Napoleon Bonaparte

[coinspinner]

First to Svalbard, Sharpe's series is historical fiction. It's the worst kind of stuff you can read because it tends to fill in gaps of misunderstanding with events and central opinions that never took place. That said, one can no longer discern the real from the make-believe.

Gordian, call this post bias on the side of Napoleon but I feel it's simply relevant to the accomplishments of Napoleon. However, you're welcome to start a thread titled, "The shortcomings of Napoleon" and I'd be more than happy to pitch in.

 

[The Ace]

Bowler, Napoleon's greed and avarice? Please provide some details.
Also, if you need a more rationalized voting panel for who could be called the greatest General in the world, I doubt you'd find it at a sci fi forum which could hardly be taken seriously.


Marvin, instead of focusing so much on Napoleon, perhaps you should consider looking into why England persistently broke all its treaties with Napoleon in order to stab him (France's choice-Emperor) in the back at every turn. Also, why England was so adamant on re-instating Louis XVI, who exiled to England.

I suggest you start here with a book titled, "The Wars against Napoleon" by Ben Weider and Gen. Franceschi.

Goodluck and have fun.

Errr England didn't do any of those things since she ceased to exist as a separate state in 1603.

While Hitler was fighting England, Britain gave him a pasting - he was an amoral piece of scum, what's your excuse?

 

[coinspinner]

Yes she did. For instance, the treaty of Amien.

..

What's my excuse for what? Hitler? I think he was an asshole just like Churchill and Stalin.

 

[Abernovo]

Coinspinner, I think you're missing the point of The Ace's comment. For someone who appears to enjoy lecturing others on their historical 'misconceptions', you need to get certain historical facts right.

Napoleon's army may have faced English regiments, but he never faced the English Army. That entity ceased to exist under that Act of Union, 1707, as did the Royal Scottish Army. What the French Imperial Army faced from the Peninsular War through to Waterloo was the British Army. Just as England had nothing to do with the Treaty of Amiens, 1802; that was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as it was at that point.

Now, I'm sure it was a simple and honest mistake on your part, but there are many of us Brits who do not like to be labelled English. England and Britain are not synonymous. I think it's things like that and your rather brusque comment style make it difficult to have an easy discussion with you on the relative merits of a talented military and civil leader. Which is something many members of this forum would be up for, I'm sure.

I for one think that the Napoleonic Code was one of his great achievements, although based on millennia of legal precedent, as all law is. However, Napoleon Bonaparte was flawed as well. His army was arguably slow to learn, sending columns against lines of the organised volley fires of the British again and again, resulting in massive losses. Ultimately, that has to sit at Napoleon's feet, as the Marshals of France all answered to him.

 

[coinspinner]

Thank you for elaborating that, I'm half tempted to going back and editing all my posts.
England = UK/GB.. absolve me, my scrupulous friends.
Regarding the regiments, the nationalities against Napoleon varied from coalition to coalition. I think ostensibly the Austrians were the most driven by conflict with Napoleon and this had been from his early years as a young General when he ran them out of Italy. The famous paintings of Napoleon crossing the Alps was a motion against the deliberating advances of the Austrians as well.

 

[The Ace]

Yes she did. For instance, the treaty of Amien.

..

What's my excuse for what? Hitler? I think he was an asshole just like Churchill and Stalin.

And he also thought that Britain and England were the same thing.

As Aber so kindly pointed out, James VI of Scots created the United Kingdom of Great Britain when he became James I of England in 1603 - the Parliaments of both countries merged in 1707.

The USA gained independence from Britain, not England, and it was Britain that fought Napoleon. England is only a constituent part of Britain, not a separate entity - and there are many British people who are not English and resent being so described.

http://www.tickld.com/t/24984/?fb_action_ids=466182593402557&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map={%22466182593402557%22%3A339738996116718}&action_type_map={%22466182593402557%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]

 

[Brian G Turner]

coinspinner, obviously you are welcome to discuss all sorts of topics at chronicles, however, I'm concerned about the fact that all you appear to want to do is push a certain view of Napoleon down our throats, and appear unwilling and unable to engage in reasonable discussion from this.

For that reason, I'm going to close this thread as it is currently serving no constructive purpose as the moment.