Originally posted by KnightWulfeBS. Your fleet had no business being in my Home waters which the Pope himself has given Venice dominion over. Whatever your aggressive plans were against the Republic, whether it was loading troops from another realm or combining with another's fleet to attack us, they were foiled by the prompt action of the Venetian Navy.
There was no threat. My ships sailed within peacfully. There were no armies on board and no intent to attack. Venice chose to attack me and take it as a threat. He declared the war, not I.
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou'll soon find out. Google "Central Position in Napoleonic strategy" and you might learn something.
When does the first person to take one of your home cities go down? Will that be second?
"The whole art of war consists of a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive followed by rapid and audacious attack."
Napoleon Bonaparte
Originally posted by no1marauderHmmmm... Napoleon's own bumbling failure in his attempt to take Russia speaks volumes.
You'll soon find out. Google "Central Position in Napoleonic strategy" and you might learn something.
"The whole art of war consists of a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive followed by rapid and audacious attack."
Napoleon Bonaparte
1 edit
Originally posted by KnightWulfeLMFAO! A bumbler like you Duke should not presume to give your worthless opinions about military strategy. Criticizing Napoleon, one of the greatest military geniuses in history, is just another example of your ignorant arrogance.
Hmmmm... Napoleon's own bumbling failure in his attempt to take Russia speaks volumes.
Originally posted by no1marauderYour attempts to instigate a verbal war in the forum again wont work.
LMFAO! A bumbler like you Duke should not presume to give your worthless opinions about military strategy. Criticizing Napoleon, one of the greatest military geniuses in history, is just another example of your ignorant arrogance.
I never said he was not a military genius....I said he failed. And that failure was so bad that it cost him his nation. Ylu really love to read whatever you like into what others say. You take everything 5 steps futher than they are stated and base your comments on such.
As to the in game battles.... I have faired better in ever conflict we have had save for the UNinstigated attack on my ships in the Adriatic.
So think whatever you wish.
1 edit
Originally posted by KnightWulfeYou said he was a bumbler. And your knowledge of history is poor; the Russian Campaign of 1812 did not cost Napoleon his nation.
Your attempts to instigate a verbal war in the forum again wont work.
I never said he was not a military genius....I said he failed. And that failure was so bad that it cost him his nation. Ylu really love to read whatever you like into what others say. You take everything 5 steps futher than they are stated and base your comments on such.
As to t ...[text shortened]... had save for the UNinstigated attack on my ships in the Adriatic.
So think whatever you wish.
If having "fared better" means losing every campaign, then you have "fared better". You once held a field, but promptly got your entire army destroyed the very next season. And you managed to blunder away Siege machines because you underestimated your opponent. Finally, the movement of warships into the territorial waters of a realm without that realm's permission warrants their destruction in international law.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOoh. What did, then? He lost maybe half a million men in that failed venture. The cream of his corps which could only be replaced by the young and old inexperienced against the massed forces of Europe.
You said he was a bumbler. And your knowledge of history is poor; the Russian Campaign of 1812 did not cost Napoleon his nation.
If having "fared better" means losing every campaign, then you have "fared better". You once held a field, but promptly got your entire army destroyed the very next season. And you managed to blunder away Siege machin ...[text shortened]... of a realm without that realm's permission warrants their destruction in international law.
Originally posted by buffalobillIt required several large campaigns after to finally defeat Napoleon. It is impossible to reasonably say that the result of those campaigns were predetermined; even Waterloo was a near thing. The French system relied on a professional cadre to train recruits; so long as the bulk of that cadre survived (and it did survive Russia 1812) the French army was still an effective fighting force. Please show some historical examples in the campaigns of 1813-1814 when the French fought in a poor, inexperienced way.
Ooh. What did, then? He lost maybe half a million men in that failed venture. The cream of his corps which could only be replaced by the young and old inexperienced against the massed forces of Europe.
Originally posted by no1marauderI said it failed, not that it was inexperienced. I believe that the bulk of Napoleon's experienced troops perished in Russia and duriing the retreat. Most sources I've ever read agree with me. Can you show me wrong? This is not an argument BTW, just a debate.
It required several large campaigns after to finally defeat Napoleon. It is impossible to reasonably say that the result of those campaigns were predetermined; even Waterloo was a near thing. The French system relied on a professional cadre to train recruits; so long as the bulk of that cadre survived (and it did survive Russia 1812) the French army was ...[text shortened]... ical examples in the campaigns of 1813-1814 when the French fought in a poor, inexperienced way.
1 edit
Originally posted by buffalobill?? BB: by the young and old inexperienced
I said it failed, not that it was inexperienced. I believe that the bulk of Napoleon's experienced troops perished in Russia and duriing the retreat. Most sources I've ever read agree with me. Can you show me wrong? This is not an argument BTW, just a debate.
Probably most of his experienced troops did perish in Russia. That does not mean most of his cadre did; they are not the same. My point is merely that Napoleon was able to field a highly competent army after the Russia debacle and that campaign alone did not doom France to ultimate defeat. The results of the brief war against Prussia in Spring 1813, the first campaign after Russia, was a pretty convincing victory for the French which was ended in a truce favorable to the French side in May 1813. This fact is a pretty good refutation of your premise.
Originally posted by no1marauderHe took his ablest and most experienced troops into Russia and lost them in the snow for nothing. Thereafter, he was running out of manpower which needed to come from the young and old (as Hitler had to do in 1945). Numbers are not important nor is training. Experience counts. After Russia, Europe was united in a common cause against France. Yes, France could win some, but it lost the ones that counted. I'm a huge fan of Napoleon the general, but all great men have their fallibilities. Russia was his.
?? BB: by the young and old inexperienced
Probably most of his experienced troops did perish in Russia. That does not mean most of his cadre did; they are not the same. My point is merely that Napoleon was able to field a highly competent army after the Russia debacle and that campaign alone did not doom France to ultimate defeat. The results ...[text shortened]... favorable to the French side in May 1813. This fact is a pretty good refutation of your premise.
1 edit
Originally posted by buffalobillI've noticed before your stubborn refusal to admit you are wrong. You are wrong. What, pray tell, strategy would you have adopted after Russia declared war on France in 1812 other than invading them? Saying training is not important shows your complete ignorance of military matters. I guess all the militaries in the world are wasting a lot of time and money on this frivolity when they could listen to your expert advice and disregard training altogether.
He took his ablest and most experienced troops into Russia and lost them in the snow for nothing. Thereafter, he was running out of manpower which needed to come from the young and old (as Hitler had to do in 1945). Numbers are not important nor is training. Experience counts. After Russia, Europe was united in a common cause against France. Yes, France a huge fan of Napoleon the general, but all great men have their fallibilities. Russia was his.
Originally posted by no1marauderWingnut is right. What thread should this go into? Shall we start a new one?
I've noticed before your stubborn refusal to admit you are wrong. You are wrong. What, pray tell, strategy would you have adopted after Russia declared war on France in 1812 other than invading them? Saying training is not important shows your complete ignorance of military matters. I guess all the militaries in the world are wasting a lot of time and mo ...[text shortened]... this frivolity when they could listen to your expert advice and disregard training altogether.
But, and not a good analogy, should Norway declare war on you and assuming you have passage rights would Venice march a +2000 CP army there, oh great tactician? Knowing you have enemies scheming behind your back?
Anyway, start a new thread, this is fun.