I would argue the British efforts to continue the war was better for anyone on the Continent so long as you weren't French. Or maybe even some specific French considering how the First and Third Republic tried to erased the identities of the Bretons. Napoleon was an upstart and the stability of Europe demanded that social changes don't happen too fast, so Britain going to war with Napoleon and only offering peace once they had the upper hand made sense
Overestimated battles
- Thread starter Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
- Start date
I would argue the British efforts to continue the war was better for anyone on the Continent so long as you weren't French. Or maybe even some specific French considering how the First and Third Republic tried to erased the identities of the Bretons. Napoleon was an upstart and the stability of Europe demanded that social changes don't happen too fast, so Britain going to war with Napoleon and only offering peace once they had the upper hand made sense
Well, following that logic, one should probably keep arguing all the way to a statements that all social changes are evil and must be rolled back
While a lot of bad things can be said about Napoleonic regime, very few good things could be said about regimes of his opponents either. Britain (or rather its ruling class) was fighting for its economic dominance in Europe, which was a laudable thing from the British perspective but not necessarily too good for the continental Europe because that dominance was pretty much killing chances of the local development.
And let’s not be confused about “Britain going to war” part either. In the terms of the numbers and losses involved, Britain was well behind the continental opponents of Napoleon: it was mostly subsidizing the idiots ready to fight the wars for no obvious reason (out of which Alexander I was the biggest one).
Yes, Nappy was an upstart but this does not mean that the old regimes had as their heads highly attractive personalities or doing too much good to their countries.
Well, following that logic, one should probably keep arguing all the way to a statements that all social changes are evil and must be rolled back
While a lot of bad things can be said about Napoleonic regime, very few good things could be said about regimes of his opponents either. Britain (or rather its ruling class) was fighting for its economic dominance in Europe, which was a laudable thing from the British perspective but not necessarily too good for the continental Europe because that dominance was pretty much killing chances of the local development.
And let’s not be confused about “Britain going to war” part either. In the terms of the numbers and losses involved, Britain was well behind the continental opponents of Napoleon: it was mostly subsidizing the idiots ready to fight the wars for no obvious reason (out of which Alexander I was the biggest one).
Yes, Nappy was an upstart but this does not mean that the old regimes had as their heads highly attractive personalities or doing too much good to their countries.
Because conquering all of Europe and replacing the monarchs with your siblings is a better option?
I mean, I dislike Napoleon since he crushed democracy under his heel and played fast and loose with his principles for expediency. That's not to say that the ruling classes of Europe were paragons of virtue, but Napoleon wasn't really better when you get down to it.
I don’t like Nappy but his opponents had been, in general, even worse. With all its faults, his regime was more “democratic” than any of the main “old regimes” in Europe. His siblings were not very good rulers but, AFAIK, their regimes usually involved some kind of a constitution and progressive reforms. Admittedly, people tend not to like being pushed into paradise with a stick.
The real problem with the Napoleonic regime wasn't its domestic character, most European monarchs not giving a shit, but rather the threat it posed to the European balance of power. France with the Natural Frontiers and control of the channel ports already represented a major unbalancing force, and Napoleon's expansion, 'defensive' or not, continually worsened the problem.
The 378 battle of Adrianople is a good overestimated battle candidate. To the extent its famous, it is because historians know that the Western Roman Empire fell and they need to associate a Roman defeat with that. And the closest Roman defeat in chronology is Adrianople in 378. Never mind that it was almost a century before the conventional date for the end of the Western Roman Empire, and it was the Eastern Roman army that lost the battle.
Well, following that logic, one should probably keep arguing all the way to a statements that all social changes are evil and must be rolled back
What have social changes got to do with it?
We had already been at war with France five times in the last hundred years - ie before the Revolution. She was our biggest naval and imperial rival. Were we supposed to just shrug our shoulders and accept a vast increase in her power, merely because she had seen fit to behead her king? [1] A century early we had fought Louis XIV's France for much the same length of time we were to fight that of the First Republic and of Napoleon. The principal difference which the Revolution made was to make it a darned sight easier for us to find Allies, whereas in the ARW, a decade before, we had had to fight alone.
Conversely, later in the 19th Century we would witness the successive overthrows of Charles X, Louis Philippe and Napoleon III - and accept all of these with a shrug because the France of that era was not seen as the major threat that she was in Boney's day.
[1] Similarly, after we beheaded ours in 1649, the very next war we fought was against the Dutch - another Republic. The United Provinces were then our chief naval and commercial rival, and this overrode any similarities in the political systems.
Last edited:
It wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome of the war, but it might have significantly slowed the Soviet advance, meaning at the end of the war the Western allies control more territory and have a stronger bargaining position.
Adrianople isn't considered important because it was the "closest Roman defeat in chronology" (it wasn't), but because the Gothic war of which it was the main battle was the first time the Romans were forced to accept large, autonomous groups of barbarians settling in their land.
A perfect illustration of the British point of view. It is already well-known and not a subject of disputation. The issue was continental Europe and what it was gaining from the British domination comparing to Napoleonic.
While Nappy was, of course, a bloodthirsty egomaniac, at least some of the coalition wars would not happen without British incitement and subsidies (British direct participation on land was quite limited until Pyrenean campaigns). Now, while Nappy was bad for some of the old regimes (Alexander hated him on a purely personal basis, Hapsburgs had been itching for the revenge and I’m not quite sure what the Prussians were so excited about), some of them gained substantially from redrawing borders in Germany.
The wars were definitely bad for everybody but in a long run minimization of the British competition could be beneficial for the local economies. For example, in Russia within few years between Tilsit and 1812 manufacturing saw a significant growth. Of course the nobility was suffering from inability to export raw materials to Britain but the bread prices went down.
Nappy’s tendency to redraw the maps and put his relatives in charge had been deservedly criticized but objectively elimination of the tiny German states eventually simplified unification and who said that the Hapsburgs had a God-given right to posses territories in Italy (Nappy at least created something of a national state there). The same goes for the Poles: is it a big surprise that they supported Napoleon?
What Britain contributed besides insisting on putting the old scumbags back on their thrones?
Presumably, this was the 1st major French victory in which French national infantry played a noticeable role.
What "domination"? Aside from one or two naval bases, we never ruled a scrap of European territory.
What "scumbags"? The only deposed dynasty to be restored were the French Bourbons, who whatever their imperfections were an infinitely lesser evil than Napoleon. Louis XVIII made war on no one and retained Napoleon's legal code, and let the peasants keep the land they had acquired in the Revolution. And when the French found Charles X more than they could take, we never lifted a finger to prevent his overthrow. The other major dynasties were the same ones which held power during Napoleon's reign, so did not need to be restored.
I don't think the 1801 frontiers actually changed the balance of power in Europe that much. The Dutch didn't like to border France but having the Southern Netherlands as a buffer never stopped French invasions. Britain was forever paranoid of France controlling Antwerp but it was an irrational fear IMO, given their naval dominance.
Now the dependent states of the empire (Rhine Confederation, Kingdom of Italy, etc.), that was a different story.
As a result of the Napoleonic wars Britain emerged as a dominant economic (and as a result political) power in Europe.
To get off the British-centric track back to the initial question, battle of Kulikovo, 1380. Presumably, it
1. Put the end to the Tatar rule over Russia. It most definitely did not. Only Ivan III stopped paying tribute to the Khan.
2. Was a battle of the epic proportions. AFAIK, none of the archeological excavations produced an evidence of a significant encounter on the alleged battlefield. It seems that even location of that battlefield is a matter of disputation. Not to mention the clearly stated (in the Russian chronicle) fact that the Russian opponent, Emir Mamai, did not have a big army and had to hire the mercenaries.
3. Was an overwhelming victory that destroyed Tatar military power. To start with, Mamai was controlling only European part of the Golden Horde. The next year he was ready for a punishing expedition which did not happen because he had been overthrown by a ruler of the White (Siberian) Horde, Khan Tothamish, who as a Genghizid was considered a legitimate ruler (Mamai was abandoned by his subjects and forced to flee). And, without wasting too much time burned Moscow in 1382. It may sound strange (Moscow fighting against his enemy) but was falling with a framework of the Mongolian rules: Mamai was an usurper but he was, while in power, a Mongolian overlord of Russia and the subjects were not permitted to fight their overlords (Tamerlane ordered execution of the leaders of a city who in his absence organized resistance to an invading enemy). Needless to say that victorious Prince Dmitry fled the city without a fight.
4. While Prince Dmitry got all the credits and a nickname, his role in the battle was zero. The person in charge was boyarin Dmitry Bobrok-Wolynski, who went to the service of Moscow from the Great Duchy of Lithuania.
Then go the victories of the Great Russian hero, Alexander Nevski:
1. His 1st famous battle for which he presumably got his nickname allegedly happened in 1240 on Neva River. According to the Russian sources not only did he won with a tiny force against the Swedes but also personally wounded Jarl Birger on the face. Needless to say that there is no mentioning of that expedition in the Swedish chronicles but also seemingly no references to Birger having some “material proof” on his face. There are some recent researchers stating that nickname was actually given to one of Alexander’s descendants and attributed to Alexander retroactively as a part of his cult created by the Princes of Moscow.
2. His next famous battle, Battle on Ice of the Peipus Lake in 1242. Presumably it saved Rus from being conquered by the evil Teutonic Order (see the famous movie). Needless to say that Teutonic Order was ona wrong side of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and only it’s small branch, Livonian Order, had been involved in expedition led by Bishop Herman of Dorpat with a purpose of stopping the raids on his (Estonian) territories and that majority of his troops were not mysterious “crusaders” ( who declared crusade?) but the Estonians.The Livonian Chronicle says nothing about the “Germans” drowning and AFAIK even the Russian chronicles say nothing about the Russian cavalry counterattack; this part most probably comes from a pure artistic illiteracy: illustrated Russian chronicles had their pictures made according to the iconic tradition of showing the events as multistage processes and the part showing arriving troops had been mistook for the reserve on a battlefield. Needless to say that the huge losses of the defeated are plain fantasy.
Why the brouhaha? Because the Grand Princes of Moscow had been Alexander’s descendants and it is much more prestigious to descend from a great warrior and a saint than from a notorious Mongolian collaborator who reported on his own brother to get his throne ( and, as a Prince of Novgorod, not just collected tribute for the Mongols but helped himself to such a degree that the city revolted).
1. Put the end to the Tatar rule over Russia. It most definitely did not. Only Ivan III stopped paying tribute to the Khan.
2. Was a battle of the epic proportions. AFAIK, none of the archeological excavations produced an evidence of a significant encounter on the alleged battlefield. It seems that even location of that battlefield is a matter of disputation. Not to mention the clearly stated (in the Russian chronicle) fact that the Russian opponent, Emir Mamai, did not have a big army and had to hire the mercenaries.
3. Was an overwhelming victory that destroyed Tatar military power. To start with, Mamai was controlling only European part of the Golden Horde. The next year he was ready for a punishing expedition which did not happen because he had been overthrown by a ruler of the White (Siberian) Horde, Khan Tothamish, who as a Genghizid was considered a legitimate ruler (Mamai was abandoned by his subjects and forced to flee). And, without wasting too much time burned Moscow in 1382. It may sound strange (Moscow fighting against his enemy) but was falling with a framework of the Mongolian rules: Mamai was an usurper but he was, while in power, a Mongolian overlord of Russia and the subjects were not permitted to fight their overlords (Tamerlane ordered execution of the leaders of a city who in his absence organized resistance to an invading enemy). Needless to say that victorious Prince Dmitry fled the city without a fight.
4. While Prince Dmitry got all the credits and a nickname, his role in the battle was zero. The person in charge was boyarin Dmitry Bobrok-Wolynski, who went to the service of Moscow from the Great Duchy of Lithuania.
Then go the victories of the Great Russian hero, Alexander Nevski:
1. His 1st famous battle for which he presumably got his nickname allegedly happened in 1240 on Neva River. According to the Russian sources not only did he won with a tiny force against the Swedes but also personally wounded Jarl Birger on the face. Needless to say that there is no mentioning of that expedition in the Swedish chronicles but also seemingly no references to Birger having some “material proof” on his face. There are some recent researchers stating that nickname was actually given to one of Alexander’s descendants and attributed to Alexander retroactively as a part of his cult created by the Princes of Moscow.
2. His next famous battle, Battle on Ice of the Peipus Lake in 1242. Presumably it saved Rus from being conquered by the evil Teutonic Order (see the famous movie). Needless to say that Teutonic Order was ona wrong side of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and only it’s small branch, Livonian Order, had been involved in expedition led by Bishop Herman of Dorpat with a purpose of stopping the raids on his (Estonian) territories and that majority of his troops were not mysterious “crusaders” ( who declared crusade?) but the Estonians.The Livonian Chronicle says nothing about the “Germans” drowning and AFAIK even the Russian chronicles say nothing about the Russian cavalry counterattack; this part most probably comes from a pure artistic illiteracy: illustrated Russian chronicles had their pictures made according to the iconic tradition of showing the events as multistage processes and the part showing arriving troops had been mistook for the reserve on a battlefield. Needless to say that the huge losses of the defeated are plain fantasy.
Why the brouhaha? Because the Grand Princes of Moscow had been Alexander’s descendants and it is much more prestigious to descend from a great warrior and a saint than from a notorious Mongolian collaborator who reported on his own brother to get his throne ( and, as a Prince of Novgorod, not just collected tribute for the Mongols but helped himself to such a degree that the city revolted).
Last edited:
True. But a different story for whom? For the Hapsburgs and Hohenzollerns, definitely, especially because it partially came at their expense but not too long before that they (or rather their predecessors) initiated a process that removed a whole big country from the map of Europe claiming that this is needed for ... maintaining a balance of power in Europe. Of course, it is going without a saying that “balance” both in Germany and Italy had been reshuffled more than once even during the XVIII as a result of the wars so why Nappy’s wars had been less legitimate?
It is rather difficult to see how French possession of Antwerp or even the Rhine Confederation or Kingdom of Italy could be any of the Russian business or concern and yet the Russian troops had been fighting in Italy and Holland during the reign of Paul and Alexander convinced both Austria (3rd Coalition) and Prussia (4th Coalition) to go against Napoleon.
The same goes for Britain, even with the allowance for the sentiments regarding Hanover: was French possession of Italy somehow endangering its security? Was possession of Minorca and/or Malta absolutely necessary to prevent French from landing in Britain? Were attack on a neutral Denmark and planned naval operations against neutral Sweden and Russia absolutely necessary for the British security? (Nelson was seriously planning to defeat Russia but Paul’s assassination proved to be more productive in changing Russian foreign policy; BTW, while he was bragging about his plans, he rather typically missed Russian squadron that sailed from Revel to Kronstadt
).Of course, Sweden should not be forgotten: for Gustav IV Adolf fighting “revolutionaries” (of which Nappy was one) and even their allies (Alexander I) was a matter of principle. Of course as a result he lost both crown and Finland but AFAIK that specific change of a border did not disrupt any “balance”.
Last edited:
uh
Since the King was from Anjou and he inherited England from a Norman conqueror, that was more a case of the Froggies owning *us*.
uh
The Angevin dynasty was from Anjou in France. The king spoke French, all his nobles spoke French, French was the language of the court, and the only people speaking "English" were peasants. The map in no way represents an "English" conquest of land on the European continent. In fact it represents entirely the opposite: the rule of England by a French dynasty as part of a French-centred empire based in France.
The key on that map is completely misleading, or to put it more bluntly, "wrong". The word "English" should not appear anywhere on that key. The English had nothing to do with it. They were subjects of a French empire ruled by French people.