Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

djones520 wrote:

 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.

Spoiler:

General George Smith Patton Jr.

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.

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

Sneak Preview of Codex: Drunk History

 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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

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.

Thats because Gates was really Lionel Johnson.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

Thats because Gates was really Lionel Johnson.

Does that mean that Patton is in fact Khan?

No Spruance was Khan. Halsey was Angron.

Patton was....CREEEEEEED! (one of the X'd out Primarchs is actually Creed. the other one is Primarch Bob of the Imperial Accountants)

 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.

Tear, powder, spit, tap, fire

 Frazzled wrote:
the other one is Primarch Bob of the Imperial Builders)

ftfy

Sorry, it is all I could think about when I saw it

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
the other one is Primarch Bob of the Imperial Builders)

ftfy

Sorry, it is all I could think about when I saw it

Bob the Primarch Can he Exterminatus it?

Bob the Primarch Yes he can!

Yes!

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.

I am surprised no one has posted that song about George Washington yet.

 gorgon wrote:
Washington has a huge reach advantage, so Bonaparte will have to find a way to get inside.

How so??

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

 feeder wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

AT least 11 feet. The height requirement for US Presidents was a minimum 10feet through FDR.

Really? I heard Washington was 12 stories tall and made of radiation. He also had like, 30 dicks. Just covered in them, even on his feet.

I have a totally reliable source, en par with the one in the op.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

 gorgon wrote:

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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

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).