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.

Now that I have your attention. Who would win?

Lee, master of disaster, victor of Chancellorville, Fredericksburg, First Manassas, Second Manassas, and Cold Harbor, vs.

Napoleon, victor of Leipzig and terror of Europe.

Armies:
Lee: Army of the Virginia at the time of Fredericksburg.
From Wiki for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fredericksburg
Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia had nearly 85,000 men, with 72,500 engaged. His organization of the army in corps was approved by an act of the Confederate Congress on November 6, 1862.[9]
• The First Corps of Lt. Gen. James Longstreet included the divisions of Maj. Gens. Lafayette McLaws, Richard H. Anderson, George E. Pickett, and John Bell Hood, and Brig. Gen. Robert Ransom, Jr.
• The Second Corps of Lt. Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson included the divisions of Maj. Gens. D.H. Hill and A.P. Hill, and Brig. Gens. Jubal A. Early and William B. Taliaferro.
• Reserve Artillery under Brig. Gen. William N. Pendleton.
• The Cavalry Division under Maj. Gen. J.E.B. Stuart.
Equipment: Rifles, two row formations, snipers and skirmishers.
Cavalry, armed with a mix of rifled breechloading carbines, swords, and pistols including Lemats (I think). Rifled muszzleloading artillery with solid, cannister, grape, and explosive shot.

Napoleon’s Grand Armee, larger version to account for time difference at the time of Borodino
NOTE: change from original post. Please assume Napoleon is at his mental prowess of 1805ish level, using this list as it is larger to compensate for the advanced technology. I want to mirror both generals at their prime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_borodino
According to Historian Alexander Mikaberidze, the French Army remained the finest army of its day by a good margin.[30] It had been the legacy of the French King and its fusion with the formations of the French revolution and Napoleon's reforms had transformed it into the military machine that had dominated Europe since 1805. Each corp of the French Army was in fact its own mini-army and capable of independent action.[30]
French forces included 214 battalions of infantry, 317 squadrons of cavalry and 587 artillery pieces totaling of 128,000 troops.[31] However, the French Imperial Guard, which consisted of 30 infantry battalions, 27 cavalry squadrons and 109 artillery pieces—a total of 18,500 troops—was never committed to action.[28]
Equipment: smoothbore muskets, skirmishers with better weaponry including baker style rifles (I think), light and heavy cavalry (but not lancers). Muzzle loading artillery shootig grape, cannister, and solid shot. Cavalry with swords and muzzle loading carbines or pistols.


Terrain:
You pick it.

Logistics: both are fully supplied to knock that out of the equation and determine the battle (you crazy distribution guys).

Who wins?

Bony. Obviously. No contest.

Lee. The advantage that 50 years of technological advancements in his armies weapons is insurmountable, especially those 50 years. I think that the range advantage ends up being something like 400-500 extra yards for Lee's men, as well as a higher rate of fire.

What's more, Lee (and his subordinates) understood that advantage. The Battle of Fredericksburg was pretty much the epitome of new tech being applied to Napoleonic tactics as is. Not saying Napoleon would have just marched into the fire or anything, but that's an incredible advantage to have to overcome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:Bony. Obviously. No contest.

You know, you could present some sort of argument for why you think this? As I noted, Lee's army had an incredible advantage in terms of both range, rate of fire, and accuracy. I'm willing to believe that Bony was an amazing general, but you need to give a little insight into how he's going to overcome this deficit.

He wasn't exactly known for success in guerrilla warfare (what, with Wellington running him around Iberia), and that's traditionally how armies overcome a tech limitation.

x = y + z

y > z

z = Lee's non censentists

y = bonys army

x = Wellington's riffles.

Done.

whatwhat wrote:x = y + z

y > z

z = Lee's non censentists

y = bonys army

x = Wellington's riffles.

Done.

You're just jealous because we drank all the French wine before starting the thread. Vive le Merlot!

Lee. Napoleon has zero chance to win in any way shape or form. Aside from the technological difference, there was also a different in the way war was conducted. In Napoleon's time, it was very much still a question of the 'battle of the point'. The entire army marched and fought at the same place. By Lee's time, they had developed (and indeed mastered) the "Operational Art". Lee can do something that Napoleon could never do: Command an army that was spread out over a very large (and diverse) geographic area to achieve simultaneous and synergistic effects.

The only real advantage I would give Napy is his artillery, the South could never live up to that.

Being an Artilleryman, I'd agree with Oxmega there. Napoleon would have a distinct advantage in artillery which, with the rate of numbers and use of columns, could very well be enough to outdo Lee.

EDIT: Napolean would have acess to some older versions of rifles, but for the most part the French Army didn't use them, viewing them as too slow to reload. (this bit from a Sharpe novel. )

I think a fairer fight is Fletcher Christian's mutineers and their inbred children vs General Lee's army.

Depends on the strategic arena and terrain involved.

The technical advantage to Lee of the infantry rifle was less than wargamers generally assume.

ACW artillery was a bit more mobile, but not enough to really make the difference. The Union army, with many more rifled pieces, would do better in counter-battery fire against the French.

ACW cavalry was pretty scrubby compared to Napoleonic, thanks to the close terrain involved in a lot of battles compared to Europe, which limited its tactical use.

Napoleon was past his best at by the time of Borodino, though. This should be taken into account.

chaosomega, you really should read some Napoleonic history. He practically invented the operational art, and the movement of separate forces to bring them together at the crucial point.

Welllington. Or Nelson. God help you if we sic both of them.

Duh.

I have read my history, and I don't consider Napoleon to be a true practitioner of the operational art. As you said, he maneuvered them seperately to bring them together at a crucial point. Contrast this to Lee, Grant, and other ACW generals who not only maneuvered their forces seperately, but also engaged with them seperately. Yes, you do have similar large set-piece battles in the style of Napoleon during the ACW, but you also have battles distributed along an entire front.

As far as technology goes, Lee was vastly superior. Napoleon could only win through superior tactics.

I'm interested as to why you chose Lee. He was a great general, but he lost. Was he still better than Grant?

Kilkrazy wrote:Depends on the strategic arena and terrain involved.

The technical advantage to Lee of the infantry rifle was less than wargamers generally assume.

ACW artillery was a bit more mobile, but not enough to really make the difference. The Union army, with many more rifled pieces, would do better in counter-battery fire against the French.

ACW cavalry was pretty scrubby compared to Napoleonic, thanks to the close terrain involved in a lot of battles compared to Europe, which limited its tactical use.

Napoleon was past his best at by the time of Borodino, though. This should be taken into account.

chaosomega, you really should read some Napoleonic history. He practically invented the operational art, and the movement of separate forces to bring them together at the crucial point.

Would you suggest a better time period for Napoleon KK? I went to Boro as thats one of his larger armies to partially compensate for the technology difference.

What what-use of Fletcher Christian would be totally unfair because they would have a secret weapon. Tahitian girls!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mike Noble wrote:As far as technology goes, Lee was vastly superior. Napoleon could only win through superior tactics.

I'm interested as to why you chose Lee. He was a great general, but he lost. Was he still better than Grant?

1. Southerner so thats like, required.

2. Lee defeated Grant, McClellan, Hooker, and Burnside. He was widely viewed as the best general on both sides of the Civil War.

3. Platform to deliver Lee, Longstreet, and Jackson against the pride of France.

4. Just finished watching Gettysberg again and was thinking, what would have happened if Meade had immediately attacked in the minutes right after Pickett's Charge? Could the war have been over?

5. Edit: also reading a new book on Waterloo and am at the point where the Grey's just made it to the french artillery line.

Between 1805 and 1809 was Napoleon's peak.

Mike Noble wrote:As far as technology goes, Lee was vastly superior. Napoleon could only win through superior tactics.

I'm interested as to why you chose Lee. He was a great general, but he lost. Was he still better than Grant?

In a tactical instance? Yes. Grant was a good General in that he knew he had to grind Lee down, all of the prior Union commanders were a bit tenuous when they were presented a situation to permanantly cripple Lee (perfect example would be McClellan). They knew they could do it, but it would have required mass causlaties in order for it to be a success (like Cold Harbor, Wilderness). Grant had the fortitutde to keep pushing Lee until the Army of Northern Virginia was finally beaten. Not the most brilliant commander, but guts are all you need sometimes (well, someone elses). This is why Patton is so highly regarded, he was a asskicker, he wasn't interested in laying the perfect trap, he wanted to engage the enemy and kick their asses.

As for Lee and Napoleon, Napoleon was a brilliant strategist who had an nigh unstoppable force, but suffered when he became bogged down against inferior opponents (Iberian, Russians using scorched earth). Lee was constantly fighting a numerically superior force that had better equipment and was always in supply. He kept that huge force at bay for almost 4 years. Hard to argue with Lee.

Thanks-changed!

Does Napoleon have a couple of months to bone up on the 50 year advance in technology? If yes Boneapart, if no Lee.

Without equal equipment Lee has better artillery that fires further and faster, Rifles and Muskets that are comparable if slightly better for Lee. Lee has the machinegun. Most importantly Lee has the train and 50 years of naval advancement on his side. Good luck sinking those Ironclads Boney.

Well its difficult to change the technology as both were oriented to that technology. if we were really using 1860s level tech, rebs would immediately start digging trenches and just wait out the French.

Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor! (sorry...)

It's true. Boney is going to need these Tahitian girls frazzled or we may as well be arguing the Luftwaffe vs the Alexandrian empire.



^^^^^^ Inferior tech.

How about Napoleon with the army that crossed into Russia (what was that 500,000?)

whatwhat wrote:It's true. Boney is going to need these Tahitian girls frazzled or we may as well be arguing the Luftwaffe vs the Alexandrian empire.

The Alexandrian Empire siezed control over the vast oil reserves in the Middle East. Without access to these supplies the LUftwaffe offensive, after initial stunning sucess, would grind to a halt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:How about Napoleon with the army that crossed into Russia (what was that 500,000?)

Is Lee going to use slash and burn tactics or are we talking about a stand up fight? Becuase even a semi-competent General can make something of himself with half a million men. Give them to Napoleon to orchestrate in a straight up fight and things look ugly for Lee. (Granted a lot of those troops may not have been up to the standard of the Imperial Guard)

Emperors Faithful wrote:

whatwhat wrote:It's true. Boney is going to need these Tahitian girls frazzled or we may as well be arguing the Luftwaffe vs the Alexandrian empire.

The Alexandrian Empire siezed control over the vast oil reserves in the Middle East. Without access to these supplies the LUftwaffe offensive, after initial stunning sucess, would grind to a halt.

It's a good thing Luftwaffe engines run on hate then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ahem, bad. Bad thing.

ULTIMATE WARRIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would also argue Lee because of one, as it turns out, major "breakthrough" in warfare of that age... Trigonometry.

It was the Confederate army that began using Trig to calculate their artillery shots, so that they could be in the rear with the gear, in "warmth and comfort" while they shelled the crap out of the "other guys" Napoleonic era artillery still needed line of site to their target, and use their "skipping" method of taking out units of troops and cavalry, etc.

not a bad thing we silly, treasonous colonials have done.. artillerymen the world over can thank us

It's a good thing Luftwaffe engines run on hate then.

Yea but its oiled by strudel. Stop the strudel supply and you stop the Hun!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:How about Napoleon with the army that crossed into Russia (what was that 500,000?)

Is Lee going to use slash and burn tactics or are we talking about a stand up fight? Becuase even a semi-competent General can make something of himself with half a million men. Give them to Napoleon to orchestrate in a straight up fight and things look ugly for Lee. (Granted a lot of those troops may not have been up to the standard of the Imperial Guard)

Wo where's the respect for Lee/Longstreet/Jackson here? After all in the words of Wellington about Bonaparte: "Heis just a pounder after all!"

If Lee could reach Napoleon, he would win. I've never heard anything about Napoleon's martial prowess, while Lee's Jeet Kune Do is legendary. The man could kill someone with a punch!

Nevermind his mastery of the nun-chuks and those eerie war-woops.

To put a Frenchman against the only man to beat Chuck Norris is not a contest, but a slaughter.

That being said, I would definitely pay $10 to see it in theaters.

The largest historical stretch here is to view each commander respectively as one of the pre-eminent ones of their time. Their strengths were also in different departments from the onset of their respective campaigns they led to success.
Let's list their greatest strengths and weaknesses laundry list style with a brief explanation why:

Confederate General Robert E. Lee:

Born of the Lee line that also produced Revolutionary War hero Henry "Light Horse" Harry Lee who was known for his cavalry work. Was raised a Southern aristocratic gentleman. Graduated from West Point academy, one of the top in his class and receiving tutelage from the Army Corp of Engineers. Gained experience in the field as an engineer for defense works, as an aide to General Winfield Scott in the Mexican-American war, became Superintendant at West Point, and oversaw the capture of John Brown before his raid became significant.

Strengths as a Commander-

Aggressive- Robert E. Lee would often go on the offensive, despite being outnumbered and out gunned against Union forces. Against more timid or hesitant commanders, this tactic often proved successful, especially when the Union thought Lee had more men than he actually had.

Superb tactician- arguable one of Lee's greatest feats was the ability to discern the field of battle, size up his competition, and delegate authority and orders to secure a victory. Many of his battles defied army doctrine at the time and often paid dividends for defeating a larger foe.

Engineering experience- due to the advent and proliferation of the rifled gun, which increased exponentially the killing power of small arms fire, Lee's exerience as an army engineer allowed his men to counter the rise of modern technology by creating defensive works and strategems that neutralized the casualties while operating on the defense.

Cavalry and quality of men advantage- Not a trait of Lee but of Southern culture- his cavalry men grew up learning how to ride horses and shoot guns- many of the Northerners who fought against the Confederacy could claim such an advantage- hence the cavalry outfit and initial quality of troops Lee had was impressive.

Defensive War- Lee's men were fighting for home and hearth, a discernable advantage intangibly. Further, local knowledge of terrain and conditions allowed Lee's men to fight knowing the lay of the land. Lee could also claim this advantage as he fought within the confines of his own home state for most of his battles.

Aura of Invincibility- Lee's bewildering and decisive victories over incompetent Union commanders gave him and his men a distinct morale advantage- even when his men were barefoot, outnumbered, and invading Union territory, they knew they could trust Lee and will them to victory. Unionists were essentially defeatists prior to the Battle of Gettysburg (although it is worth noting that they would all still greatly respect Lee's ability to whip them).

Subordinates- another great strength of Lee was to culture a large class of lieutenants at the divisional and corps level that executed the orders Lee gave them and were flexible enough within those orders to achieve success.

Short List of Dependable Commanders:

James Longstreet- Longest serving corps commander to Lee- Lee's most dependable commander, defensive minded, gifted as an engineer and general in many ways like Lee, had an excellent command staff to execute his orders.

Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson- Arguable one of the most famous Confederate generals- eccentric, unliked but respected by his men, he was perhaps one of the war's greatest strategic and tactical minds. Innovative, daring, elusive, his exploits include holding up 50,000 reserves from bolstering John Pope's army prior to the Second Battle of Manassas in the Shenandoah Campaign and the successful flank attack in the Battle of Chancellorsville that caused the route of an entire Untion corps.

J.E.B. Stuart- commander of the cavalry men in the Army of Northern Virginia- dashing and aggressive, he was noted for his Ride Around the Army of the Potomac- a feat he accomplished twice. His greatest contributions were his ability to screen the Unionists from discerning where Lee's forces were exactly and intelliegnce gathering- allowing Lee to move his army and know where the enemy was.

Subsequent commanders were also dependable, but few reached the level of these three at Lee's height.

Weaknesses-

Offensive casualties- Lee's daring tactical assaults were often throw aside or costed Lee a large number of casualties. For an army limited in manpower resources, this would eventually hamper Lee as time went on.

Loss of gifted commanders- Lee ultimately would lose not just men, but also his trusted subordinates. Either transferred out of his army or dying in battle (Jackson in 1863, Stuart in 1864), the loss of such a gifted staff of generals would prove fatal.

Strategic oversight- Lee had limited command of other Confederate armies until 1865. On his offensive campaigns, he gambled on political intervention as ways of winning the war rather than decisive tactical victories (he knew he could not sustain a prolonged invasion, which would also raise Northern morale and increase the war effort on their part). All his personally commanded offensive campaigns ended in strategic defeats.

Inflexibility- Lee would not leave the Army of Northern Virginia, and subsequently where his commanding presence could of helped other armies, the result was the next best person was found for the job (i.e. Braxton Bragg, Joseph E. Johnson, John Bell Hood- all whom proved deeply flawed commanders). Further Lee still employed Napoleonesque tactics at times when said tactics were proven to be futile efforts against superior positions and weaponry (Pickett's charge being a prime example. In fact, frontal charges in general almost always failed against established positions in the Civil War).

EDITING for more content-