Your history is faulty, I’m afraid. The Russians took their bat & ball and went home after the 1917 Revolution; the Germans didn’t “Defeat” them in the traditional sense of the word.
Also, the European part of Russia where the Eastern Front was during WWI doesn’t count as “Asia”, IMHO.
Interestingly, the Germans were supplying arms and technical advisors to the Kuomintang during the Chinese Civil War. Didn’t work out real well for either of them in the end.
In other words, Monty is right- Don’t get involved in Land Wars in Asia.
In that case the Allies (in the Great War) never defeated Germany as there was an Armistice- not a surrender.
My history isn’t faulty I don’t think- there is a difference between a “battle” and a “war”. Whichever way you look at it Germany won the war against Russia. The side that refuses to fight further is not generally considered a winner.
Even so, the Germans did not militarily defeat the Russians either in Russia or in Asia; ie the Imperial German Army did not march on Moscow, beat the stuffing out of the Russians, and rename the city Kaiserwilhelmburg or anything like that.
The Russian withdrawl from WWI is a complex subject and is at least partially due to their lack of success against the Germans, but it has more to do with the 1917 Revolution than because the Germans were “winning” the war against Tsarist Russia.
Incidentally, there was an actual surrender for Germany in WWI- It was signed in 1919. The Armistice (11am, 11/11/1918) was the end of the shooting war, but not the actual state of war between the Allies and Germany.
Martini Enfield, we may just have to disagree on this one. Whilst I acknowledge your points, there was no great battle for Berlin either. I was aware of the surrender in 1919 but the (arguably) main cause of the collapse of the Second Reich was the relentless 4 years of blockade- the population was starving as were the industries.
Anyway, back to the original post, I do sot see Napoeon as “silly”. His armies came very close to winning Waterloo- and things would have been quite different if that had occurred.
Russia has a lot of Asian territory and was an Asian as well as a European power (although to what extent is questionable after the 1904 war with Japan). There was no need for the Germans to go near the Asian territories,
If he had won at Waterloo then no doubt many of his former allies would have returned to the fold to fight for him.
They were at best fair weather friends to the Brits with a few exceptions and being on the winning side seemed to be their most important consideration.
But we would have beaten him anyway,when it comes to the French us Brits kick bottoms.
Speaking of which and related to the image question, Napoleon apparently suffered badly from piles.
What a pain in the arse.
I have a book- somewhere- (I am not at home) which claims if Napoleons troops had carried nails to spike the English cannons (which they had over run) they would not have later been used against them, <shrugs>
The British never used artillery as effectively as N. who used them en masse whereas Wellington tended not to concentrate them,so I dont think that was the battle winner.
IMO if Neys massed cavalry charge hadn’t of been seen off by the Brits cavalry there might have been problems but the clincher was the near total breakdown of morale and subsequent mass retreat of the French when they saw their until then “invincible” when pitted against the armies of Europe,Imperial Guard break and run when they engaged British Guardsmen .
Its ironic really because Britain considered itsself to be primarily a Naval nation and the army came a poor second in both esteem and resources as far as the British public and politicians were concerned.
If we step back one large step, do we see an utter incompetent or do we see a good leader who made some mistakes but isn’t nearly worthy of the caricature?
He led a huge force for years through many complex campaigns. History judges losers harshly as it should, but in the aggregate were his choices that much worse than those of generals who have not become a joke?
He was an excellent general. The source of both his greatness and his absurdity was his overweening ambition - which, for a time, looked like it could be realized.
More like the word chivalry, like most words pertaining to the upper classes in medieval England, came from French, owing to the Norman Conquest. It doesn’t mean that knighthood was born in France.
