Napoleon v. Washington

I thank 16kadams for his contribution to the debate.The Nations in 1812 My opponent agrees with my observations on the French Empire and the United States. I did not concede and say they were accustomed to “ambushes,” but rather outdated 18th century style warfare. My opponent is attempts to push his guerrilla warfare point through but it simply fails. Washington’s army during the Revolution consisted of militia, the type to use guerrilla; however, the formal, stable army America constructed after the War did not use guerrilla tactics because the military simply wasn’t built with that intent. The Continental Army used guerrilla tactics because it didn’t have the ability to meet the British directly; the formal military the United States built after the Revolution would have, because it was built for just that. I will discuss guerilla warfare later on in my rebuttals. I will discuss the military and political results of the War of 1812 later. Rebuttals Guerrilla warfare Simply put, my opponent has not provided an adequate response. I have already proven that the American military would not have used guerrilla tactics because of the contemporary need to develop a more formal military rather than the informal Continental Army. As I quoted earlier, “knowledge-based warfare fell into disuse as the nation moved to build large armies, erect fortifications, and maintain fleets with which they might deter a potential aggressor.”1 The use of guerrilla warfare during the American Revolution and American Civil War are not in dispute; I have already agreed guerrilla was used in the Revolution and I do not disagree it was used in the Civil War. My opponent states that we can assume guerrilla warfare would be used in the War. This is a misleading and blatantly dishonest assumption; we are under no obligation to believe a tactic would be used because it was used in other wars. My opponent has provided no evidence to show it was used heavily during the War of 1812; in place, I have shown it was not used. My opponent continues to cite its use during the American Revolution– but still, he has not provided a single bit of substantial evidence that guerrilla was used in the War of 1812 against the British. He attacks my terrain argument with a personal view on ideal terrain, stating that in his opinion forests were ideal. My point was that Spanish geography was preconditioned to enable guerrilla, rendering it effective against Napoleon; otherwise, Napoleon would have destroyed the Spanish partisans. In fact, in Egypt, Napoleon already combatted guerrilla warfare. He defeated the Egyptian Mamelukes, who were “exceptionally mobile and were specialists in guerrilla warfare,”2 several times. Napoleon’s major clash with the Mamelukes during the Battle of the Pyramids resulted in a French loss of 29 men and a Mameluke loss of 2,000.3 Again, Napoleon was capable against guerrilla – the Spanish had ideal terrain which was detrimental to Napoleon’s troops. My opponent has delivered no evidence but his own humble opinion that America would have this terrain – if they abruptly forgot about the formal military they had been building for years! Multiple wars My opponent states that I forgot the War of the Sixth Coalition but then goes on to quote my argument that it took place five months later. Of course multiple wars interferes with a quick victory – but as my opponent agrees, Britain fought multiple wars at the time as well. Let us assume that, even though France’s transatlantic invasion would surely have changed the political atmosphere of Europe an immeasurably great deal, the War of the Sixth Coalition begins precisely as it would have if the fantasy American invasion never happened. Napoleon is considered an expert at fighting multiple wars at once. Mearsheimer writes, “When Napoleon was involved with several enemies, he was able to overcome all of them, one after the other. In 1805 he had defeated the Austrians at Ulm before the Russians arrived; he defeated the Russians with the remnants of the Austrians at Austerlitz before the Prussians intervened. In 1806 he again defeated the Prussians before the Russians were on hand […] and in 1807 he defeated the Russians before the Austrians had pulled themselves together again.”4 Consequently, Napoleon was competent against multiple enemies. Placement I recognize that the navy is important as it is the means by which Napoleon would have traveled to America. My opponent argues that the use of American privateers would have destroyed Napoleon’s well-equipped navy. My opponent, however, forgets that Napoleon himself already had hundreds of privateers in the New World, as far south as Savannah!5 Any supposed advantage America would have because of privateers is thus negated because of the same strength on the other side. As I have already stated, the French Navy would be under the same stress that the Royal Navy had in crossing the Atlantic; because the Royal Navy was able to make the voyage, the French Navy would likely have been able to as well, but with casualties, as the Royal Navy also suffered. Again, Napoleon during the invasion of Egypt was able to continue his invasion even after complete naval loss at the Battle of the Nile. My opponent has not responded to this. The naval argument is thus a weak one. If anything, my opponent’s map supports my argument. The presence of large numbers of French speakers in American territory would only assist the French in their conquest of America. With news of a shattering success in Europe, the French Canadians with their French roots might well have declared for Napoleon and rose up ready to fight; Louisiana would have been the same. French hatred This is irrelevant to a fantasy invasion of America because almost none of these European countries had the interest or power to get involved. Moreover, the invasion of America would have changed attitudes and alliances in all of these European powers; it is arrogant to assume you know exactly what these nations would do in an alternate timeline. Once again, not only is it impractical to determine the attitude towards Napoleon in the existing timeline, it is more impractical to attempt to determine their attitude in an alternate timeline. There is no point in trying to argue over such uncertainty. Arguments Military competence George Washington’s style would have been recognized by Napoleon as being distinctly 18th century. It was outmoded by Napoleon’s modern warfare. Napoleon, in 1812, would certainly have taken advantage of Washington’s ignorance of the evolution of warfare. Washington came from an era where armies fought in the style of Frederick the Great. Foolishly, when Prussians adhered to that style in 1806, Napoleon dealt a huge blow during the Jena-Auerstadt campaign! By Napoleon’s time, warfare had moved on in leaps and bounds. America’s weakness My opponent’s source 2 actually declares the War of 1812 to be a military victory for the British, and he cites a short explanation for elementary schoolers as a source for the stalemate claim. The War ended officially as a status quo ante bellum,6 so it should be noted that militarily it was a victory for the British – who were better armed and better trained. It should be no surprise that if one were to subtract the British and add the French, a great leader such as Napoleon would have outmatched the American leadership. Again, America was militarily weaker, and this would be the case against the British or the French. Marshals Napoleon’s marshals were a group of men that have become legendary for their abilities on the battlefield. Innocenti writes, “Napoleon’s marshals were the heart of his army structure. The corps system Napoleon invented could not function without intelligent, independent commanders capable of taking his overall strategy and translating that into efficient military operations.”7 Marshals like Lannes were nearly as legendary as Napoleon in their abilities. Sources http://goo.gl...