History: Actual, Fictional and Legendary discussion

24 views
Current Topic - Napoleonic Wars > The Fourth Coalition: 1806-1807

Comments Showing 1-16 of 16 (16 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Ed, Chief Curmudgeon (last edited Sep 04, 2010 07:15PM) (new)

Ed (ejhahn) | 622 comments Mod
Here are some possible topics for discussion?

1. How was it that Napoleon so easily defeated the Prussians?

2. Why did the French have less success against the Russians?

3. Where was Great Britain while Napoleon was pummeling the Prussians and the Russians?

4. Why did Tsar Alexander ally Russia with France against Great Britain?

5. Why is this point in time considered the high water mark of Napoleon's military and political career?


message 2: by Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady (new)

Susanna - Censored by GoodReads (susannag) | 310 comments Mod
I'll give a go -

1. The Prussians were so proud of being "The Army of Frederick the Great" that they hadn't upgraded it in any serious way since his death.

2. General Cold and General Winter. (Family story has it that one of my ancestors was along for the ride, poor devil.)

3. Spain?

4. Tsar Alexander was a wacky dude, other than that, no idea.


message 3: by Ed, Chief Curmudgeon (new)

Ed (ejhahn) | 622 comments Mod
I've often speculated about why Napoleon never invaded England. Like Hitler he was ready to do so but kept delaying until it was too late, i.e. after the battle of Trafalgar.

Why is a few miles of the English Channel so daunting?


message 4: by Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady (new)

Susanna - Censored by GoodReads (susannag) | 310 comments Mod
It's a rough sea, and amphibious landings are challenging. Also, the French navy was not as good as the Royal Navy that would have been defending against a landing. Before Trafalgar they would have had to fight Nelson, the Napoleon of the ocean, and afterwards they had lost a lot of their naval power.

The last invader to pull it off (without being invited in a la William and Mary) was William the Conqueror.


message 5: by Ed, Chief Curmudgeon (new)

Ed (ejhahn) | 622 comments Mod
Susanna wrote: "It's a rough sea, and amphibious landings are challenging. Also, the French navy was not as good as the Royal Navy that would have been defending against a landing. Before Trafalgar they would ha..."

Good points.

Even Julius Caesar couldn't hold on to Britain when the only opposition was an unorganized bunch of barbarians.

I'm not so sure that even William would have succeeded if Harold hadn't had to fight the Norse a week or so earlier.


message 6: by Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady (new)

Susanna - Censored by GoodReads (susannag) | 310 comments Mod
Yes, one of William's advantages was that Harold was exhausted from already winning a big battle at the other end of his kingdom.

My list of successful conquerors of Britain is short: the Emperor Claudius, the Anglo-Saxons (traditionally led by Hengist and Horsa), and William the Conqueror.


message 7: by Ed, Chief Curmudgeon (new)

Ed (ejhahn) | 622 comments Mod
Susanna wrote: "Yes, one of William's advantages was that Harold was exhausted from already winning a big battle at the other end of his kingdom.

My list of successful conquerors of Britain is short: the Emperor ..."


Didn't the Vikings, hold huge chunks of England for many years during the 8th and 9th centuries. Bernard Cornwell's "Saxon Series" is about the re-conquering of England by the Armies of Albert the Great.

I think the Irish had pieces of England from time to time, also.


message 8: by Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady (new)

Susanna - Censored by GoodReads (susannag) | 310 comments Mod
Yes, various Vikings, but not, I think, under one ruler (except Knut - I need to add Knut to my list). And mostly not the whole country at once (again, except Knut).


message 9: by Ed, Chief Curmudgeon (new)

Ed (ejhahn) | 622 comments Mod
Susanna wrote: "Yes, various Vikings, but not, I think, under one ruler (except Knut - I need to add Knut to my list). And mostly not the whole country at once (again, except Knut)."

I think you would be knuts to not add knut.


message 10: by Susanna - Censored by GoodReads, Crazy Cat Lady (new)

Susanna - Censored by GoodReads (susannag) | 310 comments Mod
I'm knutty that way.


message 11: by Silvana (new)

Silvana (silvaubrey) Susanna wrote: "It's a rough sea, and amphibious landings are challenging. Also, the French navy was not as good as the Royal Navy that would have been defending against a landing. Before Trafalgar they would ha..."

Indeed. This discussion somehow reminds me of the Spanish' (failed) invasion during Elizabeth the first.


message 12: by Silvana (last edited Sep 29, 2010 03:15AM) (new)

Silvana (silvaubrey) Ed wrote: "Here are some possible topics for discussion?

1. How was it that Napoleon so easily defeated the Prussians?


late/lack of decision by the Prussian king to ally Prussia with other Allied forces.

i]5. Why is this point in time considered the high water mark of Napoleon's military and political career?

defeat of the Prussians in only 19 days
and the area expansion was also huge, I believe he had almost central Europe by then


message 13: by Ed, Chief Curmudgeon (new)

Ed (ejhahn) | 622 comments Mod
Silvana wrote: "Indeed. This discussion somehow reminds me of the Spanish' (failed) invasion during Elizabeth the first. "

Good point. The biggest difference was the Spanish at least launched an invasion. The combination of superior British seamanship and the weather did the Armada in.


message 14: by Ed, Chief Curmudgeon (new)

Ed (ejhahn) | 622 comments Mod
Silvana wrote: "Indeed. This discussion somehow reminds me of the Spanish' (failed) invasion during Elizabeth the first. "

Good point. The biggest difference was the Spanish at least launched an invasion. The combination of superior British seamanship and the weather did the Armada in.


message 15: by Ed, Chief Curmudgeon (new)

Ed (ejhahn) | 622 comments Mod
Silvana wrote: "Indeed. This discussion somehow reminds me of the Spanish' (failed) invasion during Elizabeth the first. "

Good point. The biggest difference was the Spanish at least launched an invasion. The combination of superior British seamanship and the weather did the Armada in.


message 16: by Ed, Chief Curmudgeon (new)

Ed (ejhahn) | 622 comments Mod
Silvana wrote: "Indeed. This discussion somehow reminds me of the Spanish' (failed) invasion during Elizabeth the first. "

Good point. The biggest difference was the Spanish at least launched an invasion. The combination of superior British seamanship and the weather did the Armada in.


back to top