lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,035 
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 19, 2018 11:14:24 GMT
Also Moore was out shinned by a certain duke, so few people know about him. Which One, York? No a Duke who in the Blackadder: Back & Forth time travel movie special was crushed by the time machine. |
|
|
|
Post by marshalsoult on Jan 19, 2018 11:15:54 GMT
John Moore, who died at Corunna I believe, basically Wellington would me famous for those events, less of a myth. Not quite clear to me here. Are you saying that if somehow Wellington rather than Moore had been at Corunna you think Soult would have won? Or something different. Sir John Moore did die at Corunna, a serious loss to Britain. [And something of an hero to me as you might have gathered.  ] Have an old TL where he doesn't and with both Moore and Wellington in the peninsula they do somewhat better but the big butterflies start fluttering their wings when 1812 comes around. Having two highly compenent generals available means one can go west. I think Soult could've won, he could move troops at an amazing speed. But at Corunna they just plodded along when he could've overran. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,035
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 19, 2018 11:21:25 GMT
Not quite clear to me here. Are you saying that if somehow Wellington rather than Moore had been at Corunna you think Soult would have won? Or something different. Sir John Moore did die at Corunna, a serious loss to Britain. [And something of an hero to me as you might have gathered. ] Have an old TL where he doesn't and with both Moore and Wellington in the peninsula they do somewhat better but the big butterflies start fluttering their wings when 1812 comes around. Having two highly compenent generals available means one can go west. I think Soult could've won, he could move troops at an amazing speed. But at Corunna they just plodded along when he could've overran. But would a Soult victory have save Napoleon in the long run. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Jan 19, 2018 15:28:00 GMT
I would says it was a combined victory. Wellington held the line and worn down much of the French army, including famously the Imperial Guard units there but the Prussians [along with some mis-management by the French] drew off sizeable forces and arrived need the end to ensure the French were defeated and take up the persuit - as they were the fresher units. You can look at it like that, also you could see British failure. They lost La Haye Sainte, over 10,000 men, some of their generals, so overall it would've been a Pyrrhic Victory if not for ending the war. Not really. Probably a British/allied tactical defeat if the Prussians don't turn up - although Wellington would have withdrawn before combat if he knew the Prussians weren't arriving. However this could still be a strategic defeat for the Frence because they lost a hell of a lot of men as well. Which unlike the alliance, or arguably even Britain, they couldn't replace given Napoleon's fragile popularity, which meant he daren't re-impose conscription. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Jan 19, 2018 15:35:19 GMT
I think Soult could've won, he could move troops at an amazing speed. But at Corunna they just plodded along when he could've overran. But would a Soult victory have save Napoleon in the long run. Probably not. The relatively poor condition of Moore's men after the evacuation and concern over how reliable the Spanish rebels were [or weren't in many cases] caused concern but didn't stop Britain sending Wellington back to Iberia and we got the peninsula campaign. As long as there is a presence by Britain [or another profession and compenent army with a secure base] the French are caught between concentrating to fight the British and dispersing to try and keep the Spanish gullerias under control. As such its very difficult for them to get a clear victory, unless possibly Napoleon has the sense to back down and restore the Bourbon monarchy. Which means it ties down ~200,000 - 300,000 men with continued losses and demoralisation of the other forces. This makes continued French domination of central and eastern Europe markedly more difficult, even without slow reform of the militaries of Napoleon's opponents and the rise of German and Russian national identities. |
|
|
|
Post by marshalsoult on Jan 29, 2018 11:24:24 GMT
I think Soult could've won, he could move troops at an amazing speed. But at Corunna they just plodded along when he could've overran. But would a Soult victory have save Napoleon in the long run. Well that'd be a stretch, the Peninsular war was virtually unwinnable for France. |
|
|
|
Post by marshalsoult on Jan 29, 2018 11:26:42 GMT
You can look at it like that, also you could see British failure. They lost La Haye Sainte, over 10,000 men, some of their generals, so overall it would've been a Pyrrhic Victory if not for ending the war. Not really. Probably a British/allied tactical defeat if the Prussians don't turn up - although Wellington would have withdrawn before combat if he knew the Prussians weren't arriving. However this could still be a strategic defeat for the Frence because they lost a hell of a lot of men as well. Which unlike the alliance, or arguably even Britain, they couldn't replace given Napoleon's fragile popularity, which meant he daren't re-impose conscription. Well both wanted reinforcements, If Grouchy came instead of Blucher, Waterloo would mean something different. Waterloo, if it had been French victory would've been less known, Russia's army would come in anyway or Austria so Waterloo would not have ended it. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Jan 29, 2018 16:17:38 GMT
Not really. Probably a British/allied tactical defeat if the Prussians don't turn up - although Wellington would have withdrawn before combat if he knew the Prussians weren't arriving. However this could still be a strategic defeat for the Frence because they lost a hell of a lot of men as well. Which unlike the alliance, or arguably even Britain, they couldn't replace given Napoleon's fragile popularity, which meant he daren't re-impose conscription. Well both wanted reinforcements, If Grouchy came instead of Blucher, Waterloo would mean something different. Waterloo, if it had been French victory would've been less known, Russia's army would come in anyway or Austria so Waterloo would not have ended it. Very true. It might have gone down as Napoleon's last victory and blotted Wellington's record with a single defeat. However unlikely to change much in the longer rule although you could see Britain having less and Austria and Russia having more influence at the final peace treaty. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,035
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 29, 2018 16:21:08 GMT
Well both wanted reinforcements, If Grouchy came instead of Blucher, Waterloo would mean something different. Waterloo, if it had been French victory would've been less known, Russia's army would come in anyway or Austria so Waterloo would not have ended it. Very true. It might have gone down as Napoleon's last victory and blotted Wellington's record with a single defeat. However unlikely to change much in the longer rule although you could see Britain having less and Austria and Russia having more influence at the final peace treaty. Question is there a Prussian ore Russian counterpart who could replace Wellington if he was defeated at Waterloo. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Jan 29, 2018 16:27:48 GMT
Very true. It might have gone down as Napoleon's last victory and blotted Wellington's record with a single defeat. However unlikely to change much in the longer rule although you could see Britain having less and Austria and Russia having more influence at the final peace treaty. Question is there a Prussian ore Russian counterpart who could replace Wellington if he was defeated at Waterloo. Do you mean as a powerful military/political figure at the peace conference? I think it would depend on how things went after Waterloo. Britain would still be politically important because of its economic power and domination of the oceans, including controlling many European overseas colonies which had been taken from French or allied control. However if Prussia, Austria or Russia dealt the final killing blow to Napoleon's 2nd reign that would give them more prestige. If after Wellington's defeat Blutcher had also been defeated before the other allies arrived similarly Prussia would have less prestige. [Which doesn't mean it would necessarily make less gains. As the primary check to France on the Rhine it might possibly be given more to boost its strength]. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,035
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 29, 2018 16:33:57 GMT
Question is there a Prussian ore Russian counterpart who could replace Wellington if he was defeated at Waterloo. Do you mean as a powerful military/political figure at the peace conference? I think it would depend on how things went after Waterloo. Britain would still be politically important because of its economic power and domination of the oceans, including controlling many European overseas colonies which had been taken from French or allied control. However if Prussia, Austria or Russia dealt the final killing blow to Napoleon's 2nd reign that would give them more prestige. If after Wellington's defeat Blutcher had also been defeated before the other allies arrived similarly Prussia would have less prestige. [Which doesn't mean it would necessarily make less gains. As the primary check to France on the Rhine it might possibly be given more to boost its strength]. A okay thanks for the explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by marshalsoult on Feb 12, 2018 11:00:49 GMT
Well both wanted reinforcements, If Grouchy came instead of Blucher, Waterloo would mean something different. Waterloo, if it had been French victory would've been less known, Russia's army would come in anyway or Austria so Waterloo would not have ended it. Very true. It might have gone down as Napoleon's last victory and blotted Wellington's record with a single defeat. However unlikely to change much in the longer rule although you could see Britain having less and Austria and Russia having more influence at the final peace treaty. Yes, Russia would probably stop him before Austria, since Austria's armies stunk. Russia would get way more land and possibly Constantinople within a few years. |
|
|
|
Post by marshalsoult on Feb 12, 2018 11:01:49 GMT
Very true. It might have gone down as Napoleon's last victory and blotted Wellington's record with a single defeat. However unlikely to change much in the longer rule although you could see Britain having less and Austria and Russia having more influence at the final peace treaty. Question is there a Prussian ore Russian counterpart who could replace Wellington if he was defeated at Waterloo. Probably Bennigsen, Prussia.... didn't really have any at this period. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,035
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 12, 2018 11:10:12 GMT
Very true. It might have gone down as Napoleon's last victory and blotted Wellington's record with a single defeat. However unlikely to change much in the longer rule although you could see Britain having less and Austria and Russia having more influence at the final peace treaty. Yes, Russia would probably stop him before Austria, since Austria's armies stunk. Russia would get way more land and possibly Constantinople within a few years. What about Prussia army. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Feb 12, 2018 15:18:44 GMT
Very true. It might have gone down as Napoleon's last victory and blotted Wellington's record with a single defeat. However unlikely to change much in the longer rule although you could see Britain having less and Austria and Russia having more influence at the final peace treaty. Yes, Russia would probably stop him before Austria, since Austria's armies stunk. Russia would get way more land and possibly Constantinople within a few years. A bit harsh as they gave him arguably his toughest fight in 1809, although after the retirement of Archduke Charles they did seem to lack a confident commander. Russia might get more land, especially if British and France influence is less. They did argue for all of Poland but can't really see them getting much else in the short term. Also Constantinople might be a long stretch in the near turn as the Russians are a long way from it at the time, have a lot of other fish to fry and do need some time to recover from 1812-14. |
|
] Have an old TL where he doesn't and with both Moore and Wellington in the peninsula they do somewhat better but the big butterflies start fluttering their wings when 1812 comes around. Having two highly compenent generals available means one can go west.