The Almighty Turtle
Posts: 64
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
|
Ok than, I am sick of this BS and I HAVE to clean up here or simply go mad. Firstoff, I must say that Wellington was (in my estimation) not as good as Nappy at both their peaks, but he was more careful with being able to not be caught with his pants down and at the same time getting his enemy in the most disadvantegous position possible.
That said, even though he was not on Napoleon's skill level, he WAS quite skilled. Malcolm, you are being a @%@$#) Idiot. You complain about him not taking a fortress because he outnumbered the Fronsay in that area. You are delieratly ignoring the main picture of the Iberian at that time:
1. THE FRENCH HAD MORE MEN IN THE PENNINSULA AT THAT TIME!!!! 2. MOST OF WELLINGTON'S MEN WERE EITHER SPANISH OR PORTUGUESE OF LARGLY ABYSMAL QUALITY AND TRAINING. 3. THE BRITIsH WERE AT LARGE THE ONlY QUALITY TROOPS AND OFFICERS ON THE IBERIAN FOR THE ALLIANCE (not 100%, but sure as hell the vast majority of the time) 4. WELLINGTON WAS UNSURE OF THE LOYALTIES OF MANY SPANIARDS, WHO HAD SO RECENTLY FOUGHT ALONGSIDE THE FRENCH. 5. THIS WAS NOT THE FRENCH ARMY OF THE 1814 CAMPAIGN! THESE MEN WERE WELL TRAINED, EQUIPPED, AND MANY HAD SERVED IN THE WARS OF THE "GLORY YEARS"! IF THEY CAN BRING YOU TO BATTLE ON SOMETHING THAT IS FAVORABLE TO THEM, THEY ARE GOING TO BLAST THE **** OUT OF YOU, BLOW YOU TO BITS, AND IN GENERAL F*CK YOU UP. BADLY.
AND YOU ARE HERE WHINING AND BITCHING ABOUT AN "AGRESSIVE" GENERAL COULD BE AT THE PYRENEES BY 1810. At the Latest.
YOu forget that the Britishmen were only a relatively small portion of the Allied force, most are Spaniards and Portuguese, who are at large abysmal.
And I am also sick about the colonial fanboyism about those who defeated France.
Firstoff, I must say that I am a US Diehard Conservative. I May support some issues that are traditionally Left-wing, like Gay Marriage, but on the whole I am a die-hard neocon and dedicated Bushite. Thus, there is little good will between myself and the French of today.
However, that does not pardon myself from cleaning up some factual errors stated here.
1. The insurgents (the Mexican Nationalists) were outnumbered by the Fronsay. TRUTH: the French and Interventionist forces had around 18,000+ men in Mexico more or less throughout the intervention. The Nationalist numbers are quite a bit more vauge, but it is estimated that there were about 26,000 in arms at the start of the crisis and they recruited at roughly 3,000 per month.
2. The Mexican Nationalists defeated the French in combat. TRUTH: This is likely due to the fact that the only major battle of the intervention known in most of the West is Cinco De Mayo. This was by all means a spectaculor feat of arms. It was also by all means an exception: the majority of battles were won by the French, usually against far superior numbers. People conveniently ignore the true reason that the French went:
The US of A, on the basis of the Monroe doctrine, and afraid of Napoleon III's ambitions, were largely powerless to do anything due to conflicts in the Civil War. However, in the final two years, the US had defeated the CSA and were moving vast amounts of troops South to subdue the South. These troops were conveniently in springing distance of Mexico. The war was also becoming increasingly unpopular in France, and thus there was much support to fall back out. In 1866, the first real troop withdraws took place, leaving Maximillian at the mercy of the Nationalists.
This is not to say Juarez was not a good general, he was, but dispite his numbers he could not really match the training and equipment of the French, and he largly won because he largly kept his head down and moved around to avoid being pinned and destroyed by numerically inferior but strategically and qualitivly superior forces. And he did this. But Mexico ultimatly became free because the French were worried about having their isolated, weary troops being impaled on the bayonettes of the US, who were far closer to the homeland and thus capable of getting reserves into action.
3. The French did nothing in WWII. TRUTH: As much as it pains me to admit, the French, however poor they did in 1940, was largly caused not due to the quality of troops, but to German numerical superiority and agility. The Germans took larger losses than the Allies (despite what German propaganda would lead you to believe) but they used their armor and numerical superiority to demoralize and cut off the French. In translation, the reason for the 1940 disaster was not due to the French being absolute cowards, but due to the fact that French Command was dumber than a bag of bricks and they were still rooted in the olde days of war, and the Germans being NOT as dumb as a bag of bricks, and being able to bring to the field more men than the Allies and more manuverablility. Most of the French surrenders came in situations that are considered "hopeless capituations" were refusing to surrender will in all probaility merely result in no useful strategic or military value and in general serve no effective purpose.
And after 1940, they played a valuble role avenging what had been lost due to Allied and German leaders thinking and planning on two different levels.
The World knows Rommel, the Desert Fox, the man who had sent the dispersed British Army scattering East back to Egypt in spite of numerical disparity, was defeated at the Second Battle of El Alamein, despite his forces getting large renforcements both from Germany and from Nationalist rebels in Africa fighting the Western Allies to the point that he outnumbered the Western Allies.
Few people seem to take any note of the Battle of Bir Hakeim. However, without the latter, it is entirely possible the Western Allies could not have consolidated the line enough to face numerically superior German forces and defeat them in the former.
At Bir Hakeim, Rommel was chasing the Western Allies who he had sent running to Egypt once again, and seemed poised to conquer the land of Pyramids and the Nile. On the road, standing in his path, was the fort of Bir Hakeim, manned by 3,700 soldiers of the Free French. The Germans needed to continue the charge across Africa, and in order to do that, they needed to seize this fort. The French, despite being outrageously outnumbered, were better armed, trained, and in better positions than their German foes, and they held the line with only periodic aid from the RAF and supplies via Western Allied Armor FOR 16 DAYS! The Germans eventually overran the position, but only after great loss of life, and were delayed long enough for Rommel to meet his Waterloo at El Alamein.
And this is but one example out of millions.
The French also participated in Italy, Greece, the retaking of France and the Low Countries, and finally revenge in Germany itself, and the Franco-Benelux Corp raised near Leizpig dealt with more than a few Soviets in the December 1945 Incident.
4. The Viet Mihn defeated the French. TRUTH: The French public defeated the French. The much-hyped VM had massive numerical advantage, aid from China, Russia, and even as far away as Algeria and Egypt. And yet they failed to defeat the French. Instead, they suffered constant setbacks, defeats, and misery. And the Much-acclaimed Vietnamese victory at Dien Bien Phu?
Didn't happen. At least as the current Vietnamese regime said. The Vietnamese took groteque losses in the battle, had much of their experienced soldiers, officers, and foreign aid killed, and even Ho Chi Mihn's brother, Ho Ngo Dihn (or something similar, I will not pretend to be an expert in Vietnamese) killed and he himself barely escaping the same fate when he was personally scouting with a small entourage the airfield.
The result of Dien Bien Phu was largely a signed ceasefire allowing the evacuation of the French troops along with the (quite few) French prisoners taken by the VM. This granted was when the French were on their last forts, but the VM had taken massive losses and were bleed of their best men. Had French reinforcements arrived and counter attacked, history would have been different. Yet Ho Chi Mihn covered the details of the battle up, and largely painted it as a brilliant victory to cover the awful, bloody nature of it. It recieved credence in the West when another Western domocracy tried to destroy the communist monstrocity in Hanoi. In that, the biased and often treasonous media and protesters took the inaccurate Vietnamese assesment of Dien Bien Phu and made it "Fact."
History repeated itself with Algeria, including the movie the Battle for Tunis, which featured the leader of the rebels comparing Allied bombings of towns where armed rebels had set up shop with the deliberate homicide of innocent people who might have even agreed with the struggle against French "Opression," in suicide bombings. The fact that both in Algeria and Vietnam, healthy slave trading networks backed the rebels because those eeevvvill Western Allies tried to impose via force the ideals of "Democracy, freedom, Capitalism, and Liberty." "Freedom" Fighters indeed.
Again, I am not fond of the French, but I just don't think that the stereotype Frenchman does justice to the French. I do laugh like hell at French jokes, and I probably know half of them by heart, but the jokes have more to do with the De Gaullist split in the 60's and with French refusal to combat terror in the now than with any actual realities on how the French fared.
But back on topic.
I have already said tat Wellington was an excellant general, taking on and defeating the French despite numerical inferiority and the fact that most of his soldiers were Spaniards and Portuguese who often were operating NO WHERE NEAR the level the French and English were dueling on. However, I doubt that he could beat Bonny even if he were to rise on his best day.
But Wellington probably paid more attention to detail than Napoleon, at least by the time of the 100 days. He knew that most of his army was not the excellant British 'Scum of the Earth' that he had dealt with in the Iberia, but were Dutch, Belgian, and Germanic troops. The Dutch-Belgians were troops that, despite the fact that many had fought with Bonaparte, were far from keen with him after his annexation of Holland, and thus they were largely considered trustworthy. The Germans, on the other hand, were quite different. Many of them had served with Napoleon, were of quizzical quality, and dubious loyalties.
This is likely the reason that the French went after Wellington instead of the larger but less-than-expert Prussians: To defeat and destroy Wellington's army and thus cause a defection of the non-British troops into French Ranks. And after that, they would deal with the lesser Prussians and crush them with no true conceivable problem, and than get into position to hope to defeat the Austrians and Russians, or get them to sign peace.
The British held the high ground, and had the French been able to seize said ground, the British and Wellington would do the only real choice they had: fall back like hell and abandon Brussels. This is not due to any shortcoming on Wellington's side, but his force was far to small to take the heat of the French without Blucher to act like a pin-cushion and inflict some losses on the French.
As for Napoleon, he was demoralized after 1812, 1813, and 1814, and he openly said in his private writing that he believed that fate had turned against him. That destiny, which he believed favored him since way back in Lodi, had finally deserted him. He was also faced with two opponents: one with a small force but on the whole was expertly led and most of the British, Dutch, and Belgians were well equipped and trained, and commanded the high ground, and the other, the one that was less than expertly led, was lacking in true quality, but could field many men and were not lacking for will to fight. He also faced the decline of the French Army. The men who had beaten the snot out of the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Russians, the Austrians, the Prussians, and the various German states countless times were gone. Finito.
So ultimatly, I would say that the decline of Napoleon and should be based not on any given time but rather on confidence, as in how victories are going etc. And one should also be able to alter the doctrines and quality of the armies under their control.
And, to sum up the Wellington V Nappy situation, here is my take:
Wellington < Napoleon
But
Wellington > French Army
< Message edited by The Almighty Turtle -- 3/5/2007 12:08:17 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings - 
Two cities in two different countries/colonies, each of which mirrors the name of said colony, and I manage to get them confused!!! DOH! To be fair to the maker of BfA, it was more than a bit fair than I expected it to be, and it did make an attempt to show the other side. A piss-poor attempt that never went into the ahm.. Moral difficulties of the resistence. But still an attempt. 
to read and another one to thinking of writing the same for the US. Hum, just read some scholar manual or an encyclopedia to have a correct idea. 
[1] You obviously do not know what slander is. [2] Where did I say that you did not continue the topic? I only said you had inaccuracies in your off topic portion (for example, France claims double what you list for their deployment in Mexico) 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread