7 ms·
> Jonathon Riley served in Bosnia and Iraq, where he was the general officer commanding British forces. A British officer who doesn't think highly of Napoleon?
by alricb 12y ago
> Jonathon Riley served in Bosnia and Iraq, where he was the general officer commanding British forces.
A British officer who doesn't think highly of Napoleon? This is my surprised face.
> This is implicit in Karl von Clausewitz’s celebrated but often misquoted (and still more often misunderstood) remark that ‘war is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means.’
Can this guy read German? Because that seems like an over-translation of the simple „Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln“ (title of section 24, chapter 1, book I of Vom Kriege).
I would also note that Napoleon failed in the end, but that he did quite well in the meanwhile. He continued the Revolutionary Wars, and so was doomed to face the forces of reaction, who would never ally with him with any kind of sincerity. It's possible that his military successes blinded him to the possibility of stability through diplomacy, but could he really have allied with the Habsburgs?
He also had to contend with an ascendant Britain, willing to exploit her insular position to its full advantage through her renewed Navy and her economic strength. But just a few years before the French Revolution, Britain had come close to losing it all; with no allies on the continent to distract France, she might have lost not just her colonies, but her dominant naval position, which was so essential in Napoleon's defeat.
- cmdkeen 12y agoNapoleon had many of the same advantages as with the War of Independence, once France and Spain were allied he had a naval numerical advantage and at many points an isolated Britain. Even the revolutionary French and Spanish Navies had shown a marked lack of interest in the kind of daring fighting that marked British admirals (partially due to the esprit de corps created after Byng's shooting). Nelson's breaking the line was not a new tactical invention, it was just something that most shied away from. Perhaps we British officers (I'm RN) appreciate our heroes a little more because they fought outnumbered yet achieved crushing victories, and they achieved their ultimate strategic objectives. Despite being aristocrats dealing with men who were often "scum" seemed to care far more their lives than the supposedly revolutionary Napoleon. Wellington was not only a great general but fought peace as a diplomat in Paris, and later as a Prime Minister. Wellington even sought out Napoleon's former mistresses and seduced them in Paris.
- cafard 12y agoIt didn't help the French navy that the revolution executed and exiled quite a few of its officers. As for "fought outnumbered yet achieved crushing victories", it's worth remembering that Britain had allies nearly throughout the war: Portuguese and Spanish during most of the Peninsular War; Germans (and Dutch) at Waterloo, and most of the time the Russians and Austrians fighting the French with whatever success to the east.
- cmdkeen 12y agoNapoleon complained of "Pitt's gold" that Britain sent to the continental states in the coalitions. But there were 7 coalitions in total - Napoleon kept defeating them on land, so Britain couldn't rely on them. I'm just getting stuck into Robert's "Napoleon the Great", my Christmas present to myself!
- qwertyuiop1234 12y agoBritish gold bought distractions. Britain has the best navy but on land it couldn't even compete with France. If the French were able to cross the channel from Boulogne, then it'd be the end of the empire. At Austerlitz, Britain paid money for each dead Russian soldier. English agents were busy counting the dead making sure his majestry's money is well spent while French medics trying to save wounded from both side. Austrian emperor Francis allegedly said 'English are merchants of human flesh.
- S4M 12y agoWhat are your sources of that? I am French myself, and used to be fond of the history of Napoleon, but I never heard of that.
- qwertyuiop1234 12y agohttp://www.napoleonicsociety.com/english/Life_Nap_Vol2_Chap14.htm http://www.napoleonicsociety.com/english/Life_Nap_Vol2_Chap1... Also, Britain routinely paid other monarchies to have them send their soldiers. They hired Germans to fight against American independence. George Washington's famous first victory was crossing the Delaware river and surprise attacked what were actual German legions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_%28soldiers%29#American_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_%28soldiers%29#American... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_crossing_of_the_Delaware_River http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_crossing_...
- Tloewald 12y agoThe most valuable thing about the article, in my opinion, is its teasing out of the difference between strategy (considering all means and all goals) and tactics, something that -- for example -- the US military might learn from (which defines the difference by the number of soldiers involved -- I am not making this up). Napoleon was very good at tactics, grand tactics ("strategy" in the US), and even logistics, but he was not good enough at strategy to win. As many have pointed out, the odds were stacked against him because he represented the Devil in terms of the ideas he and the French Empire espoused, and despite his defeat the ideas won. Ideology aside, most importantly, Napoleon represented a dominant power in Europe which Britain -- at the time the world's only real superpower -- implacably opposed for strategic reasons (unified Europe means Britain no longer top nation). The thing that really riles up the British about Napoleon is that his influence and fame are so wide relative to that of Wellington, who was if anything a better tactician. Even in this article the emphasis on the Russian campaign for Napoleon's defeat probably irks those who follow Wellington. Wellington defeated the French in India, securing Britain's economic advantages, and then turned Spain into a bloody quagmire. He won every battle he fought, usually with few casualties on his side. Oh, and he is the one who finally beat Napoleon, despite being outnumbered. Here's a nice comparison of the two: http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/france/well-nap.htm http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/france/well-nap.htm
- sethrin 12y agoBritain was the only real superpower? France had been disputing that claim for about a hundred years at that point. In point of fact between the time of Charlemagne, and Waterloo, there are few periods in which France was not the dominant power. France was generally larger, richer, more populous, and more powerful than the rest of Europe. I am sure that Wellington was a good guy, but that "article" is garbage. Some information is useful despite being obviously biased, but this is just dreck. Wellington was physically fit, and Napoleon wasn't? This must obviously have been a decisive factor; it's good the right man won. I am surprised not to read a discussion of their favorite colors. I am sure that you can pick apart a global conflict spanning (at least) two decades, with many reverses and triumphs by both sides, to show that one side and one hero was destined to win, the other side's defeat inevitable. I am less convinced that this is a good thing to do, and more skeptical that your hero does not have the reputation he deserves.