Summer Campaign-Napoleonic Bracket

[Marshal Murat]

The Napoleonic Bracket is up and running

Rules
There are 16 generals to be offered.
You vote for eight to continue on.
I am trusting that you will honor this system of voting for eight.
Choose your favorites.
This poll will be open for 7 days.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I tapped 7 names. Most of the rest were about equal in my eyes. All pretty good candidates, though I'm not that much of a fan of Scot.

[Tran]

Napoleon and his arch-enemy Wellington got the same number of votes (draw)? Interesting...

[CountArach]

Well they were arguably the two most capable Generals of the bracket. No one could deny Napoleon's brilliance (If his Strategic incompetence), and you can't vote Napoleon without voting for the man who beat him.

[Spino]

No Davout eh? He is easily the most underrated and underappreciated general of that era.

[MilesGregarius]

No Davout eh? He is easily the most underrated and underappreciated general of that era.

The Duc d'Auerstaedt (Davout), Lannes, and Massena are definitely more deserving than some names on the list. C'est la guerre.

[Marshal Murat]

Was he requested?
Yes Davout was requested.
He will be added.

[Boyar Son]

Aw man, the U.S. so lost this one... all the europeans are gonna vote for, well europeans!

[Lord Winter]

Aw man, the U.S. so lost this one... all the europeans are gonna vote for, well europeans!

Not really we've got our two best generals from this era.

EDIT: Changed to our

[Martok]

Not really we've got the two best generals from this era.
Who besides Robert E. Lee?

[Lord Winter]

Who besides Robert E. Lee?
Jackson

[Marquis of Roland]

Jackson

Lee got more votes than Jackson? So weird.....

BTW, those European guys were very good.....sorry USA

[CountArach]

Aw man, the U.S. so lost this one... all the europeans are gonna vote for, well europeans!
I resent being called a European. Clearly only my decendants are.

[Boyar Son]

Lee got more votes than Jackson? So weird.....

BTW, those European guys were very good.....sorry USA


Not saying who was better, I'm saying the U.S wont stand a chance against teh pwning european voters. And whats to say that the U.S. ones werent as good?

@CountArach, well I resent not getting another update of Roma's Bulls!

[Lord Winter]

Ment to say the two best americans from the era.

I don't think that it's that strange that Jackson is behind Lee I think it would be surprising if it was the other way around.

[Martok]

Jackson
Ah. Then in that case, I definitely agree with you. I was afraid you were going to say Grant. (No offense to those that voted for him!) ~;p

[Marquis of Roland]

Ment to say the two best americans from the era.

I don't think that it's that strange that Jackson is behind Lee I think it would be surprising if it was the other way around.

I just think that Jackson was the more imaginitive and creative general than Lee was. Lee may have beaten the Union armies with less troops (but better quality arguably with the exception of the artillery) almost everytime, but lost irreplaceable southern manpower every fight (in some battles he won the south lost more men percentage-wise I believe).

In Jackson's brilliant Shenandoah campaign, he outmaneuvered and held down almost 90,000 Union troops in 3 corps, with only about 5000 men! If he hadn't, imagine another 90,000 men or even half that number reinforcing the Army of the Potomac. Lee would have been in big trouble then :sweatdrop: In essence, Jackson won many battles without the loss or minimal loss of his own men, while putting the enemy in an untenable position and forcing them to retreat/concede defeat.

Generally I think Jackson was the better strategist. A shame what happened at Chancellorsville.

IMO, Jackson > Sherman > Lee > Grant :2thumbsup:

[Lord Winter]

I just think that Jackson was the more imaginitive and creative general than Lee was. Lee may have beaten the Union armies with less troops (but better quality arguably with the exception of the artillery) almost everytime, but lost irreplaceable southern manpower every fight (in some battles he won the south lost more men percentage-wise I believe).

In Jackson's brilliant Shenandoah campaign, he outmaneuvered and held down almost 90,000 Union troops in 3 corps, with only about 5000 men! If he hadn't, imagine another 90,000 men or even half that number reinforcing the Army of the Potomac. Lee would have been in big trouble then :sweatdrop: In essence, Jackson won many battles without the loss or minimal loss of his own men, while putting the enemy in an untenable position and forcing them to retreat/concede defeat.

Generally I think Jackson was the better strategist. A shame what happened at Chancellorsville.

IMO, Jackson > Sherman > Lee > Grant :2thumbsup:

Yes but Jackson's agressive style had as much blame to the loss of man power as Lee did. I wouldn't call Jacksons style exactly manpower safe either. At second Mannasas he suffered heavy causilties after advancing against the whole union army with just his Corps. At Chancellorsville his strategy also lead to a fairly Pyphiric, if not stunning because of sheer odds, victory. The confederacy lost more men then it could afford there. Jackson was also constently late at the Seven days. Each had their faults and master peaces you can't dismiss either out of hand.

[Spino]

Yes but Jackson's agressive style had as much blame to the loss of man power as Lee did. I wouldn't call Jacksons style exactly manpower safe either. At second Mannasas he suffered heavy causilties after advancing against the whole union army with just his Corps. At Chancellorsville his strategy also lead to a fairly Pyphiric, if not stunning because of sheer odds, victory. The confederacy lost more men then it could afford there. Jackson was also constently late at the Seven days. Each had their faults and master peaces you can't dismiss either out of hand.

Well Jackson was great, not infallible.

In defense of Jackson all commanders of that period needlessly wasted men on the battlefield. True, there was far greater impetus for the South to preserve its manpower than the North but the root of the problem lie in the fact that all commanders of that era were schooled in the use of Napoleonic tactics which strongly stressed offense over defense. Napoleonic tactics made sense in an era dominated by short range, relatively inaccurate smoothbore weapons but was a tragic mistake where rifled firearms and artillery were concerned. Anyway given the circumstances Lee and Jackson performed remarkably well. To Jackson's credit he did seem to favor aggressive flanking maneuvers whenever possible.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Spino's right.

The deepening of the killing zone created by the use of rifles instead of smoothbores was tactically huge as an issue. A Brown Bess in the hands of a well-trained infantryman could get off 1 shot every 12 seconds and had a practical killing range of about 100 yards with anything resembling accuracy. So, if they fired at 100 yards and you stood it and ran right at them, you could be at bayonet range before all but the very best infantry could reload. With ACW rifled muskets, the effective range was almost tripled-- especially with massed fire. Tactics did not keep pace and tight formations were still the order of the day.

Nor did the legacy of Napoleonic columns die out with the lessons of the ACW.

Nor with the lesson of Sedan.

Nor with the lesson of Port Arthur.

It didn't die out until the battle of the Frontiers in 1914 when the machine gun and the modern bursting shell finally managed to kill enough people to convince the rest than anything resembling close order was suicide with modern weapons. Unfortunately, viable tactics to use in modern battlefield conditions didn't really begin to become the norm until 1918, more than 3 years and most of a generation of males later.

[Incongruous]

The fact that Eugene got so few votes saddens me. He and Marlborough were both crucial elements in the war of Spanish Succession,:no:

[Kalle]

Well generals who were important for the war of spannish succesion shouldnt get any votes at all in a napoleonic bracket :no:

Kalle

[Incongruous]

Well he is on the list isn't he?