Napoleonic Wars

The four main powers were Austria, the United Kingdom, Russia and Prussia. Bourbon France is generally mentioned as the 'fifth power'.

Wellington said it was a near run thing: near run indeed. He also said Napoleon was a mere pounder. He also siad that it was a shame, despite winning a battle to lose so many good friends. Picton lay dead, Paget had lost a leg, Somerset, (Lord Raglan later of charge of the light brigade infamy) had lost an arm.

Uncle Tom's Cabin By Harriet Beecher Stowe was definatley a cause of the Civil War. It stirred up some people and told the truth behind slavery. Abraham Licoln Later referred to harriet as the 'Little Lady Who Started the Great Big War' It's about a slave named Uncle Tom who lead a pretty ease life. His wife loves him very much, he has lovely children, and his owner and himself grew up together. One day the owner runs out of money and gets a morgage from a friend. Well, not exactly a friend. Any way, the owner is not able to pay it back. The owner gives Tom to the friend, who is mean and Cruel to his slaves. But while the slaves are going to their new home on a ship, a little girl sees Tom, and she goes to play with him. They become good friends and she begs her daddy to buy him. He does, and Tom begins a new job. He has a very easy life again, until the little girl falls deathly ill. She dies, but before that, she requests that Tom be set free. The father agrees, and needs to contact his lawyer. The father goes into town and dies as well. Then the wife, who has been sick , and despit the housekeepers plea to follow the request of the little girl, sells Tom to a very rich, mean man. Meanwhile Tom's wife Chloe is working to make the money to buy Tom back. All is awful, but worse goes to worse when a couple runs away, and Tom knows where they are. He refuses to tell, and gets lashed harshly. He is then left to die. Chloe raised the money and the son is sent to fetch him. However, it is to late and Tom is beyond curing. He dies in the Son's arms. Slavery Slavery itself was a major cause of the Civil War. The Drett Scott case, John Brown's raid, and the mighty increase in slavery also started the War. The Drett Scott case was where Drett Scott had been to a free state, and thought that this meant he was free. The Supreme Court rued 7 to 2 that slaves are not Americans thus don't have the right to sue. John Brown was an Abolistionist who believed in voilence. He attacked towns and stole weapons that he was going to give to the slaves to shoot themselves free. He killed many innocent people in doing so. Before he could make his major raid, he was stopped. He was tried with treason and was in the gallows the next day. The Fugitive Slave Law Act The Fugitive Slave Law Act states that any runaway slave in the North may be taken down to the South. It also said that if and Northerners were to help the slaves, the Northerners would face fines, jail time, and possible execution if it continued.

Military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz wrote his works on warfare based on the Prussian wars and the Napoleonic era wars. He observations determined that very often a defeated army could maneuver a successful retreat and live to fight another day. This was frequently the result of US Civil War battles. For Clausewitz, a strong cavalry was the key to the pursuit required to hamper an enemy army's retreat. In the US Civil War, the value of cavalry troops were lessened due to the firepower of rifles. Therefore, no effective pursuit of a defeated army was available.

As Napoleon began his conquests in Europe, he transformed warfare as it was known at the time. Napoleon's tactical system of maneuvering in column but forming in line to fight changed the situation in which an army could march away while its enemy slowly deployed, thereby frustrating an aggressive commander desire for battle.

Not at all. France's lower classes were so devasted by the amount of money they lost because of the war in the 1700s they had a revolution. It just seems like only Britain had debt, assuming you're American, because Britain's debt factors more into American history so it is more likely to be discussed in American schools (theory also applies in any former British colony).

Napoleon had about 100,000 enemies at Waterloo and they were led by the Duke of Wellington and Field Marshal Blucher.

No one knows for sure. But there are at least two conflicting theories.

The most popular is that it was named after a medieval Portuguese sailing vessel, called a caravel, since the marine colonial hydrozoan also plies the open oceans using its pneumatophore (float) as a sail. However, since the term 'Man of War' specifically refers to a later British design, you would have to assume that the seventeenth century term for an English fighting ship was applied to the fifteenth century Portuguese scouting and trading vessel. And, you would also be hard pressed to see any similarity between the creature's rounded sail and either a lateen-rigged (triangular shaped) caravel sail, or a square-rigged carrack sail.

What seems much more plausible to me is that it is named after the helmet worn by Portuguese soldiers (men of war). That helmet is called a comb morion. If you Google an image of the helmet, you will see a striking similarity in appearance. Just saying, but then I also think fluorescent road cones look like psychedelic witches emerging from the center of the earth.

It was very expensive even then to build a warship - by capturing an enemy vessel intact, it could be re-flagged and used against the original country that sailed the ship.

A good example of this is the burning of the USS Philadelphia by U.S. Navy Captain Stephen Decatur in the First Barbary War. The Philadelphia had run aground and was captured by Barbary Pirates; rather than let them keep the prize and have them turn it into an asset to be used against the United States, Decatur burned the ship during a daring night raid in February, 1804.

The 1815 Battle of Waterloo, fought in western Europe between Napoleon's French army and a coalition of opponents, differed in numerous ways from the guerrilla warfare that occurred in Spain a few years prior. Above all, the Waterloo clash took place between regular armies facing each other directly on a set battlefield. In the guerrilla warfare in Spain, French soldiers typically never saw their enemies, who would perform hit-and-run raids, demolish supplies when unguarded, or snipe at French patrols from concealed positions, rather than confront them directly.

Napoleon had an Army made up of outstanding Generals that he had selected and trained himself. The French Military Academies produced officers with top notch competence who could lead from the front, and the ranks were almost always conscripts that had been quickly trained by veterans. There were very few who made up the standing Army and only small numbers of elite soldiers like the Old Guard.

The Napoleonic wars affected the development of industry in Europe by halting trade and communication, as well as disrupting the economy because most energy was redirected to war.

The Prussians under Field Marshal Blucher.

Wellington had marched from Portugal to France. He had been successful. His men were accustomed to defeating 'frenchies' on the battlefield. They were relatively well trained & for that time relatively well cared for (in most, not all, cases). They said the 'Sepoy General' couldn't attack, just like he didn't at Salamanca & Vittoria. (Wellingtons attacks were devastating in both instances)

Britain essentially won the war (taking the series of wars as one) because France could not break the power of the Royal Navy. The British control of the seas meant that they could move supplies, troops, etc wherever and whenever they liked. It also enabled them to support other continental allies who had armies more suited to opposing Napoleon's.

Perhaps you could say that Napoleon could not defeat Britain, so the British won by default?

As far as I know there was no rank of Private. You were simply Bloggs or whatever, until you got promotion from the ranks. I don't know if this applied to other armies. The British use Pte now I think US is Pvt.

The Napoleonic Wars (1803-15) were a series of wars declared against Napoleon's French Empire by opposing coalitions. As a continuation of the wars sparked by the French Revolution of 1789, they revolutionised European armies and played out on an unprecedented scale, mainly owing to the application of modern mass conscription. French power rose quickly as Napoleon's armies conquered much of Europe but collapsed rapidly after France's disastrous invasion of Russia in 1812. Napoleon's empire ultimately suffered complete military defeat resulting in the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy in France.

The US Civil War & Vietnam War had the following similarities:

1. Both were North & South wars; but only the US Civil War was a true "civil war" (one nation fighting itself). Vietnam did not fight itself; North & South Vietnam were separate countries.

2. Both had US Presidents shot in the head (assassinated).

3. Both had a Vice President named Johnson.

4. Both had a civil rights movement for racial equality.

5. Both wars mistreated their SOUTHERN defeated servicemen.

6. Both wars the SOUTH lost.

7. Both wars the North accomplished a complete victory.

8. Both wars had a military draft (first & last)

9. Both wars had draft riots.

10. Both wars had draft dodgers.

11. Both wars had a Brown Water Navy (first & last Riverine Forces).

12. Both wars divided the nation (US).

13. Both wars had a small war that re-united the nation: Spanish-American War of 1898 re-united the American people from the after affects of the Civil War; and Operation Desert Storm of 1991 re-united the American people from the after affects of the Vietnam War. To quote President Bush Senior in 1991, "...We have beat the Vietnam Syndrome; America is united again at last!"

14. Both above conflicts had nick-names from the US press: the "Splendid Little War" and the "100 Hour War", respectively.

15. Both occurred in the 90's; their predecessor's both occurred in the 60's.

It never got 'hot' that is to say although though there were small military conflicts it never evolved into a world war.

Clara (Clarissa) Harlowe Barton

No. Napoleon used a strategy that usually always won him the battle or war. It is also how he built his empire.

He broke his military into three units. The Main unit, the Left unit, and the Right unit. When the Main unit was fighting the enemy on the battlefield, his left and right units would then come and surround the enemy from the left and right (blocking them in on three sides).

After Napoleon escaped from exile, his forces were much smaller but he still used the same strategy which also relied on perfect timing of his other two units. It is recorded in history books that his general who was in command of his right unit took a right at a bridge instead of a left and crossing over the bridge to join the battle. After realizing that he had made the mistake, the general had the troops back track to the bridge, however, it is recorded that this general and men showed up to the battle of Waterloo an hour after it had been finished.

Without his right unit, Napoleon could not fight off the three nations and lost the battle of Waterloo.

There are only two that I know of:

Invincibility: DARKSIDE

Unlimited Ammo: SUPERLASERS

They had what is called a Napoleonic battle formation. This is when the troops lined up in lines shoulder to shoulder. The guns used could only shoot one bullet at a time until it was reloaded so they used the lines for continuous fire. The first line would fire their guns and drop to their knees, line two would fire their guns over the shoulders of line one and so forth until all the lines had fired. By the time the last line was finished the first were reloaded and ready to fire again. If a man was killed in line or wounded the space was filled by the man behind him, so the lines were always filling the empty spots. This form of fighting continued well into the 1800's and is one reason why troop deaths were so high in the civil war because they used this battle plan, but the guns were better and the repeater rifle had been developed.

The Mexican war was during the term of president James K. Polk. He believed in manifest destiny. Manifest Destiny was the belief that America should stretch across the continent from sea to shining sea. Polk sent a Spanish speaking ambassador to Mexico to offer 30 million dollars for the territories of Texas, California and New Mexico. The Mexican government rejected America's offer. Polk then sent troops down to the Mexican Session where they would be ambushed just as planed. Polk then ask congress to declare war on Mexico because Mexico had attacked American soldiers on American land. In 1848, the United States and Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican-American War, and gave the U.S. new territory - enough to become six new states, and all located in the Southwest. Northerners were afraid that the new territory would become slave states and give the South a great advantage in the U.S. Senate. Texas ended up becoming a slave state although the free slave states didn't like it.

The end of the Mexican-American war started the sectional crisis that would ultimately take the nation in the 1850s. Congress came to a compromise concerning the new land in 1850, and admitted California into the U.S. as a free state, along with abolishing slave trade (but not slave ownership) in Washington D.C., but leaving open the possibility for the other land to hold slaves.

Both the North and South weren't completely satisfied with this outcome, and it raised new questions concerning how the rest of the land would be admitted to the nation, dividing both sides even further.

Baron Dominique Jean Larrey.

wars cause millions of people to die and territory loss or gain.