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.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

 Frazzled wrote:
Vive Le Emperor!

Vive l'Empereur.
Not Vive Le Emperor...

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Vive Le Emperor!

Vive l'Empereur.
Not Vive Le Emperor...

Its my freaking saying so now I must revert to my native Texan.
Viva el emperador!

"It is wrong to be French!"
-George Washington
-The Duke of Wellington
-Ignacio Zaragoza
-Helmuth Von Moltke.

 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?

 Frazzled wrote:

"It is wrong to be French!"

-The Duke of Wellington
-Ignacio Zaragoza
-Helmuth Von Moltke.

All true quotes (taking translations into account)

-George Washington

Washington owes his ultimate success to the French Navy. He freakin' loved the French. He certainly partied like a Frenchman.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

-George Washington

Washington owes his ultimate success to the French Navy. He freakin' loved the French. He certainly partied like a Frenchman.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

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.

 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.

Of the three of them, which have had songs written about them by Iron Maiden?

I'll give you a hint: they're not Corsican.

Very true. Which means Andy Jackson wins.

In 1814 we took a little trip...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
My personal accounting of the Civil War:

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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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).

 Frazzled wrote:
Very true. Which means Andy Jackson wins.

In 1814 we took a little trip...

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. )

 Lone Cat wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Very true. Which means Andy Jackson wins.

In 1814 we took a little trip...

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.