Pangur Bán;11315091 said:
Dearie me, a lot of vacuous superaltives still coming out about Napoleon. Does the Russia disaster not bother you guys even a bit?
It's an example of what I mentioned earlier; a moment when Napoleon faced an enemy that had figured him out. The Russians had realised Napoleon's style of campaigning by this point, and combatted it through a scorched-earth program, basically a desperation move from any nation, due to the damage it does to one's own economy. This was something that Napoleon could only have fought off by either retreating, or forcing the Russian Army into an engagement. Napoleon, supremely confident in his own abilities, attempted to force an engagement. In many ways, this situation is similar to Fabian's refusal to engage with Hannibal's army during the Second Punic War. Unlike Fabian, the Russians refused to rise to the bait.
But the fact that Napoleon's naturally aggressive military posturing finally bit him on the backside does not mean that his strategy was itself flawed, merely that he failed to improvise adequately when it became apparent that the Russians had him worked out. Still, despite the scorched-earth program, if Moscow hadn't burnt down Napoleon could very well have kept his army alive through the winter, and forced Alexander I into line. The man made a mistake, a big one, but that hardly negates the brilliant strategies of his early career.
Pangur Bán;11315091 said:
But, for clarity, when I used the word strategist, I was meaning as a general-politician managing the strategic position of France. I should have clarified for you. In that sense he certainly was "stunning" ... stunningly crap.
I don't think you'll find many people here who would argue that Napoleon was a good statesman. Hell, I think Dachs and I had a brief discussion about just
how bad a statesman Napoleon was earlier in this thread.
Could we say that Napoleon was so incredibly good at fighting battles, he became overconfident in picking them?
You could, and many have.
I wonder if what breaks down isn´t rather the competence to execute the plan due to some personal weaknesses- by the way Napoleon had many (like woman).
Are you saying that Napoleon's weakness was wom
en (I wouldn't argue) or saying that he was weak like a woman? Because the latter may get you in trouble with the fairer sex on this forum.
Napoleon successfully executed almost every plan he ever made. He was even very good at improvisation. His greatest problem, as I've stated previously, was that he was too adventurous for his own good. Every time his star was at its most ascendant, he did something incredibly stupid to ruin all his good work; the Middle Eastern Campaign, the Haitian Campaign, the Russian Campaign and the Waterloo Campaign are the most well-known, but let's not forget the stupidity of toppling the Spanish monarchs in favour of his brother, or of annexing Holland.
Pangur Bán;11316872 said:
My figure for England is correct.
Unfortunately for you, Napoleon wasn't at war with "England." At least get the basics correct, before you make such ridiculous claims.
Pangur Bán;11316872 said:
France's colonies were the trash of the colonial world.
Pangur Bán;11316872 said:
Napoleon's disastrous reign makes it very easy to forget exactly how much superiority France had before. Arguably this was happening independently of Napoleon, but nonetheless the connection is as plausible as any of the other connections being made in this thread.
If Napoleon had lived up to his peace agreement with Britain in 1804 France would have remained the Continental hegemon for his lifetime. Possibly longer. Napoleon's
defeat doomed France to play second fiddle to the UK - hardly what I'd consider "doomed to mediocrity" - not his reign. In fact, France emerged from the Napoleonic Wars stronger and more unified than previously, with Spain and Portugal forever eliminated as threats, Belgium and the Netherlands left with massive internal problems and the chaotic situation in Germany somewhat stabilised, but stabilised in a way which didn't threaten France. Russia was too distant to be a real threat. And Britain, the undisputed top dog, never had the troops for a land invasion of France.
Napoleon's reign permanently changed the balance of power - I hate the term, but given the existence of two cooperative European hegemons in Russia and Britain for decades after this, it's one of the few cases where it fits - in Europe, and it changed it in France's favour.