| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Eton
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 577
Location: Die Heimat.....I wish.
|
| Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
ozymandias wrote: Quote: because of a nebulous concept like the 'balance of power'.
hmmm is this the balance of power which is still used to decide foreign policy today, and is the central surmise behind almost every political theory book except the post modernists? you make it seem like a bad thing that britain was trying to preserve the balance of power. if you dismiss it, you clearly didn't understand it.
whilst napoleon did instigate good reforms in france, that would arguably have happended post revolution without him. he caused the deaths of thousands of europeans, and at his defeat caused the cessation of france as a viable european power. and what about the genocide of the spanish and portugese at the hands of his inept brother?
1.What 'genocide' of Spanish and Portuguese people?
2. The balance of power should not be the holy grail of British foreign policy. I'm argueing that Britain should not have expended so much blood, resources and finances to preserve the ancien regime and a balance of power between France and the other despotic regimes. Quite frankly Czarist Russia was not worth the bones of a single English Grenadier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Slava
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 480
Location: Kazan
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Napoleon was a bastard who caused so much suffering to Russia and many other European states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
eynon
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 20002
Location: Minneapolis......
|
| Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Slava wrote: Napoleon was a bastard who caused so much suffering to Russia and many other European states.
not if your Polish or Lithunanian...he liberated them from the Czar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Slava
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 480
Location: Kazan
|
| Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Eynon81 wrote: Slava wrote: Napoleon was a bastard who caused so much suffering to Russia and many other European states.
not if your Polish or Lithunanian...he liberated them from the Czar.
He 'liberated' Poland mainly from your fellow Prussians and Austrians. As for Lithuania, Napoleon couldn't even capture Vilno, let alone 'liberate' most of Lithuania. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Aibolit
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 27
Location: The biggest city in the world behind Polar Circle
|
| Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Quite frankly Czarist Russia was not worth the bones of a single English Grenadier" - *Edited by TGND - please refrain from such behavior in the future.*
"he liberated them from the Czar" - the same....
Forgive me, but I have no another words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Slava
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 480
Location: Kazan
|
| Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aibolit wrote: "Quite frankly Czarist Russia was not worth the bones of a single English Grenadier" - *Mod edit*
"he liberated them from the Czar" - the same....
Forgive me, but I have no another words.
I refrained from writing it, but, frankly speaking, I felt the same :twisted: |
|
| Back to top |
|
Slava
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 480
Location: Kazan
|
| Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Eynon81 wrote: Slava wrote: Napoleon was a bastard who caused so much suffering to Russia and many other European states.
not if your Polish or Lithunanian...he liberated them from the Czar.
What a shame the Tsar was not communist :lol: ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
mateusz84
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 1
Location: Warsaw
|
| Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
In Poland Napoleon was treated as a hero due to the promise of liberating the country from Prussian/Austrian/Russian occupation. Many Poles who fled the country from the oppression joined his army and went east to free their homeland. Nowadays attitude towards him is still positive although not as strong. On the other hand, Napoleon is even present in the Polish national anthem which was originally a song of Polish "Legions" fighting by his side.
Despite my nation's attitude I don't perceive him as a completely positive figure, but I understand why he used to be praised so much by my countrymen back then.
PS
My first post, so hello. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SaintLucifer
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mahanon wrote: good tactican bad strategist ;) - could take whole europe if he wouldnt go for the big bear
Bad strategist?? The man not only took on Russia but he DEFEATED them and everyone knows it. You do recall that he is the only foreigner to ever march into Moscow? A shame the city was already in flames when he marched into the city. The cowardly Russians fled for their lives after burning their capital to the ground and destroying all food stocks. No invading power could have forseen such cowardice on a grand scale. The Russians did not defeat him. The Russian winter defeated him as he was forced to make do without proper food and supplies thanks to the cowardly Russians employing a 'scorched earth' policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Slava
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 480
Location: Kazan
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
SaintLucifer wrote: Mahanon wrote: good tactican bad strategist ;) - could take whole europe if he wouldnt go for the big bear
Bad strategist?? The man not only took on Russia but he DEFEATED them and everyone knows it. You do recall that he is the only foreigner to ever march into Moscow? A shame the city was already in flames when he marched into the city. The cowardly Russians fled for their lives after burning their capital to the ground and destroying all food stocks. No invading power could have forseen such cowardice on a grand scale. The Russians did not defeat him. The Russian winter defeated him as he was forced to make do without proper food and supplies thanks to the cowardly Russians employing a 'scorched earth' policy.
bulls**t. Poles did this 200 years before Napoleon and burned Moscow to the ground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Eton
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 577
Location: Die Heimat.....I wish.
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aibolit wrote: "Quite frankly Czarist Russia was not worth the bones of a single English Grenadier" - *Mod edit*
"he liberated them from the Czar" - the same....
Forgive me, but I have no another words.
I'm sorry, but I would rather had been a peasant in Napoleonic France than a serf in Czarist Russia. As such I stand by my statement that Czarist Russia was not worth fighting for or with against Napoleon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Simon De Montfort
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 2204
Location: Huntsville, Al
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
SaintLucifer wrote: Mahanon wrote: good tactican bad strategist ;) - could take whole europe if he wouldnt go for the big bear
Bad strategist?? The man not only took on Russia but he DEFEATED them and everyone knows it. You do recall that he is the only foreigner to ever march into Moscow? A shame the city was already in flames when he marched into the city. The cowardly Russians fled for their lives after burning their capital to the ground and destroying all food stocks. No invading power could have forseen such cowardice on a grand scale. The Russians did not defeat him. The Russian winter defeated him as he was forced to make do without proper food and supplies thanks to the cowardly Russians employing a 'scorched earth' policy.
This post reveals an astonishing amount of ignorance as to be embarrassing to the reader.
The Russians were being smart. For the most part they knew better than to fight the most powerful nation led by best general in the world. Kutusov (Russian general) was forced to fight at Borodino. Kutusov new that Napoleon's army out classed his. And a smart military leader (something you obviously aren't and never will be) knows when he should and shouldn't fight. Kutusov kept his army intact, allowed Napoleon to make a fatal error then attacked him when we was weak. It was brilliant. He not only saved Russia from French domination but laid the ground work for the coalition that would eventually drive Napoleon to Elba.
But I guess in your erudite understanding of military strategy you would have thought it better for the Russian's to have fought Napoleon's 600,000 man army at the border, get crushed, then have to surrender. Fighting when one is not ready is what led to the allied defeat at Austerlitz. You seem to have the same grasp of military strategy as the Austrian Emperor. :lol:
Before you start calling people cowards please learn something about military strategy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Simon De Montfort
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 2204
Location: Huntsville, Al
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aibolit wrote: "Quite frankly Czarist Russia was not worth the bones of a single English Grenadier" - *Mod edit*
"he liberated them from the Czar" - the same....
Forgive me, but I have no another words.
If that's the best you can come up with then don't post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SaintLucifer
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Slava wrote: Napoleon was a bastard who caused so much suffering to Russia and many other European states.
No one has EVER cared about Russia. They were merely a nuisance to Napoleon. A third-rate power if you will. Russia only became a power as the Soviet Union. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Simon De Montfort
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 2204
Location: Huntsville, Al
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SaintLucifer wrote: Slava wrote: Napoleon was a bastard who caused so much suffering to Russia and many other European states.
No one has EVER cared about Russia. They were merely a nuisance to Napoleon. A third-rate power if you will. Russia only became a power as the Soviet Union.
You don't really know much history do you?
Russia has been a major power since the early 18th century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SaintLucifer
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Simon De Montfort wrote: SaintLucifer wrote: Slava wrote: Napoleon was a bastard who caused so much suffering to Russia and many other European states.
No one has EVER cared about Russia. They were merely a nuisance to Napoleon. A third-rate power if you will. Russia only became a power as the Soviet Union.
You don't really know much history do you?
Russia has been a major power since the early 18th century.
No they have not. The Czar was defeated by everyone during his reign. So many countries bitchslapped the Russians it is not funny. Russia managed to assemble an 'Empire' thanks to much weaker neighbours. Show me ONE major military power the Russians took on and defeated with the exception of WWII and up. This should prove most interesting.
On the other hand, my ancestors the British took on major world powers and defeated them. To tell a Briton that Russia was always a world power is to make my ancestors kill themselves laughing. Russia has always been known for having an inept military. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Simon De Montfort
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 2204
Location: Huntsville, Al
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SaintLucifer wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: SaintLucifer wrote: Slava wrote: Napoleon was a bastard who caused so much suffering to Russia and many other European states.
No one has EVER cared about Russia. They were merely a nuisance to Napoleon. A third-rate power if you will. Russia only became a power as the Soviet Union.
You don't really know much history do you?
Russia has been a major power since the early 18th century.
No they have not. The Czar was defeated by everyone during his reign. So many countries bitchslapped the Russians it is not funny. Russia managed to assemble an 'Empire' thanks to much weaker neighbours. Show me ONE major military power the Russians took on and defeated with the exception of WWII and up. This should prove most interesting.
On the other hand, my ancestors the British took on major world powers and defeated them. To tell a Briton that Russia was always a world power is to make my ancestors kill themselves laughing. Russia has always been known for having an inept military.
Yeah, Russia carved out the huge Empire because they had an "inept military." :roll:
I will list Russia's victories over major Eurpoean powers since 1700. The list of victories over non-Eurpean power would be too many.
1700-1721 Great Northern War: Russia defeats Sweden (a major power at the time.)
LINK
1733-1735 War of Polish Succession
LINK
The Russo-Ottoman War of 1735-1739
LINK
The Swedish-Russian War of 1741-1743
LINK
In the Seven Years War the Russians made a good showing.
Battle of Zorndorf
LINK
Notice the Russians weren't destroyed. Not bad for an "inept military against the best European army of the mid 18th cent.
Battle of Kay
LINK
OMG!!! The inept won!!!
Battle of Gross-Jägersdorf
LINK
Question, how does an inept military defeat the best European army?
Battle of Kunersdorf
LINK
This one almost finished Frederick the Great. Not a bad showing for the inept.
The Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774
LINK
The Russo-Turkish War of 1787-1791
LINK
The Swedish-Russian War of 1808
LINK
In 1812 Russia defeated Napoleon and procceeded to drive him into exile.
For most of the 19th century Russia was at war defeating non-European powers. They were defeated in by Britain and France in the Crimean War. But I wouldn't crow about that victory if I were you. Britain performed horribly in the Crimea. It was a national embarrassment.
In WWI the Russians were defeated repeatedly by the Germans but they repeatedly defeated the Austrians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SaintLucifer
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Simon De Montfort wrote: SaintLucifer wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: SaintLucifer wrote: Slava wrote: Napoleon was a bastard who caused so much suffering to Russia and many other European states.
No one has EVER cared about Russia. They were merely a nuisance to Napoleon. A third-rate power if you will. Russia only became a power as the Soviet Union.
You don't really know much history do you?
Russia has been a major power since the early 18th century.
No they have not. The Czar was defeated by everyone during his reign. So many countries bitchslapped the Russians it is not funny. Russia managed to assemble an 'Empire' thanks to much weaker neighbours. Show me ONE major military power the Russians took on and defeated with the exception of WWII and up. This should prove most interesting.
On the other hand, my ancestors the British took on major world powers and defeated them. To tell a Briton that Russia was always a world power is to make my ancestors kill themselves laughing. Russia has always been known for having an inept military.
Yeah, Russia carved out the huge Empire because they had an "inept military." :roll:
I will list Russia's victories over major Eurpoean powers since 1700. The list of victories over non-Eurpean power would be too many.
1700-1721 Great Northern War: Russia defeats Sweden (a major power at the time.)
LINK
1733-1735 War of Polish Succession
LINK
The Russo-Ottoman War of 1735-1739
LINK
The Swedish-Russian War of 1741-1743
LINK
In the Seven Years War the Russians made a good showing.
Battle of Zorndorf
LINK
Notice the Russians weren't destroyed. Not bad for an "inept military against the best European army of the mid 18th cent.
Battle of Kay
LINK
OMG!!! The inept won!!!
Battle of Gross-Jägersdorf
LINK
Question, how does an inept military defeat the best European army?
Battle of Kunersdorf
LINK
This one almost finished Frederick the Great. Not a bad showing for the inept.
The Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774
LINK
The Russo-Turkish War of 1787-1791
LINK
The Swedish-Russian War of 1808
LINK
In 1812 Russia defeated Napoleon and procceeded to drive him into exile.
For most of the 19th century Russia was at war defeating non-European powers. They were defeated in by Britain and France in the Crimean War. But I wouldn't crow about that victory if I were you. Britain performed horribly in the Crimea. It was a national embarrassment.
In WWI the Russians were defeated repeatedly by the Germans but they repeatedly defeated the Austrians.
All those battles against third-rate powers. *ROTFLMAO* The Russians NEVER defeated Napoleon. That honour falls onto the British and you know it. The Russians did not drive Napoleon into exile. That was the British. Twice. The Russians defeated the Turks? Whoa! Major power! Whooee! The Russians before WWII had never faced a major power and won even though her army was far larger than any of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
SaintLucifer
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Simon De Montfort wrote: SaintLucifer wrote: Mahanon wrote: good tactican bad strategist ;) - could take whole europe if he wouldnt go for the big bear
Bad strategist?? The man not only took on Russia but he DEFEATED them and everyone knows it. You do recall that he is the only foreigner to ever march into Moscow? A shame the city was already in flames when he marched into the city. The cowardly Russians fled for their lives after burning their capital to the ground and destroying all food stocks. No invading power could have forseen such cowardice on a grand scale. The Russians did not defeat him. The Russian winter defeated him as he was forced to make do without proper food and supplies thanks to the cowardly Russians employing a 'scorched earth' policy.
This post reveals an astonishing amount of ignorance as to be embarrassing to the reader.
The Russians were being smart. For the most part they knew better than to fight the most powerful nation led by best general in the world. Kutusov (Russian general) was forced to fight at Borodino. Kutusov new that Napoleon's army out classed his. And a smart military leader (something you obviously aren't and never will be) knows when he should and shouldn't fight. Kutusov kept his army intact, allowed Napoleon to make a fatal error then attacked him when we was weak. It was brilliant. He not only saved Russia from French domination but laid the ground work for the coalition that would eventually drive Napoleon to Elba.
But I guess in your erudite understanding of military strategy you would have thought it better for the Russian's to have fought Napoleon's 600,000 man army at the border, get crushed, then have to surrender. Fighting when one is not ready is what led to the allied defeat at Austerlitz. You seem to have the same grasp of military strategy as the Austrian Emperor. :lol:
Before you start calling people cowards please learn something about military strategy.
This is proof the Russians were cowards: CHICKEN RUSSIA |
|
| Back to top |
|
Simon De Montfort
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 2204
Location: Huntsville, Al
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SaintLucifer wrote: Simon De Montfort wrote: SaintLucifer wrote: Mahanon wrote: good tactican bad strategist ;) - could take whole europe if he wouldnt go for the big bear
Bad strategist?? The man not only took on Russia but he DEFEATED them and everyone knows it. You do recall that he is the only foreigner to ever march into Moscow? A shame the city was already in flames when he marched into the city. The cowardly Russians fled for their lives after burning their capital to the ground and destroying all food stocks. No invading power could have forseen such cowardice on a grand scale. The Russians did not defeat him. The Russian winter defeated him as he was forced to make do without proper food and supplies thanks to the cowardly Russians employing a 'scorched earth' policy.
This post reveals an astonishing amount of ignorance as to be embarrassing to the reader.
The Russians were being smart. For the most part they knew better than to fight the most powerful nation led by best general in the world. Kutusov (Russian general) was forced to fight at Borodino. Kutusov new that Napoleon's army out classed his. And a smart military leader (something you obviously aren't and never will be) knows when he should and shouldn't fight. Kutusov kept his army intact, allowed Napoleon to make a fatal error then attacked him when we was weak. It was brilliant. He not only saved Russia from French domination but laid the ground work for the coalition that would eventually drive Napoleon to Elba.
But I guess in your erudite understanding of military strategy you would have thought it better for the Russian's to have fought Napoleon's 600,000 man army at the border, get crushed, then have to surrender. Fighting when one is not ready is what led to the allied defeat at Austerlitz. You seem to have the same grasp of military strategy as the Austrian Emperor. :lol:
Before you start calling people cowards please learn something about military strategy.
This is proof the Russians were cowards: CHICKEN RUSSIA
Did you read the article?
First paragraph
Quote: In June of 1812, Napoleon began his fatal Russian campaign, a landmark in the history of the destructive potential of warfare. Virtually all of continental Europe was under his control, and the invasion of Russia was an attempt to force Tsar Alexander I to submit once again to the terms of a treaty that Napoleon had imposed upon him four years earlier. Having gathered nearly half a million soldiers, from France as well as all of the vassal states of Europe, Napoleon entered Russia at the head of the largest army ever seen. The Russians, under Marshal Kutuzov, could not realistically hope to defeat him in a direct confrontation. Instead, they begin a defensive campaign of strategic retreat, devastating the land as they fell back and harassing the flanks of the French. As the summer wore on, Napoleon's massive supply lines were stretched ever thinner, and his force began to decline. By September, without having engaged in a single pitched battle, the French Army had been reduced by more than two thirds from fatigue, hunger, desertion, and raids by Russian forces.
Are you trying to support your position or mine? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
