gainst the phoney Wellington?
As we know, both were phonies,
Washington Claiming victory at yorktown when we all know Layfette did all the work, and Wellington taking Blutcher's Sucess at waterloo.
But Wellesly was a better commander.
-Capo
Printable View
gainst the phoney Wellington?
As we know, both were phonies,
Washington Claiming victory at yorktown when we all know Layfette did all the work, and Wellington taking Blutcher's Sucess at waterloo.
But Wellesly was a better commander.
-Capo
Dind't Wellington make considerable gains in Iberia? If so, I vote for him.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif Wha?Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Wellesley fought his way through a couple of Grand Armees to get to Waterloo (and was almost single-handedly responsible for Boney's first exile). He held on for hours against a French army that outnumbered him something like 2:1 or 3:1. He couldn't have won without Blucher's Prussians, but he is in no way a phoney. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...nquisitive.gif
Yeah, Wellesley was such a phoney, winning battle after battle against the French in Spain http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif
I don't get it. Both commanders were pretty competent and did rather well in their respective battles.
Maybe they were not "geniuses" like Hannibal or Napoleon but calling them phony is a bit extreme.
Wellington was the man, what's the problem with him? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...nquisitive.gif
Hrm. Maybe phoney was too harsh,
They were WAYYY overrated though.
And don't give me that Sir Arthur fought his way single handedly bull. He had other, good generals under his command.
And at Waterloo, he didn't engage in the fighting untill after the prussians had done considerable damage to the French.
He also didn't move to help his ally Blutcher at Lingey (or Lingley.)
Also, he DID only make it up to General because his relative was governor of India. And, he was, more or less, a deserter,
let me explain.
In india, when he was a colonel, i think, his troops once met some Indian troops in a skirmish.
He ran away, back to camp, told his superiors, and fell asleep. His troops were slaughtered.
But he did have some spectacular victories. Like Vitoria.
And Washington was okay. He didn't have any spectacular victories (don't give me yorktown, he only won because of the french. 2 more days the british could have held out and re-inforcments would have came and wiped the floor with the americans.)
Just IMHO.
-Capo
Arthur Wellesley. Lets see.
India? He did do some fighting there don't you know... Seringapatam? Assaye? Argaum?
Peninsular campaign... Rolica, Vimeiro, Talavera, Ciudad Rodrigo, Badajoz, Salamanca, Vitoria, Sorauren...
Then we come to the Waterloo campaign.
Nosey wasn't particularly good in a political role once he got back to England though.
Bwa? The Prussians didn't turn up until after the British and French had been fighting for most of the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Wellington is the man. I reccomend Richard Holmes' biography of him.
And Washington wasn't really much of a general, he lost most of his battles, his real strength is his ability to hold his men tomorrow, raise their spirits, morale, and the men loved him.
And all the while marching in no-mans land to cheer his troops on. I remember reading that he had done that in 1 of his battles in the middle of fire. If you ask me that takes guts.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
The other thing is Washington was'nt commanding professional troops where as Wellington was.
As far as Wellington or the Prussians winning waterloo I do'nt think you can call him a phony under the circumstances. From what I understand the battle was already over when the Prussians arrived. It was Napoleans fear of fighting 2 armies at once that provoked Napolean to be aggressive and make foolish mistakes on the battlefield. Napoleans main objective was to route the English before the Prussians arrived.
But then again Wellington was fighting the French http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg.../gc-jester.gif
Yes, Blucher's impening arrival caused Napoleon to throw his Old guard at the British line. Their breaking demoralised the French, as it was clear that the battle was lost.
What you understand is Wellington's report on the battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
He took the credit for himself.
Various other reports have it differently.
-Capo
Yes, Wellington did downplay the role of the Prussians to make the English, and his own, contribution look bigger. But the fact is, Waterloo was a very well fought battle by the Anglo-Dutch army. The French made very few gains during the day and typically Wellington was always present at the key points, overseeing their rebuff. The exception that proves the rule is the loss of La Haye Sainte farm late in the evening. The French never took the ridge line - although it would have been closer, I doubt they would have won even without the Prussians (who took away the smallest French Corps and much of the Guard). It is hard to fault Wellington's handling of his army on the day at Waterloo, although I admit even he was not so proud of the run-up to the battle ("Napoleon's humbugged me" or some such).Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
But if you want to see Wellington's battle skills unclouded by the contribution of major Allies, you can look at any one of the dozen or more major encounters he fought against the French in his Peninsular campaign. The fact was, he was never beaten despite typically unfavourable odds. This is in striking contrast to other allies, and indeed the British under different generals. Wellington had worked out a counter to French Napoleonic tactics and this, combined with his assured strategic skills, made him a general to rival Napoleon. Napoleon was the more flashy general, but much less consistent - with strategic defeats as notable (Russia, Spain) as his occasional spectacular victories on the battlefield.
Yes. Mt personal favourite Wellington battle is Salamanca.
Wellington is not close of being a military mastermind (in the class of a Napoleon, for instance) but he was a great commander in every account, eventhough I wouldn't particularly like him as my company (he was arrogant and rude, not to mention that he was a snobish sob of the greatest calibre... and last but not least he was a compulsive liar - reading his accounts for Waterloo makes me wanna puke) but if I lived in that age, I wouldn't mind being led by him in battle (if I had to fight, that is http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif ). He was a very good tactician and he knew to make his men give 100% of what they had.
OTOH, Washington was indeed a phoney, as a military commander at least. Most of his so-called "military triumphs" during the American war of independance were either won by the French or lost by the Brits themselves. But he was an extremely smart and able politician and he put his seal on the new nation, by laying very strong foundations for its later strength.
AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
I mean how can you say such rubbish, how can a man which beat the French - the most advanced, powerful and at the time fearsome - time after time after time phoney? I think you have to back up such an absurd statement before making such polls. As others have said.
And if you really think the Prussians made a blind bit of difference at the battle of Waterloo you really show your naivety. It was Napoleon who lsot the battle, but you cannot diminish Wellingtons role, it was important.
I think you are overstating the case a little, JAG. Didn't Napoleon himself say something before the battle was decided about Blucher's approach swinging the odds significantly against him?
In most wargames, Waterloo appears a "fair fight" without the Prussians: the French have a slight advantage in numbers but the English have position and the luxury of defence. I personally think the English have the edge if follow Wellington's tactics and the French follow their usual Napoleonic tactics - it seems always thus, whenever they met. However, it definitely becomes an uphill struggle for the French when the Prussians are included.
On the day, the Prussians crushed the French right and had driven into the rear of Napoleon's position (Placenoit?) by the time the French made the decisive attack on the Anglo-Dutch army with the Guard. I suspect the repulse of the Guard started a rout not so much because the French thought the Guard could not fail (the usual myth). But instead, the French panicked when they realised there was a second large aggressive enemy army right in their rear. (by analogy MTW captures the morale effects of enemy cav in your rear pretty well).
Without the Prussians, Napoleon could have taken a little more time and exploited the seizure of La Haye Sainte with Lobau's Corps and the Guard. Who knows, maybe Napoleon could even have pulled off a Prryhic victory (despite having had the rest of his army badly mauled earlier in the day)? I suspect it might have been more like another Quatre Bras though - pretty much a draw.
In the bigger pictue of things the 100 Days campaign was pretty hopeless though - the Allies had masses of manpower mustering to crush France. The Allies were collectively determined to see the thing through and also had able commanders who had learnt enough from Napoleon not to be cowed by him. By contrast, France was exhausted and internally rather divided. I doubt there was anything Napoleon could have done, even at the height of his power, to win in the end. He gave it a pretty good shot, but Wellington and Blucher just resolutely beat him down.
No I think you are very much mistaken, Napoleon should have won Waterloo. Napoleon not only had the troops present at the battle but was in a good position, everyone goes on about the classic Wellington position on the hills but it was in fact a good position to attack the kind of army the Allies had. Remember the army was not made up predominately of British it was a truly allied army. And the Dutch and Belgians were, to be frank, not up to much, they were not quality troops yet they held crucial parts of the line. On Wellington's left flank much of it was Dutch troops - and the crucial far right flank -, it was where Napoleon attacked the center - right, where the Guard and pickton's real quality troops were. The land was very ripe for the HUGE and PLENTIFUL French guns, if they had shelled the shit out of the Dutch, then used the normal tactics they would never have held.
What Napoleon did at Waterloo was in direct conflict to his grand strategy and motto if you will - Never reinforce failure. He did it in Spain and lost, and he did it at Waterloo and lost. He attacked the allies strongest position - the farm houses and the Brits - and then when it stalled reinforced it It was a terrible decision and one which cost him the battle. Ignore the farm houses, attack the Dutch and game over man, game over.
Notice how none of this has anything to do with either the Prussians or Wellington. Yes the Prussians came and caused havoc on the French right and at Plancenoit. Yes Wellington did the best tactics he could on the day and yes the Brits which were there would have stopped the French if they attacked them - and showed they could by beating the guard. But it was in the French hands, if Napoleon had attacked it properly he would have won the battle, no question.
Now onto whether he could have won the whole picture, I think he could well have. If he had beaten the Brits and Prussians - and remember the Prussian army was AWEFUL, it was the worst army in Europe, it's structure, it's quality of troops, it's weaponry and it's cav were below par - then yes the Austrians and Russians were coming and mobilizing but you forget that even after Waterloo the French had 2/3 of their army in tact. There were many, many more recruits being trained in Paris a whole new army as well as the political advantage from the defeat of the Brits and Germans. The Austrians have a long history with the French as I am sure you well know, I do not think they could be counted on and if it did infact come to a punch up, I do not see the Austrians holding, even though granted they were better and better while the period progressed. The Russians then were the only realistic option, and a France on its own turf with a rushed Russian army, I do see the Russians taking their time or backing down. Napoleon could quite easily of got his initial wish and be able to stabilize at home for a bit, if he was given that then who knows. France ruling Europe again?
I guess we just disagree, JAG. Wellington's position was pretty well placed against flank attacks. His right had a ton of decent troops in reserve as he anticipated just such a turning movement. His left was thin, but anchored by some defensible hamlets and anyway he knew the Prussians were fast approaching that way, ready to hit a French flanking maneouvre in the rear. Even with a flanking attack, I don't see Napoleon scrapping more than a draw against Wellington at Waterloo given the arrival of the Prussians. Without the Prussians, a French victory against the Anglo-Dutch was possible but even then it would not have been a feat easily attained against a general of the calibre of Wellington.
But I agree Napoleon did a lot to lose the battle. For example, as you say, going for the flanks certainly would have been better than a frontal assault on British infantry deployed on a reverse slope (or, worse, defending a walled Chateau). But Napoleon effectively foresook such grand tactical maneouvres by allowing such a late start to the battle.
On the quality of the Prussians and the Dutch troops, you are probably aware this is disputed. A lot of the received English language received wisdom comes from Wellington and other Brits who were keen to play up their role at the expense of their allies. I think the key revisionist is a historian called Peter Hofschorer or something who has written several books on the subject. Hofschorer stresses the modernisation of the Prussian army, on Napoleonic lines, IIIRC with large semi-autonomous Corps comprised of lots of skirmishers (some with rifles), plenty of cannon, aggressive cavalry and large attack columns of infantry. But how can we judge quality at this distance? All I can say is that the Prussians seemed to have plenty of fight in them on the day.
On the wider picture, I think there was no way the Austrians would have sued for terms. It was the French whose political support for war was wobbly, not the allies. Even if they lost the 100 days campaign, Britain and Prussia would have been able to raise fresh armies - coupled with the Austria-Russia juggernaut, the picture was pretty hopeless for France.
All this talk of Waterloo is making me want to try out that game Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle. It's a variant of Sid Meier Gettysburg game engine which I did not like, but maybe I should give it another shot? Anyone else played it?
JAG,
I think you are flat out wrong to dismiss the Prussians or the Dutch-Belgian contingent...The Prussian army of 1813 - 1815 was hugely different from the one that got hammered at Jena and Auerstaedt.
AFAIK first of all, after these disasters the Prussians introduced an army reform, especially concerning the officers. Many of the Prussians and especially among the Dutch-Belgian troops had served under Napoleon... up to the point that the loyalty of the Dutch troops was considered suspect; at Quatre-Bras they proved otherwise...
The biggest problem for the Dutch was the inexperience of the William of Orange and his sub-commanders.
As far as the French artillery goes, there part of Wellington's tactics was based on protecting the infanty form the bombardment. Second, apparently Napoleon had the elements conspire against him. A combination of uphill ground, the weather and a soggy soil basically absorbed most of the impact of the French artillery (as conclusively shown on a BBC show, broadcasted on Belgian TV).
As far as the Prussians go, they, IMHO proved to be from a different mold both in 1813 and in 1815. In 1813 They were instrumental in defeating the French in the events culminating at Leipzig. Where they showed their resilience most was because of the fact that when things did go wrong, they avoided total destruction.
And the quality of the French was not that good either. It was hurriedly assembled. Most of the veteran soldiers had died in Russia. A good number again had been lost in 1813 as well.. In many respects the French army of 1815 was not that dissimilar of that of the Germans in 1945. Masses of really young and old recruits (especially young) grouped around a cadre of veterans.
Thread....
spiraling...
off...
topic...
Why do you keep referring to Washington or Wellington as phony? They both won their respective battles - they never over-reached themselves and got themselves in a pit. Look at Napoleon - no one asked him to invade Russia. It was all his own brilliant idea.
You obviously have a lot to learn about both men. Neither was a "phony", in fact each was largely responsible for two of the most decisive victories in the entire history of the world. In case you weren't aware, there were long and hard wars preceeding both Waterloo and Yorktown, so I'm not just talking about those 2 battles.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
How did Cornwallis end up at Yorktown in the first place? Whose strategy was it to bottle up Cornwallis, and who gave Lafayette and Mad Anthony Wayne their orders before throwing up a screen for Clinton and rushing south to join the siege? Who, more than any other single man, was responsible for the victory in the Revolution against hopeless odds, and thus the creation of the United States? Lafayette? There wouldn't have even been a war for him to join in '77 had it not been for Washington.
What was Blucher's record prior to Waterloo? And Wellington's? And what allowed Blucher to even dream of joining that battle? Napoleon's decision to delay the attack at Waterloo until mid-day. Regardless, and most importantly here, who was actually responsible for the decision to stumble down the road towards Waterloo? Gneisenau, not Blucher.
I'd vote, but unfortunately there isn't an option for "both choices are wrong".
I DID correct myself on the phoney part.
I was too pissed off at american pro-washington propaganda,
but both were overrated.
Also, the Prussians did do most of teh fighting in Waterloo.
The British did do some, but their role is greatly exaggerated, while the prussians are portrayed as arriving too late, when they arrived in time for most of the fighting. In fact, if not for the prussians, Wellington could have lost, but with the prussians, the allies were nearly invincible (on terms of strategic position, etc.)
-Capo
Caporegime1984 You would'nt mind moving to a country where you think the founders not a phony wuld ya
do you know much about history? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...nquisitive.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
Capo u seem to have waterloo messed up - on the day the Allied army under Wellington did the majority of the fighting the Prussians turned up late and did very little actual fighting and their contribution in the scheme of things was to panic the French - i think u are confusing the day before - the day before waterloo Napoleon Attacked the Prussian Army cutting it off from the Allied forces so they couldnt join Wellington a battle which the French WON and which delayed the Prussian advance (hence their late arrival at the main battle)
there is a lot of debate about who would have won without the Prussians - i believe Wellington could have carried the day but it would have been very very bloody
and Jag you are underplaying the Dutch troops they were very good troops the equal of red coats easily their problem was 2 fold - 1 they had faught for Napoleon and so their loyalty was not asured and 2 they were under a very bad commander - the Prince of Orange - who was very very bad at commanding troops - he gave orders during the battle of Waterloo for 2 infantry companies to advance in line when French cavalry was abroad - this led to one being destroyed by the cavalry while the other managed to form square in time
Wellington was far better at leading an army in battle.
George Washington's genius lay in his ability to ensure that the rebels maintained an effective field army. If they had chosen to fight a major European style battle and lost, the rebellion would have collapsed. He was one of the few Americans who realised that local militia units could not be expected to routinely defeat British regulars on their own, or even turn out and fight for a loser.
Incidentally, the British led force at Waterloo slightly outnumbered the French, but the French had better artillery and the only troops that Wellington knew he could really count on were the veterans of his penninsular campaign, who suceeded in routing the Imperial Guard.
Sir Moody,Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
I think you have made one mistaken assesment. William of Orange mistakes were not so much due to his lack of capabilities, but rather his lack of experience.. supposedly Wellington himself was of the opinion that William of Orange could eventually grow into a fine and capable commander. Later, when fighting the Belgians, Wiliam of Orange ran all over them...
Wellington is the best british commander while the purchase system was in effect during the British armies history.
Case closed. Defeating them in spain with an army that was undermanned and undersupplied because the politicians in whitehall dindn't believe they could beat Napoleon. They only got behind him after he was advancing into france. His real sucess was that he organised the army well so it fought well.
At waterloo wellington only just won if blucher was any later the day would of been lost.
Some people were arguing whether Napoleon would of survived if he won waterloo.
the answer is yes and no he could of in the sense of conquring europe. But the britsh army and navy wouyld slowly drain him. You can't run an empire when you've got an army of veteran soldiers and the best navy in the world at the time ready to invade your homeland.
Just thought I'd mention that the majority of the British troops were green troops from england as the penisula army was mostly in the U.S driving the americans out of canada and shelling washington. If my memory serves me well.
If the army that wellinton was commanding was his veteran force blucher could of just sat back and smoked his pipe as the columns were disected with volley fire. As the breaking of the old guard by the coldstream guards proved would happen.
Hold on, let me find this...
Here
http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/wellington.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
This is the most coprehensive page I could find on Wellington.
There are other accounts of the Battle, but most come from Noseys description of the battle.
You can beleive what you want, I am not sure that I am 100% right, but there are other accounts of the battle and you cant ignore that.
Prove me wrong with a report coming from someone other than wellington supporting him, and youll get a cookie http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
-Capo
You copied and pasted an opinion that coincided with yours. That's ........ http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/confused.gif
Poor stuff man. Can't even be bothered to refute someone else's opinion that ain't even yours.
some of that is true other is all opinion and/or uncobrated facts
very true but then considering he faught most battles against the french outnumbered heavily can u blame him for taking the defensive?Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
ok complete nonsense - the reason he didnt face him alone was not that he was "scared" it was because he had little chance of victory and yes if the prussians hadnt been there he wouldnt have attacked - he needed the Prussian Troops to bolster his own men - u dont fight battles u arnt sure about it shows more wisdom to wait than to rush headlong in and isnt cowardiceQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
LOL oh my there is one very GOOD reason Wellignton didnt group all his artillary together - the French artillary was better and if you place all your eggs in one basket you run the risk of losing it all and that last line is a FAMOUS joke (he was a very sarcastic man if you read some of his quotes) Napoleon was an Artillary officer at the begining of his career hence the "revolutionised other armies."Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
all true but you cant get it all right - Napolean was a very good "poker" player he used misdirection to his advantageQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
heh again yes he was a cautious man but for good reason the French were Cleaver attackers and Ambushs were not beyond them - had he harrased them as this suggests the risk of spliting his forces and beng ambushed was far far greater and with limmitied supplies and cash due to English poltics meant he couldnt afford to lose men/supplies - while he advanced slowly hes men were kept together and ambush was next to impossibleQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
ok this General sound smore and more like a fool - while it may have turned out allright he was seriously gambling here - his men would havebeen exhausted, starving and in no inclination to fight id imagine the desertion figres were very very high - an army marches on its stomachQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
Indian Campaign correct? since Wellington was a colonel - well it wasnt unkown for this to happen and while it was frowned upon not many officers were courtmarshled over stuff like this - id guess the General in Question here was a political enemy of Wellingtons brotherQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
there is enough evidence to suggest the the Prince of Orange was a bad commander of men at this time in his life he ordered several suicidal attacks - his retinue on the other hand included some very experianced dutch commanders and its not too much of a leap to suggest he took advice in the case of Quatre Bras - and as far as i know Wellington never bad mouthed William in fact his letter to Williams father praised the boy (to an extent)Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
very true and ull notice most of us agree with thisQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
its not definate any of this it mostly seems to rely on opinion with only 1 real account - that of a General during the Indian campaign where Wellington wasnt even a general yet...
Very strange website that you cite there, Caporegime1984. I think a lot of the stuff the author of the piece you quote mentions about the British denigrating the contribution of other Allies at Waterloo is a useful corrective. However, he does definitely seem to have a bee in his bonnet about the British at war. For example, when discussing the under-appreciated role of the Dutch-Belgians at Waterloo he mentions a British unit apparently fleeing Belgium in WW2. Given the time gap (135 years), this seems wholely irrelevant unless the author really has an anti-British agenda as opposed to being a proper student of history.
I am sad to say the fact that the author is Argentinian makes me raise my eyebrows. I can't help but wonder if it is sour grapes over the Argentine army being humiliated by the British in the Falklands? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif
Quote
Wellington had his serious limitations; for example he was only efficient when he had deployed his infantry into a strong defensive position.
very true but then considering he faught most battles against the french outnumbered heavily can u blame him for taking the defensive?
What was that battle when he disected marshal marmont's army when marching in column on the attack, where was it salamanca or something. Guess that doesn't count as attacking.
yup but he had great attacking moments but he was a defensive General First - his greatest victories were those where he chose his position and held it - but then thats what the British Army at the time was famed for...
Yes, the way he out-maneuvered Marmont at Salamanca was cool.
I didn't feel like only copieng and pasting what i agree with.
But the thing is he is way overrated.
He was a good commander no doubt, but not even close to:
Napoleon
Lee
Jackson
Rommell
Ike
Patton
Okay?
-Capo
I don't know, Caporegime - tell me one battle where Wellington messed up as much as, say, Napoleon at Waterloo or Lee at Gettysburg? I would feel a lot safer being in army led by Wellington than most other famous generals. How many battles did he fight and how many did he lose? If the price of that scorecard was tending to be cautious and defensive, well that's a price most soldiers would be willing to pay. I personally think he is slightly under-rated, living under the Corsican ogre's shadow.
And you back this up with?....Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
It's my opinion, I beleive that those are genuinly better generals than Wellington. Just like your opinion, I am allowed to have one, or is there a new international Liberal law that says we can't disagree with the Liberals.
-Capo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/ceasarno.gif
It's kinda ironic that us "liberals" are rushing to the defence of Wellington of all people. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Reading a bit more of that website Caporegime cited was interesting - there are some very acidic comments from the German historian Peter Hofschorer and others about English historians' writing on Napoleonic warfare (eg something like "a man calling himself Hamilton-Williams ... should be sued for his slander of Siborne" etc) IIRC Hamilton-Williams was a key historical consultant about the BreakawayGames offering "Waterloo - Napoleon's Last Battle" (WNLB). They do seem to have a case - I never knew about the charge of the Dutch carabineers at Waterloo, for example, although I do recall the Dutch-Belgian infantry being in at the kill of the Guard.
This thread has inspired me to fire up that old SSI computer game Age of Rifles again. There were some great Napoleonic battles made by users and they are all available on the net (including the abandonware game). Just replayed Asper-Essling and Marengo - it was a blast I also tried to get into WNLB but failed yet again.
Yes indeed. Washington's conduct of the war was solid. He was always on the lookout to take the offensive. Trenton and Princeton were smart moves. The Yorktown move was genius. French help was essential but the gutsy decision to leave New York for a coup de main was his.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Tactically, GW was not the weak sister he is often made out to be. He did not start the war with a seasoned professional army. His troops were not as good as they would become until 1778. Once the Continental Army was properly trained and proven in combat at Monmouth, the British Army would not risk engaging him again.
Ah F*ck this sh*t, I give up.
-Capo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif
Is that a quote from Napoleon at Waterloo , or Cornwallis at Yorktown http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
Very good, Tribesman. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/bigthumb.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
Capo before you start ranting on about how wellington was a phony, look who you are preaching to.
i bet most people on this forum are likely to jump to the defence of wellington within a minute.
also get your facts right before you start ranting, it makes you sound like you know something rather then being a brainless twit.
thanks, dessa
Erm, did you just call me a brainless twit?Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Oh, and that's a quote from Horatio Gates right before the Battle of Camden http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif .
-Capo
Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude in previous post. We just disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
The Prussian arrival on Napoleon's flank did have quite an impact on the final outcome, coming as it did at a critical moment. However, only 2 Prussian corps (Bulow & Ziethen) participated in the battle, and before they got there, Wellington had already repulsed the 4 main French attacks. Based on the units he moved to confront the arriving Prussians (a single corps plus some Guard battalions if I recall correctly), its clear that Napoleon considered the battle with the Prussians (30,000 men initially, 45,000 by the time the battle ended) secondary to the main fight against Wellington (c.70,000 men, almost twice the strength of the Prussians).
As for Washington, I realize there's alot of national propaganda attached to him. But I guarantee that if you study the real historical man and ignore all the hype, you'll see that he was a great strategist (Boston, Yorktown) and a decent tactician (Princeton and Trenton), and an even greater leader and motivator of men, who he pushed through horrible conditions against impossible odds. More than any other single person, he was responsible for the success of the revolution and the birth of the USA. Even if you're not an American, his achievements are important, because had he lost, there would've been no AEF in WWI, no D-Day in WWII, and so on.
Also, I think the fact that Frederick II the Great (who was undoubtedly a better general than Washington) admired him speaks volumes in his favor. He recognized that Washington shared one of his own most important qualities: even crushing defeats (New York) only increased his resolve to fight to the bitter end and eventually win.
Ok,
Washington wasn't bad, he's just not what he's hyped up to be, IMHO.
If he fought Napoleon or Lee, he'd have lost, badley.
Lee's underrated, IMHO.
Look at Cold Harbour or Chancellorsville.
-Capo
I agree he wouldn't stack up against Napoleon, at least without some Anglo-Allied, Prussian, or Austrian help. But of course none of those powers by themselves did very well against Napoleon either; it was only together that they were able to beat him.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Now Frederick the Great or Prince Eugene & Marlborough vs. Napoleon, there's an interesting match. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
Well, it depends upon the circumstances. We must first assume that Washington could handle a force much larger than any he ever commanded. With this caveat and Washington's habit of seeking to exploit an enemies weakness with an aggressive attack, I believe that with the Army of the Potomac, Washington could have smashed Lee at Antietam, defeating him in detail and ending the war. Unlike McClellan, GW would have been up front kicking Burnside in the ass and getting everyone into the fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Lee was a fine defender and counter-puncher but his offensives were near disasters that might well have cost him his army had he faced Grant or Sherman at Sharpesburg or Gettysburg.
Great points.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Washington certainly wouldn't have dawdled about like McClellan did, because he wasn't as afraid to risk his army. Burnside would've been cussed at and sent to the rear like a certain less-well-known Gen. Lee at Monmouth Court House.
And whether it was Grant, Washington, or whoever, a determined pursuit after Gettysburg would've turned Lee's defeat into an utter disaster.
Wow - you can tell the Limeys have been reading out of their Big Book of British Propoganda.
The fact of the matter is: (1) the Prussians decided the day; and (2) the Prussian army was the BEST army in the field from 1813 on (actually started re-modeling in 1806).
Man - Brits hate the Germans. Read the non-anglo sources and you can't help but agree
//BW
in trying to find out the truth about the events we can end up being very confused .Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Who is writing the whole truth ? Are the sources they are using accurate first hand sources(unlikely/impossible)?what is the preconcieved view point of the person doing the writing?which second hand sources ae they using and what are the credentials/bias of these sources.
History is writen by the victor . But in this case there are many diferent "victors" each with their own agaenda .
Yes, this is easy to say in hindsight...Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
But then a few remarks in defense of the Snapping Turtle...
George G Meade had hardly assumed command of the army of the Potomac when Gettysburg happened. For that, he did fairly well. More important, IMHO is the fact that he did not lose, nor did he throw the victory away.
It is always mentioned that the Army of Northern Virgina was badly mauled, but never that the Army of the Potomac had suffered severe casualties as well, and was just as exhausted. Little Round Top, the Wheatfield, Pickett's charge and the fighting on the first day did cost the army dearly. Further, but this is my personal assumption, Meade could not have been too sure about the commanders of his army. A good number had become casualties (Reynolds anyone), and a few had performed in a horrible fashion (IIRC Sikes (the commander of the Army Corps in the Peach Orchard)). Starting a pursuit with an exhausted army, under the command of a good number of officers you are not so sure about wether you can depend on them is a very risky thing to do. If things go wrong badly, you can run into a sever defeat.
Many praise Mongomery for his conduct of the Alamein campaign. But IMHO this was a far better example of letting a beaten enemy escape. Even more, Monty is credited with a victory where, IMHO he was largely set up by his predecessor. If anyone ever should have destroyed an army, it should have Montgomery n the aftermath of El Alamein.
Well, I admit that English sources may have been distorted by Wellington's seeking to paint his role in the most favourable light possible, at the expense of his allies.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
But it is hard to ignore Wellington's unbroken string of victories against the French throughout the Peninsular War and after. Victories when he was usually fighting on equal, or worse, terms. The Prussians never achieved anything like the same degree of success during the Napoleonic War, even after 1806. From this I can only conclude that either the British army of the day was qualitatively superior to its French and Prussian counterparts or it was better led. I suspect both to be true (or perhaps there was a synergy: Wellington knew how to use the strengths of the British army against the French).
BTW, I don't think limey's hate Germans or that such sentiments influence English military historians. Look at English sources writing about WW2 - compared to American ones, I think they tend to stress more on German fighting prowess.
Your points are well taken. A greater result might have required greater risk. This article discusses Meade's pursuit of Lee after Gettysburg.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/P...5/terpeluk.htm
Nelson,
thanks a lot for the article.. I really apreciate it, and I enjoyed the article... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/gc-toff.gif
I have to say, for some reason I do like Meade more then I do like Grant http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif. The US Civil War has been one of my interests for the past few years, and I still have a lot of reading to do.
For some reason I also do have a tendency to be sceptical of the praised...
And now, I'll go http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/gc-zzz.gif , and then http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/gc-book2.gif
I doubt against Lee. What Washington realized, (and Lee didn't) is that battle victories did not mean war victory. Washington's main concern was to keep his army together; if he did that, the British would not be able to sustain themselves over an ocean and Washington would win. Lee, although a better tactician that Washington (IMHO) did not recognize the fact and got pummelled at Gettysburg. However, I should point out that the ideology was different: Washington was going to fight a guerilla war and try to win at any cost. Lee believed in honorable defeat and an honest show of force and tactics between two armies.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b