Napoleon

jmayo

Prince Andrew wrote: »

My daddy told me that if weren't for the tenacity of the Duke of Wellington all may have been lost.

My daddy told me that the Duke was a vicious bastard from Ireland who had already massacred thousands of Indians and was erstwhile, tempered and fanatical with the sword. He drank a bottle of wine every day and only ate cold meat and bread.

Whilst I trained as a cadet with the Royal Navy my commanding officer told me that even had Napolean defeated the Duke at Waterloo it is highly likely that the Navy would have scuppered his plan to lay siege to England. Lord Nelson would have seen to his imminent demise.

Nelson would have been doing very well to have stopped Napolean in 1815 seen as he was dead since 1805.

Prince Andrew wrote: »

I also heard that he was very small narcissistic homophobe who was prone to bouts of depression and slept alot. He was fond of the fairer sex and was known to engage in prolific sexual encounters with women whilst not defeating foreign armies on the dark fields of battle. He was vertically challenged and suffered from small man syndrome. He even arrested the Pope.

So he was a good judge of character then.

Prince Andrew wrote: »

The first helicopters were invented in 1936, during the reign of Adolf Hitler in Germany, where my great grandfather is from. My great uncle used to like him and they used to attend the same parties and share mistresses.

Not that subtle.
PS I thought your great uncle shared with the ambassador ?

Conall Cernach

gitane007 wrote: »

No idea what Europe would be like ...........but i always thought Marshall Ney lost the battle of Waterloo for the French by exhausting and pretty much destroying the Cavalry after sending it against the Squares repeatedly. I'd say Ney was suffering from PTSD or some **** after the Retreat from Russia a few years earlier , he lost his cool and went into Rambo mode , kinda like Hitler during the last few days in his bunker. He left Napoleon with no choice other than to throw the imperial gaurd in and hope they could salvage a victory before he legged it.

I always thought that a few guns on the left would have pulverised those squares for Ney. You've got to wonder why he didn't call some up. It is said that Napoleon didn't know what was happening on that flank due to a case of piles (sometimes it's the runs) keeping him from riding round the battlefield.

RhubarbCrumble

jmayo wrote: »

PS I thought your great uncle shared with the ambassador ?

Shared his Ferrero Rocher?

Naggdefy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Josephine still f*cked around on him tho

She was 8 years older and indeed she did Hyppolite Charles etc. But Napoleon was the one in control in the end.

Naggdefy

Waterloo is pretty irrelevant. France was out of man and horse power. Defeat was inevitable.

The Russian campaign was the end. Like Stalingrad for Hitler in WW2. The Germans fought on for 2 years but the game was up.

Wellington was a dour defensive general, superb on the defensive but no match for Napoleon's flair in attacking strategy in his hayday.

English propaganda really painted Bonaparte as the small man etc. He was 5ft 2in in old French measurement. 5ft 6in in standard measurement, average for his day.

Your Face

This is untrue but apparently he could bench 207kg.

Cheerful Spring2

Montage of Feck wrote: »

No I'm not claiming to be him, but what would Europe be like today if he hadn't surrended at Waterloo?

Obviously Abba wouldn't have had a hit with waterloo.

Napoleon lost the war in Russia. The Russians outsmarted him by burning down Moscow and he was forced to retreat losing most of the Grande Armée due to the harsh winter.

A win at waterloo would only protect, the northern French flank for a time. Prussia, Austria- Hungry, and Russia and England given time would gather more armies and attack Napoleon again.

Hitler made the same mistake when he attacked the Soviet Union and effectively ended any hope he win WW2.

storker

Prince Andrew wrote: »

Whilst I trained as a cadet with the Royal Navy my commanding officer told me that even had Napolean defeated the Duke at Waterloo it is highly likely that the Navy would have scuppered his plan to lay siege to England. Lord Nelson would have seen to his imminent demise.

You have to take your hat off to Nelson, seeing as he was nearly 10 years dead when Waterloo was fought.

Naggdefy

storker wrote: »

You have to take your hat off to Nelson, seeing as he was nearly 10 years dead when Waterloo was fought.

I heard they had a battalion of ironsides under Oliver Cromwell on board the navy.

Naggdefy

Your Face wrote: »

This is untrue but apparently he could bench 207kg.

No Nelson suffered from cruciate ligament problems, which had no fix at the time.

storker

Naggdefy wrote: »

Wellington was a dour defensive general, superb on the defensive but no match for Napoleon's flair in attacking strategy in his hayday.

To be fair to Wellington, he had a small army and had to be careful with it. But he could still attack briskly when he saw an opportunity, as Marshal Marmont found out at Salamanca in 1812.

Naggdefy

storker wrote: »

To be fair to Wellington, he had a small army and had to be careful with it. But he could still attack briskly when he saw an opportunity, as Marshal Marmont found out at Salamanca in 1812.

No Austerlitz though Bit of a wannabe trying to bed women Napoleon was with and keep souvenirs of his belongings. Not in the same league as regards law making, administration, political vision as Bonaparte also. As Wellington said himself Napoleon was worth 10,000 men on the battlefield.

storker

Conall Cernach wrote: »

I always thought that a few guns on the left would have pulverised those squares for Ney. You've got to wonder why he didn't call some up. It is said that Napoleon didn't know what was happening on that flank due to a case of piles (sometimes it's the runs) keeping him from riding round the battlefield.

It was said that Ney had a habit of forgetting about everything except the units in front of him. He seems to have suffered a bit from the "red mist" when in battle, when not in battle, though he was more mercurial. His rash attacks at Waterloo (which may in fact have been authorised by Napoleon perhaps hoping for a rerun of Murat's charge at Eylau) contrasts with his inactivity on the morning of Quatre Bras, two days previously.

Some of this has been put down to post-Russia PTSD, but six years before that, at Jena, Ney's corps had to be rescued by Lannes after Ney charged it headlong into the battle and was nearly cut off by the Prussians.

Regarding the Waterloo cavalry charges, yes something went wrong somewhere with the failure to employ infantry and/or artillery support, and I'm not a Napoleon-basher (the most vitriolic of whom appear to be English, in my experience), but Napoleon was in charge on the day, and if it had been a victory he wouldn't have been slow to claim the credit, so ultimately the buck stop with him. He knew Ney was no Davout and worked best when on short leash but appears to have given him a lot of slack anyway.

storker

Naggdefy wrote: »

Bit of a wannabe trying to bed women Napoleon was with

Apparently Wellington bedded both of Napoleons ex-mistresses. As one writer put it, "...one could be put down to coincidence, but two smacks of triumphalism."

Jacovs

corner of hells wrote: »

We wouldn't have had Napoleon Brandy.
Wellington Brandy just doesn't sound right.

Ummmmmmm

Cheerful Spring2

storker wrote: »

To be fair to Wellington, he had a small army and had to be careful with it. But he could still attack briskly when he saw an opportunity, as Marshal Marmont found out at Salamanca in 1812.

Wellington and Blücher' armies were in full retreat. Waterloo was a stand your ground battle. There had been many short battles leading up to this decisive battle, all won by the French till then. Napoleon main aim was to split the armies in two and was successful. Wellington was left on his own. Napoleon unsure of where Blucher retreating army went, send a third of his army or half of it,' can't remember exactly to chase down the Prussians and stop them from linking up again at Waterloo. Napoleon would have been successful if the weather conditions were good, there was heavy rain for a few days, so he had to delay the attack, and was unable to attack Wellington and use his heavy cannons to take out Wellington main lines of defence.. The Prussians on battle day gave the French the slip and managed to get to the battle to help Wellington when he needed them most. Napoleon was down a third of his army when the Prussians arrived and was game over for him. His flank was exposed and they broke.

Just as a follow up. I finished that book, Napoleon by Christopher J. Herold and towards the end while discussing Napoleon's final days I came across this 'Barry Lyndon' moment:

"Apart from this handful of companions and his servants... Napoleon's only regular company consisted of Dr. Barry O'Meara, an Irishman who had been a surgeon in the British navy and who was assigned to Napoleon as a personal physician."

I had never heard of him, but it appears O'Meara became quite famous. There's even a 2008 book by Hubert O'Connor entitled, The Emperor and the Irishman: Napoleon and Dr Barry O'Meara on St Helena.

In 1822, O'Meara, published his own 2-volume account of Napoleon's life on St Helena: Napoleon in Exile: Or, A Voice from St. Helena. The Opinions and Reflections of Napoleon on the Most Important Events of His Life and Government in His Own Words

Despite the Tipperary surname O'Meara, [url=according to this source, was born in "Co. Cork", but this source says he was born in Co. Dublin and is much more specific:

Barry Edward O’Meara was born in Newtownpark House, Newtownpark Avenue, Blackrock (then Newtown-on-Sea) in Co. Dublin in 1784. He studied medicine at Trinity College Dublin and also at the Royal College of Surgeons. He qualified in 1804 and joined the army in Dublin as a surgeon. O’Meara served in Egypt, Sicily and Southern Italy during the Napoleonic wars. During his time in Italy he was dismissed from the army because of his involvement in a duel...

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just as a follow up. I finished that book, Napoleon by Christopher J. Herold and towards the end while discussing Napoleon's final days I came across this 'Barry Lyndon' moment:

"Apart from this handful of companions and his servants... Napoleon's only regular company consisted of Dr. Barry O'Meara, an Irishman who had been a surgeon in the British navy and who was assigned to Napoleon as a personal physician."

I had never heard of him, but it appears O'Meara became quite famous. There's even a 2008 book by Hubert O'Connor entitled, The Emperor and the Irishman: Napoleon and Dr Barry O'Meara on St Helena.

In 1822, O'Meara, published his own 2-volume account of Napoleon's life on St Helena: Napoleon in Exile: Or, A Voice from St. Helena. The Opinions and Reflections of Napoleon on the Most Important Events of His Life and Government in His Own Words:

The surgeon on HMS Victory, who tended Nelson, was an Irishman as well.

storker

Deleted User wrote: »

Just as a follow up. I finished that book, Napoleon by Christopher J. Herold...

I'd heard of O'Meara a few times but didn't know anything about him. I'm currently reading Adam Zamoyski's biography of Napoleon which is good so far, even though he hasn't even got to Toulon yet. Zamoyski's "1812: Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow" is excellent, and a must-read for anyone interested in the 1812 campaign in Russia.

While we're on the subject of Irish connections...Napoleon's Irish Legion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Legion



The image shows two members of the Irish Legion in Spain 1810-1812, on the left is a volltiguer (light infantry) and on the right a grenadier (elite infantry). The regiment was designated as light infantry, so strictly speaking the grenadier should be a carabinier, but maybe they didn't use the standard terms for foreign regiments.

odyssey06

Based purely on the TV series Sharpe, Napoleon forgot the cardinal rule ... kill Sean Bean ☺

Conall Cernach

storker wrote: »

I'd heard of O'Meara a few times but didn't know anything about him. I'm currently reading Adam Zamoyski's biography of Napoleon which is good so far, even though he hasn't even got to Toulon yet. Zamoyski's "1812: Napoleon's Fatal March on Moscow" is excellent, and a must-read for anyone interested in the 1812 campaign in Russia.

While we're on the subject of Irish connections...Napoleon's Irish Legion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Legion



The image shows two members of the Irish Legion in Spain 1810-1812, on the left is a volltiguer (light infantry) and on the right a grenadier (elite infantry). The regiment was designated as light infantry, so strictly speaking the grenadier should be a carabinier, but maybe they didn't use the standard terms for foreign regiments.

I think (I may be talking bollox) the French line infantry battalions had a voltiguer and grenadier company included in them.

storker

Conall Cernach wrote: »

I think (I may be talking bollox) the French line infantry battalions had a voltiguer and grenadier company included in them.

You're quite correct. But the French light infantry battalion (post-1808) also had a voltigeur company, four chasseur companies and one carabinier (elite) company, whereas in the line battalions it was voltigeurs, four fusilier companies and one of elite grenadiers. According to the histories the Irish Legion was designated a light regiment so it's odd to see it using line terms for its companies. But then there were a number of naming oddities during that era, so it shouldn't really be surprising.

Also, like the French light infantry regiments, the Irish Legion wore jacket and breeches of the same colour. That said, I've seen one illustration of an Irish Legion soldier in white breeches with green jacket. It's enough to give you a headache, even though it's the uniforms that are one of the big attractions of the period...

The Rape of Lucretia

Napoleon was pretty much Hitler without the antisemitism.
Worse really. Hitler had some political motivation, however misguided, for the German people. Napoleon was just out for self aggrandisement, wealth, and despite Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité and the French Revolution, worked pretty quickly to put himself back in the position of all powerful monarch/emperor. A supperb and unscrupulous opportunist. Plus handing out the rest of Europe that he could get his hands on to his relations. An utterly despicable maniac.

storker

odyssey06 wrote: »

Based purely on the TV series Sharpe, Napoleon forgot the cardinal rule ... kill Sean Bean ☺

One does not simply kill Sean Bean.

Oh, wait...

Tony EH

odyssey06 wrote: »

Based purely on the TV series Sharpe, Napoleon forgot the cardinal rule ... kill Sean Bean ☺

It didn't Joffrey any good in the end though.

tabby aspreme

Was his surrender the beginning of, Small Man Syndrome

blinding

archer22 wrote: »

If you think Frenchmen can't fight, then you need to read up on the french Charlemagne Division that served in the German army during world war two.

They were the most ferocious fighters in the Battle of Berlin.

Had they a whole lot of choice at that stage it was either suicide in battle / suicide / shot later :eek:

blinding

branie2 wrote: »

The UK would be ruled by France

If Brexit is not completed The French and Germans will have won Waterloo this time .

storker

blinding wrote: »

If Brexit is not completed The French and Germans will have won Waterloo this time .

It's a win either way. If Brexit is stopped, then the EU avoids the economic upheaval that goes with it and the ongoing distraction of the trade deal talks that will follow. In the other hand, the EU doesn’t need an obnoxious, rattle-throwing UK still in the tent urinating all over the sleeping bags and generally behaving like the kid in class who doesn’t want to learn, but doesn’t want anyone else to learn either.

blinding

storker wrote: »

It's a win either way. If Brexit is stopped, then the EU avoids the economic upheaval that goes with it and the ongoing distraction of the trade deal talks that will follow. In the other hand, the EU doesn’t need an obnoxious, rattle-throwing UK still in the tent urinating all over the sleeping bags and generally behaving like the kid in class who doesn’t want to learn, but doesn’t want anyone else to learn either.

The British must go their own way . Its the only thing that works for them .