|
Dreddout posted:Yeah, but then we'd have to care about the Bonapartes weddings A Bonapartist empire wouldn't have been able to survive later political upheavals for the same reason the liberal French Empire didn't.
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:the Napoleonic wars literally created the practice of naval gunnery, as opposed to getting as close as possible and letting loose, similar to how napoleon himself was one of the greatest artillery commanders of the time for the same reason Naval gunnery existed for centuries before that and was the reason the royal Navy was a force to be considered.Their boats were generally inferior to french ships, who usually were the more advanced but their gunnery from the 17th century forwards was superb. Britain had periods of naval aupremacy during the 17xx but it was still contested by the french and Spanish , true British domination only started after Trafalgar in 1805. Also Napoleon was a good artellery commander but some of his innovations were getting as close as possible to the enemy with the cannon and wreck'em with canister shot previous to a centre attack. Also had he been able to land an army on Britain ,the party would have been over for those bitches.The grand armee was superior to the British army and more numerous, plus they use to live of the land so not even logistics could stop them in a small and dense country like the UK.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
hump day bitches! posted:Also had he been able to land an army on Britain ,the party would have been over for those bitches.The grand armee was superior to the British army and more numerous, plus they use to live of the land so not even logistics could stop them in a small and dense country like the UK. That's not strictly true. They can live off the land for a while, but they'd need supplies for the landing and if they don't defeat the British decisively to consolidate a hold on the country then they'd be done for. The big problem for the French invading England is that the royal navy was blockading every French port along the channel, so while you might be able to brute force your way to England it'd be extremely costly and you'd only be able to sortie out from one port at a time with limited infrastructure to develop and support a fleet to challenge the blockade. That's why invading Russia seemed like the path of least resistance and - well 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 05:13
|
|
|
is 'living off the land' (read: looting and pillaging) really a realistic strategy in the napoleonic era? it's not as if you only need food either, you're going to need plenty of ammunition, and all of that has to come by boat, which you can use sporadic naval raiding to intercept. i also can't imagine the bureaucratic infrastructure necessary for that level of an amphibious landing being that developed.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
Got you covered OP
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 06:55
|
|
|
wow china consistently undervalued extreme over-evaluation of the egyptians, under evaluation of the hittites huns in 2000 bc romans extremely over-inflated, especially w.r.t persia where did you find that
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 07:49
|
|
|
My friend had it on his wall when I was a kid. As a big civilization fan I thought it was awesome, but even just having read the civilopedia was enough to let me realize it made no goddamn sense Then someone reposed it in another thread recently and reminded me it existed
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 15:11
|
|
|
all hail the South American Empire
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
rudatron posted:is 'living off the land' (read: looting and pillaging) really a realistic strategy in the napoleonic era? it's not as if you only need food either, you're going to need plenty of ammunition, and all of that has to come by boat, which you can use sporadic naval raiding to intercept. i also can't imagine the bureaucratic infrastructure necessary for that level of an amphibious landing being that developed. Napoleonic campaign were thankfully short as hell with two or three batlles and numerous skirmishes.Republican armies had he strict mandate to live of the land, one of the reasons they got turbo hosed in Russia is they had to retreat through the the same roads they had taken in so they went over already depleted land. As a general rule french Napoleonic armies had food for three days in the backpacks and they reserved it till the day of the battle or close.The rest of the time they had to survive through looting.Before Austerlitz the French army was losing soldiers because they would be too weak too March or they would get too far away from their units foraging. Another complete different thing was cannon, bullets and gunpowder but for three or 4 battles you can take your ammo with you. A full complement of ammo for a soldier would be like 60 shots
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 16:21
|
|