Comment by cmdkeen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmdkeen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Napoleon had many of the same advantages as with the War of Independence, once France and Spain were allied he had a naval numerical advantage and at many points an isolated Britain. Even the revolutionary French and Spanish Navies had shown a marked lack of interest in the kind of daring fighting that marked British admirals (partially due to the esprit de corps created after Byng's shooting). Nelson's breaking the line was not a new tactical invention, it was just something that most shied away from.

Perhaps we British officers (I'm RN) appreciate our heroes a little more because they fought outnumbered yet achieved crushing victories, and they achieved their ultimate strategic objectives. Despite being aristocrats dealing with men who were often "scum" seemed to care far more their lives than the supposedly revolutionary Napoleon. Wellington was not only a great general but fought peace as a diplomat in Paris, and later as a Prime Minister. Wellington even sought out Napoleon's former mistresses and seduced them in Paris.

I can never understand why Wellington would call soldiers 'scum of the earth'. Soldiers don't get anything whether 'His Majesty' wins the war or not. No wonder Scotland wants independence. They sent soldiers to Wellington's expedition. Scots Grays were the ones who charged French line and batteries at Waterloo which avoid disaster. And yet they are 'nothing but beggars and scoundrel' to Wellington.

History is written by winners. Had Napoleon not gone to Russia, European feudal system would have fallen much earlier, and we'd be writing this in French.

Napoleon's contribution to history is not military feat. It's the civil code, education, equal opportunity, emancipation of jews, tearing down of ancien régime and giving birth to idea of nation states.

A longer quote rather puts the "scum of the Earth" thing in context:

A French army is composed very differently from ours. The conscription calls out a share of every class — no matter whether your son or my son — all must march; but our friends — I may say it in this room — are the very scum of the earth. People talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling — all stuff — no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got bastard children — some for minor offences — many more for drink; but you can hardly conceive such a set brought together, and it really is wonderful that we should have made them the fine fellows they are.

He said that many times throughout the war. At a formal settings obvious he'll say it a little nicer. British soldiers get paid only one shilling per day and are constantly short on supply and had to plunder to survive. There is even a book on why soldiers are not 'scum of the Earth'

http://www.amazon.com/All-Kings-Shilling-Wellington-Commande...

Much less so than the french who lived of the land - which means you cannot as easily concetrate force at the schwerpunkt (the key point of the battle field)

Yes to the civil code: the rest were mostly in place before Napoleon, weren't they?

well, - religious toleration: french revolution basically wants to kill off the Catholic priests. Napoleon brought back Catholicism since there were still a lot of catholics in france but stripped its privileges. He was the first to emancipate the jews.

- His military conquest speeded up the abolition of feudalism across europe. Civil code is put in place in occupied regions.

Napoleon didn't tear down the ancien regime, he was still a very junior officer when that happened. If anything he turned a Republic back into an Empire.

He overthrew many monarchies in Europe, and installed French civil system to the newly occupied regions. Although he did assign his relatives to be monarchies in those areas, the reforms are real and the difference weren't felt until he was defeat and old monarchies came back. His military conscriptions certainly offset his reforms in popularity. Italians vied for independence from Austrian Empire after Napoleon was defeated. Interestingly, it was Napoleon III (Napoleon I's naphew) who helped eventually Italian won independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italian_War_of_Independe...

"Wellington even sought out Napoleon's former mistresses and seduced them in Paris."

Wow, you can get more British than suggesting your country's prowess by how your general allegedly defeated his enemy in the battlefield and in bed, but I'm guessing it would require your doing that while drinking tea on the top of the Big Ben, with a chorus singing "God Save the Queen" in the background.

Bonus Wikipedia article, not all the great British are remembered as they should: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cartagena_de_Indias

thanks for the link, I'm colombian and I didnt know the battle of Cartagena was considered that important. Blas de Lezo was badass as hell!

I think "Mad" Jack Chirchill who hit the beaches on D Day with Longbow and Broadsword wins that one.

Could be worst. Here on Spain, If you ask who is "Blas de Lezo" nearly no body knows it (and there many others like him)... Very sad

PD: Trafalgar would be different if the French-Spanish fleet would be lead by Churruca or by Gravina

The French Navy after the Revolution was a shadow of its former self; most of its aristocratic officers had deserted. Since the country was in a state of almost-constant land war after 1792, a real rebuilding of the navy could never be a priority. Ships are nice, but, as you rightly remark, trained crews and experienced officer are needed for them to make a difference.

Britain was the only country that could afford to keep fighting with an XVIIth century style professional army, of a necessarily limited size (and kept doing so until WWI). The other belligerents went to French-style conscript armies, which made Napoleon's advantage much smaller over time.

It didn't help the French navy that the revolution executed and exiled quite a few of its officers.

As for "fought outnumbered yet achieved crushing victories", it's worth remembering that Britain had allies nearly throughout the war: Portuguese and Spanish during most of the Peninsular War; Germans (and Dutch) at Waterloo, and most of the time the Russians and Austrians fighting the French with whatever success to the east.

Napoleon complained of "Pitt's gold" that Britain sent to the continental states in the coalitions. But there were 7 coalitions in total - Napoleon kept defeating them on land, so Britain couldn't rely on them.

I'm just getting stuck into Robert's "Napoleon the Great", my Christmas present to myself!

British gold bought distractions. Britain has the best navy but on land it couldn't even compete with France. If the French were able to cross the channel from Boulogne, then it'd be the end of the empire.

At Austerlitz, Britain paid money for each dead Russian soldier. English agents were busy counting the dead making sure his majestry's money is well spent while French medics trying to save wounded from both side. Austrian emperor Francis allegedly said 'English are merchants of human flesh.

What are your sources of that? I am French myself, and used to be fond of the history of Napoleon, but I never heard of that.

http://www.napoleonicsociety.com/english/Life_Nap_Vol2_Chap1...

Also, Britain routinely paid other monarchies to have them send their soldiers. They hired Germans to fight against American independence. George Washington's famous first victory was crossing the Delaware river and surprise attacked what were actual German legions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_%28soldiers%29#American...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_crossing_...

> At Austerlitz, Britain paid money for each dead Russian soldier. English agents were busy counting the dead making sure his majestry's money is well spent

Can you provide more information on this?

At what point did the French navy isolate Britain? Britain blockaded French ports from 1803 onwards and the French were demolished in 1805.

As for being outnumbered, the British paid lots of other people to fight Napoleon, and they outnumbered him substantially. (It's a bit like the US claiming to be fighting long odds today.)

it was the MUCH better training and fire rates of the gun crews that did for the spanish and French.

If you can fire quicky you can quickly win the dominace phase of the fire fight (to use a moderen term)

It was the same thing that won the battle on land. Napoleon, a artillery officer by training, was ultimately defeated by Wellington's infantry firing fast enough to destroy the French columns. The allies at Waterloo were willing to stand and die against French artillery, the French infantry in column would not stand under the fire of the thin red line.

What exactly do you mean 'fought peace'? France was defeated. The allies were simply there to divide up the land. And why is 'sought out Napoleon's former mistresses and seduced them' something to be proud of?

Royal Navy even lost ships to Argentina At Falklands Wars. That would never happen to American Navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Sinking_of_HMS_Sh...

Britain's problem is the pure amount of hypocrisy. How hard is it to admit we are not number one any more and buckle down and do some real work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com