|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 21, 2018 19:29:38 GMT
I think Trafalgar was the more decisive battle. Personally I'd choose Borodino. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,326 
|
Post by slon on Sept 21, 2018 19:49:27 GMT
I think Trafalgar was the more decisive battle. Personally I'd choose Borodino. Austerlitz |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 21, 2018 20:30:20 GMT
Personally I'd choose Borodino. Austerlitz I'd go with Trafalgar. Austerlitz: settled Europe for 7 years, undone by the 1812 campaign Borodino: not decisive at all, it was the Russian will to keep going despite failing to stop Napoleon at Borodino outside Moscow that mattered; but certainly a crucial campaign. Waterloo: made Britain a serious player at Vienna, but the probability is that the much bigger Austrian and Russian armies would have done the job eventually anyway (sorry slon, Austerlitz is not evidence for the French army's ability to defeat either the Austrians or Russians - or even eliminate the Prussians in one battle - after the post-Austerlitz and Jena military reforms of Archduke Charles, Barclay de Tolly and von Scharnhorst respectively - Leipzig is the pattern for how the war would have gone, not Austerlitz.) Trafalgar: prevented French conquest of Britain, which would have avoided the dispute over the Continental System that led to 1812; plus, the final act in the elimination of every European navy by the RN, leading to the extraordinary British naval dominance of the high seas for a century, in turn the military basis for both the British Empire and the free trade system, both intimately connected with the triumph of the Industrial Revolution in Britain and therefore its imitation across Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 21, 2018 20:57:19 GMT
I'd go with Trafalgar. Austerlitz: settled Europe for 7 years, undone by the 1812 campaign Borodino: not decisive at all, it was the Russian will to keep going despite failing to stop Napoleon at Borodino outside Moscow that mattered; but certainly a crucial campaign.Waterloo: made Britain a serious player at Vienna, but the probability is that the much bigger Austrian and Russian armies would have done the job eventually anyway (sorry slon, Austerlitz is not evidence for the French army's ability to defeat either the Austrians or Russians - or even eliminate the Prussians in one battle - after the post-Austerlitz and Jena military reforms of Archduke Charles, Barclay de Tolly and von Scharnhorst respectively - Leipzig is the pattern for how the war would have gone, not Austerlitz.) Trafalgar: prevented French conquest of Britain, which would have avoided the dispute over the Continental System that led to 1812; plus, the final act in the elimination of every European navy by the RN, leading to the extraordinary British naval dominance of the high seas for a century, in turn the military basis for both the British Empire and the free trade system, both intimately connected with the triumph of the Industrial Revolution in Britain and therefore its imitation across Europe. It was tongue-in-cheek, but had Napoleon lost at Borodino he might actually have returned with rather more of the Grand Armee intact. But, as I say, tongue-in-cheek really. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,326
|
Post by slon on Sept 25, 2018 12:23:32 GMT
I'd go with Trafalgar. Austerlitz: settled Europe for 7 years, undone by the 1812 campaign Borodino: not decisive at all, it was the Russian will to keep going despite failing to stop Napoleon at Borodino outside Moscow that mattered; but certainly a crucial campaign. Waterloo: made Britain a serious player at Vienna, but the probability is that the much bigger Austrian and Russian armies would have done the job eventually anyway (sorry slon , Austerlitz is not evidence for the French army's ability to defeat either the Austrians or Russians - or even eliminate the Prussians in one battle - after the post-Austerlitz and Jena military reforms of Archduke Charles, Barclay de Tolly and von Scharnhorst respectively - Leipzig is the pattern for how the war would have gone, not Austerlitz.) Trafalgar: prevented French conquest of Britain, which would have avoided the dispute over the Continental System that led to 1812; plus, the final act in the elimination of every European navy by the RN, leading to the extraordinary British naval dominance of the high seas for a century, in turn the military basis for both the British Empire and the free trade system, both intimately connected with the triumph of the Industrial Revolution in Britain and therefore its imitation across Europe. Not convinced on a number of aspects here: "... military reforms of Archduke Charles, Barclay de Tolly and von Scharnhorst respectively - Leipzig is the pattern for how the war would have gone, not Austerlitz" There is nothing really to support this, Leipzig was a battle of attrition with little room for maneouvre and a huge disparity of numbers. Given aproximate equality of numbers and freedom to move the French armies of the time would still have made mincemeat of the Austrians and Russians, and that is what would have happened if the English and Prussians had been defeated.
"British naval dominance of the high seas for a century, in turn the military basis for both the British Empire and the free trade system, both intimately connected with the triumph of the Industrial Revolution in Britain and therefore its imitation across Europe", now come on, this connecting things which have no connection. The industrial revolution was a progression of the agricultural revolution and the movement away from feudalism, it has little to do with naval dominance or the expansion of empire (except the the increased efficiency created wealth which could finance the military). The reason the agricultural/industrial revolution in England did not happen at the same time in Europe was because the legal/political systems in Europe stifled this progress, not because of lack of free trade or military conquests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Sept 25, 2018 18:28:50 GMT
I'd go with Trafalgar. Austerlitz: settled Europe for 7 years, undone by the 1812 campaign Borodino: not decisive at all, it was the Russian will to keep going despite failing to stop Napoleon at Borodino outside Moscow that mattered; but certainly a crucial campaign. Waterloo: made Britain a serious player at Vienna, but the probability is that the much bigger Austrian and Russian armies would have done the job eventually anyway (sorry slon , Austerlitz is not evidence for the French army's ability to defeat either the Austrians or Russians - or even eliminate the Prussians in one battle - after the post-Austerlitz and Jena military reforms of Archduke Charles, Barclay de Tolly and von Scharnhorst respectively - Leipzig is the pattern for how the war would have gone, not Austerlitz.) Trafalgar: prevented French conquest of Britain, which would have avoided the dispute over the Continental System that led to 1812; plus, the final act in the elimination of every European navy by the RN, leading to the extraordinary British naval dominance of the high seas for a century, in turn the military basis for both the British Empire and the free trade system, both intimately connected with the triumph of the Industrial Revolution in Britain and therefore its imitation across Europe. Not convinced on a number of aspects here: "... military reforms of Archduke Charles, Barclay de Tolly and von Scharnhorst respectively - Leipzig is the pattern for how the war would have gone, not Austerlitz" There is nothing really to support this, Leipzig was a battle of attrition with little room for maneouvre and a huge disparity of numbers. Given aproximate equality of numbers and freedom to move the French armies of the time would still have made mincemeat of the Austrians and Russians, and that is what would have happened if the English and Prussians had been defeated.
"British naval dominance of the high seas for a century, in turn the military basis for both the British Empire and the free trade system, both intimately connected with the triumph of the Industrial Revolution in Britain and therefore its imitation across Europe", now come on, this connecting things which have no connection. The industrial revolution was a progression of the agricultural revolution and the movement away from feudalism, it has little to do with naval dominance or the expansion of empire (except the the increased efficiency created wealth which could finance the military). The reason the agricultural/industrial revolution in England did not happen at the same time in Europe was because the legal/political systems in Europe stifled this progress, not because of lack of free trade or military conquests.
Well, to take my weakest argument first, I don't seriously argue that Trafalgar caused the Industrial Revolution and accept what you say about the causes; my main point would be the bit before my first semi-colon. Nevertheless, British colonies were connected to the Ind. Rev. as sources of cheap raw materials and markets for finished goods, and our empire did depend on naval dominance - which didn't start with Trafalgar, but the latter put the capping stone on it. Our control of the seas prevented anyone from interfering with free trade, and that mattered too. Also, there is a connection between the navy and industrialisation - other European powers were big military powers, based on large armies - we were a naval power and that meant shipbuilding rather than conscription - an essentially technological approach to power rather than a manpower route. On continental armies, there's ample evidence that French armies couldn't make mincemeat of the Austrians, Russians or Prussians after their military reforms - unsurprisingly, since those reforms replicated most of the French techniques. The record in key battles was: - Eylau 1807 - drawn battle with Russians - Aspern-Essling 1809 - Napoleon beaten by Austrians - Wagram 1809 - narrow French victory over Austrians, certainly not "mincemeat" - Borodino 1812 - a bloodbath, Russian army still intact afterwards - Dresden 1813 - French victory, but allied armies still intact and able to bounce back at... - Leipzig 1813 - decisive allied victory What's noticeable at most of those battles is the lack of manoeuvre by the French armies even where there was room (Davout wanted a strategic right hook at Borodino, Napoleon overruled him) which is also a feature of Waterloo. At Ligny too the French did not manoeuvre - and they failed to crush the Prussians either. Whether that's because they couldn't - and I suspect that post-1812 the young conscripts weren't as fit as the revolutionary veterans of 1805 and simply couldn't march as far or fast - or the ever-increasing size of armies prevented it, or Napoleon had just lost it* I don't know but there really isn't any evidence that the French were superior at manoeuvre by 1815. The failure of D'Erlon to get onto either the Ligny or Quatre Bras battlefields and Grouchy's lacklustre pursuit of the Prussians compared to Blucher's ability to get his army onto the Waterloo battlefield are not exactly evidence of superior speed or command-and-control. * after all, the fundamentals behind Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo are his belief that (a) the Prussians were beaten and (b) after that defeat they would retreat eastward along their lines of communication - both catastrophic errors of judgement. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,326
|
Post by slon on Oct 4, 2018 8:44:49 GMT
Not convinced on a number of aspects here: "... military reforms of Archduke Charles, Barclay de Tolly and von Scharnhorst respectively - Leipzig is the pattern for how the war would have gone, not Austerlitz" There is nothing really to support this, Leipzig was a battle of attrition with little room for maneouvre and a huge disparity of numbers. Given aproximate equality of numbers and freedom to move the French armies of the time would still have made mincemeat of the Austrians and Russians, and that is what would have happened if the English and Prussians had been defeated.
"British naval dominance of the high seas for a century, in turn the military basis for both the British Empire and the free trade system, both intimately connected with the triumph of the Industrial Revolution in Britain and therefore its imitation across Europe", now come on, this connecting things which have no connection. The industrial revolution was a progression of the agricultural revolution and the movement away from feudalism, it has little to do with naval dominance or the expansion of empire (except the the increased efficiency created wealth which could finance the military). The reason the agricultural/industrial revolution in England did not happen at the same time in Europe was because the legal/political systems in Europe stifled this progress, not because of lack of free trade or military conquests.
Well, to take my weakest argument first, I don't seriously argue that Trafalgar caused the Industrial Revolution and accept what you say about the causes; my main point would be the bit before my first semi-colon. Nevertheless, British colonies were connected to the Ind. Rev. as sources of cheap raw materials and markets for finished goods, and our empire did depend on naval dominance - which didn't start with Trafalgar, but the latter put the capping stone on it. Our control of the seas prevented anyone from interfering with free trade, and that mattered too. Also, there is a connection between the navy and industrialisation - other European powers were big military powers, based on large armies - we were a naval power and that meant shipbuilding rather than conscription - an essentially technological approach to power rather than a manpower route. On continental armies, there's ample evidence that French armies couldn't make mincemeat of the Austrians, Russians or Prussians after their military reforms - unsurprisingly, since those reforms replicated most of the French techniques. The record in key battles was: - Eylau 1807 - drawn battle with Russians - Aspern-Essling 1809 - Napoleon beaten by Austrians - Wagram 1809 - narrow French victory over Austrians, certainly not "mincemeat" - Borodino 1812 - a bloodbath, Russian army still intact afterwards - Dresden 1813 - French victory, but allied armies still intact and able to bounce back at... - Leipzig 1813 - decisive allied victory What's noticeable at most of those battles is the lack of manoeuvre by the French armies even where there was room (Davout wanted a strategic right hook at Borodino, Napoleon overruled him) which is also a feature of Waterloo. At Ligny too the French did not manoeuvre - and they failed to crush the Prussians either. Whether that's because they couldn't - and I suspect that post-1812 the young conscripts weren't as fit as the revolutionary veterans of 1805 and simply couldn't march as far or fast - or the ever-increasing size of armies prevented it, or Napoleon had just lost it* I don't know but there really isn't any evidence that the French were superior at manoeuvre by 1815. The failure of D'Erlon to get onto either the Ligny or Quatre Bras battlefields and Grouchy's lacklustre pursuit of the Prussians compared to Blucher's ability to get his army onto the Waterloo battlefield are not exactly evidence of superior speed or command-and-control. * after all, the fundamentals behind Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo are his belief that (a) the Prussians were beaten and (b) after that defeat they would retreat eastward along their lines of communication - both catastrophic errors of judgement. Well yes, added to which is the reality that the biggest problem for Napoleon was himself. The super ego which could not be contained and led inevitably to destruction.
My real point was about the Age of Reason and the abrupt end thereof in 1815. What situation would have allowed the enlightenment to have continued through 19th century ? My over simple proposal involved Waterloo.
|
|
seanf
Non-Aligned
Posts: 631
|
Post by seanf on Oct 8, 2018 5:47:47 GMT
Well, to take my weakest argument first, I don't seriously argue that Trafalgar caused the Industrial Revolution and accept what you say about the causes; my main point would be the bit before my first semi-colon. Nevertheless, British colonies were connected to the Ind. Rev. as sources of cheap raw materials and markets for finished goods, and our empire did depend on naval dominance - which didn't start with Trafalgar, but the latter put the capping stone on it. Our control of the seas prevented anyone from interfering with free trade, and that mattered too. Also, there is a connection between the navy and industrialisation - other European powers were big military powers, based on large armies - we were a naval power and that meant shipbuilding rather than conscription - an essentially technological approach to power rather than a manpower route. On continental armies, there's ample evidence that French armies couldn't make mincemeat of the Austrians, Russians or Prussians after their military reforms - unsurprisingly, since those reforms replicated most of the French techniques. The record in key battles was: - Eylau 1807 - drawn battle with Russians - Aspern-Essling 1809 - Napoleon beaten by Austrians - Wagram 1809 - narrow French victory over Austrians, certainly not "mincemeat" - Borodino 1812 - a bloodbath, Russian army still intact afterwards - Dresden 1813 - French victory, but allied armies still intact and able to bounce back at... - Leipzig 1813 - decisive allied victory What's noticeable at most of those battles is the lack of manoeuvre by the French armies even where there was room (Davout wanted a strategic right hook at Borodino, Napoleon overruled him) which is also a feature of Waterloo. At Ligny too the French did not manoeuvre - and they failed to crush the Prussians either. Whether that's because they couldn't - and I suspect that post-1812 the young conscripts weren't as fit as the revolutionary veterans of 1805 and simply couldn't march as far or fast - or the ever-increasing size of armies prevented it, or Napoleon had just lost it* I don't know but there really isn't any evidence that the French were superior at manoeuvre by 1815. The failure of D'Erlon to get onto either the Ligny or Quatre Bras battlefields and Grouchy's lacklustre pursuit of the Prussians compared to Blucher's ability to get his army onto the Waterloo battlefield are not exactly evidence of superior speed or command -and-control. * after all, the fundamentals behind Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo are his belief that (a) the Prussians were beaten and (b) after that defeat they would retreat eastward along their lines of communication - both catastrophic errors of judgement. Well yes, added to which is the reality that the biggest problem for Napoleon was himself. The super ego which could not be contained and led inevitably to destruction.
My real point was about the Age of Reason and the abrupt end thereof in 1815. What situation would have allowed the enlightenment to have continued through 19th century ? My over simple proposal involved Waterloo.
IMHO, the Age of Reason ended in 1789. The French Revolution and subsequent wars hugely retarded economic development across Europe in general (outside the UK) and France and the Low Countries in particular. |
|
seanf
Non-Aligned
Posts: 631
|
Post by seanf on Oct 8, 2018 5:54:53 GMT
I was thinking more beyond the immediate military situation. Let us assume for example Wellington is forced to retreat to the channel, Blücher put to flight, the Prussians would probably be cut to pieces when faced by the entire French army.... the Austrians would have zero chance against the now resurgent French so would sue for peace .... the Russians were months away from any movement West so would sit tight. What would the political situation pan out to? Could Napoleon cease the megalomaniac aim of Grand Empire so France would retain the new borders (including the low countries and North west Germany) with Britain isolated on the other side of the moat, Austria and Russia intact. Where would that lead? If Napoleon had won the Waterloo campaign (and he came close) and had then immediately offered peace, based on the status quo, to the Allies, then perhaps he'd have retained his Throne. But, I doubt if that was in his nature, or that the Allies would have trusted him. Assuming that the war continued, the Allies would have overwhelmed him, as in 1814. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,326
|
Post by slon on Oct 8, 2018 16:54:54 GMT
Well yes, added to which is the reality that the biggest problem for Napoleon was himself. The super ego which could not be contained and led inevitably to destruction.
My real point was about the Age of Reason and the abrupt end thereof in 1815. What situation would have allowed the enlightenment to have continued through 19th century ? My over simple proposal involved Waterloo.
IMHO, the Age of Reason ended in 1789. The French Revolution and subsequent wars hugely retarded economic development across Europe in general (outside the UK) and France and the Low Countries in particular. I think you could say the Enlightenment culminated in the declaration of Rights of Man, American independence and revolution in France. What put it back in the box for another 100 years was the re-empowerment of backward Empires after the defeat of France.
They were able to retain serfdom and supress internal dissidents ... my suggestion is that this created the environment for destructive nationalism which led to the horrors of the 20th century.
There is no evidence of stifled economic development across Europe because of the Napoleonic wars or the French revolution ... there is evidence of little economic progress in the Feudal states who defeated Napoleon because of the outdated political structures.
|
|
seanf
Non-Aligned
Posts: 631
|
Post by seanf on Oct 8, 2018 18:40:27 GMT
IMHO, the Age of Reason ended in 1789. The French Revolution and subsequent wars hugely retarded economic development across Europe in general (outside the UK) and France and the Low Countries in particular. I think you could say the Enlightenment culminated in the declaration of Rights of Man, American independence and revolution in France. What put it back in the box for another 100 years was the re-empowerment of backward Empires after the defeat of France.
They were able to retain serfdom and supress internal dissidents ... my suggestion is that this created the environment for destructive nationalism which led to the horrors of the 20th century.
There is no evidence of stifled economic development across Europe because of the Napoleonic wars or the French revolution ... there is evidence of little economic progress in the Feudal states who defeated Napoleon because of the outdated political structures.
Revolution in France resulted in mass murder, the suppression of free expression, and the birth of the modern police State. France and the Low Countries were industrialising in the 1780's as rapidly as Britain. By 1815, they had de-industrialised, even as the UK forged ahead (in the 1800's, the French army was actually buying smuggled munitions made by British manufacturers, because they no longer had the means to produce sufficient quantities at home). Formerly prosperous regions like Northern Italy and Switzerland were stripped bare by French forces. The revolutionaries abolished the Royal Academy of Sciences and murdered prominent scientists, inventors and industrialists, (some of whom like Condorcet, had welcomed the Revolution) and caused many more to flee to Britain. They strengthened our country at the expense of their own. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 13,326
|
Post by slon on Oct 9, 2018 8:33:40 GMT
I think you could say the Enlightenment culminated in the declaration of Rights of Man, American independence and revolution in France. What put it back in the box for another 100 years was the re-empowerment of backward Empires after the defeat of France.
They were able to retain serfdom and supress internal dissidents ... my suggestion is that this created the environment for destructive nationalism which led to the horrors of the 20th century.
There is no evidence of stifled economic development across Europe because of the Napoleonic wars or the French revolution ... there is evidence of little economic progress in the Feudal states who defeated Napoleon because of the outdated political structures.
Revolution in France resulted in mass murder, the suppression of free expression, and the birth of the modern police State. France and the Low Countries were industrialising in the 1780's as rapidly as Britain. By 1815, they had de-industrialised, even as the UK forged ahead (in the 1800's, the French army was actually buying smuggled munitions made by British manufacturers, because they no longer had the means to produce sufficient quantities at home). Formerly prosperous regions like Northern Italy and Switzerland were stripped bare by French forces. The revolutionaries abolished the Royal Academy of Sciences and murdered prominent scientists, inventors and industrialists, (some of whom like Condorcet, had welcomed the Revolution) and caused many more to flee to Britain. They strengthened our country at the expense of their own. You mix up long and short term effects ...
Yes the French revolution and subsequent wars were economically damaging, but were of limited duration. The political movement back to feudalism and the supression of progressive thought in most of mainland Europe would last 100 years. In that 100 years the only permitted expression of political dissent would be extreme nationalism.
|
|
