, you have to stick with the pc). Of course, there is nothing stopping you from hooking your PC up to your flatscreen.

 

[wayne556517]

If playing against an AI, I would like to think I'd be able to destroy the Wehrmacht using the Grande Armee. However, if playing against a human opponent, then one would need a scenario depicting Davout's proposed flank march to have any hopes of destroying the Russian Army at Borodino. Marching into the teeth of about 660 or so guns won't be fun. That being said, I certainly look forward to trying.

From what I remember, one of the most interesting factors about Histwar is that it allows for up to 8 people to fight a battle together. This would be pretty cool as it would allow for full refights of larger battles without stretching what a single person can reasonably control in a real time game. It also adds to the realism of command and control by adding the human element to it. I've been waiting for this game to come out for nearly 10 years now. I just hope it doesn't disappoint after all this time.........

Me to they have been making this one for ages,hope its worth the wait.

 

[wayne556517]

If playing against an AI, I would like to think I'd be able to destroy the Wehrmacht using the Grande Armee. However, if playing against a human opponent, then one would need a scenario depicting Davout's proposed flank march to have any hopes of destroying the Russian Army at Borodino. Marching into the teeth of about 660 or so guns won't be fun. That being said, I certainly look forward to trying.

From what I remember, one of the most interesting factors about Histwar is that it allows for up to 8 people to fight a battle together. This would be pretty cool as it would allow for full refights of larger battles without stretching what a single person can reasonably control in a real time game. It also adds to the realism of command and control by adding the human element to it. I've been waiting for this game to come out for nearly 10 years now. I just hope it doesn't disappoint after all this time.........

Total war are bringing out a napolean add on set for EMPIRE total war should be good

 

[Spitfrnd]

... Of course, there is nothing stopping you from hooking your PC up to your flatscreen.

I need to figure out how to do that.

 

[chiefs70]

I need to figure out how to do that.

You have a couple of different options - most likely - Google your TV and "connect to PC" and you'll find a few quick solutions.

It is well worth it.

Eric

 

[Grognard]

With Windows Media Center this is possible. You need to have a PC that is WMC ready though.

 

[Gazza]

Just watched Waterloo on the BBC this aftenoon. Rod Steiger is great as Napoleon.

Finished that and then got to watch the end of Zulu

And then a Bridge To Far

An interesting mix of Britain (and our Allies) military exploits

 

[Spitfrnd]

With Windows Media Center this is possible. You need to have a PC that is WMC ready though.

I take it WMC is a program that will run in XP on up? Will it do all the screen resolution and other adjustments you need for the screen and what is a WMC ready PC?

 

[Grognard]

Yes, Windows Media Center comes built-in with high end editions of Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7. You need to have a tuner on your PC to receive, record and play back TV programs.

 

[chiefs70]

Yes, it will run with XP. In fact, its initial itteration was part of the Windows XP Media Center OS release.

With that being said, if what you are trying to achieve is to use your flatscreen as your PC monitor you don't need Media Center - you only need your flatscreen to have the correct video inputs or purchase an adapter. It is primarily a hardware issue rather than software. Newer flat screens have a number of connections available including coax (cable), S video, RCA, HDMI etc. I would recommend you check your owner's manual (or find it online if you misplaced it) and see what they recommend.

If you have any specific questions feel free to PM me and I'll help you find an answer. I am a network/server IT geek now but I can still get around the PC world to tweak my home stuff the way I like it. Oh, and I have a buddy who is an Apple guru so I can find answers in that world as well.

Eric

 

[Spitfrnd]

Thanks Eric, I will check out the FS manual.