Neither the two greatest Generals turn Rulers ever known each other nor faced any other in battle (The closest thing was the 'Quasi War' which was due to the Congress (or the Presidency of the USA) refusal to recognize the First Republic of France (and thus refused to repay any remaining war debts borrowed in the days of Bourbon Dynasty... one big Louis XVI's great mistakes that led to the France follow-up economical and financial crisis that in turn led to the Revolution... and later the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte several years later) and then the Republic government took a direct action.... merchant fleet raids on any American merchant vessels... the action later led to the short naval war in which the USA fought against the then enemy of the British Empire... for the first time.... without any formal alliance or defensive pact)... but in this show. I don't understand why in this battle simulation.. George Washington won. despite that
1. Napoleon has better artillery pieces (and himself a big fan of big guns. ever since he became an artillery corporal. he refined his artillery skills on a daily basis to the point that no one knows big guns better).. the show said his favorite was the 8 Pounder (Not sure if French reclassified this gun into metric system... Napoleon did keep metric system throughout his reign and maybe beyond).... Washington had (or preferred... I think he or The Continental Army did also have either bigger pieces like the 12 or 18 pounders (dunno... either defections of entire American Provincial units that had those big guns, or through thievery or looting), or fond of smaller (and more agile) 3 pounders (likely horse artillery) .
2. And Napoleon extended his artillery skills to his Grand Army. In the show, his 8 Pounder coupled with his 'crack crews' scored more kills than Washington's favorite pieces were either 6 or even 3 pounders. also Napoleon had a well made Grape Shots but Washington must reply on scattershots made out of scrap metals, crushed broken glass pleces, nails, chains... etc. anything that hopes to do the same Canister round functions.
In this 5 VS 5 battle. (The simulation that Napoleon decided to invade the USA sometimes after he made peace with the UK... or if the Consulate decided to make Quasi War formal) Washington miraculously won.
The Battle ended in a 1 V 1 Heroic Duel. It is quite unlikely that Napoleon's Grand Army (which usually came with his Elite Guard) did not win the fight against marginally equipped (and trained) Continental Army.. in this fight. no Long Riflemen nor Grognards present.
What else contributed to Washington victory? was he also a duelist while Napoleon wasn't Did Washington went through 'Gentlemen and Blueblood style' education while Napoleon (who also came from Neapolitan noble family) did not or did the French Schools in his childhood days taught diffrent things to ones George Washington attended?
The idea that France would be able to invade the US around the time ofthe Quasi War is preposterous on its face. Therefore, anything the show says on the topic is probably also preposterous.
Washington wasn't that great a commander, he was facing largely inept opponents and was in a position in assymmetric warfare it was difficult to lose from, to his credit he understood this. Napoleon beat the odds time and again.
This show is utter garbage from a tactical and scientific standpoint. You are aware of this right?
I mean, for the love of God, those clips alone are not using cannons for what they are supposed to be used for. On top of that, they are comparing operator skill since they each have a different crew. And the tests are wildly and comically different.
Please, please don't tell me you're taking this seriously and I'm just the victim of a bad joke here.
Spartan wins. He kicked that samurai's keister. However, Vlad Tepes is a close second. He's the only bad guy I saw in that interesting show that actually laughed maniacally while firing his hand cannon. heh heh!
I mean this is the same show that somehow gave an advantage to a Roman gladiator (y'know the showmen who weren't trained to kill or use actual effective weapons) over an Apache (the ones who held off the freaking US army).
OK i've watched the entire episode and it turned out some of your guys here are correct. while the team claimed that they 'researched' everything throughoutly... AFAIK they forgot that
1. The Presence of Navy...
2. The Continental Army did also uses Charleville 1777 Muskets as well as the preexisting Brown Bess and Long Rifle.
3. And Long Riflemen didn't wear Blue Uniforms. (Back then Riflemen were skirmishers and they don't stay in the coherency of the generic Line Infantry in which Washington also uses).. nor any line infantrymen were armed with long rifles...
and.
4. The Battle of Yorktown (Which ended the American Revolutionary wars). French flew Bourbon Flag and not the Tricolour (which had been introduced by the French Revolutionary Movements.)
5. Washington's Sword was more or less a duelling rapier and I don't see any battlefield usefulness. Even his cavalry and officiers also uses sabers just like anyone else.
And this is surprising to you? The whole show is flawed at the core. Did you honestly expect an actual, serious historical debate from a bunch of guys who measure an artillery piece by shooting at targets not meant for artillery?
curran12 wrote: And this is surprising to you? The whole show is flawed at the core. Did you honestly expect an actual, serious historical debate from a bunch of guys who measure an artillery piece by shooting at targets not meant for artillery?
On the other hand, the show was great for seeing what weapons could do to dead pigs.
I thought the vampire vs. zombie episode explored themes we would never have anticipated.
^ Nah! nor their 'analyzing engines' they claimed simulate the battles shown above. (if there were a fight, I guess the Total War series would simulate a better one)... are these 'engines' (actually a software) actually a good battlefield simulator?
I dunno if these guys were wargame nerds too? And who shoots cannon at an enemy command sections (except a grapeshot contest) ? why don't give those guys a blockhouse to shoot? nor The Continental Army can't make proper grapeshots out of any scrapmetals they can find nor they can loot.
Also I don't think Napoleon don't use smaller pieces like horse artillery. also nobody said the words of 'Infantry Gun' (Which Napoleon fonded of).
At least Washington didn't fall for one of the great classic blunders.
Don't know if he ever went against a Sicilian when death was on the line, though.
Well, not paying much attention to the show or its outcome, in response to some of the posts here, Washington was an excellent leader for his time. It was the quality of most of his troops that were the problem. American militia tended to bolt at the first sign of bayonets, and congress had problems paying for its regular troops. And it wasn't like it was ALL of the US versus GB, it was about half of America versus GB, as there were a ton of loyalists around too.
But the whole manner in which the war was fought was pretty comical by today's standards. If it weren't for the Native Americans teaching early Americans how to fight, I am not sure where we would be today. Regardless Washington did the best he could with what he had. I have to admit I do admire the guy, and have a huge amount of respect that he turned his sword over to congress when the whole thing was done. Very few others have done that in the past. Even Napoleon couldn't believe it.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Hitler vs Churchill. Mono-testicular drug addict vs overweight alcoholic. Who will win?
one Boer war, the other WW1 soldier.
least Churchill did not have to go Austrian rage mode to deliver a good speech.
Those two in a speech off might put half if not all of the political world now days to shame though.
Frazzled wrote: Yea Stalin was a pretty heavy boozer to. This is clearly why Hitler lost the war.
No one these days would ever aproach diplomatic affairs by two world leaders engaging in a 7 hour session of feasting, alcohol and getting hammered to point even Churchill has a mild headache by 1 am but kept at it for 2 more hours!
Advantage Washington...he'll cross a treacherous, frozen river in total darkness just for a chance to kill you in your sleep on Christmas night. That, is OG!
KTG17 wrote: Well, not paying much attention to the show or its outcome, in response to some of the posts here, Washington was an excellent leader for his time. It was the quality of most of his troops that were the problem. American militia tended to bolt at the first sign of bayonets, and congress had problems paying for its regular troops. And it wasn't like it was ALL of the US versus GB, it was about half of America versus GB, as there were a ton of loyalists around too.
But the whole manner in which the war was fought was pretty comical by today's standards. If it weren't for the Native Americans teaching early Americans how to fight, I am not sure where we would be today. Regardless Washington did the best he could with what he had. I have to admit I do admire the guy, and have a huge amount of respect that he turned his sword over to congress when the whole thing was done. Very few others have done that in the past. Even Napoleon couldn't believe it.
While his army was starving, Washington ran an expense account of $4.5m in today's dollars for his personal staff. There was, in 2017 dollars, about $600k spent on booze. He bought a saddle that could instead have been used to feed 1,000 troops for a month.
But, as you say, he did keep his army functioning despite the hardships, so his own absurd excesses didn't negatively affect him. But still.
KTG17 wrote: Well, not paying much attention to the show or its outcome, in response to some of the posts here, Washington was an excellent leader for his time. It was the quality of most of his troops that were the problem. American militia tended to bolt at the first sign of bayonets, and congress had problems paying for its regular troops. And it wasn't like it was ALL of the US versus GB, it was about half of America versus GB, as there were a ton of loyalists around too.
But the whole manner in which the war was fought was pretty comical by today's standards. If it weren't for the Native Americans teaching early Americans how to fight, I am not sure where we would be today. Regardless Washington did the best he could with what he had. I have to admit I do admire the guy, and have a huge amount of respect that he turned his sword over to congress when the whole thing was done. Very few others have done that in the past. Even Napoleon couldn't believe it.
While his army was starving, Washington ran an expense account of $4.5m in today's dollars for his personal staff. There was, in 2017 dollars, about $600k spent on booze. He bought a saddle that could instead have been used to feed 1,000 troops for a month.
But, as you say, he did keep his army functioning despite the hardships, so his own absurd excesses didn't negatively affect him. But still.
Lets be fair. At the time, both alcohol and a saddle could definitely be seen as a necessity. Alcohol would be necessary for moral reasons, not to mention water was often unsafe to drink. And you'd need a saddle. Plus just because you have money doesn't mean you can actually buy anything. You buy some food down south, but by the time it gets delivered its going to be rotten, no matter how much money you toss at the problem. A saddle would be necessary for him to effectively command his troops, he would need the mobility to move about and see what was going on.
He also had to pitch in a lot of his own money to keep the army running because Congress couldn't/wouldn't fund them properly. Its not like he was an excessive guy as a rule.
Grey Templar wrote: Lets be fair. At the time, both alcohol and a saddle could definitely be seen as a necessity. Alcohol would be necessary for moral reasons, not to mention water was often unsafe to drink. And you'd need a saddle.
I think you've missed some necessary detail. He didn't just buy a random saddle. Obviously there'd be no issue with the guy just buying a saddle. The point is the saddle he bought cost ridiculously more than an ordinary saddle, thousands of times more than an ordinary saddle. It's like if a general today bought a gold plated stretch limo, and people said 'well of course he needs a car to get around'.
The alcohol is the same thing. Sure, you often have to drink alcohol when water is unsafe, but going through thousands of dollars in booze, hundreds of thousands in 2017 dollars, is something else entirely.
Plus just because you have money doesn't mean you can actually buy anything. You buy some food down south, but by the time it gets delivered its going to be rotten, no matter how much money you toss at the problem. A saddle would be necessary for him to effectively command his troops, he would need the mobility to move about and see what was going on.
Sorry fellas, we just can't find a way to source you any food, and I fear a sixth of you may die, but I'm having mutton and quail because it's my birthday.
He also had to pitch in a lot of his own money to keep the army running because Congress couldn't/wouldn't fund them properly. Its not like he was an excessive guy as a rule.
No, he didn't. This is the point. He made a show of claiming no salary for his position, and instead asked only for an expense account. In lieu of a salary of a few thousand dollars, he instead claimed hundreds of thousands in expense claims.
Seriously though, I don't want to turn this in to a Washington sucked thing, he kept an army in the field despite the hardships, and won the war. But at the same time reality is that the guy lived it up high with an outrageous expense account while his army was impoverished.
Washington wasn't really that great of a field officer. To put it this way, if he were wearing stars in today's army, he'd be an INSCOM officer. He was really most effective in his intelligence gathering/spy apparatus, not so much in field/actual fightin' stuff.
Napoleon was only defeated by an unusually strong Russian winter, and by the combined might of the rest of Europe on the 7th (!) attempt, while he was laid low by illness.
Washington defeated a demoralized British force 3500 miles and two months sail from home.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Washington wasn't really that great of a field officer. To put it this way, if he were wearing stars in today's army, he'd be an INSCOM officer. He was really most effective in his intelligence gathering/spy apparatus, not so much in field/actual fightin' stuff.
Lets see, Napoleon -arguably #1 or #2 of history's greatest generals vs. Washington. No contest: Washington because America HURR! .
feeder wrote: Napoleon was only defeated by an unusually strong Russian winter, and by the combined might of the rest of Europe on the 7th (!) attempt, while he was laid low by illness.
.
The show said he was too impatience to finish off Russia. but back then, how many Frenchmen has any knowledge of Russian weather cycle compared to the french ones?
In addition. The lack of efficient Imperial Navy prevented the naval action by the shores of Ingria Oblast (Where St. Petersburg is) and thus restricting Tsar Alexander to Moscow (And that ease off the difficulties to tame Russia).
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Washington wasn't really that great of a field officer. To put it this way, if he were wearing stars in today's army, he'd be an INSCOM officer. He was really most effective in his intelligence gathering/spy apparatus, not so much in field/actual fightin' stuff.
Lets see, Napoleon -arguably #1 or #2 of history's greatest generals vs. Washington. No contest: Washington because America HURR! .
IMO, the two are in completely different arguments entirely. Like I said in my post, Washington wasn't a great field officer. In the British system, he had basically capped out at his rank due to blunders in the field. His strength was in the organization of his spy ring and intelligence gathering/analysis. Napoleon on the other hand was a brilliant field commander. According to some of the stuff I've read on Napoleon, the guy had an innate understanding of Supply and how to keep his armies provisioned (Russian winters not-withstanding).
My post was not in any way attempting to say Washington was best, because he really wasn't.
feeder wrote: Napoleon was only defeated by an unusually strong Russian winter, and by the combined might of the rest of Europe on the 7th (!) attempt, while he was laid low by illness.
Washington defeated a demoralized British force 3500 miles and two months sail from home.
Boney wins.
A simplistic approach at the issue, considering that Napoleon had a highly industrialized (for the time) nation supplying him, along with the total support of his people. Compare that to a man who was leading an highly demoralized, under supplied, under trained force, while a full half of the native population at best didn't support you.
Honestly, this is a discussion that would take pages of text to properly analyze.
feeder wrote: Napoleon was only defeated by an unusually strong Russian winter, and by the combined might of the rest of Europe on the 7th (!) attempt, while he was laid low by illness.
Washington defeated a demoralized British force 3500 miles and two months sail from home.
Boney wins.
A simplistic approach at the issue, considering that Napoleon had a highly industrialized (for the time) nation supplying him, along with the total support of his people. Compare that to a man who was leading an highly demoralized, under supplied, under trained force, while a full half of the native population at best didn't support you.
Honestly, this is a discussion that would take pages of text to properly analyze.
I thought the Americans were highly motivated during the Revolutionary War and that's who they overcame the long odds and hardship?
Dreadwinter wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Hitler vs Churchill. Mono-testicular drug addict vs overweight alcoholic. Who will win?
I don't want to ruin anything for you guys, so I will spoiler the answer.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Washington wasn't really that great of a field officer. To put it this way, if he were wearing stars in today's army, he'd be an INSCOM officer. He was really most effective in his intelligence gathering/spy apparatus, not so much in field/actual fightin' stuff.
This. Without bashing the bro, because he was still better than a lot of Generals particularly considering that the Continental Army was loaded to the brim with downright gak generals (the lower ranks of the officer corp were where the real talent ultimately was) Washington was merely decent as a field general which in his time isn't saying much. In the warfare of his period being the general of an army was mostly organizational and not a matter of tactical ability. Washington was an effective organizer and amazingly effective in navigating the politics of war which were arguably much more important skills for him to have.
Frazzled wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Washington wasn't really that great of a field officer. To put it this way, if he were wearing stars in today's army, he'd be an INSCOM officer. He was really most effective in his intelligence gathering/spy apparatus, not so much in field/actual fightin' stuff.
Lets see, Napoleon -arguably #1 or #2 of history's greatest generals vs. Washington. No contest: Washington because America HURR! .
And here too, lots of people have pointed out in recent years that Napoleon actually wasn't that good. He could execute text book warfare with incredible precision, nothing to scoff at at all, but for many of his early campaigns his opponents were mediocre and he started failing as more inventive generals came into the field. Most importantly when things went outside the text book he struggled and often failed, and by the time of Waterloo everyone had memorized how he fought because he literally never changed. Robert E. Lee was much the same. Once Grant took control of the Army of the Potomac Lee started to struggle because Grant threw the accepted rule book of warfare, had learned how Lee fought battles because Lee wasn't that inventive himself, and was completely willing to say "hold my beer" while he did something more straightfaced generals wouldn't have been willing to do.
feeder wrote: Napoleon was only defeated by an unusually strong Russian winter, and by the combined might of the rest of Europe on the 7th (!) attempt, while he was laid low by illness.
Washington defeated a demoralized British force 3500 miles and two months sail from home.
Boney wins.
A simplistic approach at the issue, considering that Napoleon had a highly industrialized (for the time) nation supplying him, along with the total support of his people. Compare that to a man who was leading an highly demoralized, under supplied, under trained force, while a full half of the native population at best didn't support you.
Honestly, this is a discussion that would take pages of text to properly analyze.
Only if you're serious.
The reality is that Washington was 11ft 3in tall and wielded a nine foot sword. His artillery fired special "grizzly" rounds, comprised of live and now very piissed off grizzlies which would be hurled into the enemy lines. Indeed, it was at the battle of Three Rivers that Washington's grizzly artillery broke the back of the combined Franco/Spanish/Russian/Slobovian armies. If it wasn't for the untimely arrival of Sunday, all of Asia would have been undone.
The reality is that Washington was 11ft 3in tall and wielded a nine foot sword. His artillery fired special "grizzly" rounds, comprised of live and now very piissed off grizzlies which would be hurled into the enemy lines. Indeed, it was at the battle of Three Rivers that Washington's grizzly artillery broke the back of the combined Franco/Spanish/Russian/Slobovian armies. If it wasn't for the untimely arrival of Sunday, all of Asia would have been undone.
Lone Cat wrote: The show said he was too impatience to finish off Russia. but back then, how many Frenchmen has any knowledge of Russian weather cycle compared to the french ones?
The issue had nothing to do with ignorance about Russian getting really cold in winter. That surprised no-one.
The issue was that France expected, farily reasonably, that they would be able to deliver an effective victory against the Russian army long before then. Given Napoleon had so completely spanked the rest of continental Europe multiple times, including Russia, it wasn't a bad assumption. However Russia fought very well, and while they were forced from the field at Borodino their army was still intact. Even then, it allowed Napoleon to take Moscow, at which point Napoleon fairly reasonably thought he could force Russia to terms. Russia refused, which in combination with the scorched earth tactics applied previously left Napoleon in his precarious position, stuck in foreign territory with a particularly harsh winter on the way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: And here too, lots of people have pointed out in recent years that Napoleon actually wasn't that good. He could execute text book warfare with incredible precision, nothing to scoff at at all, but for many of his early campaigns his opponents were mediocre and he started failing as more inventive generals came into the field. Most importantly when things went outside the text book he struggled and often failed, and by the time of Waterloo everyone had memorized how he fought because he literally never changed. Robert E. Lee was much the same. Once Grant took control of the Army of the Potomac Lee started to struggle because Grant threw the accepted rule book of warfare, had learned how Lee fought battles because Lee wasn't that inventive himself, and was completely willing to say "hold my beer" while he did something more straightfaced generals wouldn't have been willing to do.
To be fair, that isn't so much about Lee or Napoleon, but more about life. Success doesn't drive innovation, failure does. Napoleon's methods had met with constant success, so he's hardly gonig to throw out the apple cart and do anything really different. On the other hand, generals that have been defeated, or ones that haven't yet faced the dominant generals, they're more likely to try new things.
But you raise a fair point about Napoleon's successes being in large part due to the officers he faced. I don't think its the whole story, but it is certainly a big part.
The reality is that Washington was 11ft 3in tall and wielded a nine foot sword. His artillery fired special "grizzly" rounds, comprised of live and now very piissed off grizzlies which would be hurled into the enemy lines. Indeed, it was at the battle of Three Rivers that Washington's grizzly artillery broke the back of the combined Franco/Spanish/Russian/Slobovian armies. If it wasn't for the untimely arrival of Sunday, all of Asia would have been undone.
Sneak Preview of Codex: Drunk History
You do know that Washington is actually the Spass Emrpah don't you? At Valley Forge he wasn't "wintering" he was developing Thunder Warriors 1.0.
History will one day reveal Van Steubens was actually Guilliman, and Lafayette was Russ.
Minutemen have the special rule "1 Minutes 3 Bullets." The player must manually load a musket and fire it three times. If they can do so in a single minute they win the game because why the feth should someone with that level of precision ever lose
IIRC there was one battle Washington won in his entire career! It was just the one that counted, and mostly due to the French Fleet beating a British fleet in the caribean. By the way, I don't count his raid across the Delaware as a battle. His main ability was to simply not let his army fall apart and evading true battle as much as he could. Gates did all the real work in the Southern Campaign at Saratoga.
Easy E wrote: IIRC there was one battle Washington won in his entire career! It was just the one that counted, and mostly due to the French Fleet beating a British fleet in the caribean. By the way, I don't count his raid across the Delaware as a battle. His main ability was to simply not let his army fall apart and evading true battle as much as he could. Gates did all the real work in the Southern Campaign at Saratoga.
Easy E wrote: IIRC there was one battle Washington won in his entire career! It was just the one that counted, and mostly due to the French Fleet beating a British fleet in the caribean. By the way, I don't count his raid across the Delaware as a battle. His main ability was to simply not let his army fall apart and evading true battle as much as he could. Gates did all the real work in the Southern Campaign at Saratoga.
LordofHats wrote: Minutemen have the special rule "1 Minutes 3 Bullets." The player must manually load a musket and fire it three times. If they can do so in a single minute they win the game because why the feth should someone with that level of precision ever lose
Sir Henry Simmerson: Wellesley, ha! Wellesley don't know what makes a good soldier! Not many do. Do you know what makes a good soldier Mister Sharpe?
Sharpe: Yes, Sir.
Sir Henry Simmerson: And what makes a good soldier, Sharpe?
Sharpe: The ability to fire three rounds a minute in any weather, sir.
Washington has a huge reach advantage, so Bonaparte will have to find a way to get inside. Once there, he can probably do some damage going to the body. But Washington has KO power in both hands, and Bonaparte will be on the canvas if he makes even a single mistake.
gorgon wrote: Washington has a huge reach advantage, so Bonaparte will have to find a way to get inside.
How so??
Probably a riff on the Bonaparte = short trope.
Yeah, but he wasn't that short. In fact, he was of rather average height for men of his day. That, and I haven't found a reliable source for Washington's height.
gorgon wrote: Washington has a huge reach advantage, so Bonaparte will have to find a way to get inside.
How so??
Probably a riff on the Bonaparte = short trope.
Yeah, but he wasn't that short. In fact, he was of rather average height for men of his day. That, and I haven't found a reliable source for Washington's height.
Most sources say 6'2. I don't know how you can check that 'reliably' without a time machine. Even we go with 6' for Washington and 5'7 for Bonaparte, the Frenchman likely at a real disadvantage in the ring unless he has arms like an orangutan and George has T-Rex arms.
Most sources say 6'2. I don't know how you can check that 'reliably' without a time machine. Even we go with 6' for Washington and 5'7 for Bonaparte, the Frenchman likely at a real disadvantage in the ring unless he has arms like an orangutan and George has T-Rex arms.
Lol, without derailing the thread much further, I have seen the "height advantage" be a disadvantage too often to put that much stock in it. If the shorter fighter is quick, he can slip inside the reach of the taller guy and do some real damaging work on the inside by workin the body.
Most sources say 6'2. I don't know how you can check that 'reliably' without a time machine. Even we go with 6' for Washington and 5'7 for Bonaparte, the Frenchman likely at a real disadvantage in the ring unless he has arms like an orangutan and George has T-Rex arms.
Lol, without derailing the thread much further, I have seen the "height advantage" be a disadvantage too often to put that much stock in it. If the shorter fighter is quick, he can slip inside the reach of the taller guy and do some real damaging work on the inside by workin the body.
Most sources say 6'2. I don't know how you can check that 'reliably' without a time machine. Even we go with 6' for Washington and 5'7 for Bonaparte, the Frenchman likely at a real disadvantage in the ring unless he has arms like an orangutan and George has T-Rex arms.
Lol, without derailing the thread much further, I have seen the "height advantage" be a disadvantage too often to put that much stock in it. If the shorter fighter is quick, he can slip inside the reach of the taller guy and do some real damaging work on the inside by workin the body.
Yup, Ali vs Frazier comes to mind.
On the other hand, Lewis vs Tua resulted in the 7" shorter Tua getting punched in the face about a 100 times in the match.
Most sources say 6'2. I don't know how you can check that 'reliably' without a time machine. Even we go with 6' for Washington and 5'7 for Bonaparte, the Frenchman likely at a real disadvantage in the ring unless he has arms like an orangutan and George has T-Rex arms.
Lol, without derailing the thread much further, I have seen the "height advantage" be a disadvantage too often to put that much stock in it. If the shorter fighter is quick, he can slip inside the reach of the taller guy and do some real damaging work on the inside by workin the body.
Hence why I mentioned Bonaparte getting inside in my initial post.
Having said that...one better not make a mistake when attempting to do so. I don't think there's any boxing analyst in the world who would say that a longer reach isn't an advantage. Being able to hit someone at a distance at which they can't hit you will always be always an advantage.
Edit: Note that Ali won 2 of 3 from Frazier. Frazier was a great fighter, but Ali was the greatest.
I don't think you can fairly argue that Napoleon or Lee or others were mediocre and faced lesser opponents early on before they were beaten, and therefore not that good. Both were great generals, although I will admit I would have rather served under Grant than Lee, because Lee did run his troops through a meat grinder. However, Lee still out-fought much of the North and kept the South in the war much longer than they would have lasted without him. Its actually amazing the South lasted as long as they did considering the irreplaceable troop losses and lack of industry they had to deal with, never mind the fact they were out-numbered from the start of the war. If you want to point out poor CSA generals, there are plenty to choose from long before you get to Lee (Bragg, Hood). And as the war dragged on, Lee lost capable officers that kept his armies running as well as they had in his early victories.
And the same can be said about Napoleon. He knew by the time of Waterloo that he had lost his edge and timing. It happens to everyone. He fought a ridiculous number of battles and if he was anything like average he wouldn't have won as many as he did.
In both cases, Lee's and Napoleon's foes watched and learned, but also the economics affected both as well. War is managed by logistics long before battle strategy comes into play. The winter didn't end Napoleon's invasion of Russia, it was the winter effect on his logistics that ended it. The same for Lee in the South. The South couldn't keep up with the industry in the north and were out-produced on many levels. Lee's troops didn't have the shoes, clothing, supplies, or even fire arms Grant had as the war ended. The South was going to experience a slow death the last year or two of the war no matter who was leading their armies. Its amazing Lee pulled off what he did.
Both generals made mistakes, there is no doubt about that, but both were great too.
KTG17 wrote: I don't think you can fairly argue that Napoleon or Lee or others were mediocre and faced lesser opponents early on before they were beaten, and therefore not that good.
It's not that they were mediocre. By no measure can anyone with the precision of Napoleon and Lee be called mediocre. I mean we're not talking about Marcus Crassus here who should have stuck with money he was better at it. Especially for the American Civil War. You can count the number of capable generals in that conflict on one and a half hands, maybe two hands and foot depending on how harsh you want to be. There were a lot of men leading other men in that conflict who really didn't have the head for it. Honestly until you get to WWII post-War College, American generals just seem dogged by guys who probably shouldn't have risen as high as they did.
The charges is that their reputations may be inflated by the circumstances of the battles they fought, giving an image of men who were much more talent than they actually were.
Both were great generals, although I will admit I would have rather served under Grant than Lee, because Lee did run his troops through a meat grinder.
Really? I mean, Grant is the one who earned the Butcher nickname in the war, and utilized the "We have reserves" strategy in the Overland campaign to wear Lee down.
However, Lee still out-fought much of the North and kept the South in the war much longer than they would have lasted without him
I don't disagree but look at his earliest opponent; George McClellan. The guy's military capacity is hotly debated, but it's really a debate between "bad at his job" and "incompetent." The South's survival for as long as it survived is hotly debated itself, but Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia + the political circumstances of the North are commonly cited as the foremost reasons for why the war dragged on for two or even three years longer than people have suggested it should have. And don't get me wrong. Of the generals in the war Lee was easily far and above better than most of his peers. Arguably even better than any of of them (and that's an easy argument to make).
KTG17 wrote: I don't think you can fairly argue that Napoleon or Lee or others were mediocre and faced lesser opponents early on before they were beaten, and therefore not that good.
It's not that they were mediocre. By no measure can anyone with the precision of Napoleon and Lee be called mediocre. I mean we're not talking about Marcus Crassus here who should have stuck with money he was better at it. Especially for the American Civil War. You can count the number of capable generals in that conflict on one and a half hands, maybe two hands and foot depending on how harsh you want to be. There were a lot of men leading other men in that conflict who really didn't have the head for it. Honestly until you get to WWII post-War College, American generals just seem dogged by guys who probably shouldn't have risen as high as they did.
The charges is that their reputations may be inflated by the circumstances of the battles they fought, giving an image of men who were much more talent than they actually were.
Both were great generals, although I will admit I would have rather served under Grant than Lee, because Lee did run his troops through a meat grinder.
Really? I mean, Grant is the one who earned the Butcher nickname in the war, and utilized the "We have reserves" strategy in the Overland campaign to wear Lee down.
However, Lee still out-fought much of the North and kept the South in the war much longer than they would have lasted without him
I don't disagree but look at his earliest opponent; George McClellan. The guy's military capacity is hotly debated, but it's really a debate between "bad at his job" and "incompetent." The South's survival for as long as it survived is hotly debated itself, but Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia + the political circumstances of the North are commonly cited as the foremost reasons for why the war dragged on for two or even three years longer than people have suggested it should have. And don't get me wrong. Of the generals in the war Lee was easily far and above better than most of his peers. Arguably even better than any of of them (and that's an easy argument to make).
From little I've read. Lee had a terrible hand, a bad economy, and lacked the reserves or mass production of the north.
Yet he still held off multiple union generals in battles and probbly was one of or the best general of the war as a whole.
Is this the show that concluded that a pirate would beat a knight in plate armor due to the pirate having a flintlock pistol, literally mere minutes after tests on the show confirmed that a pirate's flintlock pistol would be unable to pierce plate-armor?
gorgon wrote: Washington has a huge reach advantage, so Bonaparte will have to find a way to get inside.
How so??
Probably a riff on the Bonaparte = short trope.
Yeah, but he wasn't that short. In fact, he was of rather average height for men of his day. That, and I haven't found a reliable source for Washington's height.
Most sources say 6'2. I don't know how you can check that 'reliably' without a time machine. Even we go with 6' for Washington and 5'7 for Bonaparte, the Frenchman likely at a real disadvantage in the ring unless he has arms like an orangutan and George has T-Rex arms.
Wikipedia has quite a few sources listed for his height. Mostly 2nd hand accounts from the time period. I don't think anybody has actually examined his corpse. But given that they're all fairly consistent, we can assume he was between 6' and 6'3". Which indeed have been fairly tall for the period. Certainly he would have towered over Napoleon, and most other people.
It's also true that Napoleon wasn't particularly short. I think this semi-myth stems from the fact he was somewhat obsessed with trying to appear taller. He was an average guy trying to pretend he was tall, not a short guy trying to distract from his lack of height.
Easy E wrote: Burnsides! Now that was a great general (if you measure it by name to facial hair ratios).
The guy does legitimately have the most awesome facial hair, and an awesome name to go with it!
EDIT: I wanted to find this real quick;
... Burnside had repeatedly demonstrated that it had been a military tragedy to give him a rank higher than colonel. One reason might have been that, with all his deficiencies, Burnside never had any angles of his own to play; he was a simple, honest, loyal soldier, doing his best even if that best was not very good, never scheming or conniving or backbiting. Also, he was modest; in an army many of whose generals were insufferable prima donnas, Burnside never mistook himself for Napoleon. Physically he was impressive: tall, just a little stout, wearing what was probably the most artistic and awe-inspiring set of whiskers in all that bewhiskered Army. He customarily wore a high, bell-crowned felt hat with the brim turned down and a double-breasted, knee-length frock coat, belted at the waist—a costume which, unfortunately, is apt to strike the modern eye as being very much like that of a beefy city cop of the 1880s.
— Bruce Catton, Mr. Lincoln's Army
I knew that this was on Wikipedia. Just need to C&P.
LordofHats wrote: Especially for the American Civil War. You can count the number of capable generals in that conflict on one and a half hands, maybe two hands and foot depending on how harsh you want to be. There were a lot of men leading other men in that conflict who really didn't have the head for it. Honestly until you get to WWII post-War College, American generals just seem dogged by guys who probably shouldn't have risen as high as they did.
Have to disagree with you on this. First of all, you have to realize how many generals served on both sides of the Civil War. You might be surprised by how many:
While I am sure you haven't heard of most of them, it doesn't mean they were bad, history just tends to focus on SOME of the overall theatre commanders. For the Union, no doubt Grant, Sherman, and Thomas (who people rarely hear about) were the three best Union at the levels they served, but there were many many other supporting Union generals who distinguished themselves in battle like Sheridan. And for the Confederates, while Lee, Jackson, and Stuart grab a lot of Confederate limelight, Forrest, Johnston, and others were excellent too. But keep in mind how losing Jackson and Stuart affected Lee. And the same happened to Napoleon when he lost Lannes and St. Hilaire. The point is that rarely do generals make decisions on their own. Usually there is a council, and orders are executed by their officers. When you keep losing your best officers, its going to have an effect on the army's performance.
I think the biggest problem in evaluating Civil War generals is that war completely changed during its time as weapons became more and more destructive, and naturally it was difficult for commanders to overcome the traditional tactical thinking while technology was changing the battlefield. In Napoleon's time, war hadn't changed much for a couple of hundred years before. Europe fought in very predictable ranks with light artillery and calvary with lances and sabres. By the Civil War you had troops being transported faster by railroad and steamships, rifled artillery, huge mortars, revolvers which were devastating when used by calvary, and the later half of the war, breech loading rifles, and repeating rifles like the Henry and Spencer.
In many ways, the American Civil War is much like World War I, where tactical thinking at the time didn't evolve as fast as technology had, and the unfortunate result of using their traditional tactics cost a lot of lives.
If you really want to learn more about the Civil War, which I think is one of the most fascinating wars of all time, spend some time reading up on the lesser known battles, and there are many. You all have heard of Gettysburg for example, but I am willing to bet few of you know about Franklin. Franklin is like Gettysburg on steroids.
From Wiki: The annals of war may long be searched for a parallel to the desperate valor of the charge of the Army of Tennessee at Franklin, a charge which has been called "the greatest drama in American history." Perhaps its only rival for macabre distinction would be Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg. A comparison of the two may be of interest. Pickett's total loss at Gettysburg was 1,354; at Franklin the Army of Tennessee lost over 6,000 dead and wounded. Pickett's charge was made after a volcanic artillery preparation of two hours had battered the defending line. Hood's army charged without any preparation. Pickett's charge was across an open space of perhaps a mile. The advance at Franklin was for two miles in the open, in full view of the enemy's works, and exposed to their fire. The defenders at Gettysburg were protected only by a stone wall. Schofield's men at Franklin had carefully constructed works, with trench and parapet. Pickett's charge was totally repulsed. The charge of Brown and Cleburne penetrated deep into the breastworks, to part of which they clung until the enemy retired. Pickett, once repelled, retired from the field. The Army of Tennessee renewed their charge, time after time. Pickett survived his charge unscathed. Cleburne was killed, and eleven other general officers were killed, wounded or captured. "Pickett's charge at Gettysburg" has come to be a synonym for unflinching courage in the raw. The slaughter-pen at Franklin even more deserves the gory honor.
Stanley F. Horn, The Army of Tennessee[36]
Yet for some reason, few have ever heard about this battle, yet its pretty gut-wrenching to read about.
Really? I mean, Grant is the one who earned the Butcher nickname in the war, and utilized the "We have reserves" strategy in the Overland campaign to wear Lee down.
Yeah that's overblown. Its the same with saying Sherman was a bastard for saying 'war is hell'. The reality is both were very grounded in what it would take to win the war, and were blunt about it.
KTG17 wrote: While I am sure you haven't heard of most of them, it doesn't mean they were bad, history just tends to focus on SOME of the overall theatre commanders. For the Union, no doubt Grant, Sherman, and Thomas (who people rarely hear about) were the three best Union at the levels they served, but there were many many other supporting Union generals who distinguished themselves in battle like Sheridan. And for the Confederates, while Lee, Jackson, and Stuart grab a lot of Confederate limelight, Forrest, Johnston, and others were excellent too. But keep in mind how losing Jackson and Stuart affected Lee. And the same happened to Napoleon when he lost Lannes and St. Hilaire. The point is that rarely do generals make decisions on their own. Usually there is a council, and orders are executed by their officers. When you keep losing your best officers, its going to have an effect on the army's performance.
I've heard of all of them. I went to school in Pennsylvania 45 minutes from Gettysburg. You literally cannot escape the Civil War here. I've tried. I finished a paper for a class on Islamic History through the Hajj and ended up reading General William Loring's account of his time in Egypt as an officer serving Ismail Pasha in the war in Ethiopia. I went all the way to the middle east and still couldn't get away from the Civil War (like seriously, the feth right?).
And that's nine names. About as close to a hand and a half as you can get.
I think the biggest problem in evaluating Civil War generals is that war completely changed during its time as weapons became more and more destructive, and naturally it was difficult for commanders to overcome the traditional tactical thinking while technology was changing the battlefield.
There are an number of issues. One of them is that West Point when it was training the men who would lead the Civil War and until very late in the war was still teaching antiquated tactics. Namely those of Napoleon's general Antoine-Henri Jomini, and by the time Jomini was writing his treastie on warfare, many of his ideas had become obsolete as a result of new technologies*, and not just weapons but railroads and communications. The generals of the Civil War were fighting a emerging modern warfare with the tactics and strategy of the previous century. And on top of that, a lot of them were just bad at it. Lee gets top credit for not only executing antiquated ideas expertly, but actually making them work but a big part of that comes down to many of his peers just not being as good as he was. Grant on the other hand was the bottom of his class, and ended up performing better against most of the generals he faced. I like to humorously think he slept through classes and barely made passing grades, and then the war comes along and he's just winging it (humorously). EDIT: That's right. This isn't off topic at all. It just comes right back to Napoleon!
*His immediate counter part in laying the foundations for the "academics of warfare" was Karl von Clauswitz, who West Point dismissed as an idiot at the time
If you really want to learn more about the Civil War, which I think is one of the most fascinating wars of all time, spend some time reading up on the lesser known battles, and there are many. You all have heard of Gettysburg for example, but I am willing to bet few of you know about Franklin. Franklin is like Gettysburg on steroids.
Historian
And you're preaching to the choir man (preach it brother!). Historians have been trying to get people to stop talking big talk about Gettysburg for years. Gettysburg was important, but Vicksburg was what sealed the fate of the Confederacy. Lee remained a major threat until the outcome of the Overland Campaign screwed him.
Yeah that's overblown. Its the same with saying Sherman was a bastard for saying 'war is hell'. The reality is both were very grounded in what it would take to win the war, and were blunt about it.
Well I agree its overblown, but there's really no denying that Grant incurred significant casualties. Part of that is just that he was the first general to seriously try and challenge Lee rather than force him into a stand off, but Grant willfully made use of his greater resources to force Lee into a war of attrition. You're actually touching on a lot of the most debated aspects of the Civil War in the historical community Debates over how generals measure up*, how brutal/less brutal than expected was Sherman, why did the war drag on for so long. At lot this stuff is kind of toss up material cause I'm sure people will still be debating it long after I'm dead (especially the generals if only because there's so much rule of cool involved).
*I tend to lean on the side of David Herbert Donald who wrote about it in his 1960 book How the North Won the Civil War mostly because it makes sense, and I've never seen anyone offer a meaningful counter argument to his position (EDIT: On military leadership that is. Donald's overall conception of the war I think is antiquated). Honestly it seems like most historians try to avoid dealing with him because he tends to blow holes in the side of the boat when they're talking up their favorite generals.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also because you seem like you'd really enjoy it, have you read Mark Grimsley's The Hard Hand of War: Union Military Policy Toward Southern Civilians, 1861-1865? That seems like a book you'd truly enjoy if these topics of interest to you (especially the bit about the Civil War's relative position in the history of warfare).
It's very true that the Civil War was one place where modern technology outstripped the technology. Much like WW1, just on a slightly less devastating scale.
I do like how Gettysburg is overblown in terms of actual accomplishment, when it was other battles that were more decisive. Though you can still view Gettysburg as a tipping point. Something to set up the South for a truly catastrophic defeat.
Keep in mind too that the Battle of Gettysburg was fought because the South needed supplies, especially shoes, and there was some thought that a supply would be there. The two armies kind of stumbled into each other and it probably wasn't the time or place that Lee wanted. Logistics my friends, or lack thereof.
And part of the reason Lee invaded the north was to give Southern farmers a break as the armies in the area were bleeding the local economy. By moving north, Lee hopes to live off the land for a bit.
So think about that for a minute, the most popular battle of the Civil War was fought because of economics first, not military strategy. Had Lee had all the resources he needed, a battle at Gettysburg probably would never have happened.
I don't recall Napoleon having to make decisions like that, but I might be wrong.
I did read a 1000 page biography on Napoleon some years ago, but geez there was a lot to digest it's hard to remember it all.
It's very true that the Civil War was one place where modern technology outstripped the technology. Much like WW1, just on a slightly less devastating scale.
I do like how Gettysburg is overblown in terms of actual accomplishment, when it was other battles that were more decisive. Though you can still view Gettysburg as a tipping point. Something to set up the South for a truly catastrophic defeat.
Then you too may enjoy Mark Grimsley's The Hard Hand of War
And Gettysburg is important in a lot of ways. Especially politically. It's at Gettysburg that Lincoln clearly transitioned the mission of the war from a simple "keep the union whole" strategy to "this is a war to free the slaves held in southern bondage" strategy which got a lot more support from the Northern population at that point. The attack itself riled people in the North up, and they rallied behind Lincoln politically at a time when it was unclear if he could win reelection. I think my issue historically is the idea that it represents the "high water mark" of the Confederacy which I think just doesn't work.
KTG17 wrote: So think about that for a minute, the most popular battle of the Civil War was fought because of economics first, not military strategy. Had Lee had all the resources he needed, a battle at Gettysburg probably would never have happened.
I'd argue that's still military strategy. Strategy is inherently political in nature, so Lee's goal of getting his army out of Virginia to try and threaten the North, force a battle with the Army of the Potomac on favorable ground, and supply his force with material taken from surrounding towns as he marched, was both a military and a political goal though Lee would never have conceptualized it as such. Remember. He didn't study Clauswitz ("war is the continuation of politics by other means")
To once again bring this around to the actual thread topic, I think there you can see something that both Napoleon and Washington were very good at, and that I think was Washington's real talent as a general. They knew how to materialize political goals into practical military strategy. Washington especially I think had a talent for navigating politics that was very important for the war he was fighting. The Continental Congress was a messy institution filled with revolutionaries who are by definition kind of difficult to manage, but he managed them very well and managed to get the support her needed to fight the war in front of him.
I did read a 1000 page biography on Napoleon some years ago, but geez there was a lot to digest it's hard to remember it all.
Dear lord that's long...
I don't think Napoleon specifically had that issue. The closest would probably be his Russia campaign, where he made the classic mistake of underestimating how big Russia is, Russia went scorched earth on his butt, and then he ended up in the middle of Russia in winter wondering how the feth it all happened. Oh and his army's uniforms were held together by brass buttons, which disintegrated at Russian winter temperature and helped his army freeze to death XD
The North had more money, larger population, more industry, more supplies, more railroad, and A LOT more telegraph wires.
The South got a majority of the experienced soldiers, most of the competent commanders, and for most of the war had the home field advantage.
Early major wins for the South likely made the war last longer than it should have as it bolstered Southern moral and positions. The North was caught with its pants down and pecker in hand, and quite frankly didn't know exactly what to do at first. The South also had the advantage of fighting a mostly defensive war, and had a pretty good ability in bating the North into attacking them on the ground of their choosing.
The North also was a bit schitzophrenic in military leadership. It seems like every year they had a new General and strategy. The South had a very competent commander from the beginning and stuck with a plan.
I think the North's greatest advantages were railroads and telegraph lines. The telegraph lines in particular made sending orders out to armies much faster. It made coordinating armies and their supplies a cakewalk compared to the messenger system the South had to use. Also, using the railroad to reposition men and supplies helped with both speed and keeping men from being fatigued by marching.
The North had more money, larger population, more industry, more supplies, more railroad, and A LOT more telegraph wires.
The South got a majority of the experienced soldiers, most of the competent commanders, and for most of the war had the home field advantage.
Early major wins for the South likely made the war last longer than it should have as it bolstered Southern moral and positions. The North was caught with its pants down and pecker in hand, and quite frankly didn't know exactly what to do at first. The South also had the advantage of fighting a mostly defensive war, and had a pretty good ability in bating the North into attacking them on the ground of their choosing.
The North also was a bit schitzophrenic in military leadership. It seems like every year they had a new General and strategy. The South had a very competent commander from the beginning and stuck with a plan.
I think the North's greatest advantages were railroads and telegraph lines. The telegraph lines in particular made sending orders out to armies much faster. It made coordinating armies and their supplies a cakewalk compared to the messenger system the South had to use. Also, using the railroad to reposition men and supplies helped with both speed and keeping men from being fatigued by marching.
Also artillery. Guns are slow, require large stores and support to deploy.
Thr slowest part was not the infantry who as romans proved with a good road pulled off 35mile a day forced march's. Tired troops but they could cover easily 20 miles a day, in a week they could be 100 miles away. Quite a suprised for a commander not expecting the enemy.
Guns, and artillery have always been the slowest member of the unit, and required most logistics.
(granted modern trucks changed that but old artillery could take days to weeks for a long relocation for heaviest peices)
BlaxicanX wrote: Is this the show that concluded that a pirate would beat a knight in plate armor due to the pirate having a flintlock pistol, literally mere minutes after tests on the show confirmed that a pirate's flintlock pistol would be unable to pierce plate-armor?
They clearly forgot the pirate was also armed with hand grenades (where we get the term) and history's worst hygiene. YAR!
LordofHats wrote: I'd argue that's still military strategy. Strategy is inherently political in nature, so Lee's goal of getting his army out of Virginia to try and threaten the North, force a battle with the Army of the Potomac on favorable ground, and supply his force with material taken from surrounding towns as he marched, was both a military and a political goal though Lee would never have conceptualized it as such.
Oh I am not saying Lee wouldn't have invaded the North, I am saying the battle at Gettysburg wouldnt have happened.
There are many great generals who's strategy was dominated by logistics. Rommel in Africa is a great example. The lack of fuel meant less mobility. The lack of reinforcements meant he would lose thru attrition. Anyone would have lost in those circumstances.
As for Napoleon and his biography I read, there was a great graph showing how the advance to Moscow and his retreat impacted the numbers in his army.
Holy crap I found something similar:
Red is the size of his army going in, and the black is the size during the retreat. Even before a shot was fired he was losing manpower.
Having read a fair amount of history on the subject of Napoleon, I don't think there are many other military commanders (at least within the modern age, and certainly not around the same era) that you can put alongside him. An absolutely remarkable military commander, don't think it's an exaggeration to say that he revolutionised warfare and a fair number of modern military traditions and formation of military tactics began life in the Grande Armée. And this is without the social and political upheavals that his attempts at empire building brought along, despite his eventual defeats.
As for Washington, I haven't read anything like as much about him but it seems like he was a very different man, a very different conflict, and facing a very different scenario. I'm not quite sure what the program is trying to achieve or how you could compare the two in any meaningful way.
We have to keep in mind that Napoleon had great difficulties in Spain, fighting a guerrilla warfare that he eventually lost.
Is this war close enough to the Independance of the USA to conclude something ?
godardc wrote: We have to keep in mind that Napoleon had great difficulties in Spain, fighting a guerrilla warfare that he eventually lost.
Is this war close enough to the Independance of the USA to conclude something ?
Well, the Spanish partisans weren't the only fighting force in Spain, there was also Wellington and the British army. The guerrilla warfare of the partisans was effective at disrupting supply lines and harassing scouts but it did not retake cities or defeat Napoleons armies in the field on their own.
godardc wrote: We have to keep in mind that Napoleon had great difficulties in Spain, fighting a guerrilla warfare that he eventually lost.
Is this war close enough to the Independance of the USA to conclude something ?
Well, the Spanish partisans weren't the only fighting force in Spain, there was also Wellington and the British army. The guerrilla warfare of the partisans was effective at disrupting supply lines and harassing scouts but it did not retake cities or defeat Napoleons armies in the field on their own.
Yeah, Wellington's achievements in Spain don't get half the credit they deserve. He was a master of logistics, quite a feat, when you consider that Horse Guards (British Pentagon) had him operating with one hand tied behind his back.
Wellington: I need more gunpowder
London: Here's some horse shoes instead.
Wellington: I have a vacancy for a corps commander. Please send me a suitable replacement
London: Take this guy. Yes, he spent a few years in a lunatic asylum, but he'll get the job done...
godardc wrote: We have to keep in mind that Napoleon had great difficulties in Spain, fighting a guerrilla warfare that he eventually lost.
Is this war close enough to the Independance of the USA to conclude something ?
Well, the Spanish partisans weren't the only fighting force in Spain, there was also Wellington and the British army. The guerrilla warfare of the partisans was effective at disrupting supply lines and harassing scouts but it did not retake cities or defeat Napoleons armies in the field on their own.
Yeah, Wellington's achievements in Spain don't get half the credit they deserve. He was a master of logistics, quite a feat, when you consider that Horse Guards (British Pentagon) had him operating with one hand tied behind his back.
Wellington: I need more gunpowder
London: Here's some horse shoes instead.
Wellington: I have a vacancy for a corps commander. Please send me a suitable replacement
London: Take this guy. Yes, he spent a few years in a lunatic asylum, but he'll get the job done...
And so on and so on...
There not mad there eccentrics of course..
Just because he talks to invisible sheep... Don,t judge too harshly.
The North had more money, larger population, more industry, more supplies, more railroad, and A LOT more telegraph wires.
The South got a majority of the experienced soldiers, most of the competent commanders, and for most of the war had the home field advantage.
Early major wins for the South likely made the war last longer than it should have as it bolstered Southern moral and positions. The North was caught with its pants down and pecker in hand, and quite frankly didn't know exactly what to do at first. The South also had the advantage of fighting a mostly defensive war, and had a pretty good ability in bating the North into attacking them on the ground of their choosing.
The North also was a bit schitzophrenic in military leadership. It seems like every year they had a new General and strategy. The South had a very competent commander from the beginning and stuck with a plan.
I think the North's greatest advantages were railroads and telegraph lines. The telegraph lines in particular made sending orders out to armies much faster. It made coordinating armies and their supplies a cakewalk compared to the messenger system the South had to use. Also, using the railroad to reposition men and supplies helped with both speed and keeping men from being fatigued by marching.
Didnt the south have horrible supply problems at home too? Where not much of the Buyers of Cotton the UK, and the Norths Navy created a massive blockade that prevented that?
Aswell as dwindling supplies for civilians.
Frazzled wrote: The Grand Armee would go through the Mongols like gak through a goose, even if Subotai led them.
Alexander? Good but he had inferior opponents and his guys were stacked together. Theban Phalanx vs. the Old Guard equals a whole lot of dead Thebans.
Flawless Victory! Vive Le Emperor! Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
Well yeah, the Grande Armee had guns and artillery. Khan and Alexander didn't.
Thats just what they want you to think!
Seriously though, I'd put Napoleon against all of them. He understood logistics. I'd proffer the only one of the greats who got logistics like he did was Subotai (who...well his logistics were simplified) who was able to keep up his numbers over vast differences. Alexander occasionally liked to do things (like cross deserts because he was butthurt) that killed half his army.
Having said that, as noted Washington had bear artillery. No one can stand against bear artillery except the cossacks who just fired themselves out of cannons.
jhe90 wrote: The momment you march a army out of its barracks and into the field your losing men from day one.
Be it injury, ambush, illness or accident.
Your not going to maintain full list strengh anywhere but a barracks and fortress.
Back then they had hundreds of miles to march all the way. Russia is harsh terrain and sparsely populated, suplies if any are thin on the ground.
Even if you can winter in Russia, a harsh period everything turns to damned mud, thick, messy. Duty and hard going mud.
So it sucks even more. No invasion of Russia does not suck and when its not. Thr suck is only a few months away!
Proper timing may be needed. so when should (and shouldn't) he begin to march towards Russia.
In addition. Napoleon Bonaparte may not have been heard of St. Petersberg (and its functions as second/backup capitol of Russia). if he took Petersberg (or entire Ingria Oblast) first. will his situation in Russia becomes better?
Lets see, Napoleon -arguably #1 or #2 of history's greatest generals vs. Washington. No contest: Washington because America HURR! .
Gengis, Alexander and a few of their friends would like a word.
Napoleon is up there -easily top 5- but #1 or 2? Hardly.
Hannibal. He managed to pull off encircling a numerically superior force which is pretty goddamn impressive.
I think it should be noted that the scale of the forces, types of weapons, supply logistocs, distances covered, locations, and lengths of conflict being discussed in each of these instances are wildly different from each other making comparison...difficult.
Hannibal. He managed to pull off encircling a numerically superior force which is pretty goddamn impressive.
Subutai, there is no other #1. From his Wikipedia page:
"Subutai (Classical Mongolian: Sübügätäi or Sübü'ätäi; Tuvan: Сүбэдэй; Modern Mongolian: Сүбээдэй, Sübedei; Chinese: 速不台 1175–1248) was an Uriankhai general, and the primary military strategist of Genghis Khan and Ögedei Khan. He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history.[1] He gained victory by means of imaginative and sophisticated strategies and routinely coordinated movements of armies that were hundreds of kilometers away from each other. He is also remembered for devising the campaign that destroyed the armies of Hungary and Poland within two days of each other, by forces over five hundred kilometers apart."
The only thing that saved Europe from this guy conquering it was the untimely death of Ghenis Khan's son Ogedei. Everybody went home for a funeral and settled for having the biggest empire in history WITHOUT conquering all of Europe.
The North had more money, larger population, more industry, more supplies, more railroad, and A LOT more telegraph wires.
The South got a majority of the experienced soldiers, most of the competent commanders, and for most of the war had the home field advantage.
Early major wins for the South likely made the war last longer than it should have as it bolstered Southern moral and positions. The North was caught with its pants down and pecker in hand, and quite frankly didn't know exactly what to do at first. The South also had the advantage of fighting a mostly defensive war, and had a pretty good ability in bating the North into attacking them on the ground of their choosing.
The North also was a bit schitzophrenic in military leadership. It seems like every year they had a new General and strategy. The South had a very competent commander from the beginning and stuck with a plan.
I think the North's greatest advantages were railroads and telegraph lines. The telegraph lines in particular made sending orders out to armies much faster. It made coordinating armies and their supplies a cakewalk compared to the messenger system the South had to use. Also, using the railroad to reposition men and supplies helped with both speed and keeping men from being fatigued by marching.
Didnt the south have horrible supply problems at home too? Where not much of the Buyers of Cotton the UK, and the Norths Navy created a massive blockade that prevented that?
Aswell as dwindling supplies for civilians.
Yeah, the South was in pretty big trouble materially. At first they were getting some support from the British, but that was pretty lukewarm at best. And the support evaporated after the Emancipation Proclamation, which put the British(who had long since outlawed slavery, and actively hunted remaining slave ships in the Atlantic) in the awkward situation of continuing to support a nation whose economy had a huge chunk of slave labor OR lose their source of cotton. It really was a brilliant piece of political maneuvering. Most of the US navy was also based in northern ports, so the Confederates didn't get many of the existing ships. The US navy was able to pretty effectively blockade the entire south. If the Confederates had captured more of the Navy, it might have been a little more open in terms of exporting.
As you mentioned, the South also had infrastructure problems. Very few rail lines and telegraph networks. Their economy was also not diversified at all. Not enough food production or mining, much of which is down to just the geography. Plus most of the US's existing manufacturing facilities, including gunsmiths, were all in the North.
The South's only real saving grace early on was that they had the best generals and most of the army veterans. Basically they had good advantages early on in terms of existing forces, but they could never win a war of attrition, which the war dragged into once the South failed to capitalize on their early success. They believed that a few early victories would force the North to negotiate, and if the Confederates had pushed into the North they might have been able to force negotiations, which they could have probably resolved very favorably for them. But they made the mistake of winning, and then not moving to reinforce it. They thought it would be enough to shock Congress and Lincoln into negotiations.
As you mentioned, the South also had infrastructure problems. Very few rail lines and telegraph networks. Their economy was also not diversified at all. Not enough food production or mining, much of which is down to just the geography. Plus most of the US's existing manufacturing facilities, including gunsmiths, were all in the North.
I just want to point one thing out here. . . It wasn't that the south had fewer rail lines than the North. In what I've read of the time period, they had as many trunk lines as the North did, which you would think would equate to better ability to move materiel around.
The problem for the South wasn't so much the number of lines, it was that their lines weren't standardized. Meaning that at the time, different rails had different widths at the time, which limited mobility of many trains. Vanderbilt, post-war, was instrumental in getting the South's rail systems online (and obviously becoming one of the wealthiest SOBs at the time).
yet nobody pit Andy Jackson against Arthur Wellsley. 1st Duke of Wellington ... (And there's more probability that Wellsley will lead his Peninsular Campaign veterans and meet Jackson at New Orleans. )
yet nobody pit Andy Jackson against Arthur Wellsley. 1st Duke of Wellington ... (And there's more probability that Wellsley will lead his Peninsular Campaign veterans and meet Jackson at New Orleans. )
Thats because all run in terror before Andy "My hat is four feet long" Jackson.
"Finally someone worth killing in this country"
-Jackson on hearing the British were coming.
