What if Napoleon had won the Battle of Leipzig?

[ktotwf]

After his return from Russia, Napoleon's days were numbered. Obviously, he made a mistake and went back into the blender during the 1813 campaign which culminated in the Super-Battle at Leipzig. Lets say however, that Napoleon showed a dash of his old brilliance and pulled off an awesome Austerlitz style victory that saves him at the last minute at Leipzig (like he did several times before.) The Allied armies are smashed, and Napoleon's army barely gets a scratch. Would the Allies have folded like earlier times, or kept on again?

Lets say Napoleon wins such a smashing victory at Leipzig that he wins the campaign, and theres a round of peace treaties again. How long does the Empire last?

And, is it really possible for Napoleon to have won such a victory at Leipzig?

Opinions?

 

[Faeelin]

How long it lasts? Mmm. Probably not too much longer. Britain's still advancing into southern spain by this point, actually.

OTOH, Austria might be willing to cut a deal with him. So.... let's say he dies in 1816. His son rules france, northern italy, and has influence over germany in tandem with austria.

Not good for the forces of progress, I think.

 

[Valamyr]

He would have lived far longer than that. Nappy was young. If he doesnt go to St-Helena, he can still be alive and kicking until 1840, easily.

 

[Redbeard]

At day one at Leipzig Napoleon had the allied main force of Prussians, Russians and Austrians pressed very hard at Wachau, where the Zar also stayed. But the forces that could have carried through a decission were engaged simultaneously by Austrians from Lindenau and other Prussians from Möckern, and Schwarzenberg from his stand in the southern centre very swiftly sent his own reserve to Wachau were the Austrian Cuirassiers in the last minute saved the Prussians from being run over. Further east the Zars stand was close to being run over by French cavalry had the Zar not long last committed his own guard.

It is not difficult to imagine a few things going slightly different and Napoleon rolls up the allied at Wachau and takes the Zar and thousands of soldiers prisoner. With the allied main force defeated and split Napoleon would have a number of options:

1. Pursuit the remnants of the allied main army (probably in a SE direction)
2. Turn for home ASAP through Lindenau (where III. Austrian Armycorps is)
3. Engage the Austrians (II. AC + two reserve corps) between Elster and Pleisse (where Swarzenberg is)
4. Engage Blüchers Prussians at Möckern (to the North).

1. Would mean going further into enemy land and politically not much more could be reached now that the Zar is taken prisoner. But a couple of Armycorps will probably be detached in this direction.
2. It would not be difficult to push aside a single enemy Armycorps, but going home now would be like fleeing after a defeat – not an option for old Boney.
3. Schwarzenberg would be a great prize, but the terrain is difficult and give Scwarzenberg good opportunity to escape into the Erzgebirge, like he had done so many times before. But forces will have to be detached to watch him. Not many though as the terrain also makes it difficult for Schwarzenberg to attack from here.
4. Blücher is presently locked in a hard battle with Marmont, and a few armycorps extra, perhaps the old guard, would be enough to overrun Blücher. With Blücher defeated there still is Bernadotte with his army somewhere out there, but he will not be strong enough to stop the Grande Armee from going on Berlin and finishing off with the King of Prussia and his rabble-rousing Queen. This is what Napoleon will do (IMHO).

I guess Schwarzenberg will withdraw into Erzgebirge now, as that will mean the Austrian army leaving mainly intact (only IV. AC is out on a limp on the eastern flank) - that will be handy at the peace conference. I’m sure Bernadote when hearing the news will go home to Sweden in a hurry. Afterall he stayed in safe distance of the battle exactly as a precaution if this happened!

The Prussian King probably flees Berlin, but has no option but to show up at the peace conference at Versailles which the Austrian Foreign Secretary Metternich now says he always had thought was the best idea. Before the conference can be called Napoleon has an old business to deal with in Spain and arrives there with the Old Guard in record time. In a number of battles in quick succession he defeats Wellington decisively, who only narrowly escapes with the remnants of the British Army evacuated by the RN. With her fleet undefeated the British however refuse to show up at any peace conference.

That of course can’t stop Napoleon, and at the conference he makes a great show out of setting the Zar free and humilating him and not at least the King of Prussia. The King of Sweden (Bernadotte) never shows up, as he one morning is found with a bullet through his head.

In the new Europe that is created Austria under Napoleons father in law is left relatively unharmed compared to 1812 borders (Galicia to Poland-Lithuania), but Prussia and Russia must give up large territories to Saxony, Denmark and the new Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom (1930 Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Belorus, parts of Ukraine). Sweden is given a proposal it can’t refuse to elect Frederik VI of Denmark-Norway as King (Frederik can’t refuse either). For ease his reign is called the Kingdom of North. Finland, Estonia and Ingermanland (incl. Sct. Petersburg) is gathered in the Grand Duchy of Finland. The Confederation of the Rhine is largely left unchanged.

The British of course keep blockading the continent, but it really is a good question who is blockading who. And the British have increasing difficulties in getting tar and timber for their fleet while navy yards are busy all over the French Empire and its vassals. Generals, Admirals and Kings all dream of being allowed a glorious role in the invasion that everybody expects.

In London it is realised that the last chance to create a new coalition has passed. The Europeans do not want war any longer and there is growing consensus about the British agitation and bribery being the real cause behind two decades of war.

In Paris Napoleon is assured that he will soon have a navy capable of defeating perfidious Albion, but doubt is in his mind. This is a kind of warfare he doesn’t understand, and wasn’t he also superior in 1805 – and did that help? A defeated invasion attempt would seriously distrub the consolidation process now happening in his Empire, so perhaps start negotioations...

The British are relieved by not having to look for invasion fleets any longer and basically gets away with giving back France the overseas pocessions lost since 1789 plus a few extra like Gibraltar and Quebec.

The next years are generally seen as the happy years as people are going back to their peacetime occupations. Now and then there is unrest somewhere, but there is allways a Prince or King nearby more than willing to serve the Empeor by crushing the rebellion. And then the Emperor allways can come by and do the comforting.

But in 1821 Napoleon become ill and dies. His son, the King of Rome, is of course crowned in a ceremony of a splendour not yet seen on the planet, but although a well meaning young man, his rule soon evolves into a chaotic fight between rivalling and corrupt fractions at the court, each one usually headed by one of his fathers old Fieldmarshals.

The Princes and Kings in Europe of couse can see this and the larger of them soon begin dreaming of one day becomming the Emperor...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[ktotwf]

Very interesting Redbeard. I wish I could write AH like that...

"How long it lasts? Mmm. Probably not too much longer. Britain's still advancing into southern spain by this point, actually."

Yes, but Wellington's army was rather tiny, and had Napoleon won a smashing victory at Leipzig, he might very well have been able to march West and face Wellington WITH NUMERICAL ADVANTAGE. Napoleon was almost invincible at any odds, but with an advantage? Wellington is screwed.

 

[Faeelin]

It is not difficult to imagine a few things going slightly different and Napoleon rolls up the allied at Wachau and takes the Zar and thousands of soldiers prisoner. With the allied main force defeated and split Napoleon would have a number of options:

I've seen it argued that 1812 was a disaster for him, and that he simply didn't have any decent cavalry in 1813. But we'll put that aside for now.

The Prussian King probably flees Berlin, but has no option but to show up at the peace conference at Versailles which the Austrian Foreign Secretary Metternich now says he always had thought was the best idea.

Or go to East Prussia with the Tsar.

Before the conference can be called Napoleon has an old business to deal with in Spain and arrives there with the Old Guard in record time. In a number of battles in quick succession he defeats Wellington decisively, who only narrowly escapes with the remnants of the British Army evacuated by the RN. With her fleet undefeated the British however refuse to show up at any peace conference.

Napoleon simply would've gotten his ass handed to him in Spain, IMO. He couldn't fight the guerillas and wellington. If Boney could win in Spain, why didn't he, between 1809 and 1811?

That of course can’t stop Napoleon, and at the conference he makes a great show out of setting the Zar free and humilating him and not at least the King of Prussia. The King of Sweden (Bernadotte) never shows up, as he one morning is found with a bullet through his head.

Boney didn't go into assassination. Although Europe allying with a man who uses assassins against kings is... farfetched.

In the new Europe that is created Austria under Napoleons father in law is left relatively unharmed compared to 1812 borders (Galicia to Poland-Lithuania), but Prussia and Russia must give up large territories to Saxony, Denmark and the new Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom (1930 Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Belorus, parts of Ukraine).

Why should Russia do any such thing?

Sweden is given a proposal it can’t refuse to elect Frederik VI of Denmark-Norway as King (Frederik can’t refuse either). For ease his reign is called the Kingdom of North.

Why would Boney want to unite Scandinavia?

Finland, Estonia and Ingermanland (incl. Sct. Petersburg) is gathered in the Grand Duchy of Finland. The Confederation of the Rhine is largely left unchanged.

I look foward to seeing how he'll convince Alexander to part with St. Petersburg.

The British of course keep blockading the continent, but it really is a good question who is blockading who. And the British have increasing difficulties in getting tar and timber for their fleet while navy yards are busy all over the French Empire and its vassals. Generals, Admirals and Kings all dream of being allowed a glorious role in the invasion that everybody expects.

As they did in 1805? His navy was a joke.

In London it is realised that the last chance to create a new coalition has passed. The Europeans do not want war any longer and there is growing consensus about the British agitation and bribery being the real cause behind two decades of war.

I don't buy this at all . They're blaming Britain for the war? I don't remember Britain invading his ally Spain to give George's sons a throne, but hey.

In Paris Napoleon is assured that he will soon have a navy capable of defeating perfidious Albion, but doubt is in his mind. This is a kind of warfare he doesn’t understand, and wasn’t he also superior in 1805 – and did that help? A defeated invasion attempt would seriously distrub the consolidation process now happening in his Empire, so perhaps start negotioations...

Who's telling him that?

The British are relieved by not having to look for invasion fleets any longer and basically gets away with giving back France the overseas pocessions lost since 1789 plus a few extra like Gibraltar and Quebec.

Why would Britain give back Gibraltar?

The next years are generally seen as the happy years as people are going back to their peacetime occupations. Now and then there is unrest somewhere, but there is allways a Prince or King nearby more than willing to serve the Empeor by crushing the rebellion. And then the Emperor allways can come by and do the comforting.

Ah, yes, we have the love for the empire felt by the westphalians, in the grand duchy of berg, in aragon... err, umm....

 

[Redbeard]

Hi Faeelin

Cavalry:
In spring of 1813 cavalry was a problem for Napoleon, but by autumn he had plenty (five cavalry corps). Not of a standard like before 1809, and IMO also below the allied of 1813, but good enough to perform the basic roles of cavalry - recognisance, flank protection and pursuit of a broken enemy.

Zar:
In OTL Leipzig the Zar was very close to being captured, in this TL he is.

Wellington and Napoleon:
Wellington’s big luck was that he didn’t have to meet Napoleon until Napoleon and his army were spent balls, and even then Wellington was saved by Blücher. In 1809 Wellington was saved by the Austrians declaring war and Napoleon and the Old Guard had to rush from Spain to Bavaria (the guard transferred in horse carts). Wellington was a competent commander with good sense for defensive tactics, but not in the league of Napoleon or other commanders of really big armies.

Bernadotte
I didn’t say Bernadotte was shot by Napoleonic agents, nobody knows who shot Bernadotte – just like another Swedish king who was loosing a war. But I wouldn’t trust Napoleon to avoid assassination if it was of benefit to him.

The new borders:
The Zar is a prisoner of Napoleon, and the Russian armies are beaten in the field. That gives quite a starting position in the negotiations. Russia wouldn’t be the first or last great Empire loosing a war and being seriously mauled as a consequence.

King Frederik VI was asked (before Bernadotte) if he would be interested in the Swedish throne, but apparently he wasn’t. This time he isn’t asked but told. The idea from Napoleon is that it didn’t work with an independent Swedish throne, so better follow another approach to keep Sweden under control, and Frederik had been among his most loyal supporters. An alternative would be to split Sweden, but who should get the other half? Certainly not the Russians.

The British:
The French Navy of Napoleonic wars wasn’t a joke, but apparently your knowledge of it is (and before you rant over my tone, I just reply in the same way I’m addressed).

With France in control of the continent they of course can divert colossal resources to fleet building, and there would be a lot of French and allies looking forward to thrashing the British. A navy of course wouldn’t be built overnight, but it is just a matter of time before the British are outmatched.

The British give back Gibraltar because that is the alternative to being invaded and occupied.

Today we of course don’t see UK as the warmongering agitator in Napoleonic Wars, but that is mainly because the British won and wrote the official history. It would be as factual true to claim that hadn’t it been for all the British conspiracy and bribery (aka "economical support") Europe had many years before settled down in peace (under French hegemony of course – but why should that be any worse than a hegemony presided by Austria or UK?).

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Faeelin]

Hi Faeelin

Cavalry:
In spring of 1813 cavalry was a problem for Napoleon, but by autumn he had plenty (five cavalry corps). Not of a standard like before 1809, and IMO also below the allied of 1813, but good enough to perform the basic roles of cavalry - recognisance, flank protection and pursuit of a broken enemy.

Fair enough.

Zar:
In OTL Leipzig the Zar was very close to being captured, in this TL he is.

I can accept this, actually.

Wellington and Napoleon:
Wellington’s big luck was that he didn’t have to meet Napoleon until Napoleon and his army were spent balls, and even then Wellington was saved by Blücher. In 1809 Wellington was saved by the Austrians declaring war and Napoleon and the Old Guard had to rush from Spain to Bavaria (the guard transferred in horse carts). Wellington was a competent commander with good sense for defensive tactics, but not in the league of Napoleon or other commanders of really big armies.

Mmm. He managed to defeat every French general in Spain.

I ask you where Napoleon is in 1810 or 1811, if he can easily beat the Guerillas.

The new borders:

The Zar is a prisoner of Napoleon, and the Russian armies are beaten in the field. That gives quite a starting position in the negotiations. Russia wouldn’t be the first or last great Empire loosing a war and being seriously mauled as a consequence.

Yes. However there's no reason for Russia to surrender in this situation. Look at OTL. They didn't surrender when Napoleon took Moscow and Smolensk.

King Frederik VI was asked (before Bernadotte) if he would be interested in the Swedish throne, but apparently he wasn’t. This time he isn’t asked but told. The idea from Napoleon is that it didn’t work with an independent Swedish throne, so better follow another approach to keep Sweden under control, and Frederik had been among his most loyal supporters. An alternative would be to split Sweden, but who should get the other half? Certainly not the Russians.

Did not know that about Frederick VI.

The British:
The French Navy of Napoleonic wars wasn’t a joke, but apparently your knowledge of it is (and before you rant over my tone, I just reply in the same way I’m addressed).

Let's see this navy about which I know so little:

In 1793, France had 85 ships of the line and Britain 115.

In 1813, Britain had 207 and France had 103.

Britain outnumbered Napoleon 2 to 1. Their navy was able to sail.

Between 1793 and 1815, France lost sixty ships of the line and one hundred and seventy frigates. Britian lost six ships of the line and eighteen frigates.

That's a 10 to one advantage in ships of the line.

The quotes are from Paul Fregosi's Dreams of Empire.

Tell me more of my joke.

With France in control of the continent they of course can divert colossal resources to fleet building, and there would be a lot of French and allies looking forward to thrashing the British. A navy of course wouldn’t be built overnight, but it is just a matter of time before the British are outmatched.

Strangely when the British were outmatched, as in 1805, they still won.

The British give back Gibraltar because that is the alternative to being invaded and occupied.

By what?

Today we of course don’t see UK as the warmongering agitator in Napoleonic Wars, but that is mainly because the British won and wrote the official history.

Ah, yes. British troops burning all records of Napoleon's correspondence, writers being forced at bayonet point to write about the ravages of the Grande Armee.

Or, err, not.

Explain Spain. Explain Westphalia. Explain the continental system.

It would be as factual true to claim that hadn’t it been for all the British conspiracy and bribery (aka "economical support") Europe had many years before settled down in peace (under French hegemony of course – but why should that be any worse than a hegemony presided by Austria or UK?).

Because France's hegemony was systematically designed to turn Europe into a one way common market in which France would industrialize at the expense of the rest of Europe?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard[/QUOTE]

 

[Mr.Bluenote]

I sometimes wonder why Napoleon got such a bad name and, more to the point, howcome the British of the time got such a fine sterling reputation. Hm, well, being a Dane and all, let us just say that I for one have a different take on the British. Their strong arm tactics were essentially gangster-like even for the time. And it's an undisputable fact that they, not Napoleon, kept the Napoleonic Wars going (and going, and going...) by, as Steffen correctly states, financing everybody and their dog to fight Napoleon.

Second, the French navy was in a bad shape, yes. No time at sea, no capable officers (most naval officers, being noble and all that, had been purged in the revolution), no trained crews etc etc. But the ships themeselves were most of the time superior to the British. I'm not an expert in the matters, but I believe that the French ships in general were bigger, better armed and stronger than their British adversaries.
One thing to consider, we Danes nearly beat the Royal Navy with an unprepared fleet moored at Copenhagen. It took two Ships-of-the-Line (Stately and Nassau) and two fregates (Constant and Kite) to defeat a single Danish SoL (Prinds Christian Frederik) in 1808 at Sjællands Odde.
The Royal Navy "won" the Napoleonic Wars and thus it's considered superior, but I'm not that convinced. However did Napoleon need sailors, officers and what not to man his newly build fleet, there were plenty experienced Danes and Norwegians sailors unemployed at the time (apparently the "nice" British had stolen every Danish ship they could find - SoL or not).

The time Napoeon himself spent in Spain was, as far as I remember (haven't looked any of this up (yet)), rather successful. He not only defeated the Spanish and put the revolt down, he also forced the British to evacuate Spain. Napoleon however had to return tp France to fight the Austrians in, eh, the Fifth Coalition(?).

And to end my little tirade, it's my impression that Napoleon was well-liked many places in both Germany, Italy and Poland. There's a reason why he scared the powers that be at the time. The Continental System and the following invasion of Portugal and what have we were brought on by the British insistence to fight on (and on, and on...).

Best regards and all!

- Mr.Bluenote.

 

[Faeelin]

I sometimes wonder why Napoleon got such a bad name and, more to the point, howcome the British of the time got such a fine sterling reputation.

I don't consider myself antiBonapartist. I'm sure other people on the board agree.

Hm, well, being a Dane and all, let us just say that I for one have a different take on the British. Their strong arm tactics were essentially gangster-like even for the time. And it's an undisputable fact that they, not Napoleon, kept the Napoleonic Wars going (and going, and going...) by, as Steffen correctly states, financing everybody and their dog to fight Napoleon.

Umm. I would blame Napoleon. HIs coronation of himself on May 26 in 1805 as the King of Italy, for intsance, his annexation of the Ligurian republic, his threats to the Neapolitan Bourbons.

Or his invasion of spain, which I still haven't gotten a response to.

Or of Russia in 1812.

Second, the French navy was in a bad shape, yes. No time at sea, no capable officers (most naval officers, being noble and all that, had been purged in the revolution), no trained crews etc etc. But the ships themeselves were most of the time superior to the British. I'm not an expert in the matters, but I believe that the French ships in general were bigger, better armed and stronger than their British adversaries.

On average yes. France had fewer as pointed out already, though. And the British could apparently fire faster and more accurately. (The French aimed for masts, whereas the British preferred shooting between decks). British, according to Fregosi, outshot the French at a rate of 2 to 1.

One thing to consider, we Danes nearly beat the Royal Navy with an unprepared fleet moored at Copenhagen. It took two Ships-of-the-Line (Stately and Nassau) and two fregates (Constant and Kite) to defeat a single Danish SoL (Prinds Christian Frederik) in 1808 at Sjællands Odde.

Meh. Britain still managed to destroy the Danish fleet.

The Royal Navy "won" the Napoleonic Wars and thus it's considered superior, but I'm not that convinced.

A 10 to 1 kill ratio isn't a sign of superiority? Napoleon's own praise of the RN isn't a sign of it?

However did Napoleon need sailors, officers and what not to man his newly build fleet, there were plenty experienced Danes and Norwegians sailors unemployed at the time (apparently the "nice" British had stolen every Danish ship they could find - SoL or not).

Yep. Price of being a French ally.

The time Napoeon himself spent in Spain was, as far as I remember (haven't looked any of this up (yet)), rather successful. He not only defeated the Spanish and put the revolt down, he also forced the British to evacuate Spain. Napoleon however had to return tp France to fight the Austrians in, eh, the Fifth Coalition(?).

No, he didn't put the revolt down. He occupied Madrid and pursued Moore, who did an excellent job withdrawing to the sea. He never invaded Portugal, for instance. And after the 5th coalition, Boney never returned.

And to end my little tirade, it's my impression that Napoleon was well-liked many places in both Germany, Italy and Poland. There's a reason why he scared the powers that be at the time.

Because he had a habit of displacing hte poewrs that be and appointing his family in their place?

Certainly the spanish didn't like Bonaparte. Or his own subjects, especially in the south. Or the North Germans. (Berg, for instance, actually had an uprising against him in 1813).

The Continental System and the following invasion of Portugal and what have we were brought on by the British insistence to fight on (and on, and on...).

It was necessary to invade a neutral nation which had agreed to almost all of Bonaparte's demands to defeat Britain?

And it was also necessary to organize an economic system that crippled everyone but France? Why was it necessary to specifically set up a system that put tariffs on all goods but French in order to defeat Britain?

 

[Redbeard]

Denmark didn’t just join Napoleon out of the blue. Actually the preferred Danish policy was armed neutrality, but the British saw that as a threat to British commercial interests and sent Parker and Nelson with a navy to Copenhagen in 1801. The battle ended inconclusively against a Danish line of moored blockships (the RN never met the Danish main fleet), but under the threat of Danish PoW’s being killed(!) the Danish Crown Prince (the King was mad as a hatter) was talked into giving up the armed neutrality union with Sweden and Russia. Then in 1807 British greed reached another peak and they simply wanted the Danish Fleet! The Danes had actually preferred an alliance or understanding with Britain, and indeed had no urge to be included in Napoleons club. The Danish Army of some 40.000 well equipped and trained men stood in Schleswig-Holstein to keep the French away (it did come to skirmishes), but the British used the situation to land an army of 30.000 (under Wellesley) on Zealand which shortly after bombarded Copenhagen with newly invented firerockets and having 1600 mainly civilan casualties as the result. Not only in relative numbers (Copenhagen had app. 50.000 inhabitors) but also in absolute numbers that can compare to WWII bombings (at least until the British invented 1000 bomber raids and going deliberately for the labourers housing).

I’m not trying to disguise that many by late Napoleonic Wars were tired of war, and not at least the Germans were tired of always providing battlefield to the French adventures (concieving German nationalism), but I have no illusion what so ever of any British gentleman attitude or liberator status – not in the Napoleonic wars. In this context I really can’t see British practice being significantly diffrent from French ditto – they both invaded, burned and pillaged whenever they could and found it convenient – be it in Spain or in Denmark - as great powers do.

But before sailing off to St. Helena Boney at least tidyed up in the chaotic German small state system, spread Code Napoleon in law (a very large progress), the meter system (even UK has succumbed he-he), right driving (when will you succumb, Sweden did in 54) and a lot of other things to this day being positive parts of our lives.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Faeelin]

Denmark didn’t just join Napoleon out of the blue. Actually the preferred Danish policy was armed neutrality, but the British saw that as a threat to British commercial interests and sent Parker and Nelson with a navy to Copenhagen in 1801. The battle ended inconclusively against a Danish line of moored blockships (the RN never met the Danish main fleet), but under the threat of Danish PoW’s being killed(!) the Danish Crown Prince (the King was mad as a hatter) was talked into giving up the armed neutrality union with Sweden and Russia.

Ayup. The Danes threatened Britain's supply of, err, naval supplies from Russia.

Then in 1807 British greed reached another peak and they simply wanted the Danish Fleet! The Danes had actually preferred an alliance or understanding with Britain, and indeed had no urge to be included in Napoleons club. The Danish Army of some 40.000 well equipped and trained men stood in Schleswig-Holstein to keep the French away (it did come to skirmishes), but the British used the situation to land an army of 30.000 (under Wellesley) on Zealand which shortly after bombarded Copenhagen with newly invented firerockets and having 1600 mainly civilan casualties as the result. Not only in relative numbers (Copenhagen had app. 50.000 inhabitors) but also in absolute numbers that can compare to WWII bombings (at least until the British invented 1000 bomber raids and going deliberately for the labourers housing).

Britain was afraid Boney would simply take the fleet.

I’m not trying to disguise that many by late Napoleonic Wars were tired of war, and not at least the Germans were tired of always providing battlefield to the French adventures (concieving German nationalism), but I have no illusion what so ever of any British gentleman attitude or liberator status – not in the Napoleonic wars.

Be that as it may, Britain was much better than Napoleon.

I used to think otherwise, but have been persuaded that Pax Britannia was better than a regime which would probably try conscripting Europe to conquer the world.

In this context I really can’t see British practice being significantly diffrent from French ditto – they both invaded, burned and pillaged whenever they could and found it convenient – be it in Spain or in Denmark - as great powers do.

Nonsense. They invaded denmark because they were afraid, because of misintelligence, that Bonaparte would capture the fleet.

That's not the same as occupying a country and deposing its rulers.

But before sailing off to St. Helena Boney at least tidyed up in the chaotic German small state system, spread Code Napoleon in law (a very large progress), the meter system (even UK has succumbed he-he), right driving (when will you succumb, Sweden did in 54) and a lot of other things to this day being positive parts of our lives.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard[/QUOTE]

 

[Redbeard]

Nonsense. They invaded denmark because they were afraid, because of misintelligence, that Bonaparte would capture the fleet.

[/QUOTE]

If you think that I or any other poster talks nonsense, then prove it by your argument or just remain silent. Such labeling really doesn't improve the debate, but only tend to move it into flaming.

Anyway I think it is clear by now that we hardly agree on anything, and I will only comment on new interesting aspects.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[ktotwf]

Yes, if you make an argument, PPOR.