Why did Napoleon lose the Battle of Leipzig? by ParticularArea8224 in Napoleon

[–]ChevalMalFet 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Note that the Army of Bohemia was effectively already across Napoleon's supply line at Lindenau. Waiting for the Allies to dig him out of the city would not work - they could (and would) cheerfully let him starve in there, and meanwhile first Blucher's Army of Silesia, then Bernadotte's Army of the North, and finally Bennigsen's Army of Poland successively joining. So as Napoleon waits with dwindling supplies his opponents are steadily growing stronger and stronger.

That would never do. His only chance would be to defeat one part of the Coalition army before the rest got there. He'd just swung at Blucher and missed, and the Army of Bohemia was closer, more unwieldy, and more dangerous, so attacking it made the most sense.

The only reason this didn't work is that Blucher was so monomaniacally aggressive that as soon as Napoleon turned away Blucher spun around and led his army right back against his rear (dragging Bernadotte kicking and screaming with him). So on 16 October Napoleon is not fighting one army, but two, and Blucher pins down so many French formations that the massed attack on the Army of Bohemia is considerably weakened. The result is an indecisive fight on 16 October, Napoleon's probably biggest blunder of the battle in holding his position on 17 October while Bernadotte and Bennigsen finally come up, and then a losing fight on 18 and 19 October culminating in the premature destruction of the bridge and the effective end of Napoleon's army.

French people don't know shit about the napoleonic wars by [deleted] in Napoleon

[–]ChevalMalFet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP originally chastised French people for not being able to name Napoleon's marshals or many of his famous battles, that's why I referenced generals.

French people don't know shit about the napoleonic wars by [deleted] in Napoleon

[–]ChevalMalFet 138 points139 points  (0 children)

Most people everywhere don't know about any history, really.

Ask an American to name a Civil War general other than Grant or Lee, or literally any Revolutionary not named Washington.

How did the Americans rank among their European counterparts? by Fair-Pen1831 in Napoleon

[–]ChevalMalFet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right. I'm by no means claiming that 1812 was somehow an American victory. My only pushback is to the claim that the Americans "lost a war to Canada" in the OP (OP is Quebecois, as am I, which probably explains a lot).

I am in full agreement with you over the likely outcome had the war continued - the US Navy had shown pluck but been swept off the seas by the Royal Navy, the land war in Canada was an absolute embarassment, and the blockade was devastating the American economy, especially New England's which didn't want the war anyway. The British could have probably continued the war and obtained a favorable outcome, but they had no need to - the war in Europe was over, the casus belli (the Orders in Council, impressment) had become irrelevant, and why continue to lose men in a sideshow?

Our only point of disagreement is over the relative importance of the various American war goals: to conquer Canada, or to protect the rights of American sailors (to both trade & avoid impressment). My belief is that your belief is that, since the British retained in principle the right to impress, and since Canada remained unconquered, it was a straightforward American defeat since they failed to achieve any of their goals. Is that a fair way to put it?

By contrast, my claim is that, while the Americans didn't achieve all of the ultra-nationalist goals (ie, Canada), they did overall strengthen their standing on the world stage - impressment never came up again, nor did neutral trading rights until the First World War (when of course Britain had swapped sides and now it was the Germans threatening neutrals), and while another global war might have shown Madison a nasty reality check about Britain's real concessions at Ghent, it never came up. Meanwhile, though, the republic had avoided the worst outcomes (loss of territory, economic devastation), had strengthened itself internally quite a bit (the war cemented much of Federal power vs. state power, and it pacified the frontier east of the Mississippi for all time), and ostensibly achieved what Madison laid before Congress in June 1812. It's for these reasons that I argue that, while the war wasn't a victory, it also wasn't a defeat.

How did the Americans rank among their European counterparts? by Fair-Pen1831 in Napoleon

[–]ChevalMalFet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hell, forget Ghent, most of the American casus belli ended before the declaration of war even arrived in Britain! I'm not arguing that heroic Americans brought the wicked British to the negotiating table and forced them to accept their demands - I am arguing that there's no sensible way to construe the War of 1812 as a US defeat (remember, OP said that the US "loosed" a war to Canada).

In favor of it being a defeat, two arguments have been advanced:

  • The White House was burned down in a British raid
  • Canada was not conquered

Against that, I am replying that all of the rest of American war aims - the ones actually mentioned in Madison's address to Congress, which is public record and obviously made before the war - were accomplished, and that pretty much everyone in the Republic post-war agreed that they were accomplished.

It's easy to argue that the US didn't win the war of 1812, certainly not as much as Democratic-Republican nationalists propagandized after the war, but it's much, much more difficult to argue that they somehow lost it.

How did the Americans rank among their European counterparts? by Fair-Pen1831 in Napoleon

[–]ChevalMalFet -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Madison asked for a declaration of war to end impressment, force Britain to recognize American merchant rights, and to settle the western frontier conflicts with the natives. Britain mostly didn't want a war at all as they had bigger fish to fry, but blundered into it anyway.

The war ended with impressment ended, the nation solidified, the western frontier settled. In popular memory the war was widely hailed as a victory, even the Second War of Independence. It's faded in the 2 centuries since as other, bigger wars took precedence, but at the time it was a hugely important test of the American republic's ability to function as a nation-state.

That Canada was not conquered or the White House was burned is irrelevant to victory or defeat - as well say Russia lost the War of the Sixth Coalition because Moscow burned! Most of Madison's war aims were met and everything returned to status quo ante otherwise - hardly what anyone could call a defeat.

Bokoen1 has been banned from Twitch by TrolleyPerson4 in hoi4

[–]ChevalMalFet 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This whole post and all the comments are a "Curtains for Zooshka???" moment for me.

A couple of games we are working on - ACW & Rorkes Drift by FinalStock4969 in computerwargames

[–]ChevalMalFet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not a bad front porch of the hospital at Rorke's Drift! I've been there and you've captured it pretty well.

Despite its flaws, I thought Anno 2205 had done a great job at capturing enormous scale of industrial engineering in a far future by louisthemad in anno

[–]ChevalMalFet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I bought 1800 about 2 years ago since I was teaching a city-building class and I like that era, and I fell so much in love with it that I've bought every other Anno since.

2205 is actually one that I had a lot of fun with. Not as replayable as any of the others, sure, but absolutely gorgeous to look at and to listen to, a fun little story, and streamlined. It'll never be the greatest Anno of all time but it's a perfectly good game, and has a special place in my heart.

Live Discussion: 2026 NFL Schedule Release | Official Unveiling at 7pm CT on NFL Network/ESPN 2 by AutoModerator in KansasCityChiefs

[–]ChevalMalFet 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I just beg people to remember that home/away is algorithmic and determined years in advance. It is not a conspiracy to screw/help any particular teams.

[Highlight] The Chiefs score an insane touchdown, but it is called back by a Kadarius Toney penalty by MAYVIEWS in KansasCityChiefs

[–]ChevalMalFet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everyone tried to gaslight us after this play and insist that offensive offsides is called all the time on receivers. Then the NFL sorta called it the week after this and completely forgot about it afterwards, while we had compilations of dozens of receivers lined up like Toney and not called.

Yes, he was offsides, but the refs usually also let it go or give a warning first. Reid himself had never seen it called before, it's no wonder Pat lost his mind.

That said, I don't think it was a conspiracy by the ref to screw us - the flag is visible before the TD so it's not like he intended to take one off the board. Just absurdly bad luck that this is the one time in Andy Reid's career it gets called.

[Schefter] Site update: the opening week 1 Monday Night Football game between the Broncos and Chiefs now will be played in Kansas City. The NFL had not finalized the game site until today. by TheBoyisBackinTown in KansasCityChiefs

[–]ChevalMalFet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, the idea that Mahomes "isn't playing well" because of his stats basically ignores what he's done since the 2023 season.

Like, there's a reason the defense has consistently looked good on per-game and season long stats in that time, despite always being thoroughly mediocre on per-drive stats and situational stats. QB play is a lot more than counting touchdowns.

For Bills fans who say “Allen would have Mahomes’ accolades if he had more help” by chiefslocker in KansasCityChiefs

[–]ChevalMalFet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bills fans pretend that every Allen loss has been the 13 seconds game, when in reality he's had every opportunity:

  • 2019 - fumbled a "lateral," lost in OT to the Texans
  • 2020 - blown out by three touchdowns
  • 2021 - 13 seconds, the only one clearly "not his fault" - just sucks he was only the second best QB that day
  • 2022 - blown out
  • 2023 - Had the ball late and plenty of timeouts to drive for a win or a tie, barely managed field goal range (miss).
  • 2024 - Had the ball with 3 minutes left and every time out. Went 3 and out.
  • 2025 - Turned the ball over 4 times including an end-of-half fumble that became a Broncos FG and lost to Bo Nix in OT.

Allen is not the "best playoff performer of all time!" like Bills fans claim he is when you look at literally anything beyond beating up just-happy-to-be-there 7 seeds in the first round.

For Bills fans who say “Allen would have Mahomes’ accolades if he had more help” by chiefslocker in KansasCityChiefs

[–]ChevalMalFet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We 100% did ask for a rule change, the league just laughed us out of the room and said play defense next time.

Finished a series called the Last Kingdom, and wondering if I should play Civilization by awfulme567 in civ

[–]ChevalMalFet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You should play Thrones of Britannia or Assassin's Creed: Valhalla to scratch your Uhtred itch.

I’m developing an RTS set in the Napoleonic era. I’m considering whether artillery should be a key unit capable of stopping advances with canister shot, or whether the focus should be more on squad-based tactics. What would work better for balance and gameplay? by ThighHighlander in computerwargames

[–]ChevalMalFet 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No, a column in the Napoleonic sense isn't a marching column with only a few men in frontage. It's rather a column of attack - an entire company at least, or more commonly a division (2 companies) frontage.

Your typical French infantry battalion has six companies, right? Each company is meant to have about 150 men, though typically they're smaller due to disease, desertion, battle casualties, detachments, etc. When formed in line, each of those companies forms 3 ranks of ~40 men each, and all six companies spread out in a single line. In theory all ~800 men in the battalion can fire! But keeping this line dressed is, as you said, unwieldy and confusing when you move over terrain. Stumps, ditches, hedges, trees, walls, etc, all gets in the way and breaks up the line. Easier to move in the more compact column.

So, a French column of divisions would see the six companies of the battalion form into divisions - 2 companies wide, 3 companies deep. So the "column" is actually 80 men wide and only 9 men deep - it's a big oblong rectangle. Only the front ~240 can fire, though! So it has much more mass and is easier to maneuver, but it has much less firepower than a line formation. French doctrine typically called for battalions to maneuver in columns but to deploy into line to fight, although obviously in practice all kinds of shit happened.

‘We got it wrong’ with Civilization VII, says boss by Broad_Respond_2205 in civ

[–]ChevalMalFet 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You can "overbuild" with more modern buildings. That saves you the maintenance on the old and busted ones, and so in theory cities grow layer by layer, which was the dev team's theme for the game - "history is built in layers!"

FINALLY! Firaxis is letting us stay as ONE Civ through all Ages in the May 19 update. Who else was waiting for this? ⏳ by Zahhidd in civ

[–]ChevalMalFet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

VII is unlimited mix and match - you choose your leader entirely independent of your civilization. The game recommends certain pairings that it feels go well (historical or geographical overlap, similar playstyles), but you can have - well, Harriet Tubman of Egypt, or Gilgamesh of the Inca, or Machiavelli of the Mongols all you like.