Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Reginleif, Feb 12, 2011.
Bill is the Dachs of linguistics, mang. Also he's an all around pretty damn cool dude.
"Dachs of ____" should be an official title!
Ive heard people say that the Napoleonic War was a World War, even though it isn't.
Not officially, but I can see the reasoning, given that, at least in the expanded form of the "Great French War", it managed to encompass every continent except Antarctica- which is actually more than can be said for either official World War.
Well, you can fudge for South America in both ones, really, because of Graf von Spee and the Battle of la Plata
Which was better? That's like asking if your preference is syphilis or gonorrhea.
I can see the Napoleonic period as a world war. The US was on Napoleon's side. It was lucky for the US that Great Britain was preoccupied with France or they could have tried to recolonize the USA, which wouldn't work, as the US had to much of a taste of independence.
That's a rather romantic view of American history, don't you think? I mean, granted, the British were unlikely to reinstitute the old colonial system, but that really doesn't preclude the colonies being taken back into the British fold under some more liberal system. In fact, I'm sure that such an option would be preferable to many Americans, if conducted state-by-state- there's doubtlessly many who would prefer a distant and detached government in London to a far closer and far nosier one in Washington.
It's irrelevant, because the British never really wanted to reconquer the United States; they would rather have had it as a partner even before 1812. If Napoleon had had any more success against Russia than he actually did, I do not find it difficult to think that the British would have, as Canning and Liverpool suggested to each other, kissed and made up with the United States to regain American friendship and the American markets. British operations during the war itself never really lent themselves to any sort of offensive conquest type thing; they were chiefly raids aimed at getting the Americans to stop attacking Canada and come to reasonable terms.
The Founding fathers still ran the country at that point, I don't think it would have worked out quite so well.
I think that to be a rather romantic view of British colonial history. Then again, our difference in nationality can separate us a bit on this one issue.
I would assume that a British reconquest ("reconquest") would involve the ousting of the Founding Fathers. It's not as if regime changes were exactly alien to the Western world c.1800.
But, as Dachs said, it would really require a pretty drastic departure from history, and I think that, at this point, another half-assed alt-history scenario will give Dachs a mental breakdown!
I'm an Irish-Scots Marxist. I assure you, I have not ounce of imperial romanticism in my body!
I don't recall any Napoleonic battles happening in Asia (besides the odd naval skirmish) but the Seven Years War did have fairly major battles in Asia. I think the 7YW fits the title 'world war' better then the Napoleonic Wars.
If you want to stretch things a bit, Napoleon's campaigns in Palestine were technically in Asia; the second Maratha War and the final war against Tipu Sultan should qualify as well if we're including the War of 1812.
i still have the idea where western Rome survives in modern Spain. (note: i may or may not keep eastern Rome alive, im not sure which i shoudl do)
knowing me, ill make his head explode.
WW2, but American Civil War is more fascinating.
In fact American Civil War was what aroused my interest in military history.
I'm not surprised why many Americans are so crazy about that war.
When it comes to the guy who started this thread:
I hope you are joking. Because if mustard gas and artillery shock is really "beautiful" to you, then I suggest you go to the doctor.
American Civil War was last of the "beautiful" (euphemism) major wars. Ah, that Picket's charge, etc.
Many of the things which we associate with the Great War were more common in the American Civil War - mud, trenches and infantry assaults checked with rapid fire, for example
But this was only - on large scale at least - by the very end of the Civil War.
Many infantry assaults of the AWC were also successful, despite the increasing firepower. In WW1 machine guns changed this.
And it appears to me that wars which took place at roughly the same time in Europe (so for example the Crimean War, the Prussian-German war of 1870 - 1871) were more "modern" than AWC. American Civil War seems to be the last of the wars fought in "Napoleonic Style", if you let me call it this way.
And Napoleonic wars were "beautiful" (compared to later mud, trenches and gas), maybe except for the tragedy of the Great Army in Russia.
Well, I should point out that I have huge respect for the men who fought before our modern age: fighting shoulder-to-shoulder to drill commands under literally walls of firepower and cannon-shot, bayonet charges against infantry and forming squares against cavalry, smoking powder so that you can't see a thing and no real idea of the battle beyond your own company's position - to be honest, that sounds far worse than what we have today. Tanks may have replaced cavalry, but I've never been lanced by one.
Separate names with a comma.