Napoleon v. Washington

US and France observations I agree with them, yet he seems to try to the US argument as a downside, yet ignores many factors. It is commonly known that the US militias were armed as they held the right in the second amendment to the constitution. Much of america owned guns, this was vital in the war against the British. My opponent also concedes much of my point by saying they were accustomed to revolutionary war tactics. Ambushes. These civilians, though not always joining the army, often did join militia squads or minute men. Though many began to cease to exist, people not in the military did own guns. Hence could still attack with groups of friends on supply lines. The British, though, suffered from the same reasons I said the french would. Even if the US had more casualties, the US won the war. One of the reasons was the British used large sums of money in the war of 1812. Though the money benefited British america, it hurt the actual English themselves. They also suffered because they were in multiple wars. As this shows: "In Britain, the importance of the conflict was totally overshadowed by European wars, especially the War of the Sixth Coalition against Napoleon"[1] The UK also never gained full military control, the US made slight gains but the war ended more in stalemate. [1] This actually refutes my opponents case, as the UK still lost as they had to withdrawal. Now, the question is why would Napoleon lose? The same reason Britain did: they were fighting larger wars at home, in this case he would be fighting England.C1 - Guerrilla warfareEven if we assume my opponents argument is correct, we must look at my other points that I stated all of last round. The UK did not have the resources to win the war of 1812 [2], as they were fighting the french. But the difference is the Brits had control of canada, france has no provinces (well very few) still in North america, hence they lose the advantage the UK even had, meaning the UK's advantage, having canada, would not be there with Napoleon. Hence resources and not having much of a land base to move from would lead to his demise. Further, US troops in the civil war (well the confederates) were quite fond of guerrilla warfare. [3] With this we can assume they would likely enter guerrilla warfare.My opponents second objection is spain has better land for this tactic. This makes little sense, as we must ask what is ideal landscape? The answer is inconclusive, as most countries have have wars using these tactics before. But if I had to choose forests would likely be ideal, as you get some green cover. And guess what america had? Forests. But this fails, as Guerrilla warfare is so effective. In the battle of concord in the revolution, minutemen also used these tactics which dealt huge casualties to the british. [4] It also forked in taking fort Ticonderoga. [5] Did not make victory but damaged british morale and supplies making them very weak in the battle of yorktown, in the southern campaign.[6] My opponent has failed to show how our terrain is "worse" nor has proven would be ineffective.C2 - Multiple warsMy opponent is false. He forgets the Sixth Coalition war. And the remembers the peninsula war (helped make the coalition war). [7] Even if we assume my opponent is correct (which he is not) we can ask would this multi war be too much? The UK had problems, all they where fighting was france, so why would it fail vice versa? Also, lets look at the facts. There were 7000 french deaths in that war, and 7000 injured. [8] My opponent claims the 6th coalition was 5 months after, it takes one month to send troops across the sea, hence it would be likely fighting two wars at once as well as taking months to cross the sea means the coalition may form when the was IS STILL happening. So the point stands.My opponent drops the analysis of france having to garrison large areas of land meaning his resources would be spread out over a large area. To show how large the area was: s://lh4.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="691px;" height="523px;" />The lightest blue just means influenced by, darkest blue is owned, medium blue means they where a large factor and technically owned the area. We can see his resources would be spread thin due to garrisoning. C3 - PlacementSo my opponent here is trying to make it seem like Napoleon had a good enough navy, and that navy was not as important as infantry, but this is not the case. But this is very very false. Privateers (something the US would be forced to use as they had a smaller navy) where very effective in curbing trade routes. They would use these boats that would disturb trade and therefore harm frances economy, and mean less reasouces would be in their suppies. This was used against the british. [9] Further, navy is even more essential in this circumstance, navy is how napoleon would have to get here! No navy no ground troops in this war. Further, any mess up by privaters or british fleets near the coast means they either are a) stuck, b) sinking slowly, or c) have to come back for repairs etc. If anything, navy is of paramount importance here!My opponent falsely argues england got here due to fleet, which is true, but the circumstances are very different. This was before america took all of french land, and england invaded it. So this is similar to what it looekd like in the revolution. (as shown earlier france lost its territory later here) As we can see England already had a large foothold in the new world and owned much of the water ways. With a land base already made, and much of the trade existing, comparing french 1812 and English to the revolution naval wise is quite hard to do for your side, the british had it a lot better then the french would have in this situation. England also had the best navy of its time. [10] So the comparison you made fails. C4 - No one liked franceDropped. I would like to add the reason england did not crush us was because they had no [few] allies. [10] My opponents claimsMilitary competanceThis is undeniable, but we must also look at why washington was a good leader (and also this argunment fails as it ignores my other contentions). tactics is actually a small part of generalship. Here is some french praise of our troops: "I cannot insist too strongly how I was surprised by the American Army. It is truly incredible that troops almost naked, poorly paid, and composed of old men and children and Negroes should behave so well on the march and under fire." —Attributed to a French Officer [11]And again, the distance and gurrella tactics would decimate napoleon. Americas weakness*low on room hence the shortness* The war of 1812 was a stalemate. [12] Further the US had the HAD the potential to make such a large army the english would, well, have to give up. But as they where a newer nation it was harder for them to make troops, their efforts where poor. Also the US had more of a capability in ALL areas, yet stumbled a little. They could have eaily won that war, but was a stalemate, and could easily win a war with france. [13] Napoleons MarshalsYes, the Marshals where a important peice of his army. Your point? This also means he would have lees troops fighting in europe, so he may be more hesitant to send multiple troops. *no room for conclusion[s]*SOURCES:http://www.debate.org... Vote for washingon!