200th Anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0




Today is the bicentennial of the Battle of Waterloo, although the reenactments are taking place Friday and Saturday.



(In the photograph l-r His Grace, The Duke of Wellington, H.I.H. Prince Charles Bonaparte, and H.S.H. Fürst Bluecher von Wahlstatt)

https://www.waterloo2015.org/en
 

SkyRider

Banned
Mar 31, 2009
17,572
2
0
The Duke was slowly losing the battle when the Prussians arrived (late due to muddy roads) and save the day. The Duke gets the "W" and the Prussians get the "save". Napoleon spent way too much time and men capturing that damn farmhouse.
 

Yoga Face

New member
Jun 30, 2009
6,328
19
0
USA backed Napolean as he opposed monarchy

causing the war of 1812

Does anyone know what Napoleon proposed other than the Napoleonic Code which forbade privileges based on birth, allowed freedom of religion, and specified that government jobs should go to the most qualified etc and has influence even today

Did he want a republic or a dictatorship with him as Emperor ?

how did he propose parliament be elected ?

I think he started out as a good guy but ended up a bad guy but I am confused :confused:
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,730
84,749
113
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon

IIRC, there was an elected parliament, but he essentially decided everything himself. He was a mixture of selfish ambition and good, enlightened ideas. A fairly complicated guy.

The War of 1812 started because the US was fed up with the (massive) Royal Navy stopping and searching US ships at sea and confiscating their cargo and impressing their sailors. And the US wanted to grab Canada. Not much to do with Napoleon aside from the fact that Congress thought that Britain would be too busy fighting the French to defend Canada.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,338
2,005
113
Ghawar
Duke of Wellington was superior to Napoleon as a soldier
and as a human being. Contrary to common belief Wellington
would win or at least fought to a draw without Marshal
Blucher's aid--the Imperial Guard was already in retreat
before Blucher's arrival. And the Duke would be moved to tears
by sight of the horror of war whereas Napoleon would not give
a rat's posterior about all the suffering caused by wars instigated
by him.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,338
2,005
113
Ghawar

Wellington's defence was about to crumble, or thats what
it looks, at the point when Napoleon finally committed the
Imperial Guard.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,840
113
Duke of Wellington was superior to Napoleon as a soldier
and as a human being. Contrary to common belief Wellington
would win or at least fought to a draw without Marshal
Blucher's aid--the Imperial Guard was already in retreat
before Blucher's arrival. And the Duke would be moved to tears
by sight of the horror of war whereas Napoleon would not give
a rat's posterior about all the suffering caused by wars instigated
by him.
This might be going a bit far. Wellington may have been a better soldier, but certainly not a better general. Napoleon fought and defeated numerous coalitions until the casualties and the opposite numbers finally did him in. I'm not a fan of his role in the European history, but(and it's a big one), his contemporaries were even worse- bent on restoring continental absolutism. Which they succeed, suppressing too many peoples with British blessing. It is only peculiar irony of history that the hard fought settlement of 1815 blew up in their faces in a spectacular fashion in 1914.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,730
84,749
113
Duke of Wellington was superior to Napoleon as a soldier
and as a human being. Contrary to common belief Wellington
would win or at least fought to a draw without Marshal
Blucher's aid--the Imperial Guard was already in retreat
before Blucher's arrival.
And the Duke would be moved to tears
by sight of the horror of war whereas Napoleon would not give
a rat's posterior about all the suffering caused by wars instigated
by him.
No, the Prussians had already attacked Napo and had tied down most of his infantry on the right flank. The reason that the Old Guard failed to break Wellington was that Napo lacked the reserves of infantry to support them. And that infantry was back holding off Blucher at Plancenoit.

Wellington's centre was almost gone by the end of the day from continual fire by the massively superior numbers of French artillery. It would have collapsed if the Guard had received enough support.

Wellinton was not as egocentric or ambitious as Napo and was likely a far more "decent" guy in a right wing reactionary aristocrat sort of way. He probably did care about the piles of dead that were left on the field.
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,730
84,749
113
This should be the whole 1970 movie on video. When I was a kid, I watched this again and again. Rod Steiger as Napo steals the movie.

 

Yoga Face

New member
Jun 30, 2009
6,328
19
0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon

IIRC, there was an elected parliament, but he essentially decided everything himself. He was a mixture of selfish ambition and good, enlightened ideas. A fairly complicated guy.

The War of 1812 started because the US was fed up with the (massive) Royal Navy stopping and searching US ships at sea and confiscating their cargo and impressing their sailors. And the US wanted to grab Canada. Not much to do with Napoleon aside from the fact that Congress thought that Britain would be too busy fighting the French to defend Canada.
but all of what you said was a result of NAPOLEANS WARS

also involved were the Indians and British support and arming of them

there is a statue of Brock the British General who defeated the Americans and died in a charge at Queenston

Lincoln said it was just a matter of marching

It was the Vietnam of its day as majority of Yanks opposed the war
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
Lincoln said it was just a matter of marching

It was the Vietnam of its day as majority of Yanks opposed the war
It was Jefferson who said it was merely a matter of marching (Abraham Lincoln would have been but 3 1/2 years old).

Opposition to the War was largely geographic - New England was vehemently opposed to the war, even threatening to secede - The Hartford Convention of 1814 - 1815.

While many coastal cities such as Philadelphia where at best lukewarm.

On the other hand the War Hawks principally in the Upper Midwest and the Southern Frontier were all in favour of the war.
 

SQUAD51

Active member
May 26, 2015
243
89
28
USA backed Napolean as he opposed monarchy

causing the war of 1812

Does anyone know what Napoleon proposed other than the Napoleonic Code which forbade privileges based on birth, allowed freedom of religion, and specified that government jobs should go to the most qualified etc and has influence even today :
Oh so very French, excellent in theory, but better put in practice by others- LOL
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,730
84,749
113
It was Jefferson who said it was merely a matter of marching (Abraham Lincoln would have been but 3 1/2 years old).

Opposition to the War was largely geographic - New England was vehemently opposed to the war, even threatening to secede - The Hartford Convention of 1814 - 1815.

While many coastal cities such as Philadelphia where at best lukewarm.

On the other hand the War Hawks principally in the Upper Midwest and the Southern Frontier were all in favour of the war.
What Aardy said. New England was a trading and seafaring region and trade w Britain (and France when they could run the RN blockade) was a staple. Much as they resented the RN's high handedness, it was sort of a cost of doing business. Kind of like the client who pays you well, but is an asshole to deal with. The last thing they wanted was a war with Britain. And when war came, the massive British navy blockaded the US Atlantic coast, albeit inefficiently - and raided New England and the Chesapeake, burning and pillaging the little fishing villages. The British even occupied Maine for a couple of years and used it as a base.

The people who really wanted war were the inlanders on the Frontier who hated the British because they supplied guns to the Indians who used them to kill settlers. And the Americans wanted to occupy Canada, as part of their "destiny" to conquer all of North America. At the same time as the War of 1812, Andrew Jackson was fighting the Spanish in FL to try and kick them out.
 

Yoga Face

New member
Jun 30, 2009
6,328
19
0
It was Jefferson who said it was merely a matter of marching (Abraham Lincoln would have been but 3 1/2 years old).

Opposition to the War was largely geographic - New England was vehemently opposed to the war, even threatening to secede - The Hartford Convention of 1814 - 1815.

While many coastal cities such as Philadelphia where at best lukewarm.

On the other hand the War Hawks principally in the Upper Midwest and the Southern Frontier were all in favour of the war.
I stand corrected

America lost because of incompetent old generals who ran while we had Brock and Tecumseh who got the indian tribes to fight together

Actually, it was a draw

If we had won, which we came so very close to doing ( think Star Spangled Banner written while we attacked Baltimore), the Midwest would belong to the Indians, as we promised them if we won, and the world would be vastly different without America as the superpower

It was an odd war for the USA as soldiers claimed loyalty to their state, not to Washington, and would refuse orders especially if it meant fighting the Indians in the woods where their bold colours made them an easy target for camouflaged Indians

Visit Forts in Niagara or Kingston for a fun day trip

The war or 1812 is considered a small and insignificant war by those who are ignorant of the facts
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
75,730
84,749
113
I stand corrected

America lost because of incompetent old generals who ran while we had Brock and Tecumseh who got the indian tribes to fight together

Actually, it was a draw

If we had won, which we came so very close to doing ( think Star Spangled Banner written while we attacked Baltimore), the Midwest would belong to the Indians, as we promised them if we won, and the world would be vastly different without America as the superpower

It was an odd war for the USA as soldiers claimed loyalty to their state, not to Washington, and would refuse orders especially if it meant fighting the Indians in the woods where their bold colours made them an easy target for camouflaged Indians

Visit Forts in Niagara or Kingston for a fun day trip

The war or 1812 is considered a small and insignificant war by those who are ignorant of the facts
The war was fought in a number of disconnected campaigns, hundreds of miles apart. We held Lake Ontario and Central Ontario. We burned Washington, but got beaten at Baltimore and New Orleans. And crucially, we lost the Battle of Lake Erie to Commodore Perry. This meant we had to evacuate Indiana and Northern Ohio and Western Ontario. As the Americans held Lake Erie, they could isolate and destroy any British and Canadian units who were left West of Brantford. And that pretty much did it for an Indian state in the Midwest - which would not have lasted for more than 10 or 15 years anyway. There were a lot of Americans and they really, really wanted that land.

Even if we had "won" the War of 1812, the US would still be a super power today. Britain basically wanted to beat Napoleon and defend Canada. It didn't have any real strategic interest in the land south of the great lakes. The borders would probably have ended up exactly as they were in any event.

 
Toronto Escorts