|
|
Post by rommel323 on Jun 2, 2021 5:31:23 GMT
How plausible it was?
|
|
|
|
Post by Adozf Hitzer on Jun 2, 2021 6:40:16 GMT
He only needed to defeat Ottomans. |
|
|
|
Post by rommel323 on Jun 2, 2021 7:48:36 GMT
He only needed to defeat Ottomans. Not really. He wanted it to threaten the British |
|
|
|
Post by Adozf Hitzer on Jun 2, 2021 12:23:32 GMT
He only needed to defeat Ottomans. Not really. He wanted it to threaten the British Egypt was a "province" of ottoman empire |
|
|
|
Post by rommel323 on Jun 4, 2021 12:04:30 GMT
Not really. He wanted it to threaten the British Egypt was a "province" of ottoman empire I meant British trade. But Oversimplified potrays it wrongly. |
|
|
|
Post by Adozf Hitzer on Jun 5, 2021 1:17:46 GMT
Egypt was a "province" of ottoman empire I meant British trade. But Oversimplified potrays it wrongly. Invasion of Egypt will not interrupt British trade. Oversimplified's statement was a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jun 5, 2021 12:08:33 GMT
I meant British trade. But Oversimplified potrays it wrongly. Invasion of Egypt will not interrupt British trade. Oversimplified's statement was a joke. Not to the French High Command. They thought that owning Egypt would disrupt overland trade from India. |
|
|
|
Post by Adozf Hitzer on Jun 5, 2021 13:18:46 GMT
Invasion of Egypt will not interrupt British trade. Oversimplified's statement was a joke. Not to the French High Command. They thought that owning Egypt would disrupt overland trade from India. Overland trade? |
|
|
|
Post by rommel323 on Jun 5, 2021 13:23:05 GMT
Not to the French High Command. They thought that owning Egypt would disrupt overland trade from India. Overland trade? Egypt also had the central position to Africa, Europe and Asia. |
|
|
|
Post by Adozf Hitzer on Jun 5, 2021 13:45:44 GMT
Egypt also had the central position to Africa, Europe and Asia. Land trade was not feasible for such long distances. |
|
|
|
Post by rommel323 on Jun 5, 2021 13:48:22 GMT
Egypt also had the central position to Africa, Europe and Asia. Land trade was not feasible for such long distances. Ok. The main question is - how plausible it was? What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by Adozf Hitzer on Jun 5, 2021 13:58:32 GMT
Land trade was not feasible for such long distances. Ok. The main question is - how plausible it was? What do you think? They do capture Egypt, but to secure it, they must neutralise Ottomans which can be only done through defeating it, which was possible. |
|
|
|
Post by rommel323 on Jun 5, 2021 14:34:06 GMT
Ok. The main question is - how plausible it was? What do you think? They do capture Egypt, but to secure it, they must neutralise Ottomans which can be only done through defeating it, which was possible. Ironically, the Ottomans joined on the French side lol. What if they sucessfully captured Egypt? |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jun 5, 2021 16:04:40 GMT
They do capture Egypt, but to secure it, they must neutralise Ottomans which can be only done through defeating it, which was possible. Ironically, the Ottomans joined on the French side lol. What if they sucessfully captured Egypt? Actually... the Ottomans were neutral. In EW4, they appear for game balance. They did diplomatically and economically support Naopleon however, just not militarily. |
|
|
|
Post by Adozf Hitzer on Jun 6, 2021 1:43:46 GMT
They do capture Egypt, but to secure it, they must neutralise Ottomans which can be only done through defeating it, which was possible. Ironically, the Ottomans joined on the French side lol. What if they sucessfully captured Egypt? No |
|
