The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 224

Poles in the Napoleonic era


Filios1 8 | 1,336
2 Apr 2009 #31
Bratwurst Boy

Napoleon made Prussia his little bitch ;)
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Apr 2009 #32
Little bitch send him packing...abit later that is! ;)

Absolutely interesting...the trashing Prussia got from Napoleon brought the long overdue changes to prussian society and army! Big reforms were started here which made in turn later Prussia to such a european power....Thank you Nappi! :)
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Apr 2009 #33
Yeah...we know...Poles decided to side with this "great humanist" and got trashed by Europe...no need to apologize! :)

By Russia, lets be honest German states alone could do nothing, Prussia proved to be a pathetic failiure in virtually every engagement, Waterloo included, Austria was an even greater joke under Wagram, if it wasnt for Russia you'd be speaking Polish or French today.

Little bitch send him packing...abit later that is! ;)

Never, Prussia remained Napoleons "bitch" all throught, the only time when it actually mattered was under Waterloo but the only thing it achieved was faster end to the campagin, Prussian army of Napoleonic times was big, impressive and thats about it, in every field it sucked being anachronic unwieldy and outdated.
Filios1 8 | 1,336
2 Apr 2009 #34
wasnt for Russia you'd be speaking Polish or French today.

Lets not go too far to say that...
Eventually Napoleon would have been defeated, or forced to retreat. The Peninsular Campaign cost Napoleon more than the Russia.
southern 75 | 7,096
2 Apr 2009 #35
if it wasnt for Russia

Very few armies could escape from Russia after invading it.
Filios1 8 | 1,336
2 Apr 2009 #36
Very few armie

Yes, unfortunately Poles experienced that in 1612. Most returned as skeletons.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Apr 2009 #37
We really have two different histories Sokrates!

if it wasnt for Russia you'd be speaking Polish or French today.

Never polish! To few vowels for german tongues!

My what a trashing!
(By the prussian genius Blücher between others)
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Apr 2009 #38
Lets not go too far to say that...
Eventually Napoleon would have been defeated, or forced to retreat. The Peninsular Campaign cost Napoleon more than the Russia.

By whom? If he'd defeat Russia he'd just invade Spain with a quarter of a milion troops, make Wellington his bitch and end it all.

Very few armies could escape from Russia after invading it.

Mongoles, Poles, Teutons, British, there's quite a few, Napoleon made a few mistakes that cost him the war but the crucial bit is that Napoleon got defeated by Napoleon.

We really have two different histories Sokrates!

Not really, if you said Russia, Prussia, Austria, an asston of German statelets and UK defeated Napoleon it would be more correct, Prussia alone could only waggle its finger all through the war, you were the smallest of all players.

My what a trashing!

And practically none of it done by you :)
Filios1 8 | 1,336
2 Apr 2009 #39
If he'd defeat Russia he'd just invade Spain with a quarter of a milion troops, make Wellington his bitch and end it all.

And Sokrates my friend. You think that Napoleon would be able to hold onto all this newly conquered territory? You think he would not face the same guerrilla problems as in Spain? Can you imagine all the millions of guerrilla's he would be facing internally, if he managed to defeat Russias regular army? Napoleon would have had to been content with western Russia, nothing else. Simply couldn't swallow all that territory.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Apr 2009 #40
Interesting...a big, important victory as Russians and Germans fighted together for freedom, didn't happen to often in our both histories....I like that!

And practically none of it done by you :)

Yeah...to bad....I was born to late! *wails*
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Apr 2009 #41
And Sokrates my friend. You think that Napoleon would be able to hold onto all this newly conquered territory?

No he would have to give it all to Poland, given Polish performance in 1809 and afterwards Poles were more than capable of holding on to it.

You think he would not face the same guerrilla problems as in Spain?

No he would not, Poland would and Poles had the most mobile army in the world next to Russia, any guerillas would get stomped down especially since it was all familiar terrain.

Can you imagine all the millions of guerrilla's he would be facing internally, if he managed to defeat Russias regular army?

Napoleon never intended to conquer entire Russia and if he destroyed the regular army he'd be able to make Tzar paint himself pink.

Simply couldn't swallow all that territory.

He didnt want to, he wanted to destroy the Russian army.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Apr 2009 #42
He didnt want to, he wanted to destroy the Russian army.

That's the same error all wannabe-russia-conquerors made...as you can't hold to that vast
territory you will never destroy all fighters (or you decide to kill all male newborn which you won't be able to do also).
Russia just isn't conquerable (?) with foot armies.

No he would have to give it all to Poland, given Polish performance in 1809 and afterwards Poles were more than capable of holding on to it.

So you would like to see Poland as occupier of Russia?
Filios1 8 | 1,336
2 Apr 2009 #43
No he would not, Poland would and Poles had the most mobile army in the world next to Russia, any guerillas would get stomped down especially since it was all familiar terrain.

lol... I'm sorry to say this Sokrates, but you're leaving in a dream world man. Almost a hundred million people, and you think that Poland would be able to administer all the territory? Right... please stop, and rethink what you just said. You give Poles a bad name.

fighted

*Fought ;)
Crow 146 | 9,117
2 Apr 2009 #44
Very few armies could escape from Russia after invading it.

as Alexandar Nevsky- Grand prince of Novgorod, said: ``Whoever will come to us with a sword, from a sword will perish``

New Russia: Restoring the Millennial Empire

i love Russia, Poland and Ukraine more then NATO and i am proud with that
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Apr 2009 #45
It doesnt matter, see how Napoleon messed up under Lepzing, it wasnt because the allies were so good, it was because he didnt have experienced troops, veteran armies were worth their weight in gold, thats why Prussia after all of its massacres became so weak, thats why he lost.

After Borodino Murat begged him to allow him to pursue Russians, if he did Russia would lose then and there, raising another army in a country like Russia with the enemy holding most major cities would take another year or two.

lol... I'm sorry to say this Sokrates, but you're leaving in a dream world man. Almost a hundred million people, and you think that Poland would be able to administer all the territory? Right... please stop, and rethink what you just said. You give Poles a bad name.

Is my english not good enough? Napoleon never wanted to conquer all of Russia, i'd say that he could secure his position by restoring Poland to its former borders since Prussia was down to militias, Austria was limited in numbers and Russia was not able to raise armies fast enough.

Poland already had 120.000+ fighting men in both the Grand Army and its own Army, in the old borders it could easily raise twice that number and given how experienced much of the male population was from the constitution war, Kościuszkos uprising and Napoleonic wars Poland would instantly have an elite army of upwards of 150.0000 when everyone else lost theirs.
southern 75 | 7,096
2 Apr 2009 #46
Russia just isn't conquerable (?) with foot armies.

Hitler thought he could conquer Russia because he had railways that Napoleon lacked.Napoleon forces did not have one railway line available for supply.
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Apr 2009 #47
Well...he thought wrong.
Railways are enormously vulnerable and easy to destroy if you don't have the men to guard every meter of those vast lines you need.

i love Russia, Poland and Ukraine more then NATO and i am proud with that

Sunday question for you Crowie:

Poland and Russia are going to war...which team are you cheering for?

*waits with popcorn* :)
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Apr 2009 #48
Poland and Russian are going to war...which team are you cheering for?

I have a feeling his head would explode:D
Crow 146 | 9,117
2 Apr 2009 #49
Poland and Russian are going to war...which team are you cheering for?

*waits with popcorn* :)

answer is simple... it depend

my brothers >>>

Polish Pride



Russian pride
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Apr 2009 #50
answer is simple... it depend

Oh cumoooon Crowie....no wriggling out here...we are waiting! :)
Crow 146 | 9,117
2 Apr 2009 #51
If Russia side with Germany or with any foreign army to invade Poland i would defend Poland.

If Poland side with any foreign army to invade Russia i would defend Russia.

That way i always defend Slavija. Its only important. No collaboration with foreigners against other Slavs, its Serbian historic principle.
dtaylor 9 | 823
2 Apr 2009 #52
Ah, old Napoleon, what a guy, ran amok in Europe till Great Britain decided to take the cane out of the closet and give him a damn good thrashing my dear boy :D
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Apr 2009 #53
Why do you see the need to bring Germany into play Crowie?
Don't you think slavic countries can do things alone for themselves??? :)

Just Russia/Poland!

*still waiting*

:)
southern 75 | 7,096
2 Apr 2009 #54
till Great Britain decided to take the cane out of the closet and give him a damn good thrashing my dear boy :D

Really?Did Great Britain send any soldiers to Europe when Napoleon was the conqueror and not yet defeated?
Crow 146 | 9,117
2 Apr 2009 #55
Why do you see the need to bring Germany into play Crowie?
Don't you think slavic countries can do things alone for themselves??? :)

Just Russia/Poland!

*still waiting*

:)

in general, in such a conflict `Just Russia/Poland!` i simple wouldn`t choose sides in military sense. I would be tragicaly sad and wouldn`t choose any side

but also, it would be important to me to know who started conflict because i would seek to at least morraly support defenders and to criticize attackers
osiol 55 | 3,922
2 Apr 2009 #56
Does it say "This Napoleon is not available?" like it does on a lot of these videos?
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
2 Apr 2009 #57
Ah, old Napoleon, what a guy, ran amok in Europe till Great Britain decided to take the cane out of the closet and give him a damn good thrashing my dear boy :D

By reading you and BB its clear how great the guy was, when everyone wants to take credit for putting you down its just shows how good you were:)
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
2 Apr 2009 #58
Well...reminds me about Poles claiming to have won the war against Hitler for the allies (Battle of Britain, Enigma, Monte Cassino etc.)

;)

Not to mention the countless discussions about: who did more...who could have won it alone...who came to late anyhow...who was most brave....according to your theory Hitler was the greatest guy ever!
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
3 Apr 2009 #59
Not to mention the discussions about: who did more...who could have won it alone...who came to late anyhow...who was most brave....according to your theory Hitler was the greatest guy ever!

I'll diplomatically refrain from answering or Harry will never let it go, ever:)

Well...reminds me about Poles claiming to have won the war against Hitler for the allies (Battle of Britain, Enigma, Monte Cassino etc.)

Never seen any of that here, though BoB, Enigma and Cassino are true achievements, nothing wrong in being proud of things worth of being proud of is there?
Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
3 Apr 2009 #60
I'll diplomatically refrain from answering or Harry will never let it go, ever:)

:)

nothing wrong in being proud of things worth of being proud of is there?

That doesn't make neither Napoleon nor Hitler to "great guys"....


Home / History / Poles in the Napoleonic era
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.