# Napoleon Bonaparte



## Dalia (Dec 21, 2016)

Bonsoir, The story of Napoléon 1 that rise in power to become Emperor of the French

Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821)

One of the greatest military leaders in history, and emperor of France he conquered much of Europe.




 


Napoleon Bonaparte was born on 15 August 1769 in Corsica into a gentry family. Educated at military school, he was rapidly promoted and in 1796, was made commander of the French army in Italy, where he forced Austria and its allies to make peace. In 1798, Napoleon conquered Ottoman-ruled Egypt in an attempt to strike at British trade routes with India. He was stranded when his fleet was destroyed by the British at the Battle of the Nile.France now faced a new coalition - Austria and Russia had allied with Britain.

Napoleon returned to Paris where the government was in crisis. In a coup d'etat in November 1799, Napoleon became first consul. In 1802, he was made consul for life and two years later, emperor. He oversaw the centralisation of government, the creation of the Bank of France, the reinstatement of Roman Catholicism as the state religion and law reform with the Code Napoleon.

In 1800, he defeated the Austrians at Marengo. He then negotiated a general European peace which established French power on the continent. In 1803 Britain resumed war with France, later joined by Russia and Austria. Britain inflicted a naval defeat on the French at Trafalgar (1805) so Napoleon abandoned plans to invade England and turned on the Austro-Russian forces, defeating them at Austerlitz later the same year. He gained much new territory, including annexation of Prussian lands which ostensibly gave him control of Europe. The Holy Roman Empire was dissolved, Holland and Westphalia created, and over the next 5 years, Napoleon's relatives and loyalists were installed as leaders (in Holland, Westphalia, Italy, Naples, Spain and Sweden).

In 1810, he had his childless marriage to Josephine de Beauharnais annulled and married the daughter of the Austrian emperor in the hope of having an heir. A son, Napoleon, was born a year later.

The Peninsular War began in 1808. Costly French defeats over the next five years drained French military resources. Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 resulted in a disastrous retreat. The tide started to turn in favour of the allies and in March 1814, Paris fell. Napoleon went into exile on the Mediterranean island of Elba. In March 1815 he escaped and marched on the French capital. The Battle of Waterloo ended his brief reign. The British imprisoned him on the remote Atlantic island of St. Helena where he died on 5 May 1821.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/bonaparte_napoleon.shtml


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 21, 2016)

Unfortunately that is a condensed version...But I liked it...


----------



## Dalia (Dec 21, 2016)

Yes, there is so much to say about Napoléon 





I use to go to this forum create  by me and my friend from Corse.and at the forum there is a lot of historien of Napoléon 

Passion Napoléon1 :: Forum consacré à Napoléon 1er


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 21, 2016)

I have many books on Napoleon and my favorite games are from the era.Recreating the battles he fought...


----------



## Dalia (Dec 21, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> I have many books on Napoleon and my favorite games are from the era.Recreating the battles he fought...


Ha when it come to the battles of Napoléon Bonaparte those with whom I participated in the forum of before it had to be of precision several discussion on the battles because they did not agree especially the last Waterloo.


----------



## Dalia (Dec 21, 2016)

Dalia said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > I have many books on Napoleon and my favorite games are from the era.Recreating the battles he fought...
> ...



I reply to my post....because i can't make a new post there are bugs.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




ORDER OF BATTLE OF THE 1st BODY OF RUSSIAN ARMY (LIEUTENANT-GENERAL COUNTY PETER WITTGENSTEIN) FOR THE SECOND BATTLE OF POLOTSK, FROM 18 TO 20 OCTOBER 1812:

* Column of Lieutenant-General Berg:

1) Vanguard (Major-General Balk):

-25th and 26th regiments of hunters (4 battalions: 1,888 men);
-Groups of the 5th and 14th infantry divisions (1 battalion of 352 men) *;
Deposition of the Kexholm regiment (1 battalion of 358 men);
-45th heavy artillery battery (100 men and 6 guns);
-Registration of the hussars of Grodno (4 squadrons: 527 men) *;
-Deposit of Ingrie dragons (1 squadron of 97 men);
-Registration of the Cossacks of Rodianov II (330 men);
- Independent Cossack detachment (1 "sotnia" of about 100 men);
-3rd artillery battery on horseback (119 men and 6 guns);

2) Detachment of Colonel Stolypine:

-1 battalion of reserve hunters (3 companies: 620 men);
-1 militia battalion ("Opoltchenie") of Saint-Petersburg (753 men);
-Riga dragoons regiment (1 squadron: 367 men);
-Regiment of the dragoons of Iamburg (2 squadrons: 367 men);

3) Battle-Corps (Major-General Harnen):

- Perm and Svesk infantry regiments (4 battalions: 1,483 men);
- Mogilev and Kaluga infantry regiments (4 battalions: 2,017 men);
- Depot of the 1st division of grenadiers (3 battalions: 1,887 men) *;
- Depot of the Polotsk infantry regiment (1 battalion: 236 men);
-7 battalions of the St. Petersburg militia (5,064 men);
-5th heavy artillery battery (199 men and 12 guns);
-27th light artillery battery (103 men and 12 guns);
- Depot of the Horse Guard (3 squadrons: 696 men);
- Deposit of the ulhans of Poland (2 squadrons: 696 men);
-Riga dragoons regiment (3 squadrons: 392 men);
-3rd artillery battery on horseback (118 men and 6 guns);

4) Reservation (Major-General Beguikchef):

-Groups of the 5th and 14th infantry divisions (3 battalions totaling 1,056 men) *;
- Depot of the Guard on foot (3 battalions: 926 men) *;
-14th heavy artillery battery (220 men and 12 guns);
-55th light artillery battery (220 men and 12 guns);
-1 regiment of cuirassiers together (?) (4 squadrons: 448 men) *;
-23rd artillery battery on horseback (149 men and 8 guns);


* Column of Lieutenant-General Prince Jachwill:

1) Avant-garde (Major-General Vlastov):

- 23rd and 24th regiments of chasseurs (4 battalions: 2,181 men);
-2 battalions of the St. Petersburg militia (909 men);
-Registration of the Hussars of Grodno (4 squadrons: 526 men) *;
-Registration of the Cossacks of Pavlov IV (341 men);
- 1st artillery battery on horseback (91 men and 6 guns);

2) Battle Corps (Lieutenant-General Sasonov):

-Tuna and Minsk infantry regiments (4 battalions: 1520 men);
- Infantry regiments of Navaguinsk and Estonia (4 battalions: 1556 men);
-4 battalions of the St. Petersburg militia (1,825 men);
-2 battalions of the Voronezh militia (1,186 men);
-27th heavy artillery battery (106 men and 6 guns);
-28th heavy artillery battery (210 men and 12 guns);
-50th heavy artillery battery (416 men and 12 guns);
-26th and 57th light artillery batteries (416 men and 12 guns);
-9th light artillery battery (79 men and 6 guns);
-Deposit of dragoons (3 squadrons: 292 men);
- 1st artillery battery on horseback (61 men and 4 guns);

3) Detachment of Major-General Alekseieff:

-1st regiment of sailors (2 battalions: 1,178 men);
-1 battalion of the St. Petersburg militia (1,468 men);
-45th heavy artillery battery (105 men and 6 guns);
-Registration of the dragoons of Mittau (4 squadrons: 569 men);

4) Detachment of Lieutenant-Colonel Bedriaga:

- Depot of hussars (4 squadrons: 557 men);
- Cossack detachment (1 "sotnia" of 75 men);

5) Major Bellingshausen Detachment:

-1st and 2nd provisional infantry regiments (8 battalions: 1,726 men);
- 23rd artillery battery on horseback (142 men and 4 guns);

(*) = Shock Infantry or Battle Cavalry.

In total: 30 189 bayonets, 6 380 sabers and 154 guns. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




(Sources: magazine "Vae Victis", n ° 10 of the month of September 1996 ...)


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 21, 2016)

Dalia said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > I have many books on Napoleon and my favorite games are from the era.Recreating the battles he fought...
> ...


The battle of Quatre Bras..unfortunate Ney was not as successful..


----------



## Dalia (Dec 21, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


The information above come from one my member Major Higging. and i use Google translate for English speaking.






The Waterloo Campaign in Miniature: BATTLE MAP PLATE - Quatre-Bras 2pm (2nd Update)


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 21, 2016)

Dalia said:


> Bonsoir, The story of Napoléon 1 that rise in power to become Emperor of the French
> 
> Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821)
> 
> ...


He went into Russia with 600,000 men and came out with 40,000.


----------



## Dalia (Dec 21, 2016)

Is Napoleon dead poisoned? 
In 1801, a Swedish dentist, Dr. Forshufvud, published a book entitled "Napoleon a- It was poisoned, a work that goes unnoticed at first.
But when the Glasgow Department of Forensic Medicine examines five specimens of the Emperor's hair, they all contain considerable quantities of arsenic. The Napoleonic legend began to spread in the monarchical France of the first half of the nineteenth century, notably on the occasion of the triumphal return of the Emperor's ashes to the Invalides in 1840. The "mystery" Napoleon " Is never really dissipated.
What did Napoleon die? From poisoning to arsenic, for some; From cancer to stomach for others.
The latest study reinforces the official version.


The End of Napoleon

After the defeat of Europe in 1814, Napoleon was exiled to the island of Elba, near the Tuscan coast. He escaped on 1 March 1815. Taking advantage of the clumsiness of the royalists, the new masters of France, and the dissensions between the victors, he took power in Paris. But he is worn out, he no longer believes in his star, his best generals are dead.
English and Prussians beat him one last time at Waterloo on June 18, 1815. In Paris, he was forced to abdicate, and a new peace brought France back to its borders in 1792.






The coronation of Napoleon I by Pius VII and the coronation of the Empress Josephine in the cathedral Notre-Dame de Paris, December 2, 1804. Oil painting of Louis David. (Louvre Museum, Paris).
The fallen Emperor surrenders to the English, hoping in their magnanimity. They exiled him on a lost island in the Atlantic Ocean, close to the Tropic of Capricorn, 1,900 kilometers from Africa and 2,900 from Brazil: Saint Helena, a 16-kilometer volcanic block, Not go beyond a narrower perimeter. Three thousand officers and men of troops watch him there.
He then has 6 years to live.
He arrived there on 15 October 1815 and died there on 5 May 1821.





Place of detention of the Emperor.

The island that serves as a prison is unhealthy, the heat is heavy, rain and frequent mists. The jailer, Sir Hudson Lowe (1769-1844), is a mediocre haunted by the possible flight of Napoleon. To prevent it, he takes the most fastidious and vexatious measures. Napoleon was cut off from all his loved ones: Marie-Louise, whom he waited in vain for, his son, a prisoner of Austria, his mother Letizia. His life took place in the midst of the disputes between Madame de Montholon and Madame Bertrand, women of the generals who had followed him to St. Helena.






Napoleon at the Museum of London.

Emmanuel de Las Cases (1766-1842), chamberlain, to whom he dictated his Memoires, was to leave him in 1816.
But the fallen emperor became the hero of revolutionary France and Europe, the martyr of the Holy Alliance of kings who oppressed the people.
Paradoxically enough, he who had always fought liberalism became its emblem.


Arguments about poisoning
Here is an excerpt from the autopsy report of the Emperor carried out by François Antommarchi.
9) ... I observed that the adhesion of the concave face of the left lobe of the liver formed a hole of diameter about three lines (6 mm 3/4) in the anterior face of the stomach, Near its right end.
Having opened the stomach behind its great curvature, I observed that it was filled in part with a blackish liquid substance, with a pungent and disagreeable odor.
11. Having removed the said liquid, I observed a very extensive cancerous ulcer, which occupied especially the upper part of the internal surface of the stomach, and extended from the orifice of the cardia to about an inch of the pylorum .
12) On the edge of this ulcer towards the pylorum, I recognized the above hole produced by the ulcerous corrosion of the walls of the stomach.
13) The ulcerous walls of the stomach were considerably swollen and hardened. "


As can be seen, this report speaks of a large ulceration of the stomach that degenerated into cancer.






Tomb of Napoleon.

Forshufvud, in 1961, forgets the ulcer, which is not the direct cause of death, and focuses on cancer to remove it promptly. A malignant tumor would have made his victim considerably thinner, and the layer of fat on the belly of Napoleon's body was still about five centimeters.
On the other hand, the victims of slow arsenical poisoning may gain weight; In low dose, the poison has long been used as a stimulant. Moreover, an English doctor underlines the almost absence of hair on the body of the Emperor, which may also be a symptom of arsenic poisoning; As well as the good state of preservation of the body in 1840, when it is exhumed to be brought back to France.
But it is true that his bowels had been removed, so that he had undergone a beginning of embalming.





Imperial throne at Fontainebleau.

On the strength of these indications, the Swedish dentist attributes to arsenic all the health problems of Napoleon: from a strange crisis, close to epilepsy, in 1805, through his stomach pains to his eczema at The island of Elba and its urinary difficulties in Waterloo.
Of course, each time, the details of the disorders may suggest poisoning, but many other medical explanations are possible
It should be noted that Forshufvud is not the first to defend the theory of poisoning. Before him, René Maury, has also based on certain medical reports to affirm that this death is not natural






Bust of Napoleon.

Forshufvud, moreover, returns to the conclusions of the autopsy, which indicate that the stomach of Napoleon was full of a kind of coffee grounds. He concludes a mortal hemorrhage, linked to the corrosion of the entire stomach wall, characteristic of all mercury poisonings.
It therefore assumes that after years of poisoning with arsenic the assassin has switched to another poison. It is precisely the cyanide of mercury, a formidable product, formed in the stomach itself by the encounter between a drug, calomel, prescribed in large doses in the hope of clearing the intestines, and a Beverage actually consumed by the Emperor, a barley syrup made from bitter almonds. In the absence of barley and bitter almonds, simple cooking salt could have produced the same reaction







Remains to find a culprit, and a mobile. The English had scarcely any access to their prisoner; few of his companions remained with him from beginning to end. The Grand Marshal Bertrand was unanimously put out of the question.
There remains General Montholon, who would have followed Napoleon to escape his creditors, to serve as an agent to the restored French monarchy, which could not feel tranquil as long as Napoleon lived, and to have himself laid down on an interesting testament.
It may be added that others, moreover, without the slightest proof, have glossed over the relations between Napoleon and the wife of the general. This vaudeville could degenerate into drama.






Napoleon Passing the Pass of the Great Saint Bernard, Baroque Museum, Vienna.

The trouble is that Montholon never abjured his Bonapartism. According to the nephew, after the uncle, in their darkest hours, he was later a companion of the future captivity of Napoleon III. Moreover, he did not approach the Emperor before 1815 and therefore can not be the mysterious poisoner who then raged for ten years.

Why so much arsenic?

There are several possible explanations for the traces of arsenic in the hair.
Alain Decaux proposed a satisfactory solution. We have seen that arsenic, in small doses, was prescribed as a stimulant. The necessities of his life may have compelled Napoleon to use them, to abuse them, sometimes to endure the secondary effects of it. It is this arsenic which the English scientists have brought to light. It is simple, perhaps too , But more convincing than hypotheses requiring many poisons, and many poisoners






Statue of Napoleon in Ajaccio, Corsica.

Arsenic may also include foods or mineral water that contain them naturally.

The latest study on the "mystery" Napoleon
A team of doctors, pathologists and gastroenterologists from several countries studied all the autopsy reports and the testimonies of those who were present during the last weeks of the Emperor's life






Passage of the Berezina by the French army, at the end of November 1812, during the campaign of Russia. Etching by Johann Adam Klein after Franz von Habermann. (Institut de France, Thiers Library, Paris).
They then used a database of known pathologies. Thus, they identified the disease suffered by Napoleon.
For them, there is no doubt. The Emperor died of a major gastric hemorrhage which is the direct result of stomach cancer.
This cancer, untreated, developed as a result of an ulcer which itself was the fruit of chronic gastritis. There is therefore no mystery about the death of Napoleon, no more criminal hand Than conspiracy.

Source: 
Les grandes énigmes, éditions Larousse. Les plus célèbres mystères de l'histoire, Sélection du Reader's Digest. Science & Vie N°1074


----------



## Dalia (Dec 21, 2016)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Bonsoir, The story of Napoléon 1 that rise in power to become Emperor of the French
> ...


Fewer than 10,000 of his men remained fit for combat in November 1812


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 21, 2016)

An astoundingly brilliant tactician and logistician, ultimately undone by poor strategy and lack of ideals.


----------



## Dalia (Dec 21, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> An astoundingly brilliant tactician and logistician, ultimately undone by poor strategy and lack of ideals.


At the end he was sick not the same Napoléon did not have the same skills

In Dresden he suffered several days of hepatic colic. During the Battle of Leipzig, he again had extremely violent gastric and hepatic pains at the limit of the bearable. His health did not improve during the campaign of France.
From March to May 1815: Astreint permanently sat in his office to reorganize his army and government, under considerable stress and overwork, he was constantly beset by new gastric crises.

June 16-17, 1815: On the eve of the Battle of Waterloo, he was resumed by pains similar to those felt at Leipzig in 1813. He did not sleep that night (Boigey, 1930).

June 18, 1815: On the morning of the battle, he is treated for hemorrhoids very frequent among the great horsemen (Masson, 2010).


----------



## Picaro (Dec 22, 2016)

One of my favorite military figures, but not a favorite politician. I've spent many enjoyable hours, sometimes days, gaming the battle of Borodino and Waterloo, especially the SPI version *Wellington's Victory*. I still have my collection of 15mm miniatures stashed away in a big locker in the store room.


----------



## Picaro (Dec 22, 2016)

One of my favorite military figures, but not a favorite politician. I've spent many enjoyable hours, sometimes days, gaming the battle of Borodino and Waterloo, especially the SPI version *Wellington's Victory*. I still have my collection of 15mm miniatures stashed away in a big locker in the store room.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 22, 2016)

Dalia said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > An astoundingly brilliant tactician and logistician, ultimately undone by poor strategy and lack of ideals.
> ...


*A Man, A Plan, A Canal, Panama!*

The joke is that when asked why he failed, he replied with the palindrome:  Able Was I Ere I Saw Elba.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 22, 2016)

He answered in English?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Dalia said:


> Bonsoir, The story of Napoléon 1 that rise in power to become Emperor of the French
> 
> Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821)
> 
> ...


In my opinion, lancers should have been effective against infantry squares; unlike cavalry.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 22, 2016)

Should have developed flying artillery, as the U.S. used against Mexico, and Frederich the Great had started to develop, among others.


----------



## Picaro (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> In my opinion, lancers should have been effective against infantry squares; unlike cavalry.



If there weren't musketry and grenadiers in the squares, they might have been. Napoleon's use of artillery was original, effective, and hard to beat.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> Should have developed flying artillery, as the U.S. used against Mexico, and Frederich the Great had started to develop, among others.



How would that have helped at Waterloo?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Picaro said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, lancers should have been effective against infantry squares; unlike cavalry.
> ...


He could not use them to his advantage at Waterloo due to the weather.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Picaro said:


> One of my favorite military figures, but not a favorite politician. I've spent many enjoyable hours, sometimes days, gaming the battle of Borodino and Waterloo, especially the SPI version *Wellington's Victory*. I still have my collection of 15mm miniatures stashed away in a big locker in the store room.


Would Wellington have attacked, if Napoleon, knowing he could not implement a timely attack on Wellington's defensive position, focused instead on the Prussians, then returned to Wellington when the weather was more favorable?


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

Dalia said:


> Bonsoir, The story of Napoléon 1 that rise in power to become Emperor of the French
> 
> Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821)
> 
> ...


I believe it is safe to say Napoleon (the 1st) was THE GREATEST military leader in history.  There are others who made the most of their own times, like Sargon The Great, Alexander The Great, Julius Caesar, Sun Tzu, George Washington, Arthur Wellesley, Ulysses Grant, Robert E Lee, Ike, and Douglas MacArthur, however all of them pales in comparison with Napoleon himself.

Many of the policies and procedures that Napoleon invented we still use today.  Even Wellesley who faced Napoleon and defeated him twice agreed that on a field of battle his hat alone was worth 50 thousand men.  The statement is actually attributed to Marshall Blucher but is now associated with Wellesley instead.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Would Wellington have attacked, if Napoleon, knowing he could not implement a timely attack on Wellington's defensive position, focused instead on the Prussians, then returned to Wellington when the weather was more favorable?


While modern military theory favors blitzkrieg in the attack, at the time of Napoleon, Wellington, and Blucher it was the defense that was stronger.

However Napoleon normally outmaneuvered his opponents so that it seemed like Napoleon on offense was always stronger than anyone else on defense.

At Waterloo however Wellington proved that the defense is stronger than the offense between opponents of about equal strength.

Blucher showing up at Waterloo to outflank Napoleon and reinforce Wellington tipped the battle in Wellington's favor and caused the French to retreat in chaos.  The French troops saw it coming -- they were about to be outflanked and slaughtered by the Prussians.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Bonsoir, The story of Napoléon 1 that rise in power to become Emperor of the French
> ...


Infantry with rifles can form squares and shoot down lancers.

Infantry can do the same against cavalry with swords.

This is why the rifle made the cavalry obsolete.  This became obvious during WW1 when rifles became repeating and machine guns and barbed wire also evolved.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

Dalia said:


> Yes, there is so much to say about Napoléon
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In military officers' schools we still study Napoleon's strategies and tactics all over the world.

The modern concept of offensive doctrine is that you must have a 3 to 1 advantage in numbers in order to have the minimum advantage required to overrun a normal defensive position.  Of course the geography can change everything and sometimes even 10 to 1 is not enough.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Would Wellington have attacked, if Napoleon, knowing he could not implement a timely attack on Wellington's defensive position, focused instead on the Prussians, then returned to Wellington when the weather was more favorable?
> ...


In other words, the actual and immediate threat, was from the Prussians.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Dalia said:
> ...


depends on the lance and the tactic; two lances could have been employed, like pilum, to break the square and then melee like traditional cavalry once inside the square.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> He went into Russia with 600,000 men and came out with 40,000.


Same as Adolf Hitler.

God has always protected the Russians with Russian winters.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> depends on the lance and the tactic; two lances could have been employed, like pilum, to break the square and then melee like traditional cavalry once inside the square.


You cannot break an infantry square except with other infantry or with long range shelling by artillery.

Cavalry with horses and lances or swords cannot do it.

Artillery is ideal actually, since the squares are condensed.

But if you fired your artillery upon an infantry square you will also kill your own cavalry.

The infantry would never form squares unless attached by horses.

Otherwise the infantry will be drawn up in lines or in skirmishers.

The US Civil War promoted skirmisher formations rather than lines and squares because rifles had become so much more accurate.

In modern warfare we use skirmisher formations now for lite infantry on the ground (deployed from their mechanized transport vehicles).


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

Except the French used infantry column tactics...


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > He went into Russia with 600,000 men and came out with 40,000.
> ...


It didn't help when Genghis Khan took over Russia..


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> In other words, the actual and immediate threat, was from the Prussians.


Not really.

Blucher became a de facto reserve once he showed up for the big battle and he threw himself into the fray which when the French saw him coming they broke and ran.

The immediate threat was Wellington's reinforced defensive position -- he could have launched an attack at any time.

Blucher became an additional overwhelming threat.

Blucher showed up just in time.

It was pure luck for Wellington.

It was bad luck for Napoleon.

It is called "the fog of war".


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> It didn't help when Genghis Khan took over Russia..


Those Chinese fokkers have always had massive hoards.

That's why we need belt fed machine guns, tanks, attack helo's, and air to ground attack aircraft.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Except the French used infantry column tactics...


Yup back in those times everybody did.

It was called "Napoleonic".

Robert E Lee tried something like this at Gettysburg and we all know what happened there.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > He went into Russia with 600,000 men and came out with 40,000.
> ...


The US knows, the Russians are Only intimidated, by us having an Army Group, in reserve.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Except the French used infantry column tactics...
> ...


The Anglo-English used line tactics, which did give them better firepower, while the French used a heavier artillery...


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > depends on the lance and the tactic; two lances could have been employed, like pilum, to break the square and then melee like traditional cavalry once inside the square.
> ...


You claim that; but, ranged attack by lancers who can then close like cavalry, could have made a difference.  

Why do you believe lancers could not effectively engage an infantry square, at range, with lances, before closing with sabers?


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

Dalia said:


> Is Napoleon dead poisoned?
> In 1801, a Swedish dentist, Dr. Forshufvud, published a book entitled "Napoleon a- It was poisoned, a work that goes unnoticed at first.
> But when the Glasgow Department of Forensic Medicine examines five specimens of the Emperor's hair, they all contain considerable quantities of arsenic. The Napoleonic legend began to spread in the monarchical France of the first half of the nineteenth century, notably on the occasion of the triumphal return of the Emperor's ashes to the Invalides in 1840. The "mystery" Napoleon " Is never really dissipated.
> What did Napoleon die? From poisoning to arsenic, for some; From cancer to stomach for others.
> ...


Back in those times when anyone died they always thought it might be due to poisoning.

However appendicitis, gall bladder disease, liver disease, and pancreatic disease all have the same signs and symptoms of poisoning.

I suspect all these deaths were simply natural and not due to poisoning.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


The Russian weakness has always been their manufacturing capacity, and quality(except for tanks and artillery), and financial organization...


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


I am a former military officer and you are not.

That is probably the main reason why you and I disagree.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I do.

Q.E.D.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Normally the squares had bayonets attached...and could fire volleys...Not a good match up..


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


Personally I do not believe the Russians have any weaknesses.

Other than once by the Japanese at sea, the Russians have never been defeated in battle.

They are still a regional superpower, and their region is Europe.

They have more tanks and arty than any other nation.

In Europe they are invincible.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


You say that; but this is not, one of those, twice a day moments.  You need an actual argument.  And, you should review the battle on YouTube.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> The Anglo-English used line tactics, which did give them better firepower, while the French used a heavier artillery...


The Brit's have never had enough guys to be able to mass infantry like the French, the Russian, or the Prussians had.

So the Brit's could only go about 3 lines deep.

That however worked quite well for them since that is about how long it takes to reload a muzzle loading rifle.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


My argument is that you are inexperienced and do not have any idea what you are talking about.

My argument is supported by my explanation of infantry versus horse.

My argument is verified by your failure to understand it.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The Germans beat the Russians in WWI at the battle of Tannenberg...


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


It is why traditional cavalry could not break infantry squares.  Lancers could have a lance longer than a musket with baynet, and could "lance them" at the infantry square at a charge.  Sufficient break in the square could enable cavalry to jump over breaks in the formation and melee at close range from within the square.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


Dude; argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy; you already lost the logic and reason, "wargame".


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> An astoundingly brilliant tactician and logistician, ultimately undone by poor strategy and lack of ideals.


Bull sh!t.

Napoleon was just unlucky at Waterloo.

God was not with him that day.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Normally ad hom is a fallacy however in your case the ad hom is supported by your lack of understanding of the purpose of horse and the purpose of infantry and the strength of each.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


A lance is not longer than a bullet can fly.

Plus horses are nice big targets.

This became even more apparent during WW1.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

Dalia said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > An astoundingly brilliant tactician and logistician, ultimately undone by poor strategy and lack of ideals.
> ...


In spite of all those illnesses of Napoleon (because he was an old man by then) the fight with Wellington would have ultimately resulted in a draw of two approximately equal forces.

When Blucher showed up it was just bad luck for Napoleon and good luck for Wellington.

Lots of battles in history were simply good luck for one side and bad luck for the other.  Sort of like a crap shoot.  You roll the dice and you take your chances.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > The Anglo-English used line tactics, which did give them better firepower, while the French used a heavier artillery...
> ...


Yes, when I play, I always concentrate artillery against the English center and use cavalry for screening and matched attacks against cavalry...Plus, I don't do like Napoleon and do a center attack, I outflank the weaker units on the right French flank...or English left flank..Much like Alexander did...But that is the advantage of having a battle done over and over...


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> Should have developed flying artillery, as the U.S. used against Mexico, and Frederich the Great had started to develop, among others.


When the Wright Brothers invented aviation they created one of the most powerful violent military platforms.

The rocket however, invented by the Chinese and perfected by the Germans, Russians, and Americans, remains the most powerful and violent weapon on this Earth.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


Let's face it, The allies knew how to beat napoleon at his own game by the Battles of the Nations or Battle of Leipzig....


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


When you think about it, size always matters.

Cannon are really big guns.  They still are.  But until the tank was invented by the British in WW1 these big guns were slow.

So cavalry was superior to cannons back in those times because cannon was slow while cavalry was fast.

Cannons are superior to infantry at a distance however.

Infantry then and now can only be beaten by other infantry.  This lesson was most recently learned during the Iraq wars -- both against the Persians and also against the USA.

Infantry now have rockets and missiles that can defeat tanks.

Tanks can defeat other tanks and any other mechanized vehicle.

But tanks are easy meat against modern aircraft.

Modern aircraft cannot always remain on station -- they need to refuel and reload.  And bad weather can keep them complete out of the fray.

In pre-modern warfare, you moved your infantry in massive columns which were irresistible.

You used your cavalry to protect their flanks and to gather info on the enemy.

You use your cannon to engage first at a distance.

The infantry would disperse so as not to avail the cannons of easy targets.

But cannons cannot fire forever because eventually they run out of ammo that way.

You need a long supply chain behind your armies and columns to feed them and supply them.

Cavalry are the best attacking force against cannons.

But cavalry could never defeat infantry.  They tried a few times in WW1 but it was a disaster.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


yet, all you have is fallacy, and no reasoning to justify your simple and merely, inferior, bigotry.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


We are discussing Waterloo.  You need to pay better attention to the argument; because, any corporal could do better.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


It was a battlefield.  Luck must be made if not convenient; Marshal Ney, "seemed antsy" and could have been dispatched from the wing, to lead a "flying column" to ensure the Prussians were no longer, Wellington's, "lucky charm".


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Dalia said:
> ...


I think Wellington was brave -- maybe even rash -- which means insane bravery beyond the point of sanity.

Blucher knew he could not stop Napoleon however, and without Wellington, Prussia would have been conquered.

It is just lucky for Europe that Wellington came along when he did, and that Blucher showed up at just the right time.  Otherwise Europe would have been speaking French entirely after that.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


I used to do tech work for the TOW I and TOW II systems, with a 99% kill ratio they are awesome..Back in the early 1980's they were only on tripods or mounted in jeeps..Also used to do tech  work on the DRAGON a shoulder fired light anti armor missile..


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Go fokk yourself.  To the ignore list with you.

We are discussing Napoleon.

You are not the O/P.

You are just a little weasel who does not know anything.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> I used to do tech work for the TOW I and TOW II systems, with a 99% kill ratio they are awesome..Back in the early 1980's they were only on tripods or mounted in jeeps..Also used to do tech  work on the DRAGON a shoulder fired light anti armor missile..


Uncle Sam never trusted me with a TOW.

All I ever got was a LAAW.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Dalia said:
> ...


Ney was all Napoleon had left after losing the majority of his Marshals...He was not the best one could have..


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> It was a battlefield.  Luck must be made if not convenient; Marshal Ney, "seemed antsy" and could have been dispatched from the wing, to lead a "flying column" to ensure the Prussians were no longer, Wellington's, "lucky charm".


Damm you are dumb.

And also completely inexperienced.

Your life span in battle would likely have been less than a few minutes with all the baloney in your brain.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


Just a bad day for Napoleon; there may be some credence to his being too sick to be more diligent.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


ok.  Napoleon used lancers to chase Wellington's cavalry off the battlefield.  Why was that, if they were equal as a mounted force?

Only inferiors have nothing but bigotry, instead of a superior argument.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Ney was all Napoleon had left after losing the majority of his Marshals...He was not the best one could have..


Remember however that even with all of Napoleon's problems, he still fought his way to within a few yards of Wellington -- right up until the time that Blucher finally showed up.

I suspect that without Blucher, Waterloo would have ended up as a draw, and most of the troops on both sides dead.

In that case the French could have raised more troops from France, but the Brit's would have been fresh out with no more available anywhere.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > I used to do tech work for the TOW I and TOW II systems, with a 99% kill ratio they are awesome..Back in the early 1980's they were only on tripods or mounted in jeeps..Also used to do tech  work on the DRAGON a shoulder fired light anti armor missile..
> ...


I never got to fire one, just watch at practices...My job was to keep them firing...Yet, during Reagan we could never get shelf stock parts...Good thing we didn't have to go to war..Same with my second MOS which was power generation equipment tech...My last duty station was 1st cav, 68th ADA, before the mobile surface to air missile systems came out...Another case of lucky to have not had to go to war..A Mig could knock out the ADA 2 miles away and the ADA could only fire a mile...


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Wellington had a larger calvary force to work with..


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Ney was all Napoleon had left after losing the majority of his Marshals...He was not the best one could have..
> ...


True he should have sent a blocking force..


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Wellington had a larger calvary force to work with..


We have already beaten cavalry to death.

Cavalry had a limited role in major battles.

Think of Gen. Buford at Gettysburg.

All he could do with his own 1000 cavalry was delay the Rebels for a little while until the infantry was up and ready to stop them dead in their tracks.

Then it all ended at Cemetery Ridge -- an infantry battle -- not cavalry.


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


My dad was in 1st Cav too.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...



nothing needed to happen on that front; a corp commander would have been sufficient.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The Ferme de Hougoumont was being assaulted..


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Ney was all Napoleon had left after losing the majority of his Marshals...He was not the best one could have..
> ...


Napoleon could not attack in a timely manner due to the weather; he should have dispatched Marshal Ney with a flying column to ensure there was no luck in Wellington's favor, from that quarter.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


Yet, lancers were able to "match them", just fine, and drive them from the field.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Unfortunately for Napoleon it rained until noon, and canon balls don't bounce very well on wet sod..


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Not all and calvary can make only so many attacks during a battle..


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


That should not have happened; it is why Marshal Ney should have been dispatched with a flying column to intercept the Prussians instead of engaging the British.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


It is why dispatching his marshal to intercept the Prussians, in the mean time, was a good idea.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


It is about the application of force; lancers were a match for regular cavalry; and, could have been used to break infantry squares instead of cavalry.


----------



## Picaro (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



In the frontal assault right up the center into a dug in position, yes. His left flank, however, wasn't as muddy, and conducive to his usual tactics. He would then have been in a perfect position to route the reinforcements arriving from the direction of his right flank later in the day as well. Hougemont was a tough nut, but he only had to screen it, not take it. But all in all, Wellington set up a brilliant defense, and Napoleon should have chosen not to fight it out there; he didn't have to, and his mistakes were inexplicable, like delaying his attack until his entire army was arranged along the front, losing precious hours for a pointless fashion show. Definitely not his best moment.


----------



## Picaro (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



The Brits used a three man line, kind of outdated by then, easily flanked by skirmishers and cavalry, and chewed up by artillery. This lesson still wasn't learned by many commanders in  our own Civil War, essentially a Napoleonic war itself.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Picaro said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


I agree; he should have declined to offer battle to the British and focused on the Prussians.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


That's a luxury he did not have, as the Austrians and Russians were coming to battle also..


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


Which is why Duke of Orange used the reverse slope tactics..


----------



## Picaro (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yes, veering East and defeating them one at a time seems to be the consensus. He already had them divided and far enough apart to do so. The Prussians were especially weak and relatively easy to defeat for him, under-manned, slow, and little more than half the firepower compared to Napoleon's average battalions.


----------



## Picaro (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Yes, and also why he should have avoided the frontal assaults on the ridge and went for an assault on his left flank, or withdrawn. When gaming the battle we win every time with Napoleon doing that and attacking early, and lose almost every time playing the Wellington side, a draw being the best we could ever do, and that depended on bad luck and the French running out of ammo too early.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


that was the luxurious point; to give battle to the Austrians/Prussians and Russians, not the British.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


He had to strike quick or it would have been another Leipzig..


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


That is what I do also..I have a game of_ Napoleons Last Battles_ on CD but it was made for XP..I have a new one through Steam but have yet to play all the way through...I also have the board game from the 1980's..


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

I was also able to beat a long time player friend of mine at the Battle of Marengo....He stopped playing me after that..


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Giving battle to the Austrians/Prussians and Russians, is an offensive strategy.


----------



## Picaro (Dec 22, 2016)

I never gamed the German campaigns, except I have the *Battle of Nations* bookcase game or something like that but I never got around to playing it. The SPI game had some 5,000 pieces and took an average of a month or more with three to a team, lol the actual battle was less than a day.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Yes, but you can never let the enemy get behind you, which is what was occurring..


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 22, 2016)

Picaro said:


> I never gamed the German campaigns, except I have the *Battle of Nations* bookcase game or something like that but I never got around to playing it. The SPI game had some 5,000 pieces and took an average of a month or more with three to a team, lol the actual battle was less than a day.


I had a game room with the game set up so I could play after work..I had moved away from people I grew up with so I was left to playing by myself..I was so happy when game consoles came out to play war strategy games and now with computers it is more challenging...Like a game of Rome's battles...There are scenarios like Battle of Carrhae that I can't beat..


----------



## Picaro (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > I never gamed the German campaigns, except I have the *Battle of Nations* bookcase game or something like that but I never got around to playing it. The SPI game had some 5,000 pieces and took an average of a month or more with three to a team, lol the actual battle was less than a day.
> ...



Yes, it does suck when you can see the entire battle front, no fog of war handicaps with the board games. I never took to computer games, except Civ III and Civ IV and Age of Empires, strategy type stuff.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 22, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Giving battle means taking it to the enemy, not letting the enemy outflank you.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 23, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Should have developed flying artillery, as the U.S. used against Mexico, and Frederich the Great had started to develop, among others.
> ...


Effective against the squares of the period. Everything changed rapidly soon after, the American Civil War being the first modern war.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 23, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


Artillery was not effective that morning due to the weather.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 23, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> He answered in English?


It's a joke. He never said that.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 24, 2016)

Should Lancers have also been good at pole vaulting?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 24, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> Should Lancers have also been good at pole vaulting?


No. But dragoons distressed damsels.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 24, 2016)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Should Lancers have also been good at pole vaulting?
> ...


is that why lancers, preferred to poke around?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 27, 2016)

danielpalos said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


*Charge of the Light-in-the Loafers Brigade*

Yes.  And hussars were known for throwing hussy fits.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 27, 2016)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


I saw no lancers in (ready to give) battle order, in any of the scenes where infantry squares were formed, Only regular cavalry with sabers.  

Lancers were used to drive off British heavy cavalry.


----------



## Dalia (Dec 28, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Would Wellington have attacked, if Napoleon, knowing he could not implement a timely attack on Wellington's defensive position, focused instead on the Prussians, then returned to Wellington when the weather was more favorable?
> ...


I agree with you but i could say that Louis X1V was brillant as well but not as famous military but a fine strategy in the war that he did in Europe. We can say that he liked wars


----------



## Dalia (Dec 28, 2016)

Picaro said:


> One of my favorite military figures, but not a favorite politician. I've spent many enjoyable hours, sometimes days, gaming the battle of Borodino and Waterloo, especially the SPI version *Wellington's Victory*. I still have my collection of 15mm miniatures stashed away in a big locker in the store room.


One of my friend as a lot of  military figurines of Napoléon but i give you a link of one my member " Vive l'Empereur"

Mes dioramas


----------



## yiostheoy (Dec 28, 2016)

there4eyeM said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


True.  And then it all changed again during WW1.  And yet again in WW2.  And yet again in Korea.

Nobody has fought a pitched war since Korea.

And Korea showed that Chinese infantry is unstoppable.  Like fire ants swarming out of their nests.


----------



## Picaro (Dec 28, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> And Korea showed that Chinese infantry is unstoppable.  Like fire ants swarming out of their nests.



It did? That's news to South Koreans. Did it happen last night and I've missed the news?


----------



## Picaro (Dec 28, 2016)

Dalia said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > One of my favorite military figures, but not a favorite politician. I've spent many enjoyable hours, sometimes days, gaming the battle of Borodino and Waterloo, especially the SPI version *Wellington's Victory*. I still have my collection of 15mm miniatures stashed away in a big locker in the store room.
> ...



Those are a lot larger than mine. Nice dioramas and painting.

Mine are on stands set up for sand tables, rather big ones, which I don't have any more. They will work with some of the grand tactical scale hex based maps, but usually the scaling is all wrong.

Don't know what to do with them, so I keep them. Even my kids and grandkids don't want them, they prefer puter games.


----------



## Dalia (Dec 29, 2016)

Picaro said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...



Your figurines can have value? This figurines as an example of a price  is for sale at ebay for 9.99 £ some figurine have more value then other.






*Figurine Maréchal d'Empire Hachette Maréchal Ney 1769-1815 Officier Napoléon*

*This one : 15.00£*

*



*
*
COLLECTION MARECHAUX NAPOLEON - MARECHAL NEY 1769-1815

*


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 30, 2016)

Was giving battle at Waterloo a mistake on Napoleon's part?


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 30, 2016)

Returning from Exile was Napoleon's mistake.


----------



## Dalia (Jan 8, 2017)

Awarded. A Napoleon hat was bought 1,884,000 euros by one
South Korean collector, Sunday, November 16 2014, at an auction of Napoleon souvenirs in Fontainebleau near Paris.


This hat, one of the nineteen authenticated bicornes of the Emperor still existing in the world, was part of the collection of the Princely Palace of Monaco, of which Prince Albert decided to disperse a thousand pieces.

The sale was feverishly expected both in France and abroad by the many enthusiasts of the former emperor, probably the most famous French historical figure in the world.


----------



## Picaro (Jan 8, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Was giving battle at Waterloo a mistake on Napoleon's part?



It was the way he went about it; he let Wellington choose the site to great advantage, lost hours with a showboating display and started his assaults way too late in the day, went head on right up to the strongest points in their line of battle instead of maneuvering and finessing on his left flank, and wasting the best of his troops unnecessarily, and allowed two Allied armies to unite and reinforce at one battlefield instead of keeping them divided. Arrogance and overconfidence is the greatest enemy for commanders like Napoleon, and still is for any army. Two or three hours earlier and he wouldn't have had the threat on his right flank at the least.


----------



## Picaro (Jan 8, 2017)

Dalia said:


> Your figurines can have value?



Probably not mine, as they were cast for gaming, to be mounted on stands, not a variety of poses, just soldiers in battle lines and the like, all in a given lot just alike. The artillery and cavalry could pass, I guess, but no, they wouldn't be valuable, even painstakingly painted with such detail as those in your pictures. Mine are also 'old school', made out of lead, which I don't think is even legal any more.


----------



## Yarddog (Jan 8, 2017)

Dalia said:


> Bonsoir, The story of Napoléon 1 that rise in power to become Emperor of the French
> 
> Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821)
> 
> ...



some of my ancestors fled Napoleon's Invasion of Portugal and ended up in Brazil, or so the story goes


----------



## gipper (Jan 8, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Dalia said:
> 
> 
> > Bonsoir, The story of Napoléon 1 that rise in power to become Emperor of the French
> ...


Yes he was a disgusting warmonger.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 8, 2017)

Picaro said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Was giving battle at Waterloo a mistake on Napoleon's part?
> ...


the consensus is, that Napoleon had no worries on his immediate front since Wellington was in a strong defensive position; and he should have sent Ney, to intercept the Prussians.


----------

