RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings

RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815

Message

malcolm_mccallum -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (3/22/2007 8:39:00 PM)
It is an excellent and perhaps critical point that Napoleon thought Blucher a better General than Wellington. Given the difference between Wellington's previous responses to reversals and strategic maneuverings (almost invariably falling back) and Blucher's response to the same things (almost invariably fighting on with aggression), Blucher was certainly the more dangerous of the two. ...and it played out exactly that way. Wellinton and Blucher both played their games the same as they always did. Napoleon has fought Blucher alot and he had very good reason to be afraid of him. Blucher was the kind of General that would capitalize on one's mistakes and hesitation. Blucher would call a Bluff. Blucher would go 'all in'. Napoleon knew that Wellington never would. Oh...and really, the Waterloo Battlefield has no 'high ground', at least not Monte Cassino, Dien Bien Phu, or even Austerlitz sense. :) The ground does some very tricky things with line of sight that leaves a surprising number of blind spots and the ridges can shelter troops from artillery but it is dismissing a very complicated battlefield to say that it was about 'the high ground'.

iamspamus -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (3/23/2007 3:18:29 AM)
My only beef with your analysis, is that I don't think that Nap was afraid of Blucher. Blucher also tended to fly by the "seat of his pants" (emotionally) and sometimes at the head of his troops like a medieval knight. This could produce trouble for him, like the time he was overrun and feared dead. However, he was a bright star in the inky blackness of the initial Prussian Officer corps. Jason quote: ORIGINAL: malcolm_mccallum It is an excellent and perhaps critical point that Napoleon thought Blucher a better General than Wellington. Given the difference between Wellington's previous responses to reversals and strategic maneuverings (almost invariably falling back) and Blucher's response to the same things (almost invariably fighting on with aggression), Blucher was certainly the more dangerous of the two. ...and it played out exactly that way. Wellinton and Blucher both played their games the same as they always did. Napoleon has fought Blucher alot and he had very good reason to be afraid of him. Blucher was the kind of General that would capitalize on one's mistakes and hesitation. Blucher would call a Bluff. Blucher would go 'all in'. Napoleon knew that Wellington never would. Oh...and really, the Waterloo Battlefield has no 'high ground', at least not Monte Cassino, Dien Bien Phu, or even Austerlitz sense. :) The ground does some very tricky things with line of sight that leaves a surprising number of blind spots and the ridges can shelter troops from artillery but it is dismissing a very complicated battlefield to say that it was about 'the high ground'.

9thlegere -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (4/19/2007 11:59:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic But something as fundemental as the three rank line being outmoded, simply slipped thru the cracks in the system. If we conjecture the French simply NOT using the three rank line, and using the two rank line instead.... The whole battle would have been different. Would have made no difference at all. The French simply did not have the same fire power philosophy as the British. Being famous wasters of ammunition, often firing too soon and aiming too high, two or three ranks would make not a jot of difference. The British infantry of the period was the best in the world in defence- thorught the Napoleonic wars the French never could deal with a volley or two at close range from British inf followed up with the bayonet.

9thlegere -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (4/20/2007 12:04:33 AM)
They beat the Austrians at Magneta and Solferino under Napoleon the third. Crimea Campaign anyone? I seem to recall them being on the winning side in WW1 and 2 as well. But don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

iamspamus -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (4/20/2007 2:48:56 AM)
I agree with the thought that the British were the best defensive infantry of the time. HOWEVER, another factor is that the French using the assault columns (for lack of a better term) was "new" in the beginning of the period, but by the end of the period (when the British were perfecting their system), everyone else had learned to some extent what to do to beat the French system. Couple this with the fact of the non-replaceable horseflesh and veteran losses suffered after Russia (Yeah, Kutusov!...and winter and space and Cossacks and the Prussians and Austrians changing sides...) and Napoleon by no means was fighting with the "A" team in the latter years. Finally, I think that Welly was good, especially in defense, even with unreliable allies. All of these things together helped to make the British system better than the French in the late war. quote: ORIGINAL: 9thlegere quote: ORIGINAL: Sardonic But something as fundemental as the three rank line being outmoded, simply slipped thru the cracks in the system. If we conjecture the French simply NOT using the three rank line, and using the two rank line instead.... The whole battle would have been different. Would have made no difference at all. The French simply did not have the same fire power philosophy as the British. Being famous wasters of ammunition, often firing too soon and aiming too high, two or three ranks would make not a jot of difference. The British infantry of the period was the best in the world in defence- thorught the Napoleonic wars the French never could deal with a volley or two at close range from British inf followed up with the bayonet. Well, France virtually conquered all of the European landmass, so I'm not belittling them. But in the end they lost this series of wars. Some to do with, well, fighting the majority of the European landmass, as well as other things. I agree that 2 vs. 3 lines for the Fr wouldn't have made a difference, not because they were inherently poor shots. That's silly. They did not have the training and in the later years, with basically militia or green troops you just clump them together and charge. And let's be honest, it broke JUST about everyone. The Brits being the obvious exception. But if you have poor cav to hit flanks, then you are missing a critical section to the assault column battle plan. I do disagree that they were just all bad shots or whatever. The FR Voltigeurs (sp?) were remarkable; no one shot as much in practice as the British; and well, all militia are pants. So, what can you expect of hastily raised troops? Jason quote: ORIGINAL: 9thlegere They beat the Austrians at Magneta and Solferino under Napoleon the third. Crimea Campaign anyone? I seem to recall them being on the winning side in WW1 and 2 as well. But don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

9thlegere -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (4/20/2007 10:26:38 PM)
Where did I say the French were poor shots? Think you missing my point. Individual French soldiers may have been good shots but you did not need to be a great shot to open fire at 20 or 30 paces then advance with the bayonet, which was what the Brits tended to do more often than not. The French, along with many other Continental armies, tended to open fire too soon and waste the effectivness when it came the decisive point. It matter sless when they where not facing British infantry however. My view is this on the Wellington - Napoleon thing. It is too much linked to the quality of the soldiers they had under their command. THe French army of 1805- 1807 (and even 1809 & 1812) had a number of advantages over all its opponents- not least being that Napoleon was a "Great Commander". The French army of this period never really faced the British army (Madia excepted- and the French units at that battle were not veterans of Austerlitz etc). I think that the French army of 1805 was superbly drilled, motivated, led and organised- a match for two opponents never mind one. Wellingtons greatest moments were when the British army was coming into its own during the Napoleonic wars- ie, 1812-1814. As for the two leaders- I think you can say this. I think that had Napoleon been British and in Wellingtons position in the Peninsular, he may have won some more spectacular battles but I also think he'd have lost more men and probably the campaign as the Brits could not afford heavy losses. On the flip side, Wellington would have been unlikely to have won such spectacular wins such as Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland as he would have been more cautious. Wellington would ahve retreated or not even fought Eylau- never mind charge 10,000 Cavalry straght up the middle. All ifs and buts. For me, I love the idea of Napoleons Grande Armee- its pomp and circumstance, glory and honour, for the Emperor etc. Wellington and the British army was so dull (he could be funny personally though) and so its really just down to personal views I'm afraid.

Paper Tiger -> RE: Napoleon's Ratings / Wellington's Ratings (4/21/2007 11:48:38 AM)
During the early part of the war the French were indeed much better infantry, but also the British were not as good. The British military system evolved during the war, with the introduction of rifles and tactics to compliment them. By the end of the war in the peninsular it was a virtual death sentence to be a French officer or NCO in a unit attacking the British. Even the conservative Wellington had recognised the value and use of the rifle by the end of the peninsular war, I just wonder if had sir John Moore lived to command the British would these innovations have been introduced more quickly?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.1875