Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I bumped into this ideaseveral weeks before. The idea is that we can read any kind of praise for monarchs and actually any leaders from sources contemrorary to them. They all are or may be clever, kind, wise etc. etc. Specially the famous people like Napoleon, Alexander, Hannibal, Stalin, Hitler etc. The problem is that most of these references may be just a propaganda. They may not be of course, but how can we know. So the idea was to use a very simple "measure of greatness" which is objective, is not subject to manipulation and can be easily calculated. It's how long the Empire this Great man created has survived after his death. And here we have:
Washington 1799 up to now =208 year.
Bolivar 1830 up to now =177 years
Genghis khan 1227 to 1368 =141 years
Stalin 1953 to 1990 =47 years
Alexander the Great one day
Hitler -1 day
Napoleon -6 years (-7 if you count from his first abdication)
As you may see Napoleon is not on the top of this list.

One may ask why I didn't include rulers like Alexander I or Friderick the Great. Because they didn't create the Empire, they inhereted it and passed it to their hears.

I would love to hear the reaction before the second part of the statement is included, so to be continued...

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Mayor Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

Nice. You're leaving out the really big shots there though. Caesar and Octavian (have your pick), from 500 to 1500 years. Charlemagne, depending on how you count, from several hundred to up to a thousand years. Babur, about 330 years. [:)]

<center>
D.S. "Green Horse" Walter, Maréchal d'Empire
Duc des Pyramides, Comte de Normandie
Commandant la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3e Division Bavaroise[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/EdM_start.htm"]L'Ecole de Mars[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant les Grenadiers à Pied de la Vieille Garde, "les Grognards"
</center>

How long an empire survives after someone's death isn't necessarily a particularly valid measure of greatness, due to a variety of largely uncontrollable factors: - the capability of their successors, changing circumstances after their death, etc. The political, diplomatic, military, etc situation could change beyond recognition within a few decades of their decease and, quite possibly, in ways that couldn't be anticipated.

So a leader can only really be judged by his own achievements and his immediate legacy, although various other factors would need to be taken into consideration.

In some ways, a leader's greatness might be the ability to rise from total obscurity to supreme power. Kings and aristocrats have a big head-start over ordinary folk who must rise to prominence through their own endeavours and force of personality. Would Alexander or Caesar have climbed very high if they'd started out in Hitler's shoes?

It <i>could</i> be argued that the real test of a leader's <i>greatness </i> would be his ability to inspire and maintain loyalty under extreme circumstances, eg. when it's clear that there's absolutely no hope of success. Maybe the number of people willing to die for a leader is a relevant factor?

Perhaps the ability of a leader to maintain himself in power and the number and capability of those plotting to overthrow him is a measure of greatness? Caesar wouldn't do very well here.

Yet no leader, however absolute, can rule alone, without the assistance of his supporters, whether powerful nobles, party members, etc. Surely their abilities and loyalty make a crucial contribution to their leader's greatness?

So it would appear that there are various critera for measuring potential "greatness".


Maj. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

Anton,

A VERY interesting perspective[^].

Mssr. White has a valid point that other factors, specially the quality of their succesors, has a dramatic impact on the survival of "empires". For instance, the USA as we know it could not have survived its Civil War if Abraham Lincoln had not been President when it began. Nonetheless, it is clearly important to take into account whether a leader was simply a "flash in the pan" or the creator of a solid foundation for a stable, long-lived state.

Regards,

Paco

<i>Maréchal</i> M. Francisco Palomo
<i>Prince d'Essling, Grande Duc d'Abrantes et
Comte de Marseille
Commandant - Ecole Militaire
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde </i>

Thank you all gentlemen! I agree that such an instrument depends on the quality of successors. But Sure no one will argue that leaving to his successor a state with a set of healthy institutions and a straightforward process of inheretance is an indicator of really great ruler. And such a state is more probable to exist longer whatever the circumstance. For the purpose of this my post such a criterion, was He able to leave his successor such a state by the way of legitime succession, is quite enough. Also it allows to compare even those who didn't create his Empire but inherited it. So The question is did or did not. I mean that Napoleon did not and this obvious fact is very important for the following.

It serves both as a justification to the statemet that is quite far away from what we all are used to and a source that led me to thinking in this area. No more words the idea:

All of the wars between France and Russia between 1805 and 1814 were fought under direct guidance of the Emperors not only in civil but in military aspects as well. And if wars of 1805 and 1807 years were decisive victories for Napoleon, the last and most important one was decisive victory for Russia and Alexander I personally.

Just one more thought on why I came to this. Since early childhood I couldn't understand why were Allied armies in 1813-1814 led only by Prussians, Austrians and even Swedes. Why there was not a single Russian leader? Even though Russian contingent was the biggest one and Russina troops were present in all of the armies. It clicked in the head only several day ago. In 1812 it was not important who commanded the armies, the 1st specifically, because Alexander was with the army and He was in charge of it. Exactly this way He was with the army next year. And hence He was in charge of the army (armies). And it was He who defeated Napoleon in the field. Odds were uneven? Sure! But were they even in 1812? And isn't the main task of an Emperor to ensure that his country enters the war in favourable conditions or at least not against uneven odds?

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Mayor Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Napoleon -6 years (-7 if you count from his first abdication) <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would say that Napoleon Empire didn't last a day after his abdication (the first, the 100 days is more concentrated in France, so no empire there) I am not sure where you get those 7 years?

For me the return of Louis XVIII was the end of the Empire.
You may see an other legacy from Napoleon and his Empire in the Civil Code, the Prefets, the administration, etc

Also it never occurred to me that Alexander I was a great General on the field of battle... But I may have a wrong picture of him...

<font color="green"> <b>Général de Division David Guégan Comte de Toulon, Duc de Nimes</b>
Co 11eme division
III Corps, AdN
Co Division d'Infanterie de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale


</font id="green">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by davidguegan</i>
I would say that Napoleon Empire didn't last a day after his abdication (the first, the 100 days is more concentrated in France, so no empire there) I am not sure where you get those 7 years?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Quite right! And I propose to use a measure that is how long the Empire lived after the death of it's creator without his rule. -7 (minus seven) years means that Napoleon's Empire was already ended in 1814 when he abdicated the first time. It happened 7 years earlier than his death on St. Helena in 1821.

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Mayor Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Kosyanenko</i>
<br />
Quite right! And I propose to use a measure that is how long the Empire lived after the death of it's creator without his rule. -7 (minus seven) years means that Napoleon's Empire was already ended in 1814 when he abdicated the first time. It happened 7 years earlier than his death on St. Helena in 1821.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ok, I didn't see the "-" in front of 7 [:D] Sorry [:D]

But I still don't get your idea about Alexander I, I always thought that it was his general who really were in charge of the Army not him...

<font color="green"> <b>Général de Division David Guégan Comte de Toulon, Duc de Nimes</b>
Co 11eme division
III Corps, AdN
Co Division d'Infanterie de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale


</font id="green">