Poll
Question:
Who is the legitimate ruler of France
Option 1: The Prince Napoleon
votes: 11
Option 2: The Duke of Anjou
votes: 19
Here's an interesting question. Which of the two contenders is the legitimate ruler of France?
I am.
The "House of Bonaparte" is the bastard child of an already illegitimate French Revolution. So it has to be the Duke of Anou.
Sarkozy.
Juan Carlos of Spain.
The House of Windsor by right of conquest, right?
The People.
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2009, 06:49:33 PM
The "House of Bonaparte" is the bastard child of an already illegitimate French Revolution. So it has to be the Duke of Anou.
Correct.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 07:04:22 PM
The People.
:x
Edit: No, I take that back.
The question should read "Who is the legitimate sovereign of France". Clearly the People have an important role in the rule of France. I would never support a return to the "l'estate, c'est moi" philosophy.
(I'm sure I spelled that wrong, but can't think how else to spell it)
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 07:04:22 PM
The People.
The People never wore a crown. They were never a king or an emperor.
For the purposes of this poll (just as in real life), assume that any republic is inherently illegitimate.
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2009, 07:08:47 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 07:04:22 PM
The People.
The People never wore a crown. They were never a king or an emperor.
For the purposes of this poll (just as in real life), assume that any republic is inherently illegitimate.
The Swiss Republic? The Venetian Republic?
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2009, 07:08:47 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 07:04:22 PM
The People.
The People never wore a crown. They were never a king or an emperor.
For the purposes of this poll (just as in real life), assume that any republic is inherently illegitimate.
:yes:
France, this is your king and his queen:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fprofile.ak.facebook.com%2Fobject2%2F574%2F56%2Fl13787640131_7137.jpg&hash=0c03a7ad08f5987b5e3b128ce893679026a616a4)
Quote from: PDH on September 08, 2009, 06:58:54 PM
The House of Windsor by right of conquest, right?
Did the Windsors ever conquer France?
Quite the opposite, they prevented its conquest.
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2009, 07:05:45 PM
(I'm sure I spelled that wrong, but can't think how else to spell it)
Etat, as in coup d'etat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2009, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2009, 07:05:45 PM
(I'm sure I spelled that wrong, but can't think how else to spell it)
Etat, as in coup d'etat.
Yeah, in todays french. When Louis said it, it was probably Estat.
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2009, 07:10:12 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2009, 07:08:47 PM
The People never wore a crown. They were never a king or an emperor.
For the purposes of this poll (just as in real life), assume that any republic is inherently illegitimate.
The Swiss Republic? The Venetian Republic?
Switzerland is rightfully split between France, Austria and Germany.
Venice is rightfully attached to Austria.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 07:19:34 PM
Yeah, in todays french. When Louis said it, it was probably Estat.
You mean the dude who said "l'etat, c'est moi" didn't say it? :huh:
Most spelling changes over time. But 'keske' will never be permissable.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2009, 07:21:05 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2009, 07:19:34 PM
Yeah, in todays french. When Louis said it, it was probably Estat.
You mean the dude who said "l'etat, c'est moi" didn't say it? :huh:
Just spelt differently.
Neil is right. :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2009, 06:49:33 PM
The "House of Bonaparte" is the bastard child of an already illegitimate French Revolution.
So the corrupt and despotic Bourbon Monarchy was good?
Anyway the very idea of Napoleon III was to eventually have a Constitutional monarchy based on Britain, being the Anglophile he was, so naturally only the Bonparte Dynasty has any legitimacy. The other one got overthrown violently three separate times.
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2009, 07:05:45 PM
The question should read "Who is the legitimate sovereign of France". Clearly the People have an important role in the rule of France. I would never support a return to the "l'estate, c'est moi" philosophy.
The nation's sovereign and the people are the only thing that make the nation. So, basically, l'etat, c'est nous.
QuoteFor the purposes of this poll (just as in real life), assume that any republic is inherently illegitimate.
So pretend white is black for the purposes of this poll?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 07:38:36 PM
So pretend white is black for the purposes of this poll?
I think it is more of, "if you had to pick from the two options in this poll, which would you pick," Mary, Quite Contrary.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 07:38:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2009, 07:05:45 PM
The question should read "Who is the legitimate sovereign of France". Clearly the People have an important role in the rule of France. I would never support a return to the "l'estate, c'est moi" philosophy.
The nation's sovereign and the people are the only thing that make the nation. So, basically, l'etat, c'est nous.
Exactly. The sovereign AND the people. :yes:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 07:38:36 PM
So pretend white is black for the purposes of this poll?
No. Just remember that republics are illegitimate.
Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2009, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 07:38:36 PM
So pretend white is black for the purposes of this poll?
I think it is more of, "if you had to pick from the two options in this poll, which would you pick," Mary, Quite Contrary.
I think sheilbh is saying they're both equally invalid. And I agree.
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2009, 06:42:25 PM
Here's an interesting question. Which of the two contenders is the legitimate ruler of France?
You forgot to mention Henri d'Orléans, Comte de Paris, head of the House d'Orléans and direct descendant of Philippe d'Orléans, the second son of Louis XIII and brother to Louis XIV.
G.
THe Bourbon's fucked up. Napoleon III was a fine emperor.
The Bourbons were ousted by the will of the French people, repeatedly. The Napoleons were only ever removed by foreign intervention, and only ever to weaken France. Therefore, the Prince Napoleon can be the only rightful ruler of France.
Quote from: Grallon on September 08, 2009, 10:28:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2009, 06:42:25 PM
Here's an interesting question. Which of the two contenders is the legitimate ruler of France?
You forgot to mention Henri d'Orléans, Comte de Paris, head of the House d'Orléans and direct descendant of Philippe d'Orléans, the second son of Louis XIII and brother to Louis XIV.
The Orleanistes aren't actually legitimate.
If you're able to take control of the country by force, I'd say that's as legitimate as any inherited monarch (who only differ in that one of their long-dead ancestors is the one who used force).
Unless you're some backward Euro-romantic.
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2009, 07:10:12 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2009, 07:08:47 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2009, 07:04:22 PM
The People.
The People never wore a crown. They were never a king or an emperor.
For the purposes of this poll (just as in real life), assume that any republic is inherently illegitimate.
The Swiss Republic? The Venetian Republic?
The Swiss were a bunch of uppity peasants. The Venetians were treasonous scum that turned on their most glorious liege, the Byzanteen Empire
Quote from: Sahib on September 08, 2009, 11:42:04 PM
The Venetians were treasonous scum that turned on their most glorious liege, the Byzanteen Empire
Byzanteens are a modern phenomenon; the Venetians were never under their rule.
Who did the Bourbons take it from?
errr no.
Valois.
You're off by about a millenium.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2009, 01:39:07 AM
errr no.
Valois.
You're off by about a millenium.
I thought they were all the same family.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 09, 2009, 01:39:07 AM
errr no.
Valois.
You're off by about a millenium.
It depends what he means by "take it from". I assumed he meant some sort of a coup, and not legitimate succession. Both Bourbons and Valois were two cadet branches of the House of Capet, and Capetians themselves were descendants of Carolingians.
I think it's just more accurate to say the Bourbons took the throne from the Valois than from the Merovingians...
People usually don't use Bourbons when referring to the whole family line.
But that doesn't make sense in that context to refer to a natural succession via a cadet branch as "taking the throne from".
Zombie Childeric III. Everybody else is a usurper.
Anjou.
'Proper' monarchy just has so much more style.
And the Bonapartists are just...bleh.
Davout.
Quote from: Neil on September 08, 2009, 10:48:17 PM
The Orleanistes aren't actually legitimate.
More legitimate than the Bonaparte since they descend form the last ruling dynasty. Besides it's not for you to decide who is legitimate or not.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on September 09, 2009, 07:10:33 AM
More legitimate than the Bonaparte since they descend form the last ruling dynasty.
Napoleon III was a Bonaparte.
QuoteBesides it's not for you to decide who is legitimate or not.
Don't be ridiculous. It is my place to judge all things. That's what I do.
The French having invented the metric system, the legitimate ruler is a meterstick.
Quote from: Martinus on September 09, 2009, 01:36:16 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 09, 2009, 01:34:39 AM
Who did the Bourbons take it from?
Merovingians.
There has to be a France in order for there to be a ruler of it.
So who is the legitimate ruler of the Franks?
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 10:19:11 AM
So who is the legitimate ruler of the Franks?
*Hastily invents ancestry*
ME...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 08, 2009, 11:45:20 PM
Quote from: Sahib on September 08, 2009, 11:42:04 PM
The Venetians were treasonous scum that turned on their most glorious liege, the Byzanteen Empire
Byzanteens are a modern phenomenon; the Venetians were never under their rule.
Not true. Being a part of Byzantium is what helped lead to the development of Venice's rather unique form of government.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2009, 10:32:06 AM
Not true. Being a part of Byzantium is what helped lead to the development of Venice's rather unique form of government.
True but that has nothing to do with Byzanteens.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalhousewyf.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F01%2Fmarch-for-life-2009-028-373x475.jpg&hash=70c6eb8752cb7b104c09ef26723d18213c074219)
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 10:19:11 AM
So who is the legitimate ruler of the Franks?
King of..Denmark?
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 10:19:11 AM
So who is the legitimate ruler of the Franks?
The main Merovingian line having been extinguished, it reverts back to the cadet line descending from Merovech's father.
Which means the current legitimate ruler of the Franks is some kind of aquatic beast.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2009, 11:07:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 10:19:11 AM
So who is the legitimate ruler of the Franks?
The main Merovingian line having been extinguished, it reverts back to the cadet line descending from Merovech's father.
Which means the current legitimate ruler of the Franks is some kind of aquatic beast.
:cthulu:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on September 08, 2009, 10:44:13 PM
THe Bourbon's fucked up. Napoleon III was a fine emperor.
Yeah, he never fucked up anything :D :pickelhaube:
Anyways his only son managed to get himself chopped up while literally going on a picnic in Zulu-infested lands. I don't know if that's a sign of bravery or stupidity, but his bloodline sure went out with a bang.
Quote from: Sahib on September 08, 2009, 11:42:04 PM
The Swiss were a bunch of uppity peasants.
:mad: The Swiss destroyed Burgundy. Quite an achievement for a bunch of uppity peasants.
Quote from: Gambrinus on September 09, 2009, 11:37:26 AM
Anyways his only son managed to get himself chopped up while literally going on a picnic in Zulu-infested lands. I don't know if that's a sign of bravery or stupidity, but his bloodline sure went out with a bang.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Gambrinus on September 09, 2009, 11:37:26 AM
Yeah, he never fucked up anything :D :pickelhaube:
His only fault in that matter was transitioning his Empire into a parliamentary one and putting it in charge of foreign policy.
Besides Prussia was going to fight France no matter what it did, just like they were going to fight Austria.
QuoteAnyways his only son managed to get himself chopped up while literally going on a picnic in Zulu-infested lands. I don't know if that's a sign of bravery or stupidity, but his bloodline sure went out with a bang.
Fortunately Napoleon had many brothers!
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2009, 11:58:57 AM
Quote from: Sahib on September 08, 2009, 11:42:04 PM
The Swiss were a bunch of uppity peasants.
:mad: The terrible Swiss weather destroyed some foolhardy Valois Duke. Quite a modest achievement for an alpine climate zone.
Fixed.
No, I think a Swiss halberd is what destroyed him (IIRC his skull was literally cleaved in two). ^_^
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2009, 12:41:01 PM
No, I think a Swiss halberd is what destroyed him (IIRC his skull was literally cleaved in two). ^_^
Haven't read the thread but God I hope you're talking about katmai.
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2009, 12:41:01 PM
No, I think a Swiss halberd is what destroyed him (IIRC his skull was literally cleaved in two). ^_^
The proper contemporary term is "brained". :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2009, 12:41:01 PM
No, I think a Swiss halberd is what destroyed him (IIRC his skull was literally cleaved in two). ^_^
The more the merrier :swiss:
The Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum will have an exhibition about Charles the Bold starting this month. I look forward to it. :)
http://www.karlderkuehne.at/en/home
QuoteCharles the Bold - Splendour and Fall of the Last Duke of Burgundy
Charles the Bold was a prince of extremes between grandeur and violence in the 15th century. His life was marked by his lust for power, a love of extravagancy and display, and cruel wars. The last of the chivalrous knights, this Burgundian prince paved the way for the House of Habsburg to become a major world power. The show at the KHM brings both the glory and the darker sides of this world to life - in a uniquely comprehensive exhibition - shown for the first time ever in Vienna.
Quote from: Syt on September 09, 2009, 01:33:57 PM
The Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum will have an exhibition about Charles the Bold starting this month. I look forward to it. :)
http://www.karlderkuehne.at/en/home
QuoteCharles the Bold - Splendour and Fall of the Last Duke of Burgundy
Charles the Bold was a prince of extremes between grandeur and violence in the 15th century. His life was marked by his lust for power, a love of extravagancy and display, and cruel wars. The last of the chivalrous knights, this Burgundian prince paved the way for the House of Habsburg to become a major world power. The show at the KHM brings both the glory and the darker sides of this world to life - in a uniquely comprehensive exhibition - shown for the first time ever in Vienna.
Doesn't sound very chivalrous to me.
Quote from: Gambrinus on September 09, 2009, 01:19:59 PM
The more the merrier :swiss:
I hope the guy who cut his head in two screamed "FOR GRANDSON!" when he swung. :cool:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 09, 2009, 01:55:05 PM
Doesn't sound very chivalrous to me.
Maybe he was gallant to the ladies.
Quote from: Syt on September 09, 2009, 01:33:57 PM
The Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum will have an exhibition about Charles the Bold starting this month. I look forward to it. :)
Awesome. A neat alt history topic would be: How would history have been different if Charles hadn't gone insane in his last year or so of rule?
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2009, 02:13:18 PM
Awesome. A neat alt history topic would be: How would history have been different if Charles hadn't gone insane in his last year or so of rule?
I notice that the common lament for most great rulers is that they should have died just a bit sooner. They should have all been like Charles V and just retired when they started to lose it.
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2009, 12:41:01 PM
No, I think a Swiss halberd is what destroyed him (IIRC his skull was literally cleaved in two). ^_^
Only after the weather cut down the large army previously buffering the Duke's head from the aforementioned polearm.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2009, 02:14:17 PM
Only after the weather cut down the large army previously buffering the Duke's head from the aforementioned polearm.
Ok, Mister Killjoy. Next you're going to insist that General Winter defeated Hitler. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2009, 02:17:09 PM
Ok, Mister Killjoy. Next you're going to insist that General Winter defeated Hitler. :rolleyes:
Hitler taking it for granted he would somehow defeat the Soviet Union in just a few months so he did not send his army any winter gear was more the problem.
I am still baffled by that. How could anybody have thought that campaign would have gone better than it actually did for the Germans is beyond me.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 02:19:25 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2009, 02:17:09 PM
Ok, Mister Killjoy. Next you're going to insist that General Winter defeated Hitler. :rolleyes:
Hitler taking it for granted he would somehow defeat the Soviet Union in just a few months so he did not send his army any winter gear was more the problem.
I am still baffled by that. How could anybody have thought that campaign would have gone better than it actually did for the Germans is beyond me.
Not me: the assumption was that the Soviets would collapse like a house of cards once they had been dealt a staggering blow, and that the staggering blow would be easy to deliver because the Soviet army was worthless, its general staff filled with incompetent bootlickers and toadies, and badly positioned along an indefensible front.
It wasn't an unreasonable assumption, given the lamentable performance of the Soviets vs. tiny Finland, and the general incompetence, rigid centralization and cruelty of the Soviet system.
What Hitler failed to realize was the incredible hatred and will to resist his own acts inspired.
Quote from: Malthus on September 09, 2009, 02:26:44 PM
It wasn't an unreasonable assumption, given the lamentable performance of the Soviets vs. tiny Finland
Yeah. Any projections of the Red Army based on the Winter War would assume it would be like Poland all over again.
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 02:31:52 PM
Yeah. Any projections of the Red Army based on the Winter War would assume it would be like Poland all over again.
Except that the Soviet Union is huge and had a far bigger population than Germany? Heck just walking his army to Moscow was going to take several months even without that pesky Red Army in the way.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 02:34:16 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 02:31:52 PM
Yeah. Any projections of the Red Army based on the Winter War would assume it would be like Poland all over again.
Except that the Soviet Union is huge and had a far bigger population than Germany? Heck just walking his army to Moscow was going to take several months even without that pesky Red Army in the way.
Less than 700 miles from Brest-Litovsk to Moscow, isn't it? That's like 1 month at 20 miles a day, which is a doable march.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 02:19:25 PM
I am still baffled by that. How could anybody have thought that campaign would have gone better than it actually did for the Germans is beyond me.
Wargame designer Ted Raicer is of the opinion that the Germans actually underperformed in Barbarossa. :smarty:
Wargame designer Ted Raicer also thinks that armies instantly vaporize when their supply lines are cut, so I wouldn't put much weight on his opinions.
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2009, 02:59:18 PM
Wargame designer Ted Raicer also thinks that armies instantly vaporize when their supply lines are cut, so I wouldn't put much weight on his opinions.
They only vaporize at the end of the turn. -_-
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2009, 02:59:18 PM
Wargame designer Ted Raicer also thinks that armies instantly vaporize when their supply lines are cut, so I wouldn't put much weight on his opinions.
While real armies get vaporized when they are out of supply, have spent their reserves and ammunition and get attacked by a Soviet Guards Banner Army.
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 02:40:37 PM
Less than 700 miles from Brest-Litovsk to Moscow, isn't it? That's like 1 month at 20 miles a day, which is a doable march.
And then you are in an abandoned Moscow in the middle of winter.
We all know how well that worked for Napoleon.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2009, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 02:40:37 PM
Less than 700 miles from Brest-Litovsk to Moscow, isn't it? That's like 1 month at 20 miles a day, which is a doable march.
And then you are in an abandoned Moscow in the middle of winter.
We all know how well that worked for Napoleon.
Thanks to James Watt and Nikolaus Otto, Hitler's ability to supply his troops in the field was much more robust, compared to Napoleon's.
The Pear shaped Duke Of Scipio?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 09, 2009, 09:42:48 PM
The Pear shaped Duke Of Scipio?
No, the Duke of Katmai!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa292.ac-images.myspacecdn.com%2Fimages01%2F113%2Fl_cf051e9f1c8af2100169ad76214d2e1b.jpg&hash=45e1029b9fe64896681cb575c116640ca975bb44)
Quote from: Neil on September 09, 2009, 06:55:50 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2009, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 02:40:37 PM
Less than 700 miles from Brest-Litovsk to Moscow, isn't it? That's like 1 month at 20 miles a day, which is a doable march.
And then you are in an abandoned Moscow in the middle of winter.
We all know how well that worked for Napoleon.
Thanks to James Watt and Nikolaus Otto, Hitler's ability to supply his troops in the field was much more robust, compared to Napoleon's.
Quite the opposite - thanks to those men it was less robust because in addition to all the supply needs that Napoleon required, and the additional supply needs of heavy artillery, he also had to supply vast quantities of gasoline and aviation fuel to front line units to maintain effectiveness.
@Timmay
ooh burn :P You'd better wear a cup next time you see Kat.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2009, 09:46:47 PM
Quite the opposite - thanks to those men it was less robust because in addition to all the supply needs that Napoleon required, and the additional supply needs of heavy artillery, he also had to supply vast quantities of gasoline and aviation fuel to front line units to maintain effectiveness.
Be that as it may, they allowed supplies to be marshalled and transported much more efficiently. While demand increased, transport capacity increased even more.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2009, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 02:40:37 PM
Less than 700 miles from Brest-Litovsk to Moscow, isn't it? That's like 1 month at 20 miles a day, which is a doable march.
And then you are in an abandoned Moscow in the middle of winter.
We all know how well that worked for Napoleon.
It would have been a lot more difficult for the Soviet government to just abandon Moscow in 1941 than it was for Imperial Russia in 1812. For one thing, Moscow was the main hub of their railroad system.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 09, 2009, 09:47:19 PM
@Timmay
ooh burn :P You'd better wear a cup next time you see Kat.
He needed the cup long before posting that. :contract:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2009, 05:49:02 PM
And then you are in an abandoned Moscow in the middle of winter.
We all know how well that worked for Napoleon.
Well that is also a good point. His army was going to be in Russia that winter win or lose. Amazing he never planned for winter clothes or anti-freeze or any other sorts of gear.
Quote from: Neil on September 09, 2009, 09:51:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2009, 09:46:47 PM
Quite the opposite - thanks to those men it was less robust because in addition to all the supply needs that Napoleon required, and the additional supply needs of heavy artillery, he also had to supply vast quantities of gasoline and aviation fuel to front line units to maintain effectiveness.
Be that as it may, they allowed supplies to be marshalled and transported much more efficiently. While demand increased, transport capacity increased even more.
The question you raised though is robustness, and whatever increase in theoretical transport capacity may have existed only added to overall complexity and requirements, this rendering the system more vulnerable to friction.
Napoleon's logistical plans were arguably reasonably robust, they just weren't designed for a march on Moscow that didn't form part of the plan of campaign.
Quote from: dps on September 09, 2009, 11:21:28 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2009, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 02:40:37 PM
Less than 700 miles from Brest-Litovsk to Moscow, isn't it? That's like 1 month at 20 miles a day, which is a doable march.
And then you are in an abandoned Moscow in the middle of winter.
We all know how well that worked for Napoleon.
It would have been a lot more difficult for the Soviet government to just abandon Moscow in 1941 than it was for Imperial Russia in 1812.
True but not really responsive to the point.
I think the issue is somewhat irrelevant, because Hitler was planning on administering the chaotic remains of the Soviet Empire, not fighting an increasingly-vicious war, by the time he reached Moscow. That's a task on a whole different level. Presumably there would still be supply problems, but these would mostly be born by the starving Soviet citizenry - something to which Hitler was, of course, totally indifferent.
Hitler's big failure was the failure of the Soviet system to collapse as expected, even under the terrible wounds he inflicted. With that failure, his defeat was inevitable pretty well no matter what he did.
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2009, 09:12:27 AM
Hitler's big failure was the failure of the Soviet system to collapse as expected, even under the terrible wounds he inflicted. With that failure, his defeat was inevitable pretty well no matter what he did.
If he had taken Moscow in 1941 there is no doubt in my mind the Soviets would have been finished. If his troops had been properly equipt they would have.
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 02:40:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 02:34:16 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 02:31:52 PM
Yeah. Any projections of the Red Army based on the Winter War would assume it would be like Poland all over again.
Except that the Soviet Union is huge and had a far bigger population than Germany? Heck just walking his army to Moscow was going to take several months even without that pesky Red Army in the way.
Less than 700 miles from Brest-Litovsk to Moscow, isn't it? That's like 1 month at 20 miles a day, which is a doable march.
20 miles a day is the upper limit. And it's not sustainable for a very long time. Also requires good roads. The germans had this problem in 1914.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 09:28:30 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2009, 09:12:27 AM
Hitler's big failure was the failure of the Soviet system to collapse as expected, even under the terrible wounds he inflicted. With that failure, his defeat was inevitable pretty well no matter what he did.
If he had taken Moscow in 1941 there is no doubt in my mind the Soviets would have been finished. If his troops had been properly equipt they would have.
That's just pushing the "Soviet collapse" theory forward a notch.
No doubt Hilter told his generals "if we destroy the Soviet main field armies, they are finished".
What both ignore is that the Soviet people had, quite literally, no options. They *knew* what defeat meant.
Hitler's big (and given his ideology, inevitable) mistake was in failing to leave his enemy a "golden bridge" to surrender. He'd done that before - in Munich and even with the fall of France, allowing the Vichy regime to have a tenuous existence.
There was simply no alternative for the Russian people but to fight to the death, and such a fight Hitler did not have the resources to win.
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2009, 09:35:18 AM
No doubt Hilter told his generals "if we destroy the Soviet main field armies, they are finished".
Well logistically Moscow was the heart of the extremely centralized Soviet System. It would have been extremely hard to even coordinate resistance without it.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 09:37:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2009, 09:35:18 AM
No doubt Hilter told his generals "if we destroy the Soviet main field armies, they are finished".
Well logistically Moscow was the heart of the extremely centralized Soviet System. It would have been extremely hard to even coordinate resistance without it.
The problem Hilter would have faced is: what if they aren't "finished"?
He simply did not have the resources to keep sending his armies off into the Asian void indefinitely, particularly with the anglo-americans ready to stab him in the back. He
needed them to recognize they were beat and surrender. Yet everything he did made that outcome very unlikely.
Well, I'm convinced - Hitler is the legitimate ruler of France.
Quote from: Kleves on September 10, 2009, 09:56:05 AM
Well, I'm convinced - Hitler is the legitimate ruler of France.
He's dead. Zombie Hitler?
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2009, 09:58:16 AM
Quote from: Kleves on September 10, 2009, 09:56:05 AM
Well, I'm convinced - Hitler is the legitimate ruler of France.
He's dead. Zombie Hitler?
Has to wrestle, Mexican lucha libre style, with Zombie Napoleon for the title.
Edit: tag-team with zombie Louis 14?
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2009, 09:12:27 AM
I think the issue is somewhat irrelevant, because Hitler was planning on administering the chaotic remains of the Soviet Empire, not fighting an increasingly-vicious war, by the time he reached Moscow. That's a task on a whole different level. Presumably there would still be supply problems, but these would mostly be born by the starving Soviet citizenry - something to which Hitler was, of course, totally indifferent.
the issue was irrelevant for Napoleon too because he expected the Russians to offer terms long before his army got near Moscow.
In both cases, the lack of a Plan B proved problematic to say the least.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 12:42:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2009, 09:12:27 AM
I think the issue is somewhat irrelevant, because Hitler was planning on administering the chaotic remains of the Soviet Empire, not fighting an increasingly-vicious war, by the time he reached Moscow. That's a task on a whole different level. Presumably there would still be supply problems, but these would mostly be born by the starving Soviet citizenry - something to which Hitler was, of course, totally indifferent.
the issue was irrelevant for Napoleon too because he expected the Russians to offer terms long before his army got near Moscow.
In both cases, the lack of a Plan B proved problematic to say the least.
Yup. And my point is that it follows that Hitler's biggest mistake (assuming a Plan B wasn't in the works) was to act in such a manner as to ensure that Plan A would fail.
Whether or not Stalin fell, there was simply no incentive on the part of the Russians to offer terms, because it was obvious what Nazi domination would be like.
Thing is, mounting a credible case for capitulation would have required the Nazis to be other than what they were.
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 02:40:37 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2009, 02:34:16 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 09, 2009, 02:31:52 PM
Yeah. Any projections of the Red Army based on the Winter War would assume it would be like Poland all over again.
Except that the Soviet Union is huge and had a far bigger population than Germany? Heck just walking his army to Moscow was going to take several months even without that pesky Red Army in the way.
Less than 700 miles from Brest-Litovsk to Moscow, isn't it? That's like 1 month at 20 miles a day, which is a doable march.
During the Fall of France, the German panzer spearheads apparently advanced an average of 7 miles a day... same pace as La Grande Armee during the Ulm encirclement.
20 miles a day, of 100,000's of men, in hostile country, would be a supreme logistical and operational achievement. thing is the Germans almost did it.
The head of the Bonaparte house was/is a politician who professed his republican beliefs. His father therefore put in his will that the informal title should go to his great-son.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 10, 2009, 09:36:27 PM
The head of the Bonaparte house was/is a politician who professed his republican beliefs.
As did at various times, both imperial Napoleons.
The hallmark of all successful Bonapartes has been a profession of republican belief.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 09:54:15 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 10, 2009, 09:36:27 PM
The head of the Bonaparte house was/is a politician who professed his republican beliefs.
As did at various times, both imperial Napoleons.
The hallmark of all successful Bonapartes has been a profession of republican belief.
Indeed, but somehow, I don't see Bayrou's party as a great stepping stone to a successful coup.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 10, 2009, 09:54:15 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 10, 2009, 09:36:27 PM
The head of the Bonaparte house was/is a politician who professed his republican beliefs.
As did at various times, both imperial Napoleons.
The hallmark of all successful Bonapartes has been a profession of republican belief.
Rather, one might say that the hallmark of all successful Bonapartes is an ambition that will have them say or do anything to advance themselves.
Duc d'Anjou. :frog:
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2009, 09:12:27 AM
I think the issue is somewhat irrelevant, because Hitler was planning on administering the chaotic remains of the Soviet Empire, not fighting an increasingly-vicious war, by the time he reached Moscow. That's a task on a whole different level. Presumably there would still be supply problems, but these would mostly be born by the starving Soviet citizenry - something to which Hitler was, of course, totally indifferent.
Yeah, the notion that the Germans didn't have any winter gear (or at least very little of it) is a myth. They had plenty of cold weather gear. The problem was that it was almost all in stockpiles in Germany, not with the armies in Russia. Because the plan was, by the time cold weather set in, the Soviets would have already collapsed, and the armies would just be serving on occupation duty, with some mopping up of diehard holdouts, so their requirements for motor fuel and combat supplies would be drastically reduced, freeing up plenty of capacity to send them heavy coats and heating supplies.
I imagine if Hitler had focused on capturing Moscow we would cite his obsession with capturing that city rather then trying to destroy Soviet armies in the field as the main cause of his defeat.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 10, 2009, 09:59:44 PM
Indeed, but somehow, I don't see Bayrou's party as a great stepping stone to a successful coup.
Is that where he is now? That is not very promising.
That grouping always struck me as soft Gaullism without the Bonapartist trappings, so odd choice for a Napoleon.