Snake Featherston
Banned
Shouldn't he be General Law then?
Technically, yes.
Shouldn't he be General Law then?
Are you sure I don't understand my nation's reasons for existence, Arafeel? Here's a wiki link to the to me distinctly oppressiveNavigation_Acts.. Like most colonies at the time, we were also forbidden from manufactoring. Both it and trading were considered strictly the mother country's job under mercantilism.
And, the reason se were doing decently economically - though just in our North - is massive disobedience to colonial decree; we had started illegally trading and manufacturing on our own. Another reason is more economic freedom than Britain; neither hardly would've applied to colonial India, would it? How does that help your case remotely?
Aww, poor projecting monarchist. How were you so much better, given your oppression of the Irish and Indians and wide impressment of our sailors during the Napoleonic wars? And, you were sadly, as much into ethnic cleansing, as the native Australians and Canadians ould explain. And, even your ending of slavery took was only a few decades before us, and, far easier, though, mind you, a good thing; but you were also thus ahead of in oppressive nonslave labor; how did London's Underround get built again?
Of course, that should all be prefaced with the fact that Wellington never had the experience in commanding the large bodies of troops Napoleon did. And much of his strategy was planned by his government.
I just struggle to imagine seeing Wellington leading a force of 100,000 troops a la Napoleon.
Although, given Wellington's victory in India (Pardon me for forgetting the battle's name) against an army with a modern contingent of European-trained infantry AND native auxiliaries that greatly outnumbered his own, Wellington was certainly a brilliant tactician.
Well, if somehow when Napoleon was born he ends up being Wellington in Napoleon's body, and gets the same experiences, then I certainly think Wellington could pull it off.
But that's a horribly complicated ASB scenario.
It's also worth noting that Napoleon, despite repeated, brilliant victories over the Russians in battles like Austerlitz and and Eylau was never able to fully destroy them, where by comparison he took out Prussia in one of the biggest curbstomp wars in human history, and Austria didn't fare any better by itself. In contrast to both of these, when he fought the UK by itself in the Peninsular War the result was an epic fail, and when he invaded Russia he won all the battles but wrecked his army in the process.
Of course, that should all be prefaced with the fact that Wellington never had the experience in commanding the large bodies of troops Napoleon did. And much of his strategy was planned by his government.
I just struggle to imagine seeing Wellington leading a force of 100,000 troops a la Napoleon.
Although, given Wellington's victory in India (Pardon me for forgetting the battle's name) against an army with a modern contingent of European-trained infantry AND native auxiliaries that greatly outnumbered his own, Wellington was certainly a brilliant tactician.
Though iirc Napoleon rarely came to Spain in person.
Istr that after a victory over one of the Matshals, he remarked "If Boney had been ther we should have been damnably licked".
Does Napoléon have Davout and/or Lannes as subordinates? If yes, curbstomp. If no, Wellington might get a tactical draw at best.I love debates that stray from the topic, always fun to read! In your humble opinion, would Wellington be able to out manuever Napoleon at some of his great victories, say at Austerlitz, had he been in command of the allied armies?