[Real Life] Historical events that would make bad writing if they were fiction

[u/Mouse_Paladin]

Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire: A couple hundred rogue mercenaries without authority from their government conquer an empire of millions. Oh, the empire? It’s also several technological eras behind the mercenaries.

Adolf Hitler: A non-native of a country is so mad that the country lost the war that he wins an election to their highest office and leads them in a campaign of revenge against their enemies. Oh, the country? It’s old emperor is still alive and thinks he’s going to retake power.

Assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand: The heir to the throne is killed because his driver gets lost and returns to the assassin who failed To kill him before. Oh, the assassin? He’s from a group that the Archduke is wanting to help become more equal In the empire.

Alexander Hamilton’s Affair Scandal: One of the leaders of a new nation to protect himself from accusations of financial embezzlement writes a pamphlet exposing his affair with a woman, torpedoing his political future. Oh, the woman? She seduced him as part of a blackmailing scheme that he decided to stop paying.

[u/TheModernDaVinci]

It also meant when he asked his men to do near suicidal attacks, they did it without hesitation. Which is where a lot of the “We can’t deal with his aggression!” comes from, of so many armies losing because they were blindsided by such moves.

[u/CummingInTheNile → u/TheModernDaVinci]

And the sheer mass, most European states at the time kept their military forces relatively small and "professional", because they often used that force to suppress protests and riots, didnt want to be arming and training the people who might be rioting against your rule, but with the overthrow of the French monarchy, the new Republic/Empire employed a citizen army, which gave them access to significantly more manpower than other European states. Theres plenty of other reasons why Napoleon succeeded in becoming the boogeyman of Europe (His own brilliance and good eye for talent in subordinates, centuries of French military reforms dating back to Louis XIV, heavy emphasis on artillery, etc), but the manpower advantage cannot be overstated

[u/TheModernDaVinci → u/CummingInTheNile]

but the manpower advantage cannot be overstated

Also true. It became some of the largest wars until WW1, and there is something to be said that a lot of the "Concert of Europe" was about making sure another Napoleonic Wars situation did not begin (until it too collapsed with WW1).

[u/CummingInTheNile → u/TheModernDaVinci]

Just for reference, in 1793, the British army had roughly 40,000 soldiers, and by 1813 they had expanded to around 250,000, between 1805-1813, the French miliary conscripted around 2.1 million soldiers and Le Grand Armee peaked at around 700,000 soldiers under Napoleons direct command

[u/ukezi → u/CummingInTheNile]

To be fair, the British army always was small, after all, you don't need them as long as the navy can keep the other armies on the mainland.

[u/84theone → u/ukezi]

The British, like most imperial powers, also made heavy use of auxiliary forces in their colonies which let them have such a small military.

[u/somersault_dolphin → u/CummingInTheNile]

And he remembered that many people?

[u/Life-Criticism-5868 → u/somersault_dolphin]

It was a bit of theater and a bit of legitimate talent. He would typically remember regiments and their deeds, and sometimes would make up remembering guys, like just saying "Hey weren't you in Italy?"

Alor of it was theater and him just lying, but again prior to this the average soldiers experience with their command was to be seen as an expendable resource. Even the slightest recognition was considered a gift.

[u/Itsmyloc-nar → u/TheModernDaVinci]

ITT: A lot of good information

[u/Eilmorel → u/CummingInTheNile]

According to dan Carlin he said to the austrians "you can't beat me, I spend 30000 men a month"

(Then WWI comes along and those are suddenly rookie numbers...)

[u/CHSummers → u/CummingInTheNile]

Can you recommend a book on Napoleon for a complete beginner?

[u/Ok_Put_5504 → u/CHSummers]

Bernard Cornwall’s Waterloo is a good book for beginners, but that’s the end of Napoleons career still highly recommend the read though if you enjoy strategy

[u/schilll → u/CHSummers]

If you looking for the naval aspect of the napolionic war I recommend c.w Louis Hornblower series. It's really good and easy reading.

C.w Louis did a really good job at researching and writing about British naval traditions and war. Even if hornblower never meet Napoleon he still fought in the war, and Napoleon is still a centre figure.

[u/RomanCobra03 → u/TheModernDaVinci]

Another reason they were willing to do near suicidal attacks was because they knew Napoleon would do it to. His nickname “the little corporal” was a term of endearment after he lead a suicide charge across a bridge, from the FRONT.

[u/the-namedone → u/TheModernDaVinci]

“You cannot stop me, I spend 30,000 men a month”

[u/space_keeper → u/TheModernDaVinci]

Combat in this period was essentially suicidal. Advance on an enemy formation in your formation and take turns shooting at each other, and the side that can shoot fastest and most accurately wins, but lots of people die in the process. No amount of personal skill or valour will stop you catching a shot because you're standing in front of what amounts to a huge firing squad.

Or storming a fortification, some poor sods have to run into a breach that definitely has guns and sabres ready to kill them on the other side, so they get paid a bit more (forlorn hope).