Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [War Of 1812] Re: [BrigadeNapoleon] Happy Birthday, Iron Duke...

Expand Messages
  • Michael Mathews
    It must have been galling to Wellington to be playing second fiddle in the name game throughout history. I mean, one lent his name to an era of change,
    Message 1 of 4 , May 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      It must have been galling to Wellington to be playing second fiddle in the name game throughout history. I mean, one lent his name to an era of change, martial glory and the growth of national identities; the other to beef and boots. Even Wellington's nickname has nothing to do with his great strength on the battlefield or ability to hold frail alliances together, but from the fact he had to have iron shutters during his draconian political reign.

      However, you can't argue with success and in time he always got the job done. Salut!

      Michael


      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      He either fears his fate too much,
      Or his deserts are small,
      Who dares not put it to the touch,
      To win or lose it all.
      --Montrose's Toast


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: FcoySerjeant@...
      To: BrigadeNapoleon@yahoogroups.com ; WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com ; TFWellington@yahoogroups.com ; BVMS@yahoogroups.com ; 7thblackwatch@yahoogroups.com ; billbrocker@... ; diggin.robat@... ; Mick3IG@... ; jburrill@... ; OXGARA@... ; jharris@... ; EVILJIM@... ; bobbetsy@... ; Bill.Mckee@...
      Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 1:17 PM
      Subject: [War Of 1812] Re: [BrigadeNapoleon] Happy Birthday, Iron Duke...



      Wellington was once asked if Napoleon was the better general; he replied "I
      never lost an army then asked my country for another one and having lost that
      asked for a third."



      Captain Jack Pritchard, Commanding - Gren. &Lt. Detactment
      Fusiliers in Spain 1809 - 23rd Regiment of Foot
      _1812 CROWN FORCES NORTH AMERICA_ (http://1812crownforces.tripod.com/)
      _Brigade Napoléon: Napoleonic Reenactment_
      (http://www.brigade-napoleon.org/index.html)
      _Fusiliers in Spain 1809_
      (http://hometown.aol.com/fusilier13/FusiliersinSpain1809.html)

      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • James Yaworsky
      ... in the name game throughout history. I mean, one lent his name to an era of change, martial glory and the growth of national identities; the other to beef
      Message 2 of 4 , May 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Mathews" <mimathews@...> wrote:
        >
        > It must have been galling to Wellington to be playing second fiddle
        in the name game throughout history. I mean, one lent his name to an
        era of change, martial glory and the growth of national identities;
        the other to beef and boots. Even Wellington's nickname has nothing
        to do with his great strength on the battlefield or ability to hold
        frail alliances together, but from the fact he had to have iron
        shutters during his draconian political reign.
        >
        > However, you can't argue with success and in time he always got the
        job done. Salut!
        >
        > Michael
        >

        Interesting comments... but actually, would Wellington have *wanted*
        to be known as an agent of change (witness the iron shutters necessary
        when he tried to control same...)? I think he most often equated
        "change" with "chaos", and not "progress". Look at the "changes"
        during the worst days of the French Revolution and it's hard not to
        see his point. As for Napoleon, he was regarded by many people
        (including of course Wellington) as not a gentleman, but a military
        adventurer: the equivalent of the Roman Imperial usurper-generals,
        whose actions in the end helped destroy the Roman Empire.

        I don't think Wellington had any time or use for martial glory: "the
        saddest thing next to a battle lost is a battle won": not exactly a
        sentiment one would expect to hear from General Bonaparte! Are there
        instances of Napoleon shedding tears over troop losses? I can't
        recollect any.

        Wellington saw himself as defending civilization and order from a
        self-aggrandizing military adventurer who had no respect for all that
        was decent in society... a necessary duty, not an opportunity to
        pillage Europe.

        There is no denying that Napoleon dominated his age, at least in
        Europe. There is no denying that he was an instrument of massive
        change. Some of those changes were good. Some not so much...

        If you start looking at specific examples, like his Iberian adventure,
        it's hard to see how his desire to "modernize" the place (and put his
        brother on the throne) was not founded on a profound contempt for the
        Spanish people and Spanish society. "Modernizing" basically equaled
        accepting Napoleon's ideas of how things should run. He was not a dude
        who suffered "fools" gladly. Of course, *he* was the one who decided
        if one was a fool or not.

        The Spanish reaction is appropriately remembered at the start of May -
        it is the perfect time to remember their uprising in Madrid.
        Basically, they revolted against the crass betrayal of their alliance
        that Napoleon engineered. If this heightened Spanish national
        identity, this was surely an unintended result of Napoleon's plans.
        Same story with Prussia and Germany.

        Was Napoleon trying to foster national identities, or set up a
        European basically French-based unitary state, controlled by Napoleon
        and his henchmen/family members?

        His use of the Poles - playing on their hopes to reconstitute their
        country, then betraying them when convenient for himself, is still
        nauseating to contemplate (and I'm partly of Ukrainian heritage, not a
        particularly "pro-Polish" bunch...).

        Would Wellington have wanted the "fame" of having the age named after
        him? I doubt he would have lost any sleep about it one way or the
        other.

        As has been mentioned, Wellington was given his country's *one* army
        to utilise in the struggle to try and stop the French attempt at
        ruling Europe, and he managed to keep it in one piece and patiently
        make the most of in a long and grueling multi-year campaign.

        In contrast, when Napoleon (despite a great plan, wrecked by adverse
        weather more than anything) wasn't able to trap Sir John Moore's army
        in northwest Spain in December 1808, he headed back to Paris. The man
        had genius; his campaigns usually displayed incredible daring and
        movement. Did he have the long-term patience and staying power of
        Wellington? Seems not. Napoleon's style was more like "Black Bob"
        Crauford, whom it has been remarked would have probably quickly risked
        the British army in a showdown with the French if he had been in
        command instead of Wellington. Probable end result: a "glorious"
        disaster... Napoleon of course had the talent and the resources to
        usually pull off his audacious plans. But it takes an heroically
        large ego to think you can take on all the rest of Europe. Or should
        that read a fatally flawed ego?

        When the dust settled and Napoleon was on his way to St. Helena, did
        Wellington stage a coup back in London and take over? That would have
        been a very "Napoleonic" thing to do...

        Are all the corpses of the French and their allies that are mouldering
        in their graves across the length and breadth of Europe taking
        satisfaction from the "imperishable fame" and "martial glory" their
        master's aggressions accrued?
        Ultimately, I think I'd rather have been marching in Wellington's army
        and not the Emperor Napoleon's...

        Jim Yaworsky
        In a Pontificating mood...
      • HQ93rd@aol.com
        BRAVO!!!! ... 93rd SHRoFLHU www.93rdhighlanders.com THE Thin Red Line ************************************** See what s free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text
        Message 3 of 4 , May 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          BRAVO!!!!

          In a message dated 5/1/07 9:17:47 PM, yawors1@... writes:
          > Interesting comments...  but actually, would Wellington have *wanted*
          > to be known as an agent of change (witness the iron shutters necessary
          > when he tried to control same...)?  I think he most often equated
          > "change" with "chaos", and not "progress".  Look at the "changes"
          > during the worst days of the French Revolution and it's hard not to
          > see his point.  As for Napoleon, he was regarded by many people
          > (including of course Wellington) as not a gentleman, but a military
          > adventurer: the equivalent of the Roman Imperial usurper-generals,
          > whose actions in the end helped destroy the Roman Empire.
          >
          > I don't think Wellington had any time or use for martial glory: "the
          > saddest thing next to a battle lost is a battle won": not exactly a
          > sentiment one would expect to hear from General Bonaparte! Are there
          > instances of Napoleon shedding tears over troop losses?  I can't
          > recollect any. 
          >
          > Wellington saw himself as defending civilization and order from a
          > self-aggrandizing military adventurer who had no respect for all that
          > was decent in society... a necessary duty, not an opportunity to
          > pillage Europe.
          >
          > There is no denying that Napoleon dominated his age, at least in
          > Europe.  There is no denying that he was an instrument of massive
          > change.  Some of those changes were good.  Some not so much... 
          >
          > If you start looking at specific examples, like his Iberian adventure,
          > it's hard to see how his desire to "modernize" the place (and put his
          > brother on the throne) was not founded on a profound contempt for the
          > Spanish people and Spanish society.  "Modernizing" basically equaled
          > accepting Napoleon's ideas of how things should run. He was not a dude
          > who suffered "fools" gladly.  Of course, *he* was the one who decided
          > if one was a fool or not.
          >
          > The Spanish reaction is appropriately remembered at the start of May -
          > it is the perfect time to remember their uprising in Madrid.
          > Basically, they revolted against the crass betrayal of their alliance
          > that Napoleon engineered.  If this heightened Spanish national
          > identity, this was surely an unintended result of Napoleon's plans.
          > Same story with Prussia and Germany.
          >
          > Was Napoleon trying to foster national identities, or set up a
          > European basically French-based unitary state, controlled by Napoleon
          > and his henchmen/family members? 
          >
          > His use of the Poles - playing on their hopes to reconstitute their
          > country, then betraying them when convenient for himself, is still
          > nauseating to contemplate (and I'm partly of Ukrainian heritage, not a
          > particularly "pro-Polish" bunch...). 
          >
          > Would Wellington have wanted the "fame" of having the age named after
          > him?  I doubt he would have lost any sleep about it one way or the
          > other. 
          >
          > As has been mentioned, Wellington was given his country's *one* army
          > to utilise in the struggle to try and stop the French attempt at
          > ruling Europe, and he managed to keep it in one piece and patiently
          > make the most of in a long and grueling multi-year campaign. 
          >
          > In contrast, when Napoleon (despite a great plan, wrecked by adverse
          > weather more than anything) wasn't able to trap Sir John Moore's army
          > in northwest Spain in December 1808, he headed back to Paris.  The man
          > had genius; his campaigns usually displayed incredible daring and
          > movement.  Did he have the long-term patience and staying power of
          > Wellington?  Seems not.  Napoleon's style was more like "Black Bob"
          > Crauford, whom it has been remarked would have probably quickly risked
          > the British army in a showdown with the French if he had been in
          > command instead of Wellington.  Probable end result: a "glorious"
          > disaster...  Napoleon of course had the talent and the resources to
          > usually pull off his audacious plans.  But it takes an heroically
          > large ego to think you can take on all the rest of Europe.  Or should
          > that read a fatally flawed ego?
          >
          > When the dust settled and Napoleon was on his way to St. Helena, did
          > Wellington stage a coup back in London and take over?  That would have
          > been a very "Napoleonic" thing to do...
          >
          > Are all the corpses of the French and their allies that are mouldering
          > in their graves across the length and breadth of Europe taking
          > satisfaction from the "imperishable fame" and "martial glory" their
          > master's aggressions accrued?
          > Ultimately, I think I'd rather have been marching in Wellington's army
          > and not the Emperor Napoleon's...
          >
          > Jim Yaworsky
          > In a Pontificating mood...
          >
          >





          93rd SHRoFLHU
          www.93rdhighlanders.com
          THE Thin Red Line



          **************************************
          See what's free at http://www.aol.com


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • BritcomHMP@aol.com
          In a message dated 01/05/2007 22:17:30 Central Standard Time, yawors1@uwindsor.ca writes: I don t think Wellington had any time or use for martial glory: the
          Message 4 of 4 , May 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 01/05/2007 22:17:30 Central Standard Time,
            yawors1@... writes:

            I don't think Wellington had any time or use for martial glory: "the
            saddest thing next to a battle lost is a battle won": not exactly a
            sentiment one would expect to hear from General Bonaparte! Are there
            instances of Napoleon shedding tears over troop losses? I can't
            recollect any.


            -----------------------------------------------

            Excellent post Jim, and to emphasize some of your points, particularly those
            above here are a couple of quotes.

            "There is nothing so stupid as a gallant officer"

            "I consider myself nimnukwalla (an Indian servant) in that I have eaten of
            the kings salt and therefore it is my duty to serve when and where he pleases"

            and of course I just can't resist the great

            "Tell a Frenchman he is not a gentleman and he will kill you, however this
            does not make him a gentleman!"

            Cheers

            Tim



            ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.