Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="nelsonmuntz, post: 4903926, member: 833"] You are right. Scott should have gotten 160,000 extras and filmed every skirmish of Austerlitz exactly as it happened to make it completely authentic. That would have made sense. The Austrians and Russians ran right into a trap. The Czar of Russia, who was at the battle, attested to the Satschen Lake catastrophe. Or you can believe Napoleon's weird claim that he drained a lake in the middle of winter right after a battle (with early 19th century technology, while in a war zone) to see how many dead Russians were at the bottom. From a propaganda standpoint, Napoleon made every effort to make it seem like he was merciful in his victory, when in reality thousands were killed fleeing when the Allied army collapsed. Breaking up ice that Russians were trying to flee across probably seemed like fun in the moment, but it was not going to play well in political circles when Napoleon was trying to end fighting in Europe. Napoleon actually claimed to be merciful when he accepted Emperor Francis' surrender so not appearing to be a bloodthirsty mass murderer was important to him. Napoleon and Wellington did not meet, but it did not make sense to introduce more characters at that point in the movie, and it was not a big deal. The entire Egypt invasion could have been skipped. It didn't add to the story and it is a weird side note to the historical record that doesn't make sense there either. I didn't think the movie was that good either. I just disagree with your characterization of the movie being a BS sandwich and wanted to point out that you are wrong on the Battle of Austerlitz. Just like you are wrong on Shogun. You are not very good with this history stuff, are you? [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach