3 ms·

> Napoleon also is one the most successful, "best", military leaders in history. The "best" most successful leaders don't get soundly beaten over and over agai

by nickik 5y ago

> Napoleon also is one the most successful, "best", military leaders in history. The "best" most successful leaders don't get soundly beaten over and over again and eventually lose everything. > Right up there with people like Alexander the Great. Highly questionable, Alexander the Great actually won and won everywhere and didn't lose his empire until he died. Napoleon is vastly overestimated in Western history. Not to mention that he left his solderers behind multiple times after his mistakes had gotten them captured over and over again. He literally was the commander in control of the worst military failure in basically all of human history. He had initiative and was a good battle leader at the helm of the most powerful country that was already very successful before he took over, but as all around military commander and strategist he had serious problems. > Historically, most of the Anti-French coalitions were led, and financed, by the British. So they are as much guilty of the Napoleonic Wars as Napoleon himself. The British are responsible French revolutionary armies moving into Netherlands, Norther Italy, Egypt and Switzerland? Britain is responsible for Napoleon leading 600k people into Russia? After the Revolution the Revolutionary government including were seriously attempting to expand in all directions peace was very temporary. Russia tried peace with Napoleon but only subservience was good enough and that trigger an invasion. > Do yes, Napoleon definitely is on of history's greats. Definitely worth remembering. And he would be even more so if he was a true class a a-hole. These people definitely should never be forgotten. I agree he should be remembered, as most history should.

hef19898 5y ago
Napoleon blundered the Russian campaign, and as a direct result the Spanish one. Which got him to Elba. Only to come back and get a very close loss at Waterloo. That makes two serious defeats. All other campaigns were won since Egypt. Wellington was a worthy opponent so. Was he power hungry? Sure. More than others? I don't think so, just more successful. Russia, at that time, was the only continental power left as a potential ally of the British. Which had opposed the French in every single war before. So yes, it was a viable campaign. One that cost him everything in the end. It was, IMHO, the last period which allowed for decisive battles. And Napoleon was really good at those. He had issues in diplomacy. No surprise as the upstart among old nobility, so. And his economic policies were lacking as well. Doesn't mean that he is among the best military leaders so far. And again, a lot of his policies were really progressive. And sure, he built upon the Revolution. Nobody exists in a vacuum, Alexander built on his father's achievements. Ceasar on the Roman Republic. Just like everyone else.
- nickik 5y ago
  Well he lost in Russian campaign. But after that there was still all of central Europe between him and Russian army. He then lost more in eastern German refusing to negotiate. Then Austria joined the war and he continued losing in Germany. Then he left Germany to France and lost in France again. > Only to come back and get a very close loss at Waterloo. Even had he won at Waterloo, there was 0% change it would not have ended the same way. > That makes two serious defeats. Actually far more then two. > Wellington was a worthy opponent so. Wellington is overrated, the reason Waterloo is so hyped its because its the only victory of the British on land and they did that with Prussian support. The Russian defeated Napoleon more then anybody else, and likely the Austrians after that. > So yes, it was a viable campaign. I'm not gone say it was not viable. But in terms of risk reward it was still bad strategy. He had many political options other then full on invading Russia. > He had issues in diplomacy. No surprise as the upstart among old nobility, so. They actually made amazing offers to him the he refused. > Just like everyone else. I would agree. I don't think he was uniquely bad. I'm just saying that I don't really think he ranks among the very best general/statesmen.

by nickik 5y ago

hef19898 5y ago

Napoleon blundered the Russian campaign, and as a direct result the Spanish one. Which got him to Elba. Only to come back and get a very close loss at Waterloo. That makes two serious defeats. All other campaigns were won since Egypt. Wellington was a worthy opponent so. Was he power hungry? Sure. More than others? I don't think so, just more successful. Russia, at that time, was the only continental power left as a potential ally of the British. Which had opposed the French in every single war before. So yes, it was a viable campaign. One that cost him everything in the end. It was, IMHO, the last period which allowed for decisive battles. And Napoleon was really good at those. He had issues in diplomacy. No surprise as the upstart among old nobility, so. And his economic policies were lacking as well. Doesn't mean that he is among the best military leaders so far. And again, a lot of his policies were really progressive. And sure, he built upon the Revolution. Nobody exists in a vacuum, Alexander built on his father's achievements. Ceasar on the Roman Republic. Just like everyone else.

nickik 5y ago
Well he lost in Russian campaign. But after that there was still all of central Europe between him and Russian army. He then lost more in eastern German refusing to negotiate. Then Austria joined the war and he continued losing in Germany. Then he left Germany to France and lost in France again. > Only to come back and get a very close loss at Waterloo. Even had he won at Waterloo, there was 0% change it would not have ended the same way. > That makes two serious defeats. Actually far more then two. > Wellington was a worthy opponent so. Wellington is overrated, the reason Waterloo is so hyped its because its the only victory of the British on land and they did that with Prussian support. The Russian defeated Napoleon more then anybody else, and likely the Austrians after that. > So yes, it was a viable campaign. I'm not gone say it was not viable. But in terms of risk reward it was still bad strategy. He had many political options other then full on invading Russia. > He had issues in diplomacy. No surprise as the upstart among old nobility, so. They actually made amazing offers to him the he refused. > Just like everyone else. I would agree. I don't think he was uniquely bad. I'm just saying that I don't really think he ranks among the very best general/statesmen.