stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857 
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Feb 12, 2018 15:24:38 GMT
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. Blutcher is the most famous Prussian commander at this time but is notorious for being a bit wayward mentally so can't see him being a successful diplomat. Gneisenau is probably a bit too young and low prestige at this point. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Feb 12, 2018 15:28:28 GMT
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. Its fairly well motivated and organised but still fairly small compared to the other continental powers. Also shortly after the war ended there was something of a clash between progressives and conservatives in Prussia, with the latter coming out on top. This is likely to restrict their abilities for a while. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,439
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 12, 2018 16:07:27 GMT
Its fairly well motivated and organised but still fairly small compared to the other continental powers. Also shortly after the war ended there was something of a clash between progressives and conservatives in Prussia, with the latter coming out on top. This is likely to restrict their abilities for a while. Would be ASB to say a certain dutch idiot might save the day at Waterloo, but then again, he was not a brilliant master tactician. |
|
|
|
Post by marshalsoult on Feb 20, 2018 14:06:59 GMT
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. Brunswick, maybe... Prussia was at a bad state in the early 1800's. |
|
|
|
Post by marshalsoult on Feb 20, 2018 14:12:20 GMT
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. Well by 1809 Europe knew his strategy. But the Habsburgs got their Empire by marriage, not conquest, reaching their zenith by Charles V, from then on it was defeat after defeat, Spain lost then Netherlands. Stunk is pretty harsh, but they rarely won a battle against France. Well Russia was the superpower from C. 1812-1850, They almost had it but were stopped by France and England. There are so many factors its hard to say. |
|
|
|
Post by marshalsoult on Feb 20, 2018 14:13:42 GMT
Probably Bennigsen, Prussia.... didn't really have any at this period. Blutcher is the most famous Prussian commander at this time but is notorious for being a bit wayward mentally so can't see him being a successful diplomat. Gneisenau is probably a bit too young and low prestige at this point. You know, Clausewitz is an option, He was involved with the Russians in 1812. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,243
|
Post by stevep on Feb 20, 2018 23:03:59 GMT
Blutcher is the most famous Prussian commander at this time but is notorious for being a bit wayward mentally so can't see him being a successful diplomat. Gneisenau is probably a bit too young and low prestige at this point. You know, Clausewitz is an option, He was involved with the Russians in 1812. Possibly. He had some good social connections via his wife and a fair bit of military service. However he's still fairly young and more of a military expert/theorist than a diplomat, which is what Prussia would want to represent them. |
|
|
|
Post by marshalsoult on Feb 23, 2018 3:39:04 GMT
You know, Clausewitz is an option, He was involved with the Russians in 1812. Possibly. He had some good social connections via his wife and a fair bit of military service. However he's still fairly young and more of a military expert/theorist than a diplomat, which is what Prussia would want to represent them. True, Prussia is hard to say. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 16, 2018 11:34:50 GMT
Hi,
the idea described in the start can´t work with napoleon.
He was a corsic cleptomane, who tried to plunder as much as possible, supplying his (large) family with titles and money.
Also, the whole revolutionwars, in that napoleon get important was a big robbery. They took what they could, plundered.
That was the main failure of the napoleonic system. Each government had one job, create money (from that Napoleon got his share), finance the french forces IN these areas and take more to press out of the people.
So even if we accept that some ideas of the french revolution of 1789 was transported and well liked by the german citizens of the often corrupt small states, napoleons behaivour was way worse. Also his wars, his hybris could not be cured.
As long as Great britain wasn´t taken, he will loose.
He tried his continental blocade and failed, so he tried to attack russia (who cared less about that system, that hurts more the suffering people in europe).
To crush prussia napoleon need to be allied with russia - but he was the enemy of russia.
The austrians lost in 1809, but it was a narrow thing. The austrians understood finally how to beat Napoleon, who was no longer at his hight from 1808 on.
Look at russia, the 1805-napoleon would have beaten the russians far worse as he did, overall was his main problem that he was only one person, his marshalls were good WITH him, but bad without.
The idea to tear apart Austria-hungaria is silly, the people there would fight and win. France was stretched thin, the actual "napoleonic" kingdoms were hated by the habitants and only brute force kept them down.
So maybe prussia get dismantled, but following this the alliance against france would be much larger, would fight harder and cause an earlier fall of france. Prussia gets reinstalled the second france is defeated.
Trafalgar was the key, i can´t see the french beating the british here. Even if they do, they haven´t succsessfully invaded great britain.
The negative aspects of such acting is the following peace. After the defeat of napoleon the winners will not see bourbon france as one of their partners, they would reduce france, in a worse way as the french tried with prussia and/or austria.
Balance of power is good, but if the french act that way they "leave" civilisation of that time and that will bite em in their butt later.
Napoleon basically was the best general pre-ww1 since Gaius Iulius Caesar, but he was a very bad politican and - his illness addeded could not hope to win a war against the rest of europe.
He should really accept peace after the defeat of russia, give up the areas on the right river-rhine-side and accept that. But a person like Napoleon couldn´t do that, this is out of his character.
|
|
