PDA

View Full Version : Wouldn't the armies in Europe get crushed



The Resident
3rd Dec 2004, 03:58
when they attempted to conquer Morocco. It would be so hot and they have to carry all of that equipment, it seems like it would be impossible to fight, let alone run.:eek:

Capt.Jack Aubrey
3rd Dec 2004, 04:02
I agree, but if ditermined and under a general, no doubt they would try.

BlackCoat
3rd Dec 2004, 13:08
I cant see a problem.

Take tangiers with naval bombardment, followed by a landing of infantry and cannons. Establish bases at a few days march from the city, supported by appropriated agricutural holdings.

Next, send cavalry to do the last purge along the length of the nation of any surviving loyalists to the old regime.

Finally the influx of civilians, such as missionaries and engineers to build the fortifications and supplycentres for continued military holding, razing of mosces and building of churches & the usual conversions and such. Not to forget taxation... perhaps added a extra tax for those that arnt christians ;)

It would be made even easier by recruiting local tuareg-beduins (or some other aggressive and previously oppressed mnority) to do some local policing & taxcollection, along the rules of 1/3 to collectors, 2/3 onward to the ruler.

LordUxbridge
3rd Dec 2004, 14:01
No-one going to mention Napoleon in Egypt? or the British in India for that matter? Sure, climate took its toll but it didnt mean an army would be crushed.

Lonewulf44
3rd Dec 2004, 14:50
Yeah, the heat was a factor, but I think the quality (lack there of) of the opposing forces played a big role. The leadership, organization, and experiance in warfare of the european proved way way too much for most opposing 'armies'.


Long Live Prussia!

Capt.Jack Aubrey
4th Dec 2004, 00:19
Originally posted by LordUxbridge
No-one going to mention Napoleon in Egypt? or the British in India for that matter? Sure, climate took its toll but it didnt mean an army would be crushed.

I hate it when people always blame bad stuff on evil people, Saying napoleon and his men used the Sphinx's nose for taget practice, when scientists clearly stated before Napoleons arrival Egyptian men went to repair this and the nose broke off. And Napoleon wasn't evil, he was probably one of the greatest generals. Of course all Generals have their downfall.

haradrim
4th Dec 2004, 18:29
wait a second, are you saying nappy was evil?

Maximus Decimus
4th Dec 2004, 22:12
Hey Guys,

Climate does have a factor on the causality rate and morale but does not justify the conclusion that a European invasion is impossible. Alexander, Augustus, and Napoleon dealt with harsh climates whether it be in Egypt or India and still succeeded to accomplish their goals (for the most part).

Napoleon was amongst the greatest generals, he is up there with Augustus Caesar but I have to say the greatest general/historical figure is Alexander the Great.

haradrim
8th Dec 2004, 15:53
i agree with you there maximus, nappy was brilliant in his earlier campaigns. But he made some mistakes in key moments(attacking russia, waterloo) later in his career that stopped him from being considered from being considered as great as alexander. I mean this guy conquered the known world, talk about brilliant.

Maximus Decimus
9th Dec 2004, 00:28
By the age of 25 and never lost one battle even though he was usually heavily outnumbered. Even if Napoleon didn't screw up(egypt, waterloo) his legacy can't match that of Alexanders. Alexander'ss legacy includes the Hellenistic Age, Great cities such as Alexandria, his leadership quality, kindness towards those who accepted him, and his unrivaled military triumphs :)

Personally, I think the closest historical figure to match alexander's legacy was Augustus.

Willmore
10th Dec 2004, 01:26
Peter the Great ?


that just might be the Russian in me talking :-)

BlackCoat
10th Dec 2004, 13:42
Originally posted by Willmore
Peter the Great ?


that just might be the Russian in me talking :-)

That would be in the administrative kathegory... not military mastermind ;)
Otherwise he would have held onto the black sea, and never let Sweden roam free.

For military, try Suvorov. (aka Catherines attackdog :D )

Kai-Arne
10th Dec 2004, 17:04
Originally posted by The Resident
when they attempted to conquer Morocco. It would be so hot and they have to carry all of that equipment, it seems like it would be impossible to fight, let alone run.:eek:


I've read in a German PC-Magazine, that you'll be able to change you're soldiers uniforms! (From thick one's into light, for example)

haradrim
13th Dec 2004, 16:05
which issue was it?

Kai-Arne
13th Dec 2004, 17:26
It was said in a Preview of PC-Games 11/04 .

{Imperial_Legonaire}_Empi
17th Dec 2004, 20:31
Originally posted by BlackCoat
I cant see a problem.

Take tangiers with naval bombardment, followed by a landing of infantry and cannons. Establish bases at a few days march from the city, supported by appropriated agricutural holdings.

Next, send cavalry to do the last purge along the length of the nation of any surviving loyalists to the old regime.

Finally the influx of civilians, such as missionaries and engineers to build the fortifications and supplycentres for continued military holding, razing of mosces and building of churches & the usual conversions and such. Not to forget taxation... perhaps added a extra tax for those that arnt christians ;)

It would be made even easier by recruiting local tuareg-beduins (or some other aggressive and previously oppressed mnority) to do some local policing & taxcollection, along the rules of 1/3 to collectors, 2/3 onward to the ruler.

I say that if anyone tries a counter-attack then you call upon any of your allies to help, while you regroup your men and set up defences, you woukd also need to keep a rout over sea to a near by allied privince, incase you need to escape. Can you ask for permission to march through an allies land like in Rome? Because if you carnt then that is just B*"#~^*!!!!! lol
Empire

Kai-Arne
18th Dec 2004, 11:41
Originally posted by {Imperial_Legonaire}_Empi
Can you ask for permission to march through an allies land like in Rome? Because if you carnt then that is just B*"#~^*!!!!! lol
Empire [/B]


Yes, I've read that this will be possible! :) ;) :)

{Imperial_Legonaire}_Empi
18th Dec 2004, 13:23
Good. There nothing like a good relationship with your allies. lol. Can you ask allies for help and give demands to small countries which would really be better off being allied with a larger Empire for help.
Empire

OprahAteMyBaby
28th Dec 2004, 00:28
alexander is far too over rated. Napoleon faced a variety of opponents, from Prussia, to Austria, Spain, Britain, Egypt, Russia, and Italy. Who did Alexander face? Darius III, a poor tactician, and leader. I think Alexanders battle against a real army, the army of King Porus in India was much bloodier than all of his other battles combined. He won, but just barely.

Napoleon faced a variety of different opponents, some genius, some losers.

Not to mention, Napoleon is the only person in history to have conquered all of europe, from Madrid, to Moscow.

Arctic_Wolf
28th Dec 2004, 02:35
Last time I checked the UK was part of Europe, I don't remember the UK being conquered by Napoleon.

Sorry to nitpick, but if your going to quote history you should be atleast reasonably accurate.

Willmore
28th Dec 2004, 06:49
And he never conquered Russia ! I'm insulted !!!


Anyway, one might put the overrated tag on almost any famous commander in history from Hannibal to Tommy Franks.

The fact is, one can only judge a person by what he actually did, not what he might have done against a better opponent. Alexander beat everyone put before him. Napoleon easily beat up on the smaller nations, but had far too many failures from Egypt to Waterloo. I don't think it's even close ! If you want a great leader during that period, look no further than Arthur Wellesley or Horatio Nelson. Both of whom were eons ahead of Napoleon.

splinter3e
5th Jan 2005, 00:36
lol, arthur wellesley wasnt a great commander at all. He used cheap little geurilla tactics and always avoided open battles. The only reason why he beat napoleon at warerloo was because a 100,000 man prussian army came in and saved his butt. If your looking for a great general look to scipio africanus, he was the first person to ever defeat hannibal and just like alexander he was undefeated.


oh and btw willmore france controlled all of russia up to moscow in 1812 so basically they conquered the most populated areas of the country.

BlackCoat
5th Jan 2005, 01:00
Originally posted by splinter3e

oh and btw willmore france controlled all of russia up to moscow in 1812 so basically they conquered the most populated areas of the country.

Thats what the poles suggested, but nappy didnt listen.

He never tried to control land, only to do a straight march to moscow.. and lost control of the "path" there.
So when holding moscow, he didnt control anything of russia beyond the walls..

splinter3e
5th Jan 2005, 11:27
ahhh ok. looks like i was wrong, thanks for the correction blackcoat.