Napoleon Movie

[Chop]

I haven't seen it, but all I've seen in the media and online about it is just about 100% negative. I don't recall a film this universally panned. The reviewers virtually all say this movie sucks. I usually don't put much stock in the critics--all they offer are opinions. But when everybody can't stand the movie, I'll probably have to pass. Even with J. Phoenix as the lead, and he's a very good actor.

I think I'll stick with Napoleon Dynamite.

 

[mchammer]

I haven't seen it, but all I've seen in the media and online about it is just about 100% negative. I don't recall a film this universally panned. The reviewers virtually all say this movie sucks. I usually don't put much stock in the critics--all they offer are opinions. But when everybody can't stand the movie, I'll probably have to pass. Even with J. Phoenix as the lead, and he's a very good actor.

I think I'll stick with Napoleon Dynamite.

Not even historically accurate too based on what I read.

 

[mchammer]

 

[Chop]

Not going to the movies to see this one. Nope.

Tyrant. Not our sort of guy. I don’t care for him. But he’s the best general—maybe ever.

My understanding of Napoleon’s tactics:

Split your opponent in two. Split your troops to move faster. Move fast. March through the night if necessary. Find part of your split up opponent, and rapidly all converge on that portion of your split up opponent and defeat it. Then repeat with the other portion of your opponent.

You 70,000
Them 100,000

Them split up in two = 50,000 + 50,000
You attacking one of their split halves = 70,000 vs 50,000 (you, not them, now have the advantage).

That, and grab the high ground right away and mass your artillery there and blast away. When your opponent is looking weak at one point, mass everyone you can spare right at that point and immediately attack—after blasting them with artillery. Lead the attack with Cavalry —it works even better when they’re led by the best Cavalry general of all time—Murat; or led by LaSalle or Ney (each honorable mention).

 

[Chop]

Not going to the movies to see this one. Nope.

Tyrant. Not our sort of guy. I don’t care for him. But he’s the best general—maybe ever.

My understanding of Napoleon’s tactics:

Split your opponent in two. Split your troops to move faster. Move fast. March through the night if necessary. Find part of your split up opponent, and rapidly all converge on that portion of your split up opponent and defeat it. Then repeat with the other portion of your opponent.

You 70,000
Them 100,000

Them split up in two = 50,000 + 50,000
You attacking one of their split halves = 70,000 vs 50,000 (you, not them, now have the advantage).

That, and grab the high ground right away and mass your artillery there and blast away. When your opponent is looking weak at one point, mass everyone you can spare right at that point and immediately attack—after blasting them with artillery. Lead the attack with Cavalry —it works even better when they’re led by the best Cavalry general of all time—Murat, or LaSalle or Ney (each honorable mention).

Basically, how our top Civil War generals later operated.

 

[Horn6721]

Chop
Great point. Don't you know they must have studied Napoleon's tactics at the Academy?

 

[Crockett]

Yep: But Napoleon's tactics weren't intended for armies with rifles accurate for 300 yards...hence the horrific casualties.

 

[Monahorns]

Napoleon was considered an antichrist at the time. But who knows. It may have been socialists saying that. I still don't think he was a good character. But he was a good military strategist like Hannibal.

 

[mb227]

Not even historically accurate too based on what I read.

Hardly a surprise given all of the efforts to rewrite history...