NationStates Jolt Archive


Review my Report!

The Parkus Empire
04-05-2007, 08:04
This is NOT, I repeat, this in NOT a plea for homework help, just a review of my brief report is on Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion of Russia in 1812. Go ahead, enjoy:

Napoleon's invasion of Russia was due to a degeneration of Czar Alaxander I and Napoleon Bonaparte's relationship. Previously the two were allies, and Alaxander was indeed Napoleon's best friend. Their friendship started when Napoleon defeated the Czar in a battle, and Alaxander remarked "I hate the British as much as you do." Napoleon responded: "then we are friends." However, this all was possibly a ruse, as the Czar most likely didn't trust Napoleon, even though Napoleon said that they could rule the world togther. And if Alaxander indeed did hate the British, he obviously hated Napoleon more, as he later cooperated with Great Britain to defeat the Emperor of France.
Napoleon and the Czar agreed to help one-another in all efforts, mainy, to break the British. The reason for Napoleon's hatered for the British (the feeling was mutual) was due to their policy on powers. They were always careful to maintain the "balance of power", and Napoleon was far too powerful to ignore. This lead to many conflicts started by the British, in order to prevent Napoleon from ruling over all of Europe. The British possesed a powerful navy, and economy. Even Napoleon's navy was "second best". Napoleon assumed however, he could cripple the British with a navel tactic, which turned out to be one of the most disasterous in history, the "Continental System".
Deciding that he had a large enough empire, and quite enough allies (he had numerous) Napoleon decided that rather then risk a navel confrontation, he could defeat Great Britain through a blockade. He assumed they would always be a problem if Europe continued to trade with them. Therfore he outlawed all trade with Great Britain. Any European ships going there were turned back by a massive blockade, which also prevented Britain from trading with Europe. However, it only worked in theory. Smuggling became a major problem, and British assisted considerably to promote it. Even Napoleon's own brother, whom he put on the Dutch throne, ignored his orders, and traded with Britain. Napoleon was sure he could have united Europe if his orders were followed, however they were not, as Britain was the economic center of the continent. The only nation which did obey the laws, was not even European. The United States and Britain were old enemies, and at the moment they weren't too fond of each other, and America was more then happy to boycott Britain. However, even they couldn't succeed, because the British set up a blockade of their own, and forced American ships in their ports to be inspected. Nothing was allowed to leave for France, and was all either bought, or conficated by the British goverment.
Even though Napoleon's brother had defied him, it was the Czar who had went along with all his previous plans, but defied this one, that upset Napoleon so much. Napoleon saw the Continental System as the final move, then nothing would stand in his way of what he called "European unification", and others (including the Czar) called "Domination". Utterly upset over the turnaround of the Czar's allegiances, and deciding that the good of Europe was at stake, Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812.
Napoleon percieved Russia as the greatest trade influx to Britain. Also percieving that this would be the first move of the Czar agaist him, Napoleon wasn't going to take any chances. He decided he didn't have time for a long war. He wanted to cut money to Britain, and thought time was of the essence. Taking over half-a-million soldiers, Napoleon begin what would he thought would be a short war that would fix his problem. It turned out to be a mistake that would be forever held up tp be compared with all others...
Although Russia was indeed a "tough nut to crack", it that wasn't where Napoleon thought wrong. He prepared in advance, setting the time, and calculating that the war would be over in a matter of weeks. After all, he reasoned with so many men in his force, the Czar would have to surrender, thinking it would be the only smart thing to do. However, the Czar was much more despert then Napoleon considered. The Czar destroyed everything that would aid Napoleon's army, including food and shelter. Napoleon fought his forces at the Battle of Borodino, but the Czar knew defeating Napoleon, especially when the Emperor was backed-up by such a massive army, was virtually impossible. He instead made sure, that at least the Emperor had nothing to conquer. On September 12, Napoleon entered Moscow. A large portion of it was destroyed, and much more on fire. Napoleon thought it was the the worst sight he had ever laid eyes on. He waited, sending pleading letters to the Czar which went unanswered. After much hesitiation and time, Napoleon began the march home. Most of his men died en route of starvatrion, cold, and marauders. Of the incredible army he entered with (many accounts put it at 600,000), only a dozen or so thousand made it out alive. He forced many to march, afraid to leave them in the hands of a possibly vengeful Czar. This defeat, coupled with a terrible problem in Spain, and the Battle of Trafalgar, which crippled his fleet and ended his blockade, destroyed him. He was forced to abdicate, and was exiled to Elba. He would escape, and return briefly, where he would be defeateed at Waterloo, and sent to St. Helena.
Some belive Napoleon did good, while others considered him a despicable power-hungry tyrant (a view shared by the Czar). It is possible that had he conquered Europe, the two World Wars would have been averted, with which even his massive wars didn't compare. He also enginered a modern legal system. He is also remembered as the promoter of nationalism, for which he was loved and hated. Altough he originally supported liberty, he established himself as a dictating Emperor. He himself said "my work is not done twice in a centrury". Good, bad or both, this is most certainly true.

So, whatta ya think?
Bokkiwokki
04-05-2007, 08:20
Well, that thoroughly depends upon the the goals of this exercise, old boy. ;)

If your school doesn't give a crap about the standard of your language skills, and only focuses on the contents, then this interpretation of Napoleons exploits is as good as any other.

If I were a teacher, though, I'd not give it more than a 5, because the least you could do is let your spelling checker go over it...
Daistallia 2104
04-05-2007, 08:20
-snip-
So, whatta ya think?

I think it still smacks of homework help, despite your denial.
Fartsniffage
04-05-2007, 08:40
Depends how old you are.

If I'd have handed that in in the last 3 years at high school then I would have been laughed at, in the first two it would have been acceptable and at primary school it would have been fantastic.
Bosco stix
04-05-2007, 08:54
I agree with the above post!
Qiri
05-05-2007, 04:43
'brief'?

also a feu typos
Frisbeeteria
05-05-2007, 04:56
I think it's homework help, no matter what you call it. Thread closed.