Napoleon Died 200 years ago. Is he the goat of mankind over the last 250 years.

 
Hey Thavoice - I always thought of you as a donkeys instead of a goat!!!!

I enjoy your ‘discussions’ with your friends from Massillon. I’m guessing you are looking for a retirement home in that area.
 
+1 Dude kept a 2000 mile supply line more functional than that Germans in WW2.
-2 Forgot to give them parkas.
 
WJ-OSU-STEELERS said:
Hey Thavoice - I always thought of you as a donkeys instead of a goat!!!!

I enjoy your ‘discussions’ with your friends from Massillon. I’m guessing you are looking for a retirement home in that area.
Click to expand...
It would be a step down to follow that program.
 
eastisbest said:
+1 Dude kept a 2000 mile supply line more functional than that Germans in WW2.
-2 Forgot to give them parkas.
Click to expand...

To be fair to the Germans, Napoleon did not advance simultaneously into Russia along a 2,000 mile wide front stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. The German advance into Russia in 1941 was amazing and made Napoleons look like a day trip. Of course both ended up the same.
 
lotr10 said:
To be fair to the Germans, Napoleon did not advance simultaneously into Russia along a 2,000 mile wide front stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. The German advance into Russia in 1941 was amazing and made Napoleons look like a day trip. Of course both ended up the same.
Click to expand...

Napoleon got within 3 miles of Moscow without the element of surprise, tanks, planes, betraying an ally and with legitimate enemies (including the Germans) on all sides. Napoleon's combatants were; United Kingdom, the Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia, Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of Naples, Kingdom of Sicily, Kingdom of Sardinia, Dutch Republic, Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Kingdom of Portugal, Kingdom of Sweden and the rampant disease that a long march of a half million men will nurture.

The Germans launched a surprise attack against an ally getting no closer than 10 miles to Moscow. The German combatants were a barely mobilaized Russia and a few Polish farmers.

Napoleon nearly pulled off the impossible. The Germans f'ed-up the possible. ;)

Not that I would consider him the GOAT. That would be Ho Chi Minh. It's no contest.
 
Last edited:
What bad taste to talk about Napoleon on Cinco De Mayo. So, for my Mexican friends, "DOWN WITH THE FRENCH!". So, having gotten that out of the way, Napoleon and the revolutionary French were the typical liberals. First they want to tear down the establishment and eliminate law and order. Then when the situation becomes untenable, they look for a strong man to take over. Napoleon went from liberator to oppressor in the shortest time on record. Well, Biden and the Democrats are determined to beat his record.
 
Greatness has nothing to do with good and evil. It has everything to do with your impact on the world. Hitler and Lenin were both greater, but both evil. So were Mao and Stalin. From the good side, I like FDR. Defeated the Great Depression and Hitler. Lincoln also greater than Napoleon.
 
Last edited:
Termite2 said:
Ghenghis Khan is the GOAT; no one has had a bigger empire or impact; not to mention that 1 out of every 200 men in the world today are his descendants, the ultimate good time Charlie of all time also.
Click to expand...
No argument. At a military museum they had one of those animated timeline maps with borders slowly changing from BC until modern. Borders changing slowly until Ghengis made even the Nazi expansion seem slow. But with my choice I was going on the 250yr time-frame I thought was being used.

Chs1971, the "history" teacher for over a hunert years thought my response funny, but offered no contradiction. Can anyone else think of a leader besides Ho Chi Minh that beat three super-powers (French, US, China) on three separate occasions, starting from scratch? AND has monuments to himself in at least two of those beaten countries? That's respect.

The other one I'd consider is Moshe Dayan.
 
Last edited:
eastisbest said:
Napoleon got within 3 miles of Moscow without the element of surprise, tanks, planes, betraying an ally and with legitimate enemies (including the Germans) on all sides. Napoleon's combatants were; United Kingdom, the Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia, Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of Naples, Kingdom of Sicily, Kingdom of Sardinia, Dutch Republic, Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Kingdom of Portugal, Kingdom of Sweden and the rampant disease that a long march of a half million men will nurture.

The Germans launched a surprise attack against an ally getting no closer than 10 miles to Moscow. The German combatants were a barely mobilaized Russia and a few Polish farmers.

Napoleon nearly pulled off the impossible. The Germans f'ed-up the possible. ;)

Not that I would consider him the GOAT. That would be Ho Chi Minh. It's no contest.
Click to expand...

We all know that girth trumps length.

Napoleon made a beeline straight for Moscow. He had no intention of actually conquering Russia. He wanted to take the capitol at which point the Czar would "surrender" and agree to turn over some border provinces and pay a lot of gold. The thinking of 19th century warlords like Napoleon was small potatoes next to what Hitler had in mind.

The Germans waged war against the Russians on a 3,000 mile front from the arctic ocean to the Caspian Sea. The Russian/German war that took place during WW2 was the biggest and baddest war in the history of humanity. Nothing else comes close.

The Germans actually managed to occupy over 750,000 square miles of Soviet territory. Hitler's goal was to reach the Ural mountains and create a super province of 2,000,000 square miles. He was going to kill off 80% of Russia's Slavic population while the survivors would become slaves to German farmers who would run massive agricultural plantations.

Both Hitler & Napoleon were swallowed up by the Russian vastness and cruel winter but Hitler was clearly the more ambitious of the two tyrants.
 
If by GOAT you mean most influential I would choose:

Modern times (20th/21st century) I would pick Hitler. He broke the world and we're still picking up the pieces.

Over the last 2000 years? IMO it would be a tie between the Roman Emperor August and Saint Peter. Peter's legacy was the practical establishment of the Christian church.

August had the greatest influence of any man on the Roman Empire and the Romans have had a greater influence on human affairs then any other nation. Though if the USA lasts a couple of more centuries we may take that title away form the Romans.
 
lotr10 said:
August had the greatest influence of any man on the Roman Empire and the Romans have had a greater influence on human affairs then any other nation. Though if the USA lasts a couple of more centuries we may take that title away form the Romans.
Click to expand...
We are all Romans in many ways, although our laws, political and philosophical heritage are the result of the conflict between and synthesis of the Teutonic democratic tribal traditions and that of the Roman Republic. We could not have had Hobbes, Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Paine, Jefferson and all of the other leaders of the European and then American Enlightenment without the influence of those two cultural traditions.
 
Last edited:
lotr10 said:
We all know that girth trumps length.

Napoleon made a beeline straight for Moscow. He had no intention of actually conquering Russia. He wanted to take the capitol at which point the Czar would "surrender" and agree to turn over some border provinces and pay a lot of gold. The thinking of 19th century warlords like Napoleon was small potatoes next to what Hitler had in mind.

The Germans waged war against the Russians on a 3,000 mile front from the arctic ocean to the Caspian Sea. The Russian/German war that took place during WW2 was the biggest and baddest war in the history of humanity. Nothing else comes close.

The Germans actually managed to occupy over 750,000 square miles of Soviet territory. Hitler's goal was to reach the Ural mountains and create a super province of 2,000,000 square miles. He was going to kill off 80% of Russia's Slavic population while the survivors would become slaves to German farmers who would run massive agricultural plantations.

Both Hitler & Napoleon were swallowed up by the Russian vastness and cruel winter but Hitler was clearly the more ambitious of the two tyrants.
Click to expand...

Ambitious makes success in your measure? Aside from the differences in 1940 vs. 1812 warfare technology, horse and foot vs. mechanized that define your length and girth, lol, killing Moscow and maybe St. Pete, would have killed Russia in either era. There was no need for that "girth." Napoloean had the right idea. He just didn't have the patience.

All Hitler needed was Moscow/St Pete and the Black Sea ports. Even moreso in the days of the Soviet as all those southern non-russian provinces that wanted no part of the Soviet block would have broken away, maybe even attacked. As long as Hitler left them alone, they would have left Hitler alone but Hitler let his hate of the Slavs get in his way. He could have negotiated access to the Black Sea and then took it at his leasure after Eastern Russia had been settled.

Regardless the prefered rhetoric that the Russian Winter and resolve beat Germany, it was Lend-Lease and Hitler's buffoonery that beat Germany in the East.

Napoleon >>> Hitler.
 
Last edited:
Crusaders said:
Isn’t Hitler widely regarded as a complete nincompoop propped up by excellent generals?
Click to expand...

Politically astute but not knowing his lane might be a better description? A nincompoop might rise to power in a monarchy but I can't imagine an idiot doing what he did. He expertly used the fear of communism to rise outside of and inspite of the military establishment and remnants of monarchy. Why him? Those old videos, we've been raised to see as caricatures so it's difficult for us to see but back then, that must have been some charisma.
 
Last edited:
eastisbest said:
Ambitious makes success in your measure? Aside from the differences in 1940 vs. 1812 warfare technology, horse and foot vs. mechanized that define your length and girth, lol, killing Moscow and maybe St. Pete, would have killed Russia in either era. There was no need for that "girth." Napoloean had the right idea. He just didn't have the patience.

All Hitler needed was Moscow/St Pete and the Black Sea ports. Even moreso in the days of the Soviet as all those southern non-russian provinces that wanted no part of the Soviet block would have broken away, maybe even attacked. As long as Hitler left them alone, they would have left Hitler alone but Hitler let his hate of the Slavs get in his way. He could have negotiated access to the Black Sea and then took it at his leasure after Eastern Russia had been settled.

Regardless the prefered rhetoric that the Russian Winter and resolve beat Germany, it was Lend-Lease and Hitler's buffoonery that beat Germany in the East.

Napoleon >>> Hitler.
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree on this East. The Germans achieved ten times what Napoleon did in Russia.

BTW, taking Moscow would have meant a lot more in 1941 then it did in 1812. In 1941 Moscow was the locus for the Russian north/south rail system. If the Germans had grabbed it there would have been big problems for Stalin. Also, the Soviets depended on appearances more then the Czars. Had Moscow fallen it's not entirely clear that Stalin & the Soviets would have survived politically.

I do agree with you that Lend Lease is grossly undervalued with respect to helping Russia beat Germany. In addition to Aluminum (building airplanes) and explosives/gun powder the US supplied:

More than 14,000 U.S. airplanes, 8,000 of which came from Alaska, were given to the Soviet Union in the course of the war.

The USSR received a total of 44,000 American jeeps, 375,883 cargo trucks, 8,071 tractors and 12,700 tanks. Additionally, 1,541,590 blankets, 331,066 liters of alcohol, 15,417,000 pairs of army boots, 106,893 tons of cotton, 2,670,000 tons of petroleum products and 4,478,000 tons of food supplies made their way into the Soviet Union.

This is a staggering amount of material.

I've read a couple of fascinating books talking about "what if" and the Eastern front of WW2. And it all came down to stupid (in hindsight) decisions that Hitler made.
 
Purplemojo said:
We are all Romans in many ways, although our laws, political and philosophical heritage are the result of the conflict between and synthesis of the Teutonic democratic tribal traditions and that of the Roman Republic. We could not have had Hobbes, Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Paine, Jefferson and all of the other leaders of the European and then American Enlightenment without the influence of those two cultural traditions.
Click to expand...

The Roman contribution to the modern world can not be overstated. Heck, even our sports stadiums followed the Coliseum's blueprint.
 
Crusaders said:
Isn’t Hitler widely regarded as a complete nincompoop propped up by excellent generals?
Click to expand...

To be honest it's a mixed bag. You have to give Hitler credit for going with his junior generals over the senior German military leadership in France. Hitler should also get credit for grabbing Norway before the British did. He was also right about the Soviet Union being vulnerable.

On the other hand Hitler made a lot of mistakes. Just a few:

* Not understanding the importance of the Mediterranean and Middle East to the British Empire. I accept the argument that if instead of invading Russia he had gone all in and conquered North Africa and the Middle East that by mid - 1941 (before the US entered the war) the British would have been ejected from the Mediterranean Sea, Egypt (Suez canal), Arabian Peninsula and Persian gulf. This would have likely brought Turkey into the war on the side of Germany and secured Hitler vital oil supplies. Britain may have dumped Churchill and sued for peace at this point.

The Germans could have then invaded Russia in 1942. And in addition to attacking from a European front they could have invaded the Soviet Union through the Caucasus Republics (via Turkey) and Central Asia (via Iran).

* Hitler made all sorts of mistakes in Russia. In 1941 he underestimated the Russians; he should have prepared for the winter as it was unlikely he would achieve total victory in just a couple of months; he should have actively recruited the Ukrainians to fight the Russians and he should have went straight for Moscow in July and not deviate to take Kiev.

* In 1942 Hitler should have focused on taking the Caucasus oil fields and cutting the Volga north of Stalingrad. He never should have thrown Panzer Divisions into Stalingrad to fight a battle of attrition.

* In 1943 Hitler should never have attacked the Kursk salient. He should have adopted Von Mansteins flexible defense where he let the Russians take the initiative and then use counter attacks to wipe out Russian spearheads. This had worked brilliantly after the disaster at Stalingrad to stabilize the Eastern Front in early 1943. the Germans burned up a lot of armor in the battle of Kursk.

* And the biggest "what if" is what would have happened if Hitler had NOT declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbor? He wasn't obligated by his treaty with Japan as the Japanese were not helping the Germans with Russia. Had Hitler stated that he was staying neutral in a war between Japan & the USA there would have been a lot of pressure on FDR to ignore Germany and focus on the threat that had actually attacked the US.

Hitler had nothing but contempt for an America he saw as a mongrel nation. And it didn't help that Goering suppressed analyst estimates that the US could mass produce ten times the tanks, artillery and airplanes that Germany could.
 
eastisbest said:
Politically astute but not knowing his lane might be a better description? A nincompoop might rise to power in a monarchy but I can't imagine an idiot doing what he did. He expertly used the fear of communism to rise outside of and inspite of the military establishment and remnants of monarchy. Why him? Those old videos, we've been raised to see as caricatures so it's difficult for us to see but back then, that must have been some charisma.
Click to expand...
Greatly aided by the Depression (created a desperate population that fell for his BS) and the scapegoating of the Jews, in addition to the fear of communism.
 
When considering the greatest men in history (if you’re going to go back to Rome) you must also consider Jesus Christ (as man only, not God)) and Muhammad. When considering the greatest, a persons lasting effect should be included. Christ and Mohammed have had greater lasting impacts than anyone else. In fact, Christ’s greatness has almost completely come about after his death. During his life only a few thousand people at the most knew of him. Mohammed, on the other hand, was a great military leader, although untrained, he conquered the Arabian Peninsula. The Islamic faith today numbers close to 1.4 billion people. Christianity usually is said to number about 2.5 billion people worldwide. Probably no one has had the impact of these two men.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top