Reason For Leave: Fill & Download for Free

As Comrade Stalin said, every mistake has a name and surname. The same can be said about victories. The English victory has two names, and these are Horatio Nelson and Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. And it is difficult to imagine two more different military geniuses.The brilliant Russian commander Alexander Suvorov, with his inherent laconicism, determined three sources of victory: good eye, rapidity and onslaught. Nothing better characterizes Nelson's style. Nelson is a naval Suvorov. His two best battles - battles of the Nile and Trafalgar - are a classic demonstrations of these principles: the sudden appearance (rapidity), the instantaneous assessment of the situation and the development of an optimal disposition, as they say, on the move (good eye), and the onslaught until the decisive victory.Wellington is a commander of more a Roman style with a pronounced dominance of the defensive component. Its main feature is caution, and the main goal is not to lose. He is a commander of the Kutuzov type who, without a bright talent on the battlefield, understands the logic of war and such not purely military factors as time, logistics, economy and politics, and is able to win wars without victories, and even without battles (Sun Tzu). As the example of Fabius Cunctator shows, even such indisputable geniuses as Hannibal are powerless against such a strategy. The strength of a Cunctator is that he turns against the enemy the time, the nature and the logic of events, not relying on the fragility of military success on the battlefield. Nothing could be opposed to this either by the brilliant French marshals, and by Napoleon himself. Napoleon, this Hannibal of modern times, faced in his life two Cunctators - Kutuzov and Wellington - and lost to both of them.The victory of Nelson in the battle of the Nile radically changed the strategic situation, which until then was completely in favor of the French. The Egyptian raid of Napoleon, which should lead to Turkey's entry into the war on the side of France - which would sharply shift the balance of forces on the Eastern Front in favor of France - ended in failure and surrender. Turkey entered the war on the side of the anti-French coalition. The Russian fleet in the Ionian Sea and Suvorov with the Austrians on land completely reconquered Italy (except Genoa) and threatened France itself. Only stupidity or betrayal of the Austrians saved Massena in Swissland from defeat, and the French Republic - from destruction. Had the Archduke Charles not been so stupid as to withdraw the troops from the direction of the main attack to Franche Comte, the war could have ended quickly. After arrival of the Russian troops of Rimsky-Korsakov in Switzerland, Massena was in a hopeless situation: he was outnumbered 2:1, and from day to day the approach of the legendary and invincible Suvorov was expected. Massena had a strong defensive position, but, given how easily Suvorov dealt with the equally strong position of the French in the battle of Novi, it would hardly have saved Massena. The defeat of Massena's army opened a direct road to Paris, and the French had nothing to oppose: from Switzerland to Paris, nothing could stop the advancing allies.Instead, the Archduke Charles was seduced by the distracting blow of the Rhine army of the French and left Rimsky-Korsakov one on one with Massena, without waiting for Suvorov to come. It is necessary to pay tribute to Massena, he behaved like an ingenious commander. He did not let defeat himself by superior enemy forces, he patiently waited for an enemy's mistake, not responding to numerous orders from the Directory about the offensive, including direct threats of execution for betrayal, and smashed the enemy with lightning speed as soon as he made the strategic mistake. Napoleon later said bluntly that Massena had saved France.Although Napoleon was able to reconquer Italy and make Austria capitulate, the Mediterranean was lost to the French forever, and Turkey as an ally too. The balance of power has changed irreversibly. The genius of Napoleon on the battlefield could still compensate for the damage, but the logic of events was already inevitably leading France to defeat. And it was Nelson who launched this chain of events at the battle of Nile.Knowing perfectly where the critical point of the anti-French coalition was, Napoleon, intending to solve the problem with one blow, prepared the landing in England. To this end, in 1805 the invasion army concentrated in Boulogne. Napoleon needed only one clear day and the fleet, and the fate of England and the whole war would be solved. On land, England could hardly have opposed the French army, hardened in battle. Given the small distance to London, the English would have been forced into a general battle, in which Napoleon had no equal. But Nelson again decided the question in favor of England at Trafalgar.Ironically, revolutionary France received a whole constellation of talented generals on land, and not a single one at sea. The traditional continentality of the French was the main reason. The fleet in France has never had such a high reputation as in England, and has never given such opportunities for career growth. If Nelson was a Frenchman, with his ambitions, he would surely have been a land general. This was the reason for the collapse of Napoleon.The Trafalgar's defeat also has a name - Villeneuve.It is difficult to imagine a more mediocre admiral. In the battle of Nile, commanding the rear squadron, he did not actually take part in the battle. In 1805, having a larger fleet than Nelson, and sufficient time to bring him into combat condition, he could not provide either training of the fleet and sailors, or the distinct use of this fleet, or command of it in battle. Villeneuve had a chance to break through into the English Channel and ensure the landing of Napoleon in England, after a generally successful battle at Cape Finisterre, but, in fear of Nelson, ignoring Napoleon's direct orders, he left for Cadiz , where he lost two months, foiling Napoleon's operation, and did nothing to improve the combat capability of the fleet. His command in the course of the Battle of Trafalgar - if the situation when half of the stronger fleet leaves the battlefield without action during the battle can be concidered commanding - does not stand up to any criticism.Nelson perished in the Battle of Trafalgar, but the logic of events he launched could no longer be addressed. The French-Spanish fleet was removed from the agenda, Britain gained full control over the seas and the question of the French landing was lifted once and for all. Instead, Britain got the opportunity for landing anywhere and at any time (although, the Walcheren Campaign in 1809 showed that the British ground forces were still considerably inferior to the French ones). The defeat of Napoleon was only a matter of time.It is not necessary to remove the responsibility from Napoleon himself. His personnel policy was far from perfect. Napoleon later said that he could have avoided defeat if at one time he had discharged two men, Foreign Minister Talleyrand and Minister of Police Fouche. It is definitely necessary to add Villeneuve to this list, and, most likely, it should be put on the first place.Did Napoleon have the opportunity to replace Villeneuve? Yes, he had, and for this he, in principle, did not need admirals. Such an iron administrator as Davout was likely to be able to quickly bring the fleet into a battleworthy state, and by placing the fearless Lannes at the head of the fleet, he would receive a fleet that could decisively onslaught or stubbornly defend himself, those qualities that Lannes demonstrated with such brilliance on land. Napoleon simply did not bother with the state of the fleet properly, and was punished for it.Of course, we need to mention another co-author of the victory - Sir John Moore.These were his reforms that the British troops owe that after 1810 they became generally superior to the French, primarily in the effectiveness of shooting. It was Moore who brought the rate of firing of the English line infantry to 4 shots per minute against a maximum of three shots per minute of the French (we must also pay tribute to the superiority in the British Brown Bess rate of fire over the French musket of 1777), which played so decisive role in the Battle of Waterloo. It was Moore who lobbied for the introduction of the new Baker rifle, which allowed the British light infantry to shoot the French from a distance of 200 to 500 meters (as the example of Tom Plunket shows), while the possibilities of the best French shooters hardly extended beyond 150 meters. Unfortunately, Moore perished in La Coruña. If it were not for this tragic accident, the Wellington star would hardly have risen.Wellington revived the "second front" in Spain and drew considerable French forces there. He forced Napoleon to fight on two fronts and, ultimately, won a strategic victory in Spain, far from always winning decisive victories in field battles. Wellington won the Waterloo battle in the Cunctator style, taking a strong defensive position on the top of the hill, covering it with vanguard fortifications, fighting for which the French lost time, and having returned the smashed the day before Blucher to the battlefield. Combined with the already traditional by that time superiority of the British in the rate of fire and the impassable mud after the rain, which took the precious morning hours for the offensive from the French, these decided the fate of the battle.So, the answer to the question: Horatio Nelson, John Moore, Arthur Wellesley.

Develop relationships with professors and utilize office hours. I majored in political science and economics, which are the two most popular majors. During my first two years, I was intimidated by my classmates who were more outspoken than I was in class and because of that, I was hesitant in going to office hours frequently since I thought that the professor would be less welcoming to me. This was COMPLETELY all in my head and it wasn’t until junior year when I started becoming more comfortable and realized that going to office hours actually helped boost my grade because professors took the time to guide you in your assignments. While you’ll be surprised to find out how competitive students are in getting office hours, I encourage you to make yourself go every week for multiple reasons. Speaking to more professors will give you a sense of what department/major you want to commit to and developing relationships early on can provide you strong recommendation letters later on. Wellesley professors REALLY do care. Still, don’t stress out too much about it because as long as you make an intentional effort to go, it will show.Utilize the Career, Work and Service (CWS) center early. They have been making improvements since I graduated. I would definitely explore the website to see fellowships/grants/summer internship opportunities that you are interested in so you are aware of the deadlines. I would encourage you to apply to anything that you’re interested in!Find study partners/friends! It helps with sharing approaches to studying that you may not have thought of and also, just make studying more fun because it can feel isolating at times.Enroll in classes at MIT, Babson or Olin! This is something I wish I did because you can take classes in areas that Wellesley does not focus on (ie: entrepreneurship, urban planning…etc). I also think Wellesley underprepare students technically so taking classes at other colleges that require you to learn/use new software or are more project based where you have to create something will come in handy when you start looking for jobs/internships.Get involved on something outside of campus. Wellesley can feel like a bubble so it is always a nice break to leave campus and also develop friendships/network in Boston area. For example, there are volunteer groups from Wellesley involved in Harvard PBHA.Take care of yourself, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, in whatever way you like. Go out to explore in Boston/Cambridge and utilize the swimming pool! I actually took swimming lessons and it was super fun.Lastly, just want to say that it is okay if you don’t immediately find your group of friends or people. Orientation made it seem like your best friends are your roommates or the people you’re sitting next, but that’s not always the case.

BMC alumna here. They are both academic pressure cookers that will give you intellectual rigor, unique traditions, the privilege of a beautiful campus, and a lifelong feminist support network. I agree with Siena that, many other things being equal, the "feel" of a campus should be right for you.Have you visited both campuses? I interviewed at/visited Harvard, Mt. Holyoke, and Smith, but not Wellesley. I interviewed at and visited BMC and that was it - I was in love.Some BMC considerations:BMC is expanding its STEM education. If I had any interest in tech, I would be VERY interested in BMC. I work in tech now and I know lots of BMC grads who do, too - like Dr. Genevive Bell.Getting into Philly from BMC campus or town is very, very easy. I took classes at Penn and dated downtown.You could live off campus in a reasonably civilized fashion with affordable-ish housing and groceries, many of my friends did this. I also dressed cheaply in rich-person-clothing castoffs from Main Line thrift and secondhand stores.Spring happens "on time", in late March/early April - a revelation for me, coming from New England.Senior year, I had acres of interviews for jobs and was employed a month after graduation (in this quaint industry they used to have called 'publishing').What sucked at BMC? Sports, two friends of mine had to leave after their families disowned them for coming out and BMC wouldn't change their financial aid, and the same energy-sucking political dramas you'd probably find at Wellesley.Wellesley has traditions, but BMC has more traditions of hair-raising beauty and power.Good luck! Maybe you'll be yelling "ANASSA KATA" in a few years.