Most Incompetant Leader of Napoleonic Wars

Empires in Arms is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. Empires in Arms is a seven player game of grand strategy set during the Napoleonic period of 1805-1815. The unit scale is corps level with full diplomatic options

Moderator: MOD_EIA

User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

Post by denisonh »

Stating Napoleon was incompetent, or for that matter that he was competent, is not a statment of fact.

Given the definition of what a fact is, as well as what constitutes competency, there is enough subjectivity involved to make either statement a supposition or hypothesis.

I don't think anyone really believes that Napoleon is the worst leader, or incompetent for that matter (least of all Pasternakski who is screwing with you).
Image
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
User avatar
Le Tondu
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by Le Tondu »

Originally posted by denisonh


.......I don't think anyone really believes that Napoleon is the worst leader, or incompetent for that matter (least of all Pasternakski who is screwing with you).
If what you say is true, then his insertion of Napoleon here (in this thread) was meant only to disrupt things and his intentions were never friendly. Isn't that the definition of what is commonly called a "troll?"

What is so terrible about having a serious friendly conversation about that which binds us -the Napoleonic Era? Why is so necessary to screw with anyone?

I believe that he is screwing with himself. Would he like to have disruption to be the order for the day when he is serious about something that he might post here? The tables can be turned you know. To do so would be to lower oneself to his level, I know. Don't worry. I at least now know that he isn't to be taken seriously -ever. Thanks denisonh. (See I can spell.) :)
Vive l'Empereur!
User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

Post by pasternakski »

Greetings from the troll who is never to be taken seriously.

Do you have anything of substance with which to respond to my humble assertion that Napoleon, as the biggest loser of his time, was the most incompetent leader of the Napoleonic era?
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

Post by denisonh »

I commonly use sarcasm and often take the role of the Devil's Advocate with friends, yet retain perspective.

I can "screw" with my friends, yet when it comes time can be taken seriously as well.
If what you say is true, then his insertion of Napoleon here (in this thread) was meant only to disrupt things and his intentions were never friendly.


I do not think qualifying his remarks as "never friendly" is necessarily true. I never saw them as any other. Only Pasternaski can answer that question.

I just think you need to lighten up.

And I never trust somebody who can spell:D .
Image
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
User avatar
Le Tondu
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by Le Tondu »

Originally posted by pasternakski
Greetings from the troll who is never to be taken seriously.

Do you have anything of substance with which to respond to my humble assertion that Napoleon, as the biggest loser of his time, was the most incompetent leader of the Napoleonic era?
Why respond when there is nothing to respond to?
Vive l'Empereur!
User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

Post by pasternakski »

Originally posted by Le Tondu


Why respond when there is nothing to respond to?
Okay. I'm George Bush, Sr. I win.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
Chiteng
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh,nc,usa

re: Le Tondu

Post by Chiteng »

I agree with you. That is the best choice. There ARE people
who actually want to assist in developing a computer version
of this great game. He is like the cockroach on the dinnerplate.
Take the plate to the kitchen, and get a different plate.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic
User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

Post by pasternakski »

Greetings from the cockroach on the dinnerplate. Supper was to my taste, though served cold.

I love this thread. I believe that even Don Rickles has been outdone here. "Hockey puck?" Nothing by comparison to "troll," not to mention "cockroach."

Do I dare aspire to the heights of "maggot?" Oh, how I wish I were "pariah." "Judas?" Ah, I think that the subtleties are beyond 'em, but still I live in hope. I wait in trembling anticipation of the next perfidies.

So, let me bait 'em further to elicit the niceties. I'll drag the guts ...

Napoleon was a nasty little Corsican momma's boy who wound up in Paris studying that which was beyond his understanding when he discovered p*ssy. The rest is silence.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
Preuss
Posts: 210
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2002 5:55 am
Location: Australia

re: Napoleon's starved 200,000

Post by Preuss »

This figure, I quoted from Yorck von Wartenburg's book Napoleon as a General Unfortunately, it's no longer in my possession, having been donated to a public library back in the US.

In the spring 1813 campaign, as the allies withdrew, driving all livestock and practicing somewhat like scorched-earth tactics, Napoleon's army suffered severe privations.

In the Autumn campaign things about Dresden were fine that being Napoleon's supply base. But here, the wings were suffering. Macdonald's corps were so severely starved of all neccessities that Macdonald had to plea for Nappy to come and restore discipline. The emperor, arriving on horseback suffered seeing many troops shoeless and ragged, wandering about in no sort of military manner.

The need for foraging gave Blucher good excuse to break the armistice, as many of Macdonald's troops were scattered in forward areas trying to assuage their empty, aching bellies.

With his svere cavalry shortage, Nappy could do little to stop the cossacks of Tettenborn and others who ravaged his supply lines.

BTW...just so you know, I wasn't claiming Nappy to be incompetant, as he was a great leader. I was just pointing out that even the best make mistakes
Jesus ...., with all respect. This closet germanism is allways killing me.
User avatar
Le Tondu
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Good topic

Post by Le Tondu »

Pruess,
Thanks for getting back.

I distinctfully remember reading Bowden's (or was it one of Nafziger's books?) that when pressed to have a scorched earth policy that Napoleon absolutley refused to have one in 1813 much to the dismay of his Marshals and Generals. His concerns were for the people that lived there because he still felt the possiblities of reversing the Allied surge. (Sorry, I won't spend all day searching for the passage.)

Now, troops without orders to do so may have done such things, but it certainly wasn't an offical policy or order. I find it hard to beieve that a starving soldier wouldn't do what it took to eat if he could back then.

It happened on both sides.

There is the conduct of the Russian armies that marched across europe. In 1805, they pillaged just as fiercely as any invading army would --in Austria, of all places. They were coming to the aid of their Austrian allies after Mack's unfortunate Ulm. One can only wonder about what befell the people as they retreated. Then again, look at 1812. The official Russian policy of scorched earth certainly (as they retreated before the Grande Armee) was a tremendous contribution to the misery of the Russian people. (I bet that no statistics were kept about that.)

Still, the sight and presence of any army at anytime was a calamity of tremendous proportions. War isn't called Hell for nothing you know.
Vive l'Empereur!
User avatar
Le Tondu
Posts: 564
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Seattle, WA

A little more on scorched earth policies

Post by Le Tondu »

This time in regards to a more "recent" ;) conflict, -WW II.

----------
A rather astute observation about the Geneva Convention was made by FW Von Mellenthin in his "Panzer Battles" book. Regarding the "scorched earth" tactics employed by the Germans in Russia, he said something to the effect that (I'm quoting from memory):

"scholars will spend decades debating the legality of the demolitions carried out by the Wehrmacht during its retreat across Russia, but the fact is that no army will obey any treaty that interferes with its ability to survive".
----------

It makes sense to me.
Vive l'Empereur!
Sir Neil
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 11:18 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by Sir Neil »

Thankfully I see the argument about Napoleon being an incompetent general has stopped, but I must say I don't think he was, but we will leave it there.
User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

Post by pasternakski »

Originally posted by Sir Neil
Thankfully I see the argument about Napoleon being an incompetent general has stopped, but I must say I don't think he was, but we will leave it there.


Nobody accused him of being an incompetent general. The thread topic dealt with incompetent leaders. I merely tried to point out, in good-natured fun, the string of Napoleon's "accomplishments" that ended in abject failure.

Of course, trying to have a little FUN in forums provided by a GAME company didn't save me from a round of name calling worthy of posting in Art of Wargaming, where such is tolerated, but certainly NOT here in one of the game-related threads. You'd think Nappy was somebody's mother or somethin'
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
msvknight
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Post by msvknight »

I knew that vernacular was familiar Mr George W Bush....

It was the way you said your "Dubbyas"

Anyway back to the topic. How about British General Whitelock. To quote Fregosi's Dream of Empire he:

"saw Beunos AIres, he swore he would never send his troops into such a trap; narrow streets, overlooked by flat-roofed houses from where, behind parapets, the enemy could shoot at will at the unprotected British troops. He then did just what he had said he would never do: on July 5 (1807) he broke his troops into deveral columns and sent them into the city from thirteen different directions"

"Four hundred were killed in a few hours; six hundred and fifty wounded and two thousand surrendered. Whitelocke capitulated and agreed to return to Britain"

He was court-martialled and expelled from the army.

Does he sound like a good candidate?
User avatar
jnier
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2002 10:00 am

Post by jnier »

Originally posted by Michael Knight

Anyway back to the topic. How about British General Whitelock. To quote Fregosi's Dream of Empire he:

"saw Beunos AIres, he swore he would never send his troops into such a trap; narrow streets, overlooked by flat-roofed houses from where, behind parapets, the enemy could shoot at will at the unprotected British troops. He then did just what he had said he would never do: on July 5 (1807) he broke his troops into deveral columns and sent them into the city from thirteen different directions"

"Four hundred were killed in a few hours; six hundred and fifty wounded and two thousand surrendered. Whitelocke capitulated and agreed to return to Britain"

He was court-martialled and expelled from the army.

Does he sound like a good candidate?

I read Fregosi's book this past Summer and I enjoyed it very much. Interesting subject material and conclusions regarding the long term impact of the Napoleonic Wars.

And yup, Whitelock would indeed make a strong candidate.
Snigbert
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Worcester, MA. USA

Post by Snigbert »

I agree that Napoleon could be considered an incompetent leader, and here is why:

As a military leader, he was a genius. However, he was also a political leader of a nation. By waging his wars of aggression, he not only caused great levels of suffering among his own subjects as war weariness and allied invasions of his countries took place, he also caused untold suffering for the rest of the Europeans who were conquered by him or forced to fight him.
Waging a war of aggression which results in the defeat of the country you lead is basically the same thing that Hitler did, although I dont think Napoleon was purely evil in the way Hitler was with his crimes against humanity. Some people consider Napoleon to have been the first AntiChrist, if you believe in that sort of thing.
If Napoleon were really competent he could have stabalized France after the revolution and attempted to peacefully lead the country. War should be a last resort, right? Of course that would make life boring for us wargamers.

I wont say anything negative about his abilities as a miliatry commander, however. In that field he was a genius, in my opinion.
"Money doesnt talk, it swears. Obscenities, who really cares?" -Bob Dylan

"Habit is the balast that chains a dog to it's vomit." -Samuel Becket

"He has weapons of mass destruction- the world's deadliest weapons- which pose a direct threat to the
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

Post by denisonh »

Just when you thought this thread was dead and buried......

It's baaaaaack
Image
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
Chiteng
Posts: 1174
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh,nc,usa

Post by Chiteng »

Originally posted by Snigbert
I agree that Napoleon could be considered an incompetent leader, and here is why:

As a military leader, he was a genius. However, he was also a political leader of a nation. By waging his wars of aggression, he not only caused great levels of suffering among his own subjects as war weariness and allied invasions of his countries took place, he also caused untold suffering for the rest of the Europeans who were conquered by him or forced to fight him.
Waging a war of aggression which results in the defeat of the country you lead is basically the same thing that Hitler did, although I dont think Napoleon was purely evil in the way Hitler was with his crimes against humanity. Some people consider Napoleon to have been the first AntiChrist, if you believe in that sort of thing.
If Napoleon were really competent he could have stabalized France after the revolution and attempted to peacefully lead the country. War should be a last resort, right? Of course that would make life boring for us wargamers.

I wont say anything negative about his abilities as a miliatry commander, however. In that field he was a genius, in my opinion.


Assuming of course that he had any choice.
I accept Tolstoy's thesis, that men are made by the times they live in. Not the reverse.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

French Priest

"Statistic
User avatar
pasternakski
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm

Post by pasternakski »

Originally posted by denisonh
Just when you thought this thread was dead and buried......

It's baaaaaack


Yeah. We've managed to invent the term "bismarcking." Maybe we need to add "lazarusing."
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

Post by denisonh »

Originally posted by pasternakski
Yeah. We've managed to invent the term "bismarcking." Maybe we need to add "lazarusing."


Not dreaded Bismarcking! The thread that just won't die!

I spent a couple of days cruising the art of wargaming forum, posted on a couple, and the only thing I thought at the end was your advice to avoid it....
Image
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
Post Reply

Return to “Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815”