Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Robert E. Lee vs the Duke of Wellington

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Also, Lee, Grant, Sherman, Jackson and esteemed company came after the Napoleonic Wars. They've studied those to the hilt and often used Napoleon and company as their standard of measure at Westpoint. It would be natural for this group of men to surpass Wellington.

    Comment


    • #17
      It seems to me that just because you study a leader doesn't mean that you can exceed them in their given field. I could study Einstein's theories and the math behind them, but that does not make me just as good or a better mathematician than Einstein. Likewise, I do not thinking that studying the tactics and strategies of, say, Alexander, would make me better than him.

      Though it may or may not be historical, Wellington commented on this sort of thing in the excellent war film 'Waterloo': "What the Master seems to intend and what he does are as different as White Knight to Black Bishop!".

      Originally posted by Johnny W View Post
      Does Lee get Stonewall Jackson back as a subordinate commander? Lee, Jackson and Longstreet made quite a team.
      Given that we're taking Lee's Army of Northern Virginia from the time of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, then yes, he will have Jackson.
      Last edited by HoratioNelson; 24 Jan 09,, 19:26.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by HoratioNelson View Post
        It seems to me that just because you study a leader doesn't mean that you can exceed them in their given field.
        What do you think were the first things the American Civil War Generals tried when they started their war, especially when they studied the Napoleonic Wars to the hilt?

        Now, don't you think by the virtue of necessity that they found out counters to what was tried before, the calvary charge with firearms instead of lances being the example.

        Originally posted by HoratioNelson View Post
        I could study Einstein's theories and the math behind them, but that does not make me just as good or a better mathematician than Einstein.
        First, understand the math, then we'll talk because I found very few people actually tried to follow his proofs. Hawkins is one of the few who could recite Einstein from memory.

        Originally posted by HoratioNelson View Post
        Likewise, I do not thinking that studying the tactics and strategies of, say, Alexander, would make me better than him.
        If you studied Alexander alone, probably not but if you have studied Napoleon, you should be able to beat the pants of Alexander.

        Comment


        • #19
          I do believe that, and by the late war, they did have efficient counter-tactics to various typical Napoleonic strategems. However, we taking Lee and his army circa 1862, in which they still used lines of fire, columns, etc, etc. Tactics Wellington would certainly recognize and be able to fight.

          Now, there are certain things that Lee would not be used to. Someone mentioned Wellington's cavalry earlier, I do not believe that the Confederates are accustomed to that kind of a cavalry presence. At Fredericksburg, Lee's cavalry corps numbered four brigades. Wellington at Vitoria, the Wellington we are taking for this scenario, has ten brigades of cavalry. While many of them are the dragoons who dismount to fight with carbines, the kind that the Confederates would be used to from fighting Union cavalry, many of them are horse guards, and other kinds of heavy cavalry. British heavy cavalry of the period were very much charging cavalry, and very potent ones as well. At Waterloo, the Union and Household brigades (the British 'heavies') routed D'Erlon's entire infantry corps with a single charge (the famous Charge of the Scots Greys). Confederate infantry would not be accustomed, or even trained in, forming square to repel heavy cavalry. Now, certain infantry of the period could sometimes repel cavalry by delivering a volley at point blank to scatter it, as the British foot did at Minden. But I don't believe the Confederates could do this, due to not expecting cavalry to charge home with the sword. The charges of the Civil War were, as mentioned before, bluff charges to draw infantry out of formation. The Confederates would not be very used to large men on large horses charging at them with the full intent to trample them down or else dismember them in horrible ways with a sword.

          Also, were the Confederates familiar with or did they practice the British tactic of platoon fire?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by HoratioNelson View Post

            Now, there are certain things that Lee would not be used to. Someone mentioned Wellington's cavalry earlier, I do not believe that the Confederates are accustomed to that kind of a cavalry presence. At Fredericksburg, Lee's cavalry corps numbered four brigades. Wellington at Vitoria, the Wellington we are taking for this scenario, has ten brigades of cavalry. While many of them are the dragoons who dismount to fight with carbines, the kind that the Confederates would be used to from fighting Union cavalry, many of them are horse guards, and other kinds of heavy cavalry. British heavy cavalry of the period were very much charging cavalry, and very potent ones as well. At Waterloo, the Union and Household brigades (the British 'heavies') routed D'Erlon's entire infantry corps with a single charge (the famous Charge of the Scots Greys). Confederate infantry would not be accustomed, or even trained in, forming square to repel heavy cavalry. Now, certain infantry of the period could sometimes repel cavalry by delivering a volley at point blank to scatter it, as the British foot did at Minden. But I don't believe the Confederates could do this, due to not expecting cavalry to charge home with the sword. The charges of the Civil War were, as mentioned before, bluff charges to draw infantry out of formation. The Confederates would not be very used to large men on large horses charging at them with the full intent to trample them down or else dismember them in horrible ways with a sword.

            Also, were the Confederates familiar with or did they practice the British tactic of platoon fire?

            The charges of the ACW were not bluffs. Nor was the idea to pull infantry out of formation, that is the tactic of the charge. The South wanted the infantry to bunch up and fix bayonets and then get a facefull of shotgun fire.

            Given the performance of troops at battles like Antietam and Chancellorsville I don't think the Southern troops would break. Not under Lee at least. They had bayonets, beleif* and discipline. Their leaders had combat experience and they (those from the western parts of the South) were far more rugged overall than the average Britisher.

            Another thing to consider, is that unless your going to totally rewrite things, the British horse (except for the Dragoons) is relying on the saber and lance, while the South is relying on 2-4 six shot revolvers and a shotgun or carbine per man. For an example of how that type of a fight usually goes, look at the Comanche when they ran into the newly equipped Texas Rangers. Mobility also favors Lee's troopers. 80 miles in 27 hours was an accomplished feat. The Only British regiment even able to consider such a feet would be the King's German Legion. Most British horse was envisioned as an anti-infantry tool, not anti-horse. The British horsemen were larger overall on larger horses, but this is actually a handicap if the other side is not going to fight with sabers, but use mobility and revolvers. A more modern version of the Knight vs the Mongol type of setting.

            *The Southerners have no inherent fear of British Strength of Arms. At around the same time that Wellington was getting to ride into History at Waterloo, Americans under Andrew Jackson were beating the pants off the British at New Orleans. While the scale of two fights is different- the mental mindset is not. The French feared Wellington, the south would not. This is reinforced by their beleif in Lee and his commanders. This is a psychological edge the South has, that the British had not had to confront since the early days of the Peninsular War.

            Comment


            • #21
              By that same token, the British would have no inherent fear of Confederate strength at arms, given that a line of seemingly ragtag un-uniformed troops doesn't really have the same effect as a column of Napoleonic French coming at you out of the gunsmoke, kettle drums a pounding. And by Vitoria, I think the British and Portugese would have a lot of the same faith in Old Nosey as the Confederates had in Lee.

              I can't really argue you about the differences between British cavalry and their Confederate counterparts in this scenario. Apples and oranges, it seems like. Completely different purposes, the British cavalry were an anti-infantry tool, I don't believe they were intended to be used against other cavalry too much. A regiment of lancers, with the first rank of men armed with the lance, and those behind with sabre, they would be efficient against other cavalry, but if I recall the British didn't have lancers during Wellington's day, certainly not with him in the Peninsula.
              Last edited by HoratioNelson; 24 Jan 09,, 23:43.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by HoratioNelson View Post
                By that same token, the British would have no inherent fear of Confederate strength at arms, given that a line of seemingly ragtag un-uniformed troops doesn't really have the same effect as a column of Napoleonic French coming at you out of the gunsmoke, kettle drums a pounding. And by Vitoria, I think the British and Portugese would have a lot of the same faith in Old Nosey as the Confederates had in Lee.
                One major difference between the two is the use of squares which was popular during the Napoleonic Wars and by the time of the ACW, complete suicide - you cannot allow the enemy force to get pass to your rear.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Oh btw, the heavy horse calvary was easily counter during the ACW. It's call a fence.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by HoratioNelson View Post
                    By that same token, the British would have no inherent fear of Confederate strength at arms, given that a line of seemingly ragtag un-uniformed troops doesn't really have the same effect as a column of Napoleonic French coming at you out of the gunsmoke, kettle drums a pounding. And by Vitoria, I think the British and Portugese would have a lot of the same faith in Old Nosey as the Confederates had in Lee.
                    One of the most feared things of the Southern troops was the rebel yell. While its true sound is lost to history its memory is not. Call it even up for both sides.

                    I can't really argue you about the differences between British cavalry and their Confederate counterparts in this scenario. Apples and oranges, it seems like. Completely different purposes, the British cavalry were an anti-infantry tool, I don't believe they were intended to be used against other cavalry too much. A regiment of lancers, with the first rank of men armed with the lance, and those behind with sabre, they would be efficient against other cavalry, but if I recall the British didn't have lancers during Wellington's day, certainly not with him in the Peninsula.
                    The British used lancers from the 1820's into the late 1920's. A quick internet search shows the 16th Dragoons come 16th Lancers drew first blood with the lance in 1825.

                    However in an anti-horse role the heavier British horse lacking revolvers would be cut to pieces by the lighter faster firing southern horsemen. The British horse have 1 carbine shot and 1-4 pistol shots. The Confederate horse have 1 carbine or shotgun shot and 12-24 pistol shots. After just a couple of encounters the whole British strategem has to change. Given the Red Coats percussion caps is nothing special and gives improved wet weather performance. However running into enemy cavalry with repeating weapons is. Troop for troop the Confederates have 3-6 times the fire power.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Exactly, 1825. The Anglo-Portugese army we're taking for this scenario is from 1813.

                      One of the most feared things of the Southern troops was the rebel yell. While its true sound is lost to history its memory is not.
                      The rebel yell is something indeed. But British troops saw their share of frightening battlefield sights before. A charge of French cuirassiers would've been a terrifying thing to behold. And let's not forget the French colonne d'attaque. Imagine, if you will, a battlefield circa 1810. You don't see the battle, because it's obscured in thick musket smoke. Instead, you hear it. You hear hundreds of tramping feet coming towards you, and the slow beat of drums. And then, from out of smoke, comes a thick blue column of Napoleon's grenadiers, and every volley you fire until them they just take it and keep marching forward. That, too, would've been terrifying. Perhaps in a different way than a rebel yell, from still frightening.

                      Back to the cavalry, I still say they're apples and oranges. At a distance, the Confederates have the advantage with pistols and carbines. However, if and when the British close that distance, the Confederate cavalry would be shredded by the British, both being better trained in mounted swordsmanship, more experienced in close combat of that kind, and having being armed with the 1796 pattern Heavy and Light cavalry sabres, fiercesome swords both.

                      Given that we're attempting to pit these commanders against each other on relatively equal footing, should the British light cavalry also be able to be armed with revolvers? According to the admittably flawed Wikipedia, significant numbers of revolvers were being produced in London by 1822.

                      However, we're skirting the issue I think. The main clash would not be cavalry actions, but the contest being the Confederate infantry and the British and Portugese. With Lee and Wellington in command, respectively, how would that turn out?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by HoratioNelson View Post
                        With Lee and Wellington in command, respectively, how would that turn out?
                        And this is not where you're not understanding. Wellington and Napoleon though each other's reserves as the centre of gravity in their respective armies. Lee and company thought the ability to maneouver as the centre of gravity. Wellington refused to shell Napoleon the person personally because that was not armies of the time do. Lee would have no such hesitation.

                        Seriously, do you think Alexander the Great stands a chance against the company and battalion commanders of this board? Even armed with Alexander's weaponry?
                        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 25 Jan 09,, 07:29.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Not really, but it depends upon which era they're fighting in. Alexander the Great transplanted to today lacks the ability and inclination for strategic thought in a modern enviroment. Likewise, the company and battalion commanders of this day and age have been trained in a completely different enviroment, with completely different weapons and appropriate tactics than Alexander had. Nevermind the social differences between a modern army and a Macedonian army of the 300s BC. If I wanted to compare Alexander to someone, it'd be Caesar or Hannibal, etc.

                          I chose Lee and Wellington for comparison because, unlike Alexander and a modern battalion commander, both Lee and Wellington sprang from the same era of tactics and strategy, faced similar challenges on the battlefield and were equipped with very similar tools to accomplish their goals. (muzzleloading muskets and cannon, etc).
                          Last edited by HoratioNelson; 25 Jan 09,, 07:36.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            And this is where you're not understanding and refusing to accept that Lee will kill Wellington without breaking a sweat.

                            Alexander cannot know what he does not know and for the simpliest of terms, that means logistics. I suggested to you to study Napoleon and why he will kill Alexander without breaking a sweat, even with the same weaponry. The reason? Canned Food. Alexander's army depened on what they could find to feed themselves. Napoleon's army depended upon what they can carry. That means that even with the same weapons, Bonnie could field an army 100 times the size Alexander could ever dream of. Never mind the tactical superiority of the regiment over the phalanx.

                            Within the time span you're speaking of, Lee would have ignored the square formation - it was a death trap while Wellington would have relied on it. If you don't know what that means, it means that Lee's calvary would have killed Wellington's reserves well before Wellington's squares even heard the first shot.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Also, I have strong doubts that Wellington's calvary could break Lee's lines. The artillery was well more in tune with the infantry in Lee's time than it was in Wellington's time.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Oh, lastly but not surely, I suggested the fence against the calvary but truth was the engineers became a decisive force in the ACW than it ever was during Wellington. Simple trenches stopped whole calvary charges.

                                Never mind the fact that fences were put up within a day.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X