|
| Napoleonic Era |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Half-track |
 Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 2579
Location: BC Canada
|
Stalin killed of all the officers in charge when the germans kept advancing in operation Barbarossa and Hitler had a lot of officers killed when he was starting out. These two horrors of the 20th century are like the same side of the same coin. They both commited terrible atrocities.
By the way did anyone know when the russians took berlin they found hitlers and himmlers bodies and kept them in suit cases... i watched a show on tv where they took them out. very weird, because they also had himmler's club foot fixer ...thing.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Luftwaffe Flak Vierling |
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 2213
Location: In CoD4 being addicted to it.
|
Ya that was on a History Channel show where some Russian Curator said they had Hitlers body all along but they didnt want the West to know about it so they said they never found it.
Supposedly his body is still in the basement of some Russian museum...personally if you ask me I think they should toss it out in the ocean with a weight around it...no proper burial for Hitler wouldnt bother me abit. All the best, Jon
_________________
Dark Site:
http://papersoldierworld.blogspot.com/
UPDATED 07/05/08
Non-Historical Site:
http://www.freewebs.com/jgnh/index.htm
UPDATED 09/22/08
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Half-track |
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 2579
Location: BC Canada
|
too bad he killed himself could have been tortured pretty damn good. and the war crimes oooh mama! No way would he be not guilty
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| juniorgeneral |
| Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 2104
Location: NJ/US
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Half-track |
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 2579
Location: BC Canada
|
agreed...... now back to the napoleonic era
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Chasseur |
| Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 153
Location: Upper Wisconsin Dells
|
| Quote: |
| Supposedly his body is still in the basement of some Russian museum...personally if you ask me I think they should toss it out in the ocean with a weight around it...no proper burial for Hitler wouldnt bother me abit. All the best, Jon |
They probably burned the bones and mixed the ashes with Vodkia! 
_______________________________________________________________
Now back to the 19th century. Since we are floating towards 1812-1815 i'll give my two cents worth. Wellington in my opinion was more a tactician than a rallying leader; which Napoleon was. in my opinion Napoleon
rules over Wellington as a general and the love he inspired from his men. EVERY one remembers Wellington's victory at Waterloo, and therefor remember Wellington as the man who beat Boney; the King of Europe, ruler of all, great conquerer just after that said you can imagine the impact that it would have for centuries to come. Waterloo should be correctly called the German victory due to 3/4 of the "British" actually being German.
Dutch, Civilian, German, and French accounts all mention the arrival of the Prussians as the killing blow to the French army from Plancenoit. Blucher and his staff, and all those Netherlanders' and Hanoverians, are the true heroes of Waterloo and should be truly remembered as the victors of Waterloo field. If any statue deserves to be erected in London; as Lord wellington was, it Should be of the united allies and Marschal Gebhardt von Blucher, no questions asked. 
Another thing that drives me insane!
Often when Napoleon is mentioned in modern British media his name is received with slight sarcasm and a smug look to whomever he is mentioned...  I find it interesting that British Media and some public opinions still anger at his mention. Napoleon never took England PERIOD, However his armies did March through Vienna, Berlin, Madrid, Moscow...ect
With that said if any country has the right to be sensitive on Napoleon it's the Austrian, German and Russian public opinion and Media. With Harsh treaties(Pressberg, Tilsit, Schoenbrunn, ect) and way more casualties the British have nothing to complain about when old Boney is mentioned in a positive light...
They didn't fight Wargram, Borodino, Aspern-essling, Liepzig, Austerlitz,
Raezyn, Dresden, Freidland, Jena-Auerstadt. They fought Waterloo, ended it all with the Help :EDIT: sacrifice of Germans and now brag 192 years later.
Sometimes French and German and Russian Napoleonic sources and accounts are USUALLY and can be less biased then American and English ones currently avaliable.
Also I'm not denying the British their victories in Spain, they were indeed heroic(Beside Albuera) and did contribute the Napoleon's downfall.
Please no crude remarks
P.S. I still dislike Napoleon for his cruel wars and treatment of civilians, but I'm tired of the the world handing British the victory laurel for waterloo
_________________
Gnas
____________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SPARTACUS |
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 14
|
You make a valid point.
Wonder what would of been the result of Waterloo if Wellington had to face Napoleon's Grande Armee in it's prime with Marshals Davout, Lannes and Berthier instead of Soult as Napoleon's Chief of Staff. If Davout or even Massena (both were still alive even then) had commanded the right wing against the Prussians, Blucher would never have made it to Wellington's aid. La Grande Armee would have crushed Wellington's army at Waterloo. Wellington's superior tactics would not have been able to save him. Blucher facing Davout instead of Grouchy would most surely have resulted in the Prussians either being forced away from Wellington or being completely destroyed altogether.
By 1815, Marshals Davout and Massena were Napoleon's equals as field commanders and the Emperor knew it. That's why Davout and Massena were not part of the 100 days campaign. Napoleon's political position in France was still very fragile and he could not afford to have anyone share in his single-minded glory. Why else would Napoleon not use the best leadership available even with all his chips on the line.
My man Napoleon was betrayed by the ineptitude of Ney,Soult and Grouchy during the Waterloo campaign. All three of these men were not suited to their respective tasks during the campaign. The Emperor owed much of his earlier successes to the combination of guys like Davout, Massena, Lannes, Murat, Ney, Soult and Berthier working as one unit.
Wellington in turn never possessed leadership like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| legal01 |
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 49
Location: South Africa
|
I must disagree with the comments on Wellington, I think Wellington was a tactician of note and on a par with Napoleon. He inspired his troops to the same degree as Napoleon and there was definately a feeling that if he was there the battle was won. This is evident in numerous letters written by officers and men at the time. The principal problem with Waterloo is twofold, Hougamont was never taken seriously enough to warrant a more definate attack which would have place Wellington in the position that his flack would be exposed and Napoleon would be able to cut him off from his route to the coast and England and second the style of attack in column by Napoleon had been proven over and over again to be highly unsuccessful agains a line defence. Napoleon did not change this form of attack even when he was aware from Spain that it was not a success.
There is no doubt that Wellington could not have won Waterloo without the Prussians and he has acknowledged as much in his dispatch of the battle. The army that he commanded was not of his choice and making and thus he has no control over the soldiers he was given to command. It is true that the British tend to make it a British victory where it is very evident that it was a European victory. The mismannagement by Napoleon's marshalls and generals did not help but it seems from the French dispatches of the day Napoleon under estimated Wellington and made decisions he would not have made on other days.
No doubt Wellington would have lost against the Grand Army at its height but as he himself records Waterloo was a very near run thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| khamul |
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 6
Location: Columbus, OH
|
Wellington had very mixed forces during the 100 days campaign, ranging from the Dutch troops of the Prince of Orange's Corps, to veterans like the 5th Division and the guards. The Prussians were diluted by the losses of a difficult war, but they had adapted the mass tactics of the French very well.
The deepest thing I have ever heard said about Waterloo was that it was really four battles: the twin battles of Quatre Bras and Ligne, where Napoleon's two wings won seperate tactical victories over the English and Prussian armies (without the aid of I Corps d'Armee, neither of these proved decisive), and then his battles against the English on one flank, and the Prussians on his other, both of which he lost. It's true that Napoleon had lost his best Corps commanders, but I think his true downfall was that his armies had grown too large to be effectively coordinated. As for Massena and Davout, the former was over the hill and had retired: the latter is generally regarded as the man who could have won Waterloo for Napoleon, but he had his faults too. Generally it took a long time for Davout's signature flank attacks to get rolling: if the Iron Marshal had been at Waterloo could he have launched one of these crushing attacks in time to prevent the two allied armies from combining?
Of course, anyone could have been better at coordinating an assault than Ney, who was rightly nicknamed "Red Michael" by his troops.
I think Waterloo gets way too much attention from modern war-nerds, though. The real climax of the Napoleonic Wars was the "Battle of the Nations" at Leipzig, which saw the largest concentration of troops in human history before the Great War. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Supreme Commander 'Eekut |
| Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 16 Sep 2007
Posts: 1001
Location: Scotland
|
| Half-track wrote: |
| too bad he killed himself could have been tortured pretty damn good. and the war crimes oooh mama! No way would he be not guilty |
A bit off-topic but Hitler must of survvved.Why?Cos people shot emselfs in the head to get the bullet through there brain.The bullet must of went through one ear,out the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
