Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Napoleon's Egypian Campaign

1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 2:54:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What do you think of it? If Admiral Horatio Nelson hadn't come in it would have been a success for sure.
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 3:07:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 2:54:56 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
What do you think of it? If Admiral Horatio Nelson hadn't come in it would have been a success for sure.

That's my favorite part of his life. I particularly love the Battle of the Pyramids... it was one of the first real clashes between the West and the Orient... Napoleon had them outmaneuvered from the beginning, with the 'squares' to repel cavalry. In fact, I am currently reading 'Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East'.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 3:41:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I personally believe it is impossible for any outsiders to completely capture and control the middle east for any long period of time. The greatest western powers have all tried (namely in Afghanistan) and all of them failed. Even if Napoleon had successfully captured Cairo, he would not in any stretch of the imagination, control the country. Inevitably, France would have been driven out of Egypt. It just happened sooner than expected.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 3:46:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 3:41:03 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
I personally believe it is impossible for any outsiders to completely capture and control the middle east for any long period of time. The greatest western powers have all tried (namely in Afghanistan) and all of them failed. Even if Napoleon had successfully captured Cairo, he would not in any stretch of the imagination, control the country. Inevitably, France would have been driven out of Egypt. It just happened sooner than expected.

I think you underestimate Napoleon's abilities. He was a genius in the political sphere as well. He gained the support of the Muslims by appealing to Mohammed and basing much of his mandates on the Quran. He knew how to conquer a nation and also control its people. Like dustpelt said, I believe the defeat at the Nile was a complete disaster for his long-term strategy. He was, after all, aiming for India, which for his plan would require long-term occupation of Egypt.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 3:59:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 3:46:05 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:41:03 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
I personally believe it is impossible for any outsiders to completely capture and control the middle east for any long period of time. The greatest western powers have all tried (namely in Afghanistan) and all of them failed. Even if Napoleon had successfully captured Cairo, he would not in any stretch of the imagination, control the country. Inevitably, France would have been driven out of Egypt. It just happened sooner than expected.

I think you underestimate Napoleon's abilities. He was a genius in the political sphere as well. He gained the support of the Muslims by appealing to Mohammed and basing much of his mandates on the Quran. He knew how to conquer a nation and also control its people. Like dustpelt said, I believe the defeat at the Nile was a complete disaster for his long-term strategy. He was, after all, aiming for India, which for his plan would require long-term occupation of Egypt.

The Middle Eastern people have never accepted outsiders in controlling their lands. Muslim or not, if he was such a genius in the political sphere why was their such massive opposition against him? The Middle East is extremely nationalistic. Period. Why do you think the Church, France, Britain, the United States, and many other western countries have failed to control the middle east? You underestimate the power of nationalism.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 4:19:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 3:59:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:46:05 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:41:03 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
I personally believe it is impossible for any outsiders to completely capture and control the middle east for any long period of time. The greatest western powers have all tried (namely in Afghanistan) and all of them failed. Even if Napoleon had successfully captured Cairo, he would not in any stretch of the imagination, control the country. Inevitably, France would have been driven out of Egypt. It just happened sooner than expected.

I think you underestimate Napoleon's abilities. He was a genius in the political sphere as well. He gained the support of the Muslims by appealing to Mohammed and basing much of his mandates on the Quran. He knew how to conquer a nation and also control its people. Like dustpelt said, I believe the defeat at the Nile was a complete disaster for his long-term strategy. He was, after all, aiming for India, which for his plan would require long-term occupation of Egypt.

The Middle Eastern people have never accepted outsiders in controlling their lands. Muslim or not, if he was such a genius in the political sphere why was their such massive opposition against him? The Middle East is extremely nationalistic. Period. Why do you think the Church, France, Britain, the United States, and many other western countries have failed to control the middle east? You underestimate the power of nationalism.

The middle east isn't nationalist. It's islamic fundamentalist. That's a Welterschauung.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 4:58:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 3:59:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:46:05 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:41:03 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
I personally believe it is impossible for any outsiders to completely capture and control the middle east for any long period of time. The greatest western powers have all tried (namely in Afghanistan) and all of them failed. Even if Napoleon had successfully captured Cairo, he would not in any stretch of the imagination, control the country. Inevitably, France would have been driven out of Egypt. It just happened sooner than expected.

I think you underestimate Napoleon's abilities. He was a genius in the political sphere as well. He gained the support of the Muslims by appealing to Mohammed and basing much of his mandates on the Quran. He knew how to conquer a nation and also control its people. Like dustpelt said, I believe the defeat at the Nile was a complete disaster for his long-term strategy. He was, after all, aiming for India, which for his plan would require long-term occupation of Egypt.

The Middle Eastern people have never accepted outsiders in controlling their lands. Muslim or not, if he was such a genius in the political sphere why was their such massive opposition against him? The Middle East is extremely nationalistic. Period. Why do you think the Church, France, Britain, the United States, and many other western countries have failed to control the middle east? You underestimate the power of nationalism.

Perhaps so, but none of them were led by Napoleon. For a man who seriously overran that area of the world in a few weeks, I don't think Muslims have much to boast concerning repelling Napoleon. He defeated every attack the Mamelukes threw at him, and some of his soldiers and staff converted to Islam. He was successful in Egypt until the British naval victory.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 9:43:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 4:58:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:59:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:46:05 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:41:03 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
I personally believe it is impossible for any outsiders to completely capture and control the middle east for any long period of time. The greatest western powers have all tried (namely in Afghanistan) and all of them failed. Even if Napoleon had successfully captured Cairo, he would not in any stretch of the imagination, control the country. Inevitably, France would have been driven out of Egypt. It just happened sooner than expected.

I think you underestimate Napoleon's abilities. He was a genius in the political sphere as well. He gained the support of the Muslims by appealing to Mohammed and basing much of his mandates on the Quran. He knew how to conquer a nation and also control its people. Like dustpelt said, I believe the defeat at the Nile was a complete disaster for his long-term strategy. He was, after all, aiming for India, which for his plan would require long-term occupation of Egypt.

The Middle Eastern people have never accepted outsiders in controlling their lands. Muslim or not, if he was such a genius in the political sphere why was their such massive opposition against him? The Middle East is extremely nationalistic. Period. Why do you think the Church, France, Britain, the United States, and many other western countries have failed to control the middle east? You underestimate the power of nationalism.

Perhaps so, but none of them were led by Napoleon. For a man who seriously overran that area of the world in a few weeks, I don't think Muslims have much to boast concerning repelling Napoleon. He defeated every attack the Mamelukes threw at him, and some of his soldiers and staff converted to Islam. He was successful in Egypt until the British naval victory.

Maybe so, but, the fact still remains he would have to control a country which has a history of completely resisting all invading forces. I mean Napoleon may be at the head of the army when they are invading, but he is still one man. He cannot be everywhere. So when he leaves, Napoleon will leave a lesser man in charge. No matter what you say, the Marshals of France, while great tacticians, were nothing compared to Napoleon.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:35:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 9:43:48 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 4:58:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:59:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:46:05 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:41:03 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
I personally believe it is impossible for any outsiders to completely capture and control the middle east for any long period of time. The greatest western powers have all tried (namely in Afghanistan) and all of them failed. Even if Napoleon had successfully captured Cairo, he would not in any stretch of the imagination, control the country. Inevitably, France would have been driven out of Egypt. It just happened sooner than expected.

I think you underestimate Napoleon's abilities. He was a genius in the political sphere as well. He gained the support of the Muslims by appealing to Mohammed and basing much of his mandates on the Quran. He knew how to conquer a nation and also control its people. Like dustpelt said, I believe the defeat at the Nile was a complete disaster for his long-term strategy. He was, after all, aiming for India, which for his plan would require long-term occupation of Egypt.

The Middle Eastern people have never accepted outsiders in controlling their lands. Muslim or not, if he was such a genius in the political sphere why was their such massive opposition against him? The Middle East is extremely nationalistic. Period. Why do you think the Church, France, Britain, the United States, and many other western countries have failed to control the middle east? You underestimate the power of nationalism.

Perhaps so, but none of them were led by Napoleon. For a man who seriously overran that area of the world in a few weeks, I don't think Muslims have much to boast concerning repelling Napoleon. He defeated every attack the Mamelukes threw at him, and some of his soldiers and staff converted to Islam. He was successful in Egypt until the British naval victory.

Maybe so, but, the fact still remains he would have to control a country which has a history of completely resisting all invading forces. I mean Napoleon may be at the head of the army when they are invading, but he is still one man. He cannot be everywhere. So when he leaves, Napoleon will leave a lesser man in charge. No matter what you say, the Marshals of France, while great tacticians, were nothing compared to Napoleon.

Like I said, Napoleon wiped out the Mamelukes at several engagements during the campaign, with a few notable exceptions like his excursion into Syria, with the Siege of Acre, and that was only because the city was still fortified from the Crusades. It's highy probable that had Nelson been unable to locate the French fleet (he actually passed the French and landed in Egypt before them while searching the Mediterranean), Napoleon would have stayed in Egypt and perhaps continued towards his conquest in India. The Mamelukes weren't the threat at all, neither was the Arab world. It was from the beginning the British. That's why they were interested in sinking his fleet in the first place.

Of course, if Napoleon did stay in Egypt, he wouldn't have become First Consul, so it's probably a better thing that he was forced out of the campaign.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 6:45:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Foreign policy of the past is still Politics. We don't need a History forum.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:16:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 6:45:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Foreign policy of the past is still Politics. We don't need a History forum.

So Napoleon is modern?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:17:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 7:16:09 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/11/2012 6:45:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Foreign policy of the past is still Politics. We don't need a History forum.

So Napoleon is modern?

No, but his policy is still policy.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:20:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:35:53 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:43:48 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 4:58:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:59:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:46:05 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:41:03 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
I personally believe it is impossible for any outsiders to completely capture and control the middle east for any long period of time. The greatest western powers have all tried (namely in Afghanistan) and all of them failed. Even if Napoleon had successfully captured Cairo, he would not in any stretch of the imagination, control the country. Inevitably, France would have been driven out of Egypt. It just happened sooner than expected.

I think you underestimate Napoleon's abilities. He was a genius in the political sphere as well. He gained the support of the Muslims by appealing to Mohammed and basing much of his mandates on the Quran. He knew how to conquer a nation and also control its people. Like dustpelt said, I believe the defeat at the Nile was a complete disaster for his long-term strategy. He was, after all, aiming for India, which for his plan would require long-term occupation of Egypt.

The Middle Eastern people have never accepted outsiders in controlling their lands. Muslim or not, if he was such a genius in the political sphere why was their such massive opposition against him? The Middle East is extremely nationalistic. Period. Why do you think the Church, France, Britain, the United States, and many other western countries have failed to control the middle east? You underestimate the power of nationalism.

Perhaps so, but none of them were led by Napoleon. For a man who seriously overran that area of the world in a few weeks, I don't think Muslims have much to boast concerning repelling Napoleon. He defeated every attack the Mamelukes threw at him, and some of his soldiers and staff converted to Islam. He was successful in Egypt until the British naval victory.

Maybe so, but, the fact still remains he would have to control a country which has a history of completely resisting all invading forces. I mean Napoleon may be at the head of the army when they are invading, but he is still one man. He cannot be everywhere. So when he leaves, Napoleon will leave a lesser man in charge. No matter what you say, the Marshals of France, while great tacticians, were nothing compared to Napoleon.

Like I said, Napoleon wiped out the Mamelukes at several engagements during the campaign,

The USSR conquered Afghanistan, they still lost.

with a few notable exceptions like his excursion into Syria, with the Siege of Acre, and that was only because the city was still fortified from the Crusades.

Napoleon still lost.

It's highy probable that had Nelson been unable to locate the French fleet (he actually passed the French and landed in Egypt before them while searching the Mediterranean), Napoleon would have stayed in Egypt and perhaps continued towards his conquest in India.

The Mamelukes weren't the threat at all, neither was the Arab world.

Napoleon would have to have stationed a sizeable portion of his army to keep control of the country. It would turn into his failed invasion of Spain and Russia. Smaller guerilla forces. No outside country has EVER completely had control of the middle east.

It was from the beginning the British. That's why they were interested in sinking his fleet in the first place.

Okay? And what's your point? The french basically declared war on...everybody.

Of course, if Napoleon did stay in Egypt, he wouldn't have become First Consul, so it's probably a better thing that he was forced out of the campaign.

Well...better for him maybe, not for every place he conquered xD
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:20:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 7:17:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/11/2012 7:16:09 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/11/2012 6:45:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Foreign policy of the past is still Politics. We don't need a History forum.

So Napoleon is modern?

No, but his policy is still policy.

Historical police.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:22:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 7:20:27 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/11/2012 7:17:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/11/2012 7:16:09 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/11/2012 6:45:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Foreign policy of the past is still Politics. We don't need a History forum.

So Napoleon is modern?

No, but his policy is still policy.

Historical police.

...which is my point. History is always a history of something, and all those somethings have forums already. Even in the instance that something was somehow explicitly history in and of itself (impossible imo), those rare instances could sit in the Miscellaneous category.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:22:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 6:45:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Foreign policy of the past is still Politics. We don't need a History forum.

Just shut up about it.

Just because you post the same thing in a few different threads does not mean we care anymore.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:23:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 7:22:40 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/11/2012 7:20:27 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/11/2012 7:17:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/11/2012 7:16:09 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/11/2012 6:45:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Foreign policy of the past is still Politics. We don't need a History forum.

So Napoleon is modern?

No, but his policy is still policy.

Historical police.

...which is my point. History is always a history of something, and all those somethings have forums already. Even in the instance that something was somehow explicitly history in and of itself (impossible imo), those rare instances could sit in the Miscellaneous category.

Do you know what else is history? Debating the merits of the History category!

Zing!
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:26:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 7:22:53 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/11/2012 6:45:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Foreign policy of the past is still Politics. We don't need a History forum.

Just shut up about it.

Just because you post the same thing in a few different threads does not mean we care anymore.

Does not address my point.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:29:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 7:26:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/11/2012 7:22:53 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/11/2012 6:45:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Foreign policy of the past is still Politics. We don't need a History forum.

Just shut up about it.

Just because you post the same thing in a few different threads does not mean we care anymore.

Does not address my point.

It allows us to group specific topics, like WWII, that don't necessarily fit into any forum. It covers a good range of topic, and several people wanted it.

There are a lot of topics that could probably be done away with, but this one is fine.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:34:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 7:29:47 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/11/2012 7:26:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/11/2012 7:22:53 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/11/2012 6:45:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Foreign policy of the past is still Politics. We don't need a History forum.

Just shut up about it.

Just because you post the same thing in a few different threads does not mean we care anymore.

Does not address my point.

It allows us to group specific topics, like WWII, that don't necessarily fit into any forum. It covers a good range of topic, and several people wanted it.

There are a lot of topics that could probably be done away with, but this one is fine.

I appreciate your response. I agree that History has always been in demand, but I feel like it will go by the wayside a few weeks from now and become like Art, Health, and Technology. And then we have extra topics. This doesn't really harm us, but I'm a fan of simplicity.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 7:39:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 7:34:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/11/2012 7:29:47 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/11/2012 7:26:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/11/2012 7:22:53 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 7/11/2012 6:45:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Foreign policy of the past is still Politics. We don't need a History forum.

Just shut up about it.

Just because you post the same thing in a few different threads does not mean we care anymore.

Does not address my point.

It allows us to group specific topics, like WWII, that don't necessarily fit into any forum. It covers a good range of topic, and several people wanted it.

There are a lot of topics that could probably be done away with, but this one is fine.

I appreciate your response. I agree that History has always been in demand, but I feel like it will go by the wayside a few weeks from now and become like Art, Health, and Technology. And then we have extra topics. This doesn't really harm us, but I'm a fan of simplicity.

Sorry for being hostile, but I'm thinking this forum will actually have good discussion on it.....as opposed to health, tech, and art....

Now, those are pointless, sadly.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 12:39:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 7:20:01 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:35:53 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:43:48 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 4:58:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:59:37 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:46:05 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/10/2012 3:41:03 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
I personally believe it is impossible for any outsiders to completely capture and control the middle east for any long period of time. The greatest western powers have all tried (namely in Afghanistan) and all of them failed. Even if Napoleon had successfully captured Cairo, he would not in any stretch of the imagination, control the country. Inevitably, France would have been driven out of Egypt. It just happened sooner than expected.

I think you underestimate Napoleon's abilities. He was a genius in the political sphere as well. He gained the support of the Muslims by appealing to Mohammed and basing much of his mandates on the Quran. He knew how to conquer a nation and also control its people. Like dustpelt said, I believe the defeat at the Nile was a complete disaster for his long-term strategy. He was, after all, aiming for India, which for his plan would require long-term occupation of Egypt.

The Middle Eastern people have never accepted outsiders in controlling their lands. Muslim or not, if he was such a genius in the political sphere why was their such massive opposition against him? The Middle East is extremely nationalistic. Period. Why do you think the Church, France, Britain, the United States, and many other western countries have failed to control the middle east? You underestimate the power of nationalism.

Perhaps so, but none of them were led by Napoleon. For a man who seriously overran that area of the world in a few weeks, I don't think Muslims have much to boast concerning repelling Napoleon. He defeated every attack the Mamelukes threw at him, and some of his soldiers and staff converted to Islam. He was successful in Egypt until the British naval victory.

Maybe so, but, the fact still remains he would have to control a country which has a history of completely resisting all invading forces. I mean Napoleon may be at the head of the army when they are invading, but he is still one man. He cannot be everywhere. So when he leaves, Napoleon will leave a lesser man in charge. No matter what you say, the Marshals of France, while great tacticians, were nothing compared to Napoleon.

Like I said, Napoleon wiped out the Mamelukes at several engagements during the campaign,

The USSR conquered Afghanistan, they still lost.

This is irrelevant. Napoleon ended Mameluke rule and forced them out of Cairo. As David Chandler puts it, "During the night following the battle [of the Pyramids], Ibrahim Bey [the Mameluke ruler] retreated to the east, burning the shipping in the port. The next morning the Sheikhs and Imams of Cairo offered to surrender the city. General Duphot was charged with the task of negotiating the terms, and, two days later, on July 24, Bonaparte entered the capital of Egypt." The USSR's doomed invasion of Afghanistan is dissimilar to Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, from a historical perspective. We're not even arguing what would have happened, we're arguing what did. Napoleon defeated the Mamelukes, the USSR failed to defeat the Mujahedin.


with a few notable exceptions like his excursion into Syria, with the Siege of Acre, and that was only because the city was still fortified from the Crusades.

Napoleon still lost.

Wow, excellent refutation. I even stated, "a few notable exceptions."


It's highy probable that had Nelson been unable to locate the French fleet (he actually passed the French and landed in Egypt before them while searching the Mediterranean), Napoleon would have stayed in Egypt and perhaps continued towards his conquest in India.

The Mamelukes weren't the threat at all, neither was the Arab world.

Napoleon would have to have stationed a sizeable portion of his army to keep control of the country. It would turn into his failed invasion of Spain and Russia. Smaller guerilla forces. No outside country has EVER completely had control of the middle east.

I'm not arguing the entire Middle East. I'm arguing Egypt. For a time, Napoleon had control of Egypt. Of course he lost it, but he was able to tame them like no one else. He appealed to their religion instead of attacking it, like his predecessors and successors.

It was from the beginning the British. That's why they were interested in sinking his fleet in the first place.

Okay? And what's your point? The french basically declared war on...everybody.


Actually, most of the Napoleonic Wars were Coalitions forming and declaring war on Napoleon. Granted, Napoleon declared war a few times, notably Russia, but it was largely alliances forming against him that he was forced to crush.

Of course, if Napoleon did stay in Egypt, he wouldn't have become First Consul, so it's probably a better thing that he was forced out of the campaign.

Well...better for him maybe, not for every place he conquered xD

What are we even arguing here?
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 5:32:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 6:45:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Foreign policy of the past is still Politics. We don't need a History forum.

Just shut up and stop spamming every single thread in the history forum.
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.