A
Avoid normal situations.
Guest
In alt.flame The 2-Belo <the2belo@msd.bigremovethislobe.ne.jp> wrote:
[..]
>>You need to read your history a little more carefully and look up
>>things like a disasterous campaign on Russia
You need to use your spellchecker a little more carefully. Watch your
grammar, too, and I'm not talking about your daddy's mommy.
>> during which he
>>heroically turned an army of 700,000 men into one of just 70,000 in
>>under a year,
It was only 650,000, although it was still the largest army the world had
ever seen. The name "Grande Armee" had never been more appropriate. By the
Russian campaign's end, it was actually reduced to more like 7,000. If Ney
hadn't fought that great rearguard action, it would probably be even less
than that.
(Ney was kind of a ****head. That cavalry charge he ordered at Waterloo
while Napoleon was taking a catnap was one of the reasons the French lost.
He had his good points, though, unlike certain alt.flame posters.)
>>and a small military setback at a place called
>>"Waterloo".
Speaking of which... people always talk about that victory like it was
proof of what a hero Wellington was. While it's true that Wellington was the
only general the Allies had that could stand toe-to-toe with the Little
Corporal, the colossal irony is that it wouldn't really have mattered that
much if Napoleon had won. The French had the entirety of the armies of Europe
mobilized against them. They could have had ten Napoleons, and they still
would have lost.
So what the hell was Napoleon doing in Belgium instead of in trenches at
the French border? Exercising his inability to keep his pecker in his pants
and fight a defensive campaign, that's what. The ****er had believed his own
propaganda and the myth of his invincibility for years... which, of course,
was the main reason he was eventually defeated.
Ever notice that pretty much every single person in the history of the world
is a ****head?
> <wikipedia>
> Napoleon [...] led the French army, modernized and reformed, to score several
> major victories. His campaigns are studied at military academies all over the
> world and he is widely regarded as one of history's greatest commanders. [...]
> Napoleon was hated by his many enemies, but respected by them at the same time.
> [Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of] Wellington [whom defeated Napoleon's army at
> Waterloo], when asked who he thought was the greatest general of the day,
> answered: "In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon."
> </wikipedia>
Well, somebody has been at least citing in this ridiculous thread. That's
a start, anyways.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"Human kind
Cannot bear very much reality."
-- T. S. Eliot
[..]
>>You need to read your history a little more carefully and look up
>>things like a disasterous campaign on Russia
You need to use your spellchecker a little more carefully. Watch your
grammar, too, and I'm not talking about your daddy's mommy.
>> during which he
>>heroically turned an army of 700,000 men into one of just 70,000 in
>>under a year,
It was only 650,000, although it was still the largest army the world had
ever seen. The name "Grande Armee" had never been more appropriate. By the
Russian campaign's end, it was actually reduced to more like 7,000. If Ney
hadn't fought that great rearguard action, it would probably be even less
than that.
(Ney was kind of a ****head. That cavalry charge he ordered at Waterloo
while Napoleon was taking a catnap was one of the reasons the French lost.
He had his good points, though, unlike certain alt.flame posters.)
>>and a small military setback at a place called
>>"Waterloo".
Speaking of which... people always talk about that victory like it was
proof of what a hero Wellington was. While it's true that Wellington was the
only general the Allies had that could stand toe-to-toe with the Little
Corporal, the colossal irony is that it wouldn't really have mattered that
much if Napoleon had won. The French had the entirety of the armies of Europe
mobilized against them. They could have had ten Napoleons, and they still
would have lost.
So what the hell was Napoleon doing in Belgium instead of in trenches at
the French border? Exercising his inability to keep his pecker in his pants
and fight a defensive campaign, that's what. The ****er had believed his own
propaganda and the myth of his invincibility for years... which, of course,
was the main reason he was eventually defeated.
Ever notice that pretty much every single person in the history of the world
is a ****head?
> <wikipedia>
> Napoleon [...] led the French army, modernized and reformed, to score several
> major victories. His campaigns are studied at military academies all over the
> world and he is widely regarded as one of history's greatest commanders. [...]
> Napoleon was hated by his many enemies, but respected by them at the same time.
> [Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of] Wellington [whom defeated Napoleon's army at
> Waterloo], when asked who he thought was the greatest general of the day,
> answered: "In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon."
> </wikipedia>
Well, somebody has been at least citing in this ridiculous thread. That's
a start, anyways.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"Human kind
Cannot bear very much reality."
-- T. S. Eliot