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.

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.

 Lone Cat wrote:


What else contributed to Washington victory?

Hissy fits from American viewers if he lost.

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.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

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.

Hitler vs Churchill. Mono-testicular drug addict vs overweight alcoholic. Who will win?

 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.

Churchill, no contest. Churchill drank half a bottle of whiskey a day at least.

 Frazzled wrote:
Churchill, no contest. Churchill drank half a bottle of whiskey a day at least.

}

Only match might be Stalin who was no lightweight in the drinking wars. Both could hold there own.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22623251

Yea Stalin was a pretty heavy boozer to. This is clearly why Hitler lost the war.

 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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

Genghis Khan wins.

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.

Boney wins.

 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).

 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! .

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.