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.

 LordofHats wrote:

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.

Burnsides! Now that was a great general (if you measure it by name to facial hair ratios).

Hooker also arguably had the greatest name for a General, so take that Washington and Napoleon.

To be serious, Napoleon would kick George's britches in. There is a reason a whole genre of wargames is named after him!

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:

 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.

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.

Daily reminder that anything less than 6'3 is dedicated manlet status.


Will they ever learn?

 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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_generals_(Union)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Civil_War_generals_(Confederate)

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Franklin_(1864)

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

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.

 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.

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.

please ignore

KTG17 wrote:

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.

If Risk taught us anything it's that you gotta leave two units behind as you advance.

edit: fix derp

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!

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.

Would thoroughly recommend this book by Andrew Roberts as one of the better-written ones on the subject https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Napoleon-Great-Andrew-Roberts/0141032014

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.

 Pacific wrote:
I'm not quite sure what the program is trying to achieve or how you could compare the two in any meaningful way.

I think it's just filler TV, like a shark vs T-Rex kind of BS what-if? scenario.

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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

Big Alex has a perfect win ratio though, especially when you consider that it was achieved over a pretty long campaign.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 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.